Fall Paladin, Fall!

[Calthropstu]

Given the number of paladin dilemma threads I gave seen on here over the years, it seems fairly common for paladins to be put into horrendous "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

As a gm, I have put paladins into difficult, but not insurmountable, dilemmas before. Some players have even found creative solutions to the problems.

But I have never made it "you are going to fall regardless of what you do."

I am wondering how common it is to have such scenarios in games and would like to see some stories of "gm made me fall."

[Crake]

I once had a GM who sold a paladin a massively overpowered sword for 3gp, quite literally pushing it on him, despite the paladin say "no, I don't want it, I already have a good sword" (he had answerer from the temple of elemental evil), then pulled a "gotcha" when the paladin finally gave in and said "fine, whatever, just quit it with the sword already". Apparently we were supposed to realise that a) 3gp = 30 silver pieces, and then b) see the link between a certain fellow betraying another certain fellow for 30 silver pieces, and thus refuse the deal with what was apparently a devil. Ergo: paladin made a deal with a devil, and fell because of it.

Literally everyone at the table told the DM to **** off with that bull****, and he quickly backpedaled and just instead made the sword cursed so the paladin couldn't use his regular sword until he killed a devil with the cursed sword, though the sword was still something stupid like a +5 evil outside bane holy sword, so it wasn't terrible, but yeah, was still dumb.

Personally, I've never actually had a paladin player as a DM, usually because I just recommend my players play a crusader and simply call themselves a paladin, but even if someone did play a paladin, I would never design a scenario specifically with the paladin in mind, I usually run status quo games. What's there is there, regardless of what the party has, how they deal with it is up to them.

[GrayDeath]

Lots. Its one of my Red Flags, outside of settings that are "grey in grey in Black" and Players who INSIST on playing Paladins in such Settings.

If I DM and allow paladins (whichd epends heavily on Campaign and Setting) I will ALWAAYS leave the Paladin at least 1 nonfall Option to choose from, usually more (granted they arent always particularly "better", but then again, the one Time a Paladin I palyed fell due to actual Decisions he decided that him falling was the lesser Evil in that Situation, and hence sacrificed his Paladinhood :) ).

[Particle_Man]

I had a situation where I disagreed with my dm about the conditions making a paladin fall (rescuing prisoners that turned out to be bad guys).

Earlier I had a paladin fall due to becoming a werewolf.

Both ex-paladins died soon after.

[Lavaeolus]

It's a common horror story. I expect like most here I consider it poor form to just force a character to fall. It can be fun to put the occasional trick in, but you really shouldn't be playing 'gotcha' with falling; if a player wants to play a Paladin, it's probably best not to suddenly be out to get them. And falls can be interesting, as an experience and as part of your campaign's overall narrative -- but it doesn't need to be involved with every story about a Paladin.

I am, for the record, all for testing a Paladin's ideals, which really you might want to do with any character. If a player's really into the Paladin concept, an ideal's nothing if you never get a chance to live up to it. Just remember that while sometimes failing to live up to those ideals can result in a fall, it doesn't have to. You can challenge a Paladin without immediately making the stakes all their Paladin abilities. You can give them a moral dilemma and, depending on the situation, just leave the consequences on their conscience.

My opinion tends to be that falling should come from either extreme decisions or straws-breaking-a-camel's-back: conscious decisions to knowingly do Evil, negligence of a ridiculous degree, repeatedly and remorselessly failing to live up to their alignment. They won't lose powers just from making a genuine mistake or pettily insulting someone one time. Alignment-stuff aside, a Paladin has to 'grossly violate their code-of-conduct', so even if a situation appears that seems to have no right solution by their standards, I don't think they should fall if they still sincerely try to abide by their code, even if they're ultimately unsuccessful.

But on my end this is mostly theoretical. I haven't actually DM'd for a Paladin in 3.5e, and when we had a Paladin nothing really came of it. It was a little loose as a campaign, honestly.

[MisterKaws]

It is, sadly, kind of common, because a lot of DMs like imposing their views of how a character should be played on the players.

I've been here for around 3 years, and it's scarily common to see players complaining about DMs railroading them into a character-changing choice. And that's with the game at its current low-population state. I find it hard to imagine how many people got scammed by bad DMs back in the 2000s when 3.5 was bustling with players.

You definitely should never force a change into a player, but them playing clerics or paladins or crusaders or whatever means they also gotta show their faith, so it's a balance.

Hell, even the druid should have that obligation. Maybe the party come across a mining town and the feudal lord is embezzling money and forcing the miners to dump gallons of mercury into the river. It's a nice urban plot right there, and I'd definitely penalize the druid if he turned a blind eye, even if evil, because the druid's code of conduct is just about protecting nature, regardless if you're good or evil. Maybe reduce his standing on the druidic order with a severe warning for the first time.

[RNightstalker]

It is, sadly, kind of common, because a lot of DMs like imposing their views of how a character should be played on the players.

I've been here for around 3 years, and it's scarily common to see players complaining about DMs railroading them into a character-changing choice. And that's with the game at its current low-population state. I find it hard to imagine how many people got scammed by bad DMs back in the 2000s when 3.5 was bustling with players.

You definitely should never force a change into a player, but them playing clerics or paladins or crusaders or whatever means they also gotta show their faith, so it's a balance.


You said it dude.

[Vizzerdrix]

Ive played a paladin 3 times. None ended well.

Paladin 1 fell from killing goblins. Turned out it didn't matter that they where attacking and that I couldn't speak their language. When anything says the magic words "I surrender" a paladin must immediately stop themselves AND allies from fighting.

Number 2 started the game off fallen per request of the DM. I slogged throu a dozen sessions before asking the DM when he would allow atonement. The responce: the entire campaign was the atonement quest and I would be a full paladin again at 20.

Number 3 was about the time paladin pranoia set in. I was preventing the party from fighting, looting, even trespassing. It wasn`t fun at all for myself or the group (DM loved it though). Thankfully a buddy offed my pally in his sleep (DM was livid!) and helped me roll up my first cleric. I`ve never looked back.

[Biggus]

Paladin 1 fell from killing goblins. Turned out it didn't matter that they where attacking and that I couldn't speak their language. When anything says the magic words "I surrender" a paladin must immediately stop themselves AND allies from fighting.

Number 2 started the game off fallen per request of the DM. I slogged throu a dozen sessions before asking the DM when he would allow atonement. The responce: the entire campaign was the atonement quest and I would be a full paladin again at 20.


Jeez, I thought I'd met some bad DMs...

[heavyfuel]

Given the number of paladin dilemma threads I gave seen on here over the years, it seems fairly common for paladins to be put into horrendous "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

As a gm, I have put paladins into difficult, but not insurmountable, dilemmas before. Some players have even found creative solutions to the problems.

But I have never made it "you are going to fall regardless of what you do."

I am wondering how common it is to have such scenarios in games and would like to see some stories of "gm made me fall."

I tried to make the last Paladin in my game fall, but it would've been entirely up to the player. Basically I offered him a deal: Offer this powerful devil your soul and you'll be granted with great power, enough to defeat the BBEG of the campaign. He opted out, and they were nearly TPKed by the BBEG in the last fight. It all worked out, but it was close. One more spell from him and the party would've been toast. Fun times

[Anymage]

I've also seen people on these forums insist that unless good gods are willing to suicidally go against overgods or even find some way to assail fundamental cosmological principles, they aren't really "good". Some of the issue comes from people having especially stark views of morality, some come from people liking to look for weak points in a system (many falltraps seem less like things people want to spring at the table, and more like people looking for situations where there is no right answer), and some are indeed people who like screwing other people over so long as they have a shred of rules justification.

Personally speaking, I figure that if I allow a character into my setting, I implicitly accept that their concept works. If someone brings a particularly extremist-Lawful paladin and I give them a greenlight, I'll allow it but expect their code to require a certain amount of extremism. (If it causes a problem at the table, I'll offer to retcon it to something saner.) Falling might occasionally be a mechanical weakness that an enemy can exploit, like having a Dominated paladin lose abilities until they can get an Atonement. But honestly, if the paladin is due for a fall, either the player is in on the deal or else the player has much deeper problems that won't be solved with one weakness of one class.

[Luccan]

I think what's missing is having (good) advice for DMing for a Paladin in Core or less niche books. It has a fairly unique failure mechanic in its oaths and it seems far more common for one to fall than for, say, a Druid to leave a Neutral alignment or Cleric to violate their god's tenants. And I think the fact that most D&D books give maybe two paragraphs to Paladin oaths and falling is a disservice to the class, its players, and those player's DMs. There might be really good advice in The Book of Good Deeds II, but if most people didn't pick up The Book of Good Deeds I, it seems unlikely it will get out to the general gaming public.

[Crake]

It is, sadly, kind of common, because a lot of DMs like imposing their views of how a character should be played on the players.

I think it's important to emphasize this, because I don't think this is wrong. I think this is exactly how paladins should be handled. When playing a paladin, you don't play your ideal of holy righteousness, you play your DM's ideal of holy righteousness, because your character is a divine vessel for a greater power, and ultimately, that greater power is under the DM's purview. If you go into playing a paladin with the mindset of "This is my character, I play him how I want", and butt heads with the DM, rather than the mindset of "I am a follower of Uriel, I uphold his tenets, and the DM is the arbiter of what those tenets actually mean. I will do my best to follow those rules as a faithful servant of my deity", you're gonna have a bad time. You need to remember, you're not playing by your rules, you're playing by your DM's.

That might sound controlling, but it's something you need to buy into when playing a paladin, otherwise you may as well just play something else.

[Mr Adventurer]

When playing a paladin, you don't play your ideal of holy righteousness, you play your DM's ideal of holy righteousness, because your character is a divine vessel for a greater power, and ultimately, that greater power is under the DM's purview.

No, deities are part of the shared world of the setting and don't belong exclusively to the DM. It's no more legitimate for a DM to say "we're playing in Greyhawk" and then pull a switch and have everyone wake up in a Cyberpunk 2077 VR machine than it is for a player to act disruptively.

[weckar]

It does depends on whether you are playing an established setting or not, yes. Even if you are, though, the given gods (usually) aren't defined with an opinion regarding each and every aspect of creation. Where those are missing, it is entirely up to the DM - not the player - to fill those in, when relevant.

[pabelfly]

No, deities are part of the shared world of the setting and don't belong exclusively to the DM. It's no more legitimate for a DM to say "we're playing in Greyhawk" and then pull a switch and have everyone wake up in a Cyberpunk 2077 VR machine than it is for a player to act disruptively.

You need to have a discussion with your DM about your character before you start playing anyway, there's no extra effort to see if you and your DM are on the same page about your Paladin's code.

[MisterKaws]

I think it's important to emphasize this, because I don't think this is wrong. I think this is exactly how paladins should be handled. When playing a paladin, you don't play your ideal of holy righteousness, you play your DM's ideal of holy righteousness, because your character is a divine vessel for a greater power, and ultimately, that greater power is under the DM's purview. If you go into playing a paladin with the mindset of "This is my character, I play him how I want", and butt heads with the DM, rather than the mindset of "I am a follower of Uriel, I uphold his tenets, and the DM is the arbiter of what those tenets actually mean. I will do my best to follow those rules as a faithful servant of my deity", you're gonna have a bad time. You need to remember, you're not playing by your rules, you're playing by your DM's.

That might sound controlling, but it's something you need to buy into when playing a paladin, otherwise you may as well just play something else.

Yes, that's what I later mentioned in the second paragraph.

The problem isn't intrinsically in the DM applying their views on the player. The problem is when the DM can't differentiate between his own wishes and the player's wishes, and starts to actively try to get the paladin player to embrace the DM's inner edgelord. They just want to make them fall regardless of what their ideals are, because that is what the DM views as interesting, even though it is almost never interesting for players.

It's why so many people prefer the Paladin of Freedom. Or just straight Cleric/Crusader/Ardent/etc.

[Mr Adventurer]

You need to have a discussion with your DM about your character before you start playing anyway, there's no extra effort to see if you and your DM are on the same page about your Paladin's code.

Yes, exactly.

[ezekielraiden]

I think it's important to emphasize this, because I don't think this is wrong. I think this is exactly how paladins should be handled. When playing a paladin, you don't play your ideal of holy righteousness, you play your DM's ideal of holy righteousness, because your character is a divine vessel for a greater power, and ultimately, that greater power is under the DM's purview. If you go into playing a paladin with the mindset of "This is my character, I play him how I want", and butt heads with the DM, rather than the mindset of "I am a follower of Uriel, I uphold his tenets, and the DM is the arbiter of what those tenets actually mean. I will do my best to follow those rules as a faithful servant of my deity", you're gonna have a bad time. You need to remember, you're not playing by your rules, you're playing by your DM's.

That might sound controlling, but it's something you need to buy into when playing a paladin, otherwise you may as well just play something else.

I'm not sure if this is a matter of people talking past each other, but at least this sounds like something I deeply, strenuously disagree with. The way you've presented this, it's all take and no give for the DM. The DM can make up logically inconsistent or constantly-shifting oaths, and that's fine, because the player signed up to play "DM's personal ragdoll"? No, that's some horse excrement.

You signed up to play a righteous warrior, someone who lives a more moral, more upstanding life than almost everyone else. That doesn't mean you signed up to be abused. You have a right to challenge the DM for being a **** to you, and you have a right to a conversation with them to figure out a stance that the two of you can agree on--or else you don't play, be it not playing a paladin, or not playing at that table.

If you didn't mean "dance at the DM's whim and pleasure," and only meant that the DM isn't supposed to dance to your tune any more than you're supposed to dance to theirs, then sure, we agree. It needs to be a negotiation, an understanding. Most people aren't going to go into the Paladin class wanting to fall, or being guaranteed that no matter what they do they'll end up fallen. But most DMs shouldn't go into it expecting that falling is even likely, let alone guaranteed, either--your first post is a demonstration of what happens when a DM goes way too far with that assumption.

Playing a Paladin means signing up for a more specific kind of story, one that involves a lot of deep questions and difficult scenarios. But I've played one--according to my fellow-players, a very strong showing--without ever even once feeling like the DM was punishing me. I took seriously the actions I performed, and only once did I get hit with an admonition that I didn't quite expect. (I killed a fleeing combatant so they wouldn't reveal our presence to a demigod-level threat that would gladly stomp on us if it knew we were present. It wasn't falling, it was a reminder from on high that Paladins should not let themselves get into situations like that, and after some soul-searching and efforts at penance, both the DM and I were satisfied with how the situation resolved.) As long as both player and DM, as a friend of mine aptly put it, "are willing to meet in the middle," it's totally possible to play a Paladin confidently and happily, even when oaths are tested.

[Crake]

No, deities are part of the shared world of the setting and don't belong exclusively to the DM. It's no more legitimate for a DM to say "we're playing in Greyhawk" and then pull a switch and have everyone wake up in a Cyberpunk 2077 VR machine than it is for a player to act disruptively.

It's not as simple as that. Even when it comes to something as simple as "is this a good/evil act", the DM is the ultimate arbiter on the matter. The deities follow the objective moralities of the setting as defined by the DM. The player may decide to debate the point, and maybe the player can change the DM's mind, but morality in dnd is objective from the point of view of the setting, and that objective morality stems from the DM's subjective opinion on the matter. Thus, you don't play your moralities as a player, you play the DM's.

[Conradine]

It's no fun make a Paladin fall at level 1. Much better let him level up, build his character well with feats and equipment suited for him, then when he starts really rolling.... FALL, and now he's an useless warrior with equipement he cannot longer use and that must ride a common horse ( who will be killed in round 1 by a couple of arrows ) if he wants to use his hard-earned cavalier feat.

And no, no atonement and no easy change into Blackguards. Deal with it, ex pal.

[Mr Adventurer]

morality in dnd is objective from the point of view of the setting, and that objective morality stems from the DM's subjective opinion on the matter.

As I and I think others are saying, no, I don't think it's as simple as this particular part of your post.

[MrSandman]

It's not as simple as that. Even when it comes to something as simple as "is this a good/evil act", the DM is the ultimate arbiter on the matter. The deities follow the objective moralities of the setting as defined by the DM. The player may decide to debate the point, and maybe the player can change the DM's mind, but morality in dnd is objective from the point of view of the setting, and that objective morality stems from the DM's subjective opinion on the matter. Thus, you don't play your moralities as a player, you play the DM's.

Well, hopefully you play the setting's morality and the GM is reasonable enough not to just blanket impose her view.

There is a difference between setting and GM. Some people may be happy with settings completely defined and controlled exclusively by the GM, others might prefer a more cooperative worldbuilding process. The important thing here is not to conflate GM and setting.

[Crake]

Well, hopefully you play the setting's morality and the GM is reasonable enough not to just blanket impose her view.

There is a difference between setting and GM. Some people may be happy with settings completely defined and controlled exclusively by the GM, others might prefer a more cooperative worldbuilding process. The important thing here is not to conflate GM and setting.

Morality isn't a handbook that you can simply refer to, there is no setting that has a definitive guide on every possible situation. The DM must make judgement calls, and there will be times when you perform an action that you perhaps may have seen as good, or neutral, while the DM sees it as borderline evil, if not outright evil. The setting will not tell you how to adjudicate this scenario, so it comes down to the DM.

[noob]

Honestly the fastest way to make a paladin fall is to cast the grease spell or to trip the paladin.

[MisterKaws]

Honestly the fastest way to make a paladin fall is to cast the grease spell or to trip the paladin.

Can I sig this?

[noob]

Can I sig this?

Yes you have the right to do so.

[Mr Adventurer]

The setting will not tell you how to adjudicate this scenario, so it comes down to the DM.

What I and perhaps others are saying is that this isn't true: it's the responsibility of the group to agree setting expectations like this one, not just the responsibility of the DM.

[MisterKaws]

Yes you have the right to do so.

I've done it :)

[MrSandman]

Morality isn't a handbook that you can simply refer to, there is no setting that has a definitive guide on every possible situation. The DM must make judgement calls, and there will be times when you perform an action that you perhaps may have seen as good, or neutral, while the DM sees it as borderline evil, if not outright evil. The setting will not tell you how to adjudicate this scenario, so it comes down to the DM.

EDIT: I realise that what I had originally written sort of missed the point I was trying to make. So I'm scrapping it and trying again:

When I said that there is a difference between setting and GM, I meant to draw attention to two thins:

First, there are styles of play where the responsibility for world-building is shared among several participants, not the GM's monopoly. So it is more accurate to say that it depends on the established setting that on the GM, because the setting might not have been established entirely by the GM and deciding whether an action is good or not might be beyond the GM's prerogative.

Second, there should be a shared framework to decide whether an action is good or evil. There should be some guidelines that are established in the setting and have been made known to everyone in the group, so that everyone is (inasmuch as possible) on the same page regarding the setting's morality. To put it in other words: hopefully there is some reason and expectation with regards to what is good and what is evil, rather than being left to the GM's whims.

[SangoProduction]

I played a paladin once. Once. Was never in to "divine magic." But I tried it because it was the closest thing to my character that I was importing from an entirely different system.
........Let's just say there's a reason I never played a paladin again. (If you look far enough back in my post history, you could probably find it, if you're really curious.)

[MisterKaws]

I played a paladin once. Once. Was never in to "divine magic." But I tried it because it was the closest thing to my character that I was importing from an entirely different system.
........Let's just say there's a reason I never played a paladin again. (If you look far enough back in my post history, you could probably find it, if you're really curious.)

I was bored and found (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20721170&postcount=10) it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18643747&postcount=65)(Two links). You sure suffered a lot, huh? This is somehow worse than reading Zaq's Journal on playing a Truenamer.

[Efrate]

I have 2 different paladins that I remember offhand that I DMed for on different ends of the player spectrum.

Had a very respectful very good player, his character raised from an orphanage sent all his loot barring bare minimum to keep relevant in combat there, always accepted surrenders even on multiple times when he got backstabbed, and converted several evil humanoids along the way by his virtue. He made some hard choices but never fell. He stood up against unjust laws, even though it was unlawful act to do so, and he expected to fall for defying them but he did not. He did take an atonement for this just to be sure. He died buying time so travelers could escape from a group of demons.

The second paladins player was fairly awful, but he was young and new and we dicussed if he plays a paladin he has a standard of behavior and actions he needs to adhere to. We discussed it in session zero and he agreed knowing the details. Early in the campaign party was in a town where peace bonding all weapons was mandatory. He immediately broke his bonded weapon so he could have it because something was not right in town. He got spotted by guards shortly thereafter and was placed under arrest. He complied and was taken to the magistrates house as a temporary holding cell with a few low level town guards so he could explain himself. After a few minutes, after detecting evil, and seeing the guards were not evil, he decided something was not right. Broke his restraints, beat up one guard, got his sword back and killed the other one then went after the magistrate. He fell very quickly, and rightly so. But only after killing the second guard. There was something off about the town, but the solution is not to kill first ask questions later.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I’m known to be a bit triggerhappy when it comes to paladins, but I think I’ve been reasonable (attacking people in the street because they register as evil, making deals with bandits and breaking the terms of their contract to defeat them...), but the only time I engineered a scenario it was specifically a no-LOSE scenario.

A dark fey, who was trapped in the world and bored, hexed up an android foundry. When the party came along with the paladin, he told the guardian of the foundry that the Paladin was the key to fixing it. When the Paladin showed up, he approached and made the offer that if he asked for him to fix the foundry, he would, no strings attached.

Either refusing or asking the fey to do it bore no problems, as either way it’s not actually doing evil. The water was muddied because the paladin’s player didn’t think androids had souls (which they do in Pathfinder, it’s not up for debate), but it was agonizing for the player, which met the goal for the challenge (have the evil fey **** around with the Paladin).

[weckar]

There was something off about the town, but the solution is not to kill first ask questions later never.
I think you made a small typo there, but no worries, ftfy :smallsmile:

[Crake]

EDIT: I realise that what I had originally written sort of missed the point I was trying to make. So I'm scrapping it and trying again:

When I said that there is a difference between setting and GM, I meant to draw attention to two thins:

First, there are styles of play where the responsibility for world-building is shared among several participants, not the GM's monopoly. So it is more accurate to say that it depends on the established setting that on the GM, because the setting might not have been established entirely by the GM and deciding whether an action is good or not might be beyond the GM's prerogative.

Second, there should be a shared framework to decide whether an action is good or evil. There should be some guidelines that are established in the setting and have been made known to everyone in the group, so that everyone is (inasmuch as possible) on the same page regarding the setting's morality. To put it in other words: hopefully there is some reason and expectation with regards to what is good and what is evil, rather than being left to the GM's whims.

I don't disagree with either of those two points. I can kinda understand where you're coming from with the first one, if person A invented god A, but person B was DMing, and ruled that god A acted in a certain way, person A would be within his rights to argue that god A would act in a certain manner contrary to what person B is saying, but I'm not sure collaborative worldbuilding like that happens all too often, in my experience, it's usually one person is the main director of the setting, and players can offer input, but the main director (who usually is the main DM of the setting) has final authority on the setting.

On the second point, I also agree, transparency should be key, especially for a character like a paladin, who would have studied religious texts for years before setting out to adventure, and would know and understand the tenets of his deity in depth. I'm not at all in favour of "gotcha" moments, my point is more that you don't get to decide on how your code is applied, you agree on the way your DM applies your code. That's not to say that the player can't have any influence, as I said, good DMs know when to accept criticism, and change things when they don't work, but that's still the player signing up for the DM to be their arbiter.

I missed this following post earlier, and feel like theres a lot to unpack here:


I'm not sure if this is a matter of people talking past each other, but at least this sounds like something I deeply, strenuously disagree with. The way you've presented this, it's all take and no give for the DM. The DM can make up logically inconsistent or constantly-shifting oaths, and that's fine, because the player signed up to play "DM's personal ragdoll"? No, that's some horse excrement.

This is an absolutely extreme example that wasn't at all hinted at in what I was saying. The DM making up logically inconsistent or constantly-shifting oaths means the DM is bad at their job and the players should have a talk with the DM about how and why he's going wrong with his DMing. It is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, and a totally separate issue. You don't sign up to be the DM's personal ragdoll any more than people joining the military sign up to be the military's personal ragdoll, but you are agreeing to follow the tenets as determined by your church, and thus by your DM. Again, if you don't like that, it sounds like you've got an antagonistic, distrustful relationship with your DM, and you should probably just play something else.


You signed up to play a righteous warrior, someone who lives a more moral, more upstanding life than almost everyone else. That doesn't mean you signed up to be abused. You have a right to challenge the DM for being a **** to you, and you have a right to a conversation with them to figure out a stance that the two of you can agree on--or else you don't play, be it not playing a paladin, or not playing at that table.

Again, see above. Abuse around the table is a totally separate issue at hand. Nobody's advocating for that here. And yes, of course you have a right to converse with your DM so you can understand and agree on a stance to take, obviously. But you also need to accept that sometimes you and your DM will not agree on things, and you will need to accept your DM's stance on something.


If you didn't mean "dance at the DM's whim and pleasure," and only meant that the DM isn't supposed to dance to your tune any more than you're supposed to dance to theirs, then sure, we agree. It needs to be a negotiation, an understanding. Most people aren't going to go into the Paladin class wanting to fall, or being guaranteed that no matter what they do they'll end up fallen. But most DMs shouldn't go into it expecting that falling is even likely, let alone guaranteed, either--your first post is a demonstration of what happens when a DM goes way too far with that assumption.

I suppose bringing this up in a thread titled "Fall paladin, fall" might have been a bit of poor judgement on my behalf, though it was mostly counter to a point that someone else brought up, where it sounded like the player should be in charge of how their code of conduct is interpreted, rather than their DM. None of what I've said is really directly related to forcing a paladin to fall, and none of it is coming from the point of view of an unreasonable DM, it's simply the opinion of a status quo DM, who determines things beforehand, and when a player chooses to play something, things don't acquiesce to the player's desires simply for the sake of letting a player play exactly what they had in mind.


Playing a Paladin means signing up for a more specific kind of story, one that involves a lot of deep questions and difficult scenarios. But I've played one--according to my fellow-players, a very strong showing--without ever even once feeling like the DM was punishing me. I took seriously the actions I performed, and only once did I get hit with an admonition that I didn't quite expect. (I killed a fleeing combatant so they wouldn't reveal our presence to a demigod-level threat that would gladly stomp on us if it knew we were present. It wasn't falling, it was a reminder from on high that Paladins should not let themselves get into situations like that, and after some soul-searching and efforts at penance, both the DM and I were satisfied with how the situation resolved.) As long as both player and DM, as a friend of mine aptly put it, "are willing to meet in the middle," it's totally possible to play a Paladin confidently and happily, even when oaths are tested.

This doesn't even necessarily need to be the case. Honestly, I've found that the questions and scenarios themselves aren't actually that different, it's simply that when looking through the lens of a paladin, the question of morals and ethics become much more meaningful. For other characters, it's simply "These are my morals and ethics, and this is what I will do", but for a paladin, it's "how will my actions reflect upon me, and the ones I represent. Is this choice the best choice I can possibly make? What will be the consequences of this choice" etc etc.

In my opinion, the only time a paladin should fall is when the player chooses to fall. Admonitions like the one you recieved are the way "falls" should really be handled if they are by accident, and any player who would consistently stray into the grey area enough to fall without it being a part of some kind of character growth arc is the kind of player that really shouldn't have been playing a paladin to begin with.

Honestly, I believe that players playing bad paladins are just as horrible from a DMing perspective as bad DMs running good (or at least honestly trying) paladins into the ground, and any time a paladin comes into play, it should be with careful consideration from both player and DM about whether this is really the right choice for the game at hand and the player in question.

[ngilop]

It is actually disgustingly common.

In my experience is is in the majority of cases the DM thinink they are 'super' clever.

There are some where the DM is just a meanie-head and wants tointentionally ruin the player's game experience

I think a very very small portion are accident's. Like, the DM didn't realize it was a fall or fall situatin untill it happened.


There are also DMs who love to have their players face tough moral quandaries, a little too much.

[RedMage125]

"You fall no matter what you do" is adversarial DMing. Period.

Moral conundrums and difficult quandries, however, CAN make for great storylines. Whoever shared the story about a paladin being offered a devil pact as an "easy way out" but refused it, even though it meant things were much harder? That's awesome. That is the standard Paladins are expected to uphold.

That said, there are a LOT of deviations from RAW I've been seeing in this thread.


I had a situation where I disagreed with my dm about the conditions making a paladin fall (rescuing prisoners that turned out to be bad guys).

Earlier I had a paladin fall due to becoming a werewolf.

Both ex-paladins died soon after.

1) "Rescuing prisoners" regardless of their alignment, is not an Evil act. How is a Paladin supposed to even try to redeem an evildoer if he lets them suffer and/or die?

2) Paladins are explicitly immune to lycanthropy.


Ive played a paladin 3 times. None ended well.

Paladin 1 fell from killing goblins. Turned out it didn't matter that they where attacking and that I couldn't speak their language. When anything says the magic words "I surrender" a paladin must immediately stop themselves AND allies from fighting.

Number 2 started the game off fallen per request of the DM. I slogged throu a dozen sessions before asking the DM when he would allow atonement. The responce: the entire campaign was the atonement quest and I would be a full paladin again at 20.

Number 3 was about the time paladin pranoia set in. I was preventing the party from fighting, looting, even trespassing. It wasn`t fun at all for myself or the group (DM loved it though). Thankfully a buddy offed my pally in his sleep (DM was livid!) and helped me roll up my first cleric. I`ve never looked back.

1) Paladins don't fall from what their allies do. A Paladin falls when either A) They intentionally commit an Evil act (which obviously must be their own act). B) They cease to be Lawful Good, and as per 3.5e alignment rules found on page 134 of the DMG, Alignment Change Is Gradual (so it would take a great number of chaotic acts or "morally gray" acts to change one's alignment). C) They grossly violate their Code Of Conduct. So, did your Paladin honor their surrender? Did he try to stop his allies? If so, he should not have fallen, by RAW.

2) This DM sounds like a D-bag.

3) Not only is this poor behavior on your part, but the fact that the DM was encouraging it seems problematic as well.


It's not as simple as that. Even when it comes to something as simple as "is this a good/evil act", the DM is the ultimate arbiter on the matter. The deities follow the objective moralities of the setting as defined by the DM. The player may decide to debate the point, and maybe the player can change the DM's mind, but morality in dnd is objective from the point of view of the setting, and that objective morality stems from the DM's subjective opinion on the matter. Thus, you don't play your moralities as a player, you play the DM's.


Morality isn't a handbook that you can simply refer to, there is no setting that has a definitive guide on every possible situation. The DM must make judgement calls, and there will be times when you perform an action that you perhaps may have seen as good, or neutral, while the DM sees it as borderline evil, if not outright evil. The setting will not tell you how to adjudicate this scenario, so it comes down to the DM.

RAW actually defines pretty well what is Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. Now, I DM a lot, and my own ideas of what is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic don't perfectly align with RAW (few people's do). What is the solution there? Well, I quite simply set my own pre-existing bias aside and adjudicate the game by the RAW definitions. Seriously, it's not hard. I do this so that my players can reference the same source materials (PHB, DMG, BoVD, BoED) that I am using to base my rulings on. Yes, the DM determines alignment (as per the DMG), but there has to be some metric by which he makes his rulings.

And on this note, if a DM is going to institute a house rule, any house rule, whether it's some game mechanic, or how Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are going to be adjudicated...any deviation from what the rulebooks say, it should be made clear explicitly to the players beforehand. If you do not do this, you are doing your players a grievous disservice.

I know I often espouse things about RAW on the forums. But that's because for purposes of a forum discussion, all house rules are impossible to accout for, so only RAW is "valid" or TRUE for purposes of the discussion. But that doesn't mean house rules are "badwrongfun". Hell, I even use a few. But they are spelled out to my players beforehand (and they're all about mechanics, and most are in the players' favor anyway). To wit: The only wrong way to play D&D is when your players are not having fun. And having "oh, I changed that rule, but waiting until you triggered it to inform you, now you're screwed", isn't fun.

And if your DM is abandoning any kind of metric, and judging everything on arbitrary whim...I would recommend talking with them, explaining that you, as a player, are entitled to know what kinds of rules are in place at the table, so you can make a character you can have fun with. If that DM is you...I would talk to your players, and try to establish some kind of standards, and let the players know what those standards are.

[Particle_Man]

I think part of the problem is that even with previous discussion the dm and player may still have different ideas on what causes a fall and not realize it. But since presumably the character would know, I advocate that when the pc is in situation x, the DM explicitly say “If you do A, you fall”. This eliminates surprises based on misunderstanding. It also reduces accidental “gotcha” dilemmas because the pc can ask “Well if A makes me fall and B also makes me fall, and my pc as a paladin knows how not to fall, what is the action C that the paladin can do that allows them to keep their paladin status?”

If the DM is just trying to make you fall anyhow, get a new pc. Or a new dm.

[Segev]

Sometimes, I suspect that the "paladin fall" stories are a DM and player disagreeing on what is "good" or "lawful," and the latter feeling railroaded by the former's rules. But strangely, that's less common to hear about than the DM who just thinks "falling" is a paladin class feature that they're not letting their player play right without exploiting, or something.

That said, I do understand the allure. At least on one level. Paladins are supposed to be paragons. They're supposed to be able to make hard choices, and be able to show off their virtue as being greater than is expected even of the most devout priest (for whatever sense that makes). So giving paladin players chances to resist temptations, to solve moral quandaries, to take the hard road because it's right... that's often something both seen as a fun challenge by DMs, and something (perhaps mistakenly) that DMs might think players of Paladins want.

But these things should never be about "gotchas." That defeats the entire purpose. Temptation, questions of the easy way or the right way? Excellent. Warning the Paladin's player that, if he keeps justifying the easy/expedient/profitable choice that would on the surface seem wrong, he's going to eventually slip from his required paragon status by virtue of thousands of tiny touches of tarnish? Also fair. Paladins are rarely, if ever, going to successfully be that kind of hero. Guile hero is hard to pull off as a shining paragon, and if you're going to try, you'd best be ready to be making a lot of personal sacrifices and NOT personally profiting from the same tricks.

Sometimes, even, it's fine to have a hard choice of the "what even is the right thing to do?" variety. However, it is important to remember that you can have a low-Int, and even a low-Wis paladin. Paralysis in the face of "only evil options," and foolhardy taking of what the paladin perceives as an "obviously good" choice that any depth of thought would reveal to be problematic are not causes to fall. Neither is having high int and high wis and seeking to find that third option, or trying for a third option and failing.

Personally, my favorite thing to do in the "paladin fall" game as a DM is to present them lots of opportunities. In a setting I created, there are two broad categories of paladin. The standard class is, as one might expect, devoted to good gods of light and justice, etc. etc. There's one that's actually more powerful, with a support network for his goals, but who works explicitly for a self-loathing evil god. This god looks for the best, most virtuous, most pure youths he can find, and offers them a chance to prove that their beliefs are true. See, he thinks that they're living a lie, and wants to break them. But he plays..."fair"...ish. He never presents them impossible choices; that would not prove anything. He gives them support and aid and even whispers to them where their might could stop terrible wrongs. But he also does things like give them sacred steeds (in the form of black unicorns) who turn every night into beautiful women who are cursed to be in love with him. Did I mention that this god also demands a nigh-impossible standard of purity, including celibacy, from his paladins?

Again, he doesn't go for the "gotcha;" he sets the rules out from the beginning. But they're harsh, and he is constantly tempting them, telling them that their crusade is fruitless, but that if they believe their own hype about "right" and "good," they'll keep at it. When they fall, he takes everything away. That steed cursed to love him, his coven of priestesses he was keeping from performing evil deeds by their service to him, the powers, the information on where to go to find evil to thwart, the divine protections...everything.

But he also tells them that he understands. See, he knew they couldn't do it. Nobody can live up to such a standard. Good is a lie.

And he'll return the power to them if they'll just accept this. Forgive themselves for their transgressions, and embrace the freedom that understanding how blind they were gives them. His knights are his pride and joy: proof that nobody is really good.


But the whole point of such a "game" is that the paladin makes the choices that make him fall. Not that he's tricked into it. That he just...can't live up to the standard. Or htat he found a reason to give in, to foresake his beliefs for something he felt was more worthy.

[HouseRules]

It's a Civilian vs Militant discussion.

Civilian: Killing is always Evil. Even death penalty is Lawful Evil.
Militant: Killing Combatant is Lawful Neutral. Killing Non-Combatant is Chaotic Evil.

[MisterKaws]

There's one that's actually more powerful, with a support network for his goals, but who works explicitly for a self-loathing evil god. This god looks for the best, most virtuous, most pure youths he can find, and offers them a chance to prove that their beliefs are true. See, he thinks that they're living a lie, and wants to break them. But he plays..."fair"...ish. He never presents them impossible choices; that would not prove anything. He gives them support and aid and even whispers to them where their might could stop terrible wrongs. But he also does things like give them sacred steeds (in the form of black unicorns) who turn every night into beautiful women who are cursed to be in love with him. Did I mention that this god also demands a nigh-impossible standard of purity, including celibacy, from his paladins?

Again, he doesn't go for the "gotcha;" he sets the rules out from the beginning. But they're harsh, and he is constantly tempting them, telling them that their crusade is fruitless, but that if they believe their own hype about "right" and "good," they'll keep at it. When they fall, he takes everything away. That steed cursed to love him, his coven of priestesses he was keeping from performing evil deeds by their service to him, the powers, the information on where to go to find evil to thwart, the divine protections...everything.

But he also tells them that he understands. See, he knew they couldn't do it. Nobody can live up to such a standard. Good is a lie.

And he'll return the power to them if they'll just accept this. Forgive themselves for their transgressions, and embrace the freedom that understanding how blind they were gives them. His knights are his pride and joy: proof that nobody is really good.


But the whole point of such a "game" is that the paladin makes the choices that make him fall. Not that he's tricked into it. That he just...can't live up to the standard. Or htat he found a reason to give in, to foresake his beliefs for something he felt was more worthy.

Okay, I'm stealing this.

[RedMage125]

Sometimes, I suspect that the "paladin fall" stories are a DM and player disagreeing on what is "good" or "lawful," and the latter feeling railroaded by the former's rules. But strangely, that's less common to hear about than the DM who just thinks "falling" is a paladin class feature that they're not letting their player play right without exploiting, or something.

That said, I do understand the allure. At least on one level. Paladins are supposed to be paragons. They're supposed to be able to make hard choices, and be able to show off their virtue as being greater than is expected even of the most devout priest (for whatever sense that makes). So giving paladin players chances to resist temptations, to solve moral quandaries, to take the hard road because it's right... that's often something both seen as a fun challenge by DMs, and something (perhaps mistakenly) that DMs might think players of Paladins want.
That's fair.


But these things should never be about "gotchas." That defeats the entire purpose. Temptation, questions of the easy way or the right way? Excellent. Warning the Paladin's player that, if he keeps justifying the easy/expedient/profitable choice that would on the surface seem wrong, he's going to eventually slip from his required paragon status by virtue of thousands of tiny touches of tarnish? Also fair. Paladins are rarely, if ever, going to successfully be that kind of hero. Guile hero is hard to pull off as a shining paragon, and if you're going to try, you'd best be ready to be making a lot of personal sacrifices and NOT personally profiting from the same tricks.
So much this.


Personally, my favorite thing to do in the "paladin fall" game as a DM is to present them lots of opportunities. In a setting I created, there are two broad categories of paladin. The standard class is, as one might expect, devoted to good gods of light and justice, etc. etc. There's one that's actually more powerful, with a support network for his goals, but who works explicitly for a self-loathing evil god. This god looks for the best, most virtuous, most pure youths he can find, and offers them a chance to prove that their beliefs are true. See, he thinks that they're living a lie, and wants to break them. But he plays..."fair"...ish. He never presents them impossible choices; that would not prove anything. He gives them support and aid and even whispers to them where their might could stop terrible wrongs. But he also does things like give them sacred steeds (in the form of black unicorns) who turn every night into beautiful women who are cursed to be in love with him. Did I mention that this god also demands a nigh-impossible standard of purity, including celibacy, from his paladins?

Again, he doesn't go for the "gotcha;" he sets the rules out from the beginning. But they're harsh, and he is constantly tempting them, telling them that their crusade is fruitless, but that if they believe their own hype about "right" and "good," they'll keep at it. When they fall, he takes everything away. That steed cursed to love him, his coven of priestesses he was keeping from performing evil deeds by their service to him, the powers, the information on where to go to find evil to thwart, the divine protections...everything.

But he also tells them that he understands. See, he knew they couldn't do it. Nobody can live up to such a standard. Good is a lie.

And he'll return the power to them if they'll just accept this. Forgive themselves for their transgressions, and embrace the freedom that understanding how blind they were gives them. His knights are his pride and joy: proof that nobody is really good.


But the whole point of such a "game" is that the paladin makes the choices that make him fall. Not that he's tricked into it. That he just...can't live up to the standard. Or htat he found a reason to give in, to foresake his beliefs for something he felt was more worthy.
That's twisted.

But delightful.

And you say this is all made clear to the player beforehand? Awesome. My only question is how do you handle such a character not "hogging the spotlight" of the campaign?

Also, black unicorns that turn into beautiful women in love with their rider...is that inspired by the Apprentice Adept series?

[Segev]

That's fair.

So much this.

That's twisted.

But delightful.Thanks!


And you say this is all made clear to the player beforehand? Awesome. My only question is how do you handle such a character not "hogging the spotlight" of the campaign?Yep, and actually are more often used as NPCs; it's not an easy thing to DM in a fair and interesting fashion. But it's rewarding when the player and DM are both on board with it.

As for not hogging the spotlight, while the class is a little stronger than normal, the majority of htat power is in the form of a Leadership-like ability with followers on a stronger end but who...more act as a support network than anything else. After all, the paladin is the hero of any story they're involved in. They're just there to keep him alive and help him get there. if he has boon companions, they're happy to leave much of that to them. Especially since evil priestesses are usually not welcomed by parties of the sort these paragons of youthful purity would seek out as allies.

So the same thing you do to avoid anybody with Leadership hogging the spotlight: keep the focus on the PCs, and just have the "follower" types be useful allies and background facilitators.


Also, black unicorns that turn into beautiful women in love with their rider...is that inspired by the Apprentice Adept series?I don't think so? I've read that series, but I don't even remember that element from it. Did Stile have one of those? I know he had Sheen on the Proton side, but I don't recall him having a magical unicorn on the Phaze side.

[RedMage125]

Thanks!

Yep, and actually are more often used as NPCs; it's not an easy thing to DM in a fair and interesting fashion. But it's rewarding when the player and DM are both on board with it.

As for not hogging the spotlight, while the class is a little stronger than normal, the majority of htat power is in the form of a Leadership-like ability with followers on a stronger end but who...more act as a support network than anything else. After all, the paladin is the hero of any story they're involved in. They're just there to keep him alive and help him get there. if he has boon companions, they're happy to leave much of that to them. Especially since evil priestesses are usually not welcomed by parties of the sort these paragons of youthful purity would seek out as allies.

So the same thing you do to avoid anybody with Leadership hogging the spotlight: keep the focus on the PCs, and just have the "follower" types be useful allies and background facilitators.
I meant "hogging the spotlight" narratively, in terms of how much of the game session (or campaign as a whole) gets spent on that one's player's schtick. I personally disagree that any group with a Paladin means that the Paladin is "the hero of the story", singular. But that's just my preference vis yours.

I also don't allow Leadership at my tables for simple time economy, so I can't relate. Anyone with that feat is playing at least two characters in essence (PC+Cohort, not to mention followers). Druids and Rangers already cut into that with Animal Companions. Also, when I DM, I do it in my home, and ask that all my players leave their character sheets with me. That way, if something comes up and a player can't make it, their character gets played by someone else at the table, so I may already have one person playing more than one character at any given time. This policy is something that is clear to all my players from the get-go, btw. And I only play if i have more than half the normal max attending (3/5 players or 4/6), any more than that, and the whole session gets cancelled.


I don't think so? I've read that series, but I don't even remember that element from it. Did Stile have one of those? I know he had Sheen on the Proton side, but I don't recall him having a magical unicorn on the Phaze side.
Nyesa(sp?). She's literally on the cover of the first book, lol. Also, pretty major character in the series. She was in love with Stile, remember? And she could turn into a woman or a firefly.

Just wondering, because when I thought of "black unicorn turns into a pretty woman who comes to bed with the rider" I immediately thought of this.

[wilphe]

It is actually disgustingly common.

In my experience is is in the majority of cases the DM thinink they are 'super' clever.



It's common to do it to Paladins, and for some reason only to Paladins.

No one goes:

GM: Hah the Formians tricked you into helping alphabetizing their spice rack. You undergo an alignment shift to Lawful, Dave loses all his bard powers and Sandra can't rage anymore.

[Segev]

I meant "hogging the spotlight" narratively, in terms of how much of the game session (or campaign as a whole) gets spent on that one's player's schtick. I personally disagree that any group with a Paladin means that the Paladin is "the hero of the story", singular. But that's just my preference vis yours.I knew I was making a mistake with that phrasing. I meant he's the hero as far as the priestesses are concerned. Not of the game, nor from the other players' perspective.

It doesn't overtake the narrative of the story any more than anybody else's hooks do, simply because the party all have reasons to be involved in things. They're not pursuing quests just for the Paladin. The game isn't about the Paladin's story. His story is just happening during it, just like everyone else's. If that makes sense.



Nyesa(sp?). She's literally on the cover of the first book, lol. Also, pretty major character in the series. She was in love with Stile, remember? And she could turn into a woman or a firefly.

Just wondering, because when I thought of "black unicorn turns into a pretty woman who comes to bed with the rider" I immediately thought of this.It's been decades since I read it. I have completely blanked on the character. But then, I mostly remember Stile, Sheen, and that the Red Adept was important at some point. ^^; And how silly the economy of Proton was.

For all I know, she might've been an influence that I've just forgotten about. *shrug*

[FaerieGodfather]

There is a small part of me that wonders about the people who can read thread after thread after thread of the same old arguments and still argue with people that the alignment rules-as-written are good for the game, and that the Paladin class was better before 4e and 5e simply took "falling" off the table.

Alignment has been cancer since 1979, and Paladins are merely the most egregious symptom.



No one goes:

GM: Hah the Formians tricked you into helping alphabetizing their spice rack. You undergo an alignment shift to Lawful, Dave loses all his bard powers and Sandra can't rage anymore.

Also, seriously, how anyone actually justify the alignment restrictions on practically any other class that is not Paladiin?

EDIT: I am not being the person Mr. Rogers knew I could be.

[MisterKaws]

Also, seriously, how anyone actually justify the alignment restrictions on practically any other class that is not Paladin?

Just treat them as you'd treat Paladins. Bard starts making oaths on his grandmum's panties and I'm sure as hell warning him that he'll stop being able to advance if he keeps up.

But well, there's Virtuoso, Sublime Chord, Dirgesinger, and many other classes that advance Bard without requiring a nonlawful alignment.

In the same measure, a Druid who continuously ignores nature for sure would lose their powers, though they could go on as a Blighter as well.

All other classes I remember don't particularly have many restrictions. For example, Incarnate and Crusader would just change class abilities to match the new alignment, unless they're suddenly neutral.

Barbarians are pretty much screwed, though. Monks would be probably glad they found release from their endless suffering.

[Lvl45DM!]

I played with a group in which 4 different paladins fell over 2 years, but every time was totally justified and 2 of them even atoned.
The first paladin decided to do drugs with the group (ugh teenagers) and ran naked down the street screaming about mind flayers. He fell, but the player decided to accept that he wasnt playing a paladin well, changed his style and became one of the best players in the group, preventing the party from doing stupidly chaotic and evil actions without being a stick in the mud. He took personal responsibility for the groups conduct as part of his atonement,and when he atoned he got gifted a pegasus.
The second was an Elven Paladin/Plant and Animal Cleric, who used their Turn Plant ability against an evil tree, who had a bunch of myconid babies around. Unfortuanately a bit of bad math and good rolls meant that they turned the tree and overturned all the babies, killing them. The player rolled with it and became a Blighter, with a bit of houseruling.
The third was a played by a guy who had just become a cop, and he wanted to basically play a cop. Lots of non-lethal combat, whip and manacles. When he decided to bring a prisoner into the one safe zone in an monster-infested city, but couldnt be bothered to actually guard said prisoner, it escaped and killed a bunch of people. He fell, but he atoned next session by valiantly holding the line for everyone to escape, got super lucky with his rolls and survived.
The last was mine. I was playing a Paladin of Freedom/Artificer, in a pirate campaign against evil slave-owning governments. I got the DM to agree to let me Smite with the shipboard weapons instead of melee. When I fired the catapult at the prison and got a bunch of random prisoners killed due to rolling a 1, I fell. Sadly the DM went dark after that.

All in all though nearly every paladin fell, (1/5 didnt fall) they were all handled fairly.

[King of Nowhere]

Ive played a paladin 3 times. None ended well.

Paladin 1 fell from killing goblins. Turned out it didn't matter that they where attacking and that I couldn't speak their language. When anything says the magic words "I surrender" a paladin must immediately stop themselves AND allies from fighting.

Number 2 started the game off fallen per request of the DM. I slogged throu a dozen sessions before asking the DM when he would allow atonement. The responce: the entire campaign was the atonement quest and I would be a full paladin again at 20.

Number 3 was about the time paladin pranoia set in. I was preventing the party from fighting, looting, even trespassing. It wasn`t fun at all for myself or the group (DM loved it though). Thankfully a buddy offed my pally in his sleep (DM was livid!) and helped me roll up my first cleric. I`ve never looked back.

what kind of crap dm did you find over the years :smalleek:
I've seen a paladin played twice, and there were never any problem. I can't imagine that horror dm could be so common to screw 3 paladins out of 3.
I just wanted you to know that there are good people out there, and wish you good luck in finding them


I think what's missing is having (good) advice for DMing for a Paladin in Core or less niche books.

why is advice even needed? you don't need special advice for dm to use on barbarians or bards. perhaps that's part of the problem, assuming that a paladin at the table should cause everyone else to do something different. just forget that you even have a paladin at the table.
unless you have a party of murderhobos, but that's just a matter of incompatible playstyle.


It does depends on whether you are playing an established setting or not, yes. Even if you are, though, the given gods (usually) aren't defined with an opinion regarding each and every aspect of creation. Where those are missing, it is entirely up to the DM - not the player - to fill those in, when relevant.
the player should be able to play his ideal. Communication should be used to ensure that. it shouldn't be a problem to tweak a bit details about the deity to fit with the player's concept. there are dozens of deities, the dm can surrend a bit of control about one of those.
Not that it's really relevant. 99% of times, the general quest is good, and the paladin is not committing any significant evil in pursuing it, then the paladin is fine.


It's not as simple as that. Even when it comes to something as simple as "is this a good/evil act", the DM is the ultimate arbiter on the matter. The deities follow the objective moralities of the setting as defined by the DM. The player may decide to debate the point, and maybe the player can change the DM's mind, but morality in dnd is objective from the point of view of the setting, and that objective morality stems from the DM's subjective opinion on the matter. Thus, you don't play your moralities as a player, you play the DM's.
On the other hand, a sane DM should be willing to discuss the point with the player.
Also, "willingly committing an evil action" requires not only that you commit the action willingly, but also that you realize that the action is evil. If there is enough of a debate on it, it shouldn't be fall-worthy.


I think part of the problem is that even with previous discussion the dm and player may still have different ideas on what causes a fall and not realize it. But since presumably the character would know, I advocate that when the pc is in situation x, the DM explicitly say “If you do A, you fall”. This eliminates surprises based on misunderstanding. It also reduces accidental “gotcha” dilemmas because the pc can ask “Well if A makes me fall and B also makes me fall, and my pc as a paladin knows how not to fall, what is the action C that the paladin can do that allows them to keep their paladin status?”


+1

the paladin should know his code and should know what makes him fall and what is ok.

[FaerieGodfather]

the paladin should know his code and should know what makes him fall and what is ok.

The problem is, there's no actual code of conduct in the PHB for Paladin players to learn. It's all vague references to the alignment system, which the designers didn't want to be completely subjective so they just... said it wasn't.

Even the most parsimonious chivalric code is going to be longer than two words.


Just treat them as you'd treat Paladins. Bard starts making oaths on his grandmum's panties and I'm sure as hell warning him that he'll stop being able to advance if he keeps up.

This is a description of how you would enforce the mindnumbingly arbitrary restrictions, not how you or any other thinking being can legitimately claim that those restrictions are necessary or that they make sense.


But well, there's Virtuoso, Sublime Chord, Dirgesinger, and many other classes that advance Bard without requiring a nonlawful alignment.

That's another thing. If those alignment restrictions are such an important part of the character class, why do the designers keep shoehorning in so many different, convoluted ways of bypassing them?

[pabelfly]

The problem is, there's no actual code of conduct in the PHB for Paladin players to learn. It's all vague references to the alignment system, which the designers didn't want to be completely subjective so they just... said it wasn't.

Even the most parsimonious chivalric code is going to be longer than two words.

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.

[FaerieGodfather]

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

[pabelfly]

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

Who's houseruling anything? Your Paladin has a code they choose to live by, your paladin has spent years of their life in training, if not in combat too, dedicated to upholding that code. There's no reason that your character wouldn't know exactly what that code is, you're just now spelling it out.

[MisterKaws]

This is a description of how you would enforce the mindnumbingly arbitrary restrictions, not how you or any other thinking being can legitimately claim that those restrictions are necessary or that they make sense.

The Bard and Barbarian codes somewhat do make sense when you look into the classes' descriptions themselves. You could make do with them, but I find that the fun in the game is as much in roleplaying as it is in rollplaying. That is, finding ways to do what you want while playing by the estabilished rules.


That's another thing. If those alignment restrictions are such an important part of the character class, why do the designers keep shoehorning in so many different, convoluted ways of bypassing them?

Well, for one, you need to have a way to keep advancing after losing your main class. Each of those Bard classes I mentioned take away part of the main Bard chassis and replace with their own abilities, which often change the feeling of the whole class. For example, the Virtuoso and Dirgesinger take away everything other than Bardic Music(and spells for the Virtuoso), which has the effect of somewhat alleviating the fluff requirement of a bard being a free soul. The main culprit in that is Bardic Knowledge, which is a class feature intrinsically linked to freedom, and is what represents the spirit of the typical "travelling bard".

We could very well do away with all of that, and make it like 5e's archetypes, in that you get to choose whether you're a kind of bard or another... but this isn't 5e. Around these parts, we just roll with it and stack prestige classes on top of each other until we have exactly what we have. We exchanged the ease of 5e's system by the freedom of choice 3.X brings. And freedom doesn't always means being able to do everything as you will it, now does it?

Also, it's the Oberoni Fallacy. It's one of D&D's two great fallacies, along with the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Venger]

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

That's the Oberoni fallacy.

[Luccan]

why is advice even needed? you don't need special advice for dm to use on barbarians or bards. perhaps that's part of the problem, assuming that a paladin at the table should cause everyone else to do something different. just forget that you even have a paladin at the table.
unless you have a party of murderhobos, but that's just a matter of incompatible playstyle.


Paladins are treated differently by the game itself because of their oaths. That's not the same as just being LG (or being non-lawful, in the case of bards or barbarians). Good advice would help mitigate paladins getting screwed over while keeping the oaths unique. It would not stop it, of course. Like anything in D&D or many other RPGs, nothing can stop people who want to be jerks from being jerks.

OTOH, if you think the oaths are just a hassle, I would just keep the alignment requirement and toss the oaths. Being LG is far easier that being LG and also not doing things almost every adventurer does like lying.

[hamishspence]

Also, "willingly committing an evil action" requires not only that you commit the action willingly, but also that you realize that the action is evil.

I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of Fallen paladins in the fluff genuinely believe they committed no Evil act. Look at Miko in OOTS, for example.

[Remuko]

2) Paladins are explicitly immune to lycanthropy.

They are. At level 3+. Before Level 3 they arent and could contract it.

[Particle_Man]

That said, there are a LOT of deviations from RAW I've been seeing in this thread.

1) "Rescuing prisoners" regardless of their alignment, is not an Evil act. How is a Paladin supposed to even try to redeem an evildoer if he lets them suffer and/or die?

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.


2) Paladins are explicitly immune to lycanthropy.

This was 1st ed. I am not sure what the rules were then (and likely my DM wasn't sure back then either). I mean paladins were "immune to diseases of all sorts" but lycnathropy back then seemed to be its own special thing. Not sure what the RAW on 1st ed paladin werewolves would be.

[ezekielraiden]

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.

I very much agree--and am frankly surprised at how many players fail to do this.


What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

It's...not house rules though? Like it's explicitly not that. You aren't replacing the alignment rules. You're figuring out what your specific character's oath is. The rules expressly do not define what the words of that code are--just the overall shape and structure of it. From the PHB: "Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins must swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness." And (emphasis in original), "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 that help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

The word choice and such, coupled with the existence of explicitly different Paladin orders, makes it pretty clear that there is no single code of conduct that all Paladins identically recognize--instead, every code shares a common core, a common set of virtues and restrictions, which may be extended or elaborated upon by individual paladins or groups of paladins. The rules don't define the specific entries of the code, just what things it has to say are definitely forbidden, and what things it has to say are definitely required. There may be more that is required, or more that is forbidden, and such an open space is exactly where "talk to your DM" is the only rules-appropriate response.

Now, if this were "I'm the DM and I'm ignoring what 'lawful' and 'good' mean in the books, here's my take," then I would have to agree with you--it would be house-ruling alignment, as most DMs do. But working out any individual paladin's code is not house-ruling, because the code isn't sufficiently defined--unless the DM modifies or ignores one of the explicitly-stated characteristics the code must have. It would be like saying that it's "house ruling" to work out with the bard what song they're singing when they inspire competence or the like.

[FaerieGodfather]

Why not just create the code that your Paladin lives by (with your DM's permission, of course). Removes a lot of ambiguity and it's good flavour for your character too.


What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?


Who's houseruling anything? Your Paladin has a code they choose to live by, your paladin has spent years of their life in training, if not in combat too, dedicated to upholding that code. There's no reason that your character wouldn't know exactly what that code is, you're just now spelling it out.


It's...not house rules though? Like it's explicitly not that. You aren't replacing the alignment rules. You're figuring out what your specific character's oath is. The rules expressly do not define what the words of that code are--just the overall shape and structure of it. From the PHB: "Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment. Additionally, paladins must swear to follow a code of conduct that is in line with lawfulness and goodness."

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.

You're putting in all of the effort while receiving none of the reward.


Well, for one, you need to have a way to keep advancing after losing your main class.

You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.

The fact that the designers put so much effort into fixing this problem demonstrates that even they were capable of recognizing it as a problem, even if they were incapable of fixing this problem at its roots instead of just piling more cruft on top.

[MisterKaws]

You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.

The fact that the designers put so much effort into fixing this problem demonstrates that even they were capable of recognizing it as a problem, even if they were incapable of fixing this problem at its roots instead of just piling more cruft on top.

Wasn't the first bad design choice they made, and won't be the last. The problem comes with associating fluff to crunch, as opposite to keeping them separate.

It is what it is, and they rely massively on rule 0 to fix their own mistakes, as much as we like to say this is a fallacy.

The paladins of opposed alignment were pretty much that - instead of falling, you just talk to your DM and go on a quest to change your ideals and become a Paladin of another cause.

In reality, we all know this doesn't work because almost all DMs who do force a fall do it on purpose, while the exceptions to these statistics are already reasonable enough to let the fallen Paladins redeem themselves with just a decent amount of effort. So, in reality, you need it as a firm rule to prevent scumbag DMs from abusing the unwritten laws.

They didn't know that back then, I guess. Not that 5e got much better IMO. Took too much away from what I like about 3.5 to compensate its balance.

[King of Nowhere]

What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.

That's a bit of a different case.
the thing is, d&d is not a game. it is a highly customizable system to make games. that's why many rules are ambiguous, because it should be up to the table to decide details.

having the kind of detailed regulation you seem to be asking for would be even worse. I'm not letting a game designer tell me that what my paladin did was bad. I feel mildly offended by the book of exalted deeds, because those guys who wrote it have no moral autority to tell me what is good and what is evil, not in those matter-of-fact terms.
So, I don't want the game designers to tell me how a paladin should behave. I want the game designers to tell me that a paladin is supposed to be a righteous warrior pure of heart, and then let me decide how I want to interpret that, by agreement with my table if needed.

Even discounting that and accepting that the rules are bad (they are, on many aspects), well, that's just one more reason to houserule! it's not oberoni's fallacy, perhaps the reverse. Instead of "just because the rules can be fixed, doesn't mean they are not bad" we have "exactly because the rules are bad they need to be fixed".

I don't understand all those people complaining about the rules all the time and then insisting on strict RAW. If the rules are so bad, why must one commit to follow them in the strictes and worst sense?

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.


Yes, that's exactly what we are doing. and we are also ignoring the guidelines when they are contradictory or too vague. and that addresses the problem, because there's no problem playing paladins when you do that.

I'm not even sure how you would address the problem differently. certainly you won't improve the rules for paladins by making them fall for dumb reasons at your table.






Also, "willingly committing an evil action" requires not only that you commit the action willingly, but also that you realize that the action is evil. If there is enough of a debate on it, it shouldn't be fall-worthy.


I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of Fallen paladins in the fluff genuinely believe they committed no Evil act. Look at Miko in OOTS, for example.
Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.

[hamishspence]

I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.

Indeed. As WoTC puts it in Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

[GloatingSwine]

Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.

Yeah, the standard is the "should have known" standard.

If a reasonable person should know that the act is evil, the paladin falls. It should also be a deliberate act. As in the paladin should be specifically attempting to accomplish the thing that makes them fall (or they should be reasonably forseeable consequences of their deliberate act).

Miko's case is a good example. She was specifically attempting to do the thing that made her fall, killing Shojo, and a reasonable person should have known that killing an unarmed man was an evil thing to do in the circumstances.

[AnimeTheCat]

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.

Doing one chaotic thing isn't at all suitable for having a paladin lose their class features. Their code says:


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.

So, literally the only line in there that says "Loses all class abilities" is the part that talks about WILLINGLY committing an evil act. Breaking prisoners out is not evil. Unlawful, maybe. Evil, absolutely not. This is really the cause of most confusion and issue around the paladin's code of conduct. There's only one thing and one thing alone that will cause a paladin to lose his or her class features. Willingly committing an evil act. Now yes, I realize that there is the line later that says:


A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her iolations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate.

To that, I'll point to the DMG that someone has already quoted saying that one act does not make your alignment change. Simply comitting the act of breaking prisoners out of jail should not change your alignment. Further, if the prisoners have been unjustly imprisoned, imprisoned by an illegitimate authority (bandit 'king', false magistrate, etc), or similart situation, that paladin isn't disrespecting legitmate authority, they are acting with honor, and they are helping those in need while also punishing those who harm or threaten. There is literally no breach of the code of conduct in breaking these wrongfully imprisoned people out of prison.

Now, if they were imprisoned by the legitmate magistrate under legitimate pretense of actual lawbreaking, the paladin could still do this without losing their class features. They would probably be chastised by their church and potentially punished in that way, but since they are operating under the impression that these people are in need, the ones imprisoning them are evildoers, and if the paladin acts honorably (doesn't lie when questioned about it, etc), disrespecting this legitimate authority is not a gross violation. A violation, to be sure, but certainly not a gross violation. There should be consequences, especially from the Paladin's church or faith. The paladin should certainly be repremanded, and possibly turned over to the authorities to face their own due justice. But They should not be stripped of their class features. If the paladin fights back or lashes out for what they've done and does not accept the consequences, now they're trending towards that neutral/chaotic realm and should probably start slowly noticing their powers fade unless they begin owning up to it and acting with honor once more. Another solution could be that the paladin begins transitioning from a Lawful Good Paladin to a Paladin of Freedom where they can freely act against the law in an attempt to be a holy liberator of the wrongfully accused and imprisoned.

Just my opinion on the matter, and Partical_Man, I didn't intend on singling you out or anything, your quote just really made me act on replying to this thread. It was the catalyst for my response.

[Efrate]

Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

I like the idea of slowly slipping into PoF, but there is still a point where you fall, and you should need an atonement from a cg cleric to start as a PoF. You still volated your tenets. I think that that handled well is great, but you still need consequences. You failed to uphold a standard. You have a new standard but you need to make up for failing your first standard. It should not be character ending, and easily handled in a session or so, but I feel that there needs to be something.

[pabelfly]

So... then... we're not actually addressing the problem at all. We're taking the clear and concise guidelines that the Paladin class has always needed, writing them ourselves, and then simply layering them on top of the vague and contradictory guidelines that the Paladin has always had.

You're putting in all of the effort while receiving none of the reward.


I might be being misunderstood here, so I'll try to explain myself again. You come up with your Paladin Code (along with the rest of your Paladin character) which details what your Lawful Good Paladin will do. There's already a rough code provided in the book, you're using that information and being more explicit about what your Code actually means and making sure it suits your character and their story.

After we've finished our Paladin, we present our entire character, including our Code, to the DM, for their approval like any other character. This gives you the opportunity to discuss with the DM the mechanics of the Code and what acts and behaviours might be against the code, and to make sure they're okay with it and your character. Much better to see if they're okay with the Code now than after you've started play.

And, let's be honest, if you've decided to bring a Paladin to the table you're likely doing it specifically because you want to live that Code, so complaining about working on it and the effort you're putting in doesn't really make sense.

[AnimeTheCat]

Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

The DMG is vague on this, but when you start mostly committing unlawful acts, you're likely chaotic, when you commit an equal blind of lawful and unlawful acts you're neutral, and when you're primarily lawful while rarely unlawful, you're lawful. You can't put a specific number on what is considered the character's normal behavior.


I like the idea of slowly slipping into PoF, but there is still a point where you fall, and you should need an atonement from a cg cleric to start as a PoF. You still volated your tenets. I think that that handled well is great, but you still need consequences. You failed to uphold a standard. You have a new standard but you need to make up for failing your first standard. It should not be character ending, and easily handled in a session or so, but I feel that there needs to be something.
"Falling" isn't even a term used in the PHB. Losing your class features is. So sure, there is a point at which you lose your paladin class features. Nothing says you can't immediately gain the class features of a paladin of freedom. The whole affair can take place in a matter of minutes via a dream or a single session via a mission. The consequences can be as simple as being excommunicated from the paladin's church or faith. There doesn't have to be any character punishing consequences unless the player and DM agree upon them. Why do you need to make up for failing a standard you no longer support? Why is there a need for that? Paladins receive their power from a deity. Why can't another deity pick up where one deity decides to leave off, complete with new powers and everything. If heironeous thinks you've failed to respect the archpaladin, but Pelor thinks you've done well, why can't it just be left at that.

[MisterKaws]

The DMG is vague on this, but when you start mostly committing unlawful acts, you're likely chaotic, when you commit an equal blind of lawful and unlawful acts you're neutral, and when you're primarily lawful while rarely unlawful, you're lawful. You can't put a specific number on what is considered the character's normal behavior.


"Falling" isn't even a term used in the PHB. Losing your class features is. So sure, there is a point at which you lose your paladin class features. Nothing says you can't immediately gain the class features of a paladin of freedom. The whole affair can take place in a matter of minutes via a dream or a single session via a mission. The consequences can be as simple as being excommunicated from the paladin's church or faith. There doesn't have to be any character punishing consequences unless the player and DM agree upon them. Why do you need to make up for failing a standard you no longer support? Why is there a need for that? Paladins receive their power from a deity. Why can't another deity pick up where one deity decides to leave off, complete with new powers and everything. If heironeous thinks you've failed to respect the archpaladin, but Pelor thinks you've done well, why can't it just be left at that.

For Pelor you'd end up as a Paladin of Tyranny, though.

[AnimeTheCat]

For Pelor you'd end up as a Paladin of Tyranny, though.

you forgot the /s or blue text I think... because Pelor is 100% listed a Neutral Good in practically every source except for maybe one adventure path or something?

[MisterKaws]

you forgot the /s or blue text I think... because Pelor is 100% listed a Neutral Good in practically every source except for maybe one adventure path or something?


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591087-I-need-help-finding-a-deity&p=23994996#post23994996

I'm on mobile. Too frigging hard to use tags.

[AnimeTheCat]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591087-I-need-help-finding-a-deity&p=23994996#post23994996

I'm on mobile. Too frigging hard to use tags.

oh... I'm unimpressed. If you dig in hard to every deity in the game, you'll find countless inconsistencies. I'm not worried about it, and I will still treat Pelor as a NG deity of the Sun, as he is statted and written in the vast majority of contexts.

[MisterKaws]

oh... I'm unimpressed. If you dig in hard to every deity in the game, you'll find countless inconsistencies. I'm not worried about it, and I will still treat Pelor as a NG deity of the Sun, as he is statted and written in the vast majority of contexts.

Though among good deities only Pelor has a history of having his Paladins sent to hell, creating weapons that harm the user's friends and giving said weapons to Angels, supporting evil Clerics and creating an entire order of black ops-styled assassins.

Okay, the Silver Flame too but the Templars are mostly non-casters.

[Morty]

Setting aside my feelings about the code of conduct and paladins in general, they should fall for failing to live up to the moral standard they set, not because they misjudged a situation or made a mistake. Punishing people for failure is a Lawful Evil thing to do, not Lawful Good. So the same action can cause a paladin to fall or not, depending on whether they try to do the right thing or because of pride, anger, vengeance etc.

[AnimeTheCat]

Though among good deities only Pelor has a history of having his Paladins sent to hell, creating weapons that harm the user's friends and giving said weapons to Angels, supporting evil Clerics and creating an entire order of black ops-styled assassins.

Okay, the Silver Flame too but the Templars are mostly non-casters.

He's one of the most worshiped deities in the lore, and has some of the most published content under his name. There are going to be editing errors and items that don't make sense. It happens because those are made by different people with different ideas and concepts and working for different "directors". As for Paladins going to hell, well... since I haven't read specifically what your talking about all I can say is that I doubt Pelor specifically sent that paladin to hell, especially not for some nefarious reason.

Let's just say I disagree with your assertation of Pelor's true alignemnt and motives, and be done with it. Neither of us will change our minds and that's fine. If we ever find ourselves in a game together, we'll just have to find out what the DM subscribes to and follow suit as players.

[RedMage125]

There is a small part of me that wonders about the people who can read thread after thread after thread of the same old arguments and still argue with people that the alignment rules-as-written are good for the game, and that the Paladin class was better before 4e and 5e simply took "falling" off the table.

Alignment has been cancer since 1979, and Paladins are merely the most egregious symptom.
There's a small part of me that wonders about people who can read thread after thread of the same old arguments and still argue that their negative opinion about alignment is somehow a universal fact or truth. Claiming that alignment "has been a cancer" is your opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, and far be it from me to try and change your opinion. But it is not a fact.

I know I'm in the "pro-alignment" camp, but at least I can distinguish between opinion and fact. I can also understand that RAW is something that is the only acceptable verified fact or truth in discussions about the rules. So when someone says here in the forum "alignment means what my character can't steal something!", that's a provably false statement. Or when someone says "I stole one thing, and my DM changed my alignment from LG to CE!", also provably not in keeping with the RAW (on several counts, that one).

People use house rules, and there's nothing wrong with that. One of the things that makes this game great is how customizable it is. The only "wrong way to play" is when people at your table are not having fun. I just want to be clear on that, because sometimes I come across as sounding like I'm saying "strict RAW is the only right way to play", and I do not advocate for that. RAW is the only thing that can be classified as true in a forum discussion about the rules.

Now, that said...alignment rules and mechanics can be useful to the game. They can give mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that would otherwise be left to DM fiat. Holy weapons that cannot be wielded comfortably by evil individuals. Characters being able to detect a "lingering taint of evil" from a place where a fiend cult used to operate, or from the Book Of Vile Darkness, for example. Good clerics being able to cast spells (Holy Smite, Holy Word, etc) that are harmless to those who are Good, but severely damaging to those who are Evil. It's not that these effects would be "gone" from a game where alignment was removed, but all of the effects (who would be affected, etc) would be entirely up to DM fiat. It is my opinion that concrete, objective emchanics liek this protect players from capricious DM fiat.



Also, seriously, how anyone actually justify the alignment restrictions on practically any other class that is not Paladiin?

This is actually something I love discussing on alignment threads. because what you're discussing here isn't a problem with alignment mechanics. Your issue is with class design.

fact is, the designers of 3e explicitly designed the classes to represent what they viewed as the most common and thematically resonating archetypes of those classes. And there are restirctions and class features designed to re-enforce those narrow and specific archetypes.

Barbarians: How often do you hear the claims about "why can't my barbarian be lawful? Lots of tribal cultures had rigid laws", or "if I'm lawful suddenly I cant get angry anymore?". First of all, these arguments are completely bunk, for a few reasons. "Lawful" in alignment does not necessarily having anything to do with civil laws of a society, whatever that society may be. People of Chaotic alignments are not compelled to disobey laws. Furthermore, Barbarian Rage is more than just "getting angry", it's a state that one enters that has a drastic change on one's abilities. the problem is that the Barbarian class was designed to solely represent the "wild savage" archetype, and Barbarian Rage was viewed by the designers as something that required a kind of "surrender to savagery" that was viewed as incompatible with the rigid and disciplined mindset common to those who are Lawful. Is a Lawful Barbarian a viable concept? Sure, let me throw one out. Let's say you're playing L5R D20 (blasphemy to most L5R fans, but bear with me). You want to make a Hida Dead-Eyes Berserker. These berserkers enter a cold, emotionless state of heightened battle awareness during which they hit harder and can withstand more damage, but it has the downside of leaving one's defenses down somewhat (perfect analogy for boost to STR and CON, penalty to AC). This state is physically demanding (limited # of times per day). But the Hida berserkers are still Samurai of their Clan. They follow the Code of Bushido, they are disciplined (indeed, being able to attain this state required a great deal of training, discipline, and meditation), and they are honorable. Would the Barbarian class represent this character concept well, mechanically? Yes. Should he be able to be Lawful? Certainly. But I would also ask why would he be Illiterate? He's an educated warrior of a noble family, he should certainly be literate. It's not just alignment that enforces this archetype. You don't see much outcry for Literate Barbarians, do you?

Monks: Same story. People cry out for Chaotic Monks. "If I'm not Lawful I can't punch people?" is one of the more ridiculous ones I've heard. First off, you want to be able to "punch people"? take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. that's what it's for. At any rate, class design for Monks. Monks are designed towards the archetype of the wuxia martial artist, complete with meditation, fantastic physics-defying abilities, the whole bit. You'll note that several of the Monk's class features (such as Still Mind) say things like "due to the many hours spent in meditation", or similar. The idea that a Monk somehow "must" represent a disciplined warrior on a path to physical and spiritual enlightenment/perfection was what informed the class design of the 3e Monk. Are other character concept possible? Sure, but some class features may not make as much sense. I know Dragon magazine once had a Chaotic Monk variant with an alternative set of class features.

Druid: Again, the idea that a druid somehow "must remain partially Neutral" is similar to the Cleric's mandate to stay within "one step" from the alignment of their deity. Honestly, this is an improvement over previous editions, where they had to be True Neutral (and that alignment was almost unplayable by the way it was defined in previous editions). Is the idea of someone wild and individualistic who is also benevelont (Chaotic Good) completely at odds with the concept of a nature-revering divine caster? Of course not. But the designers tried to adhere, at least somewhat, to the concpets of previous editions. And it resonates with the reasoning that nature is inherently neither Good, Evil, etc. so the Druid must be somewhat Neutral as well.

Bard: Okay, this one always made the least sense to me. I guess because they only see Bards as "wandering minstrels" thematically, but they say something like "the spontaneous nature of their magic and the lifestyle they lead are incompatible with a lawful alignment". The sponataneous nature of their magic? The one that's identical to a sorcerer's magic (no alignment restriction). Or their lifestyle? You mean the exact same lifestyle shared by all adventuring PCs? I get that they had something specific in mind for this class, but they don't even make it make sense or resonate with the reasoning at all. I mean, Monks are only disciplined martial artists? At least makes sense. Barbarians are all wild savages? That at least resonates thematically. But Bards? Last time this got brought up, I created a Lawful Bard concept on the spot. Half-Elf, son of a minor noble house, was classically trained in the violin. As part of his widespread and esoteric education, he learned about the Echoes of creation, and how they may be replicated by mortals to produce magical effects (i.e. spells). He now seeks to travel the world, uncovering mroe of these secrets, believing, as he does, that uderstanding about the deeper truths of reality will come from them. He believes that the song of creation was very ordered and structured. It would have to be, in order to successfully create life and matter. He likewise believes that music is most beautiful when it is planned, measured, and proceeds at a specific tempo, much better than the wild, improvisational style common in taverns. This character could be a Lawful Neutral Bard (probably go for Seeker of the Song PrC), and makes sense as a concept.

Cleric: All the times I see alignment detractors complain about classes with alignment restrictions, and no one ever mentions Clerics. It's one of the things that leads me to believe that these people don't have any actual legitimate complaints about alignment mechanics, but that they're just a convenient scapegoat and something to blame for why they have to chafe at any restriction imposed upon them. Clerics have more restrictions than any other class in the PHB. Clerics must be within "one step" of alignment from their deity. A Cleric may not cast spells with an alignment descriptor that is of an alignment that opposes theirs or their deity's. Clerics radiate a powerful aura of their deity's alignment. You may not be a cleric of a deity with a race mentioned in its portfolio unless you are a member of that race (no human raised by dwarves who became a cleric of Moradin). So look at all that. That's just off the top of my head, without even opening a book. So a LE cleric of Wee Jas (LN) cannot cast Good spells, but a LN cleric of the same deity can. That LE cleric only has a powerful Lawful aura, his Evil aura would be of any other humanoid of his HD. A NG cleric of Heironeous has a powerful Lawful aura and cannot cast Chaotic spells, but his NG cleric of Pelor friend can cast them.


The short version is that all these alignment restrictions on classes are more correctly an indictment of narrow class design, and there's other restrictions or class features with most of those classes that enforce that narrow archetype. Alignment isn't even they only tool the designers used to force that archetype down your throat. It's entirely disingenuous to claim that alignment mechanics are bad because of that.


The problem is, there's no actual code of conduct in the PHB for Paladin players to learn. It's all vague references to the alignment system, which the designers didn't want to be completely subjective so they just... said it wasn't.

Even the most parsimonious chivalric code is going to be longer than two words.
People have already quoted the PHB to you. There's more than just 2 words. But it's still a pretty general guideline. A lot of specific Paladin orders have more defined CoCs. Kelemvor's Paladins, for example, must adamantly oppose and destroy the undead. They still adhere to the other restrictions, but they have additional ones. A Paladin of Wee Jas, on the other hand, may be required to cooperate with certain undead creatures, as Wee Jas is not entirely anti-undead, and in fact, some liches serve her.




This is a description of how you would enforce the mindnumbingly arbitrary restrictions, not how you or any other thinking being can legitimately claim that those restrictions are necessary or that they make sense.
If you look up the definition of "Paladin", you will get (aside from the Peers of Charlemagne) somethign along the lines of "a noble knight" or "defender of a righteous cause". With the sole exception of 4th edition, Paladins are not bound to serve deities. Even the 3e Paladin class says "devotion to righteousness is enough". I blame the 3.0 supplement Defenders of the Faith for making people think that Paladin was just a warrior analogue of Cleric. Didn't help that the 3e iconic Paladin, Alhandra, was a devotee of a deity. But the point stands that they didn't NEED to be.


Which is why the claim of "why don't evil deities have paladins" is also bunk, because the correct answer is "because people who are devoted to righteouness as a principle generally do not serve evil deities". Once you understand that a "Paladin" is "a warrior devoted to righteouness", can you really say that the restriction "doesn't make sense"?

Honestly, I have big issue with the Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter more than anything else. I know Unearthed Arcana is all "optional rules", but calling those things "Paladins" made no sense.

4e changed the dynamic. Essentially, WotC re-purposed the word "paladin" to mean "champion of a specific deity/faith". And in 5e, while there are no actual mechanical restrictions, all the text of the Paladin class seems to imply that they should be some form of "Good".


That's another thing. If those alignment restrictions are such an important part of the character class, why do the designers keep shoehorning in so many different, convoluted ways of bypassing them?
Because WotC wants to sell product, and a bunch of people are whiny and chafe at any restriction, so they give extra options.

Seriously, however, all those things he mentioned are Prestige Classes, many of which represent a paradigm shift of classes. Malconvoker, Gray Guard, Rage Mage...all these things allow PCs to bypass one or more restrictions of their classes, and that's just the first 3 I thought of off the top of my head.


What's the name of that fallacy that claims that the rules aren't bad if you can fix them with houserules?

I will readily agree that the atrocious alignment/code rules are much more tolerable if you ignore them completely and replace them with rules that aren't bad.
There should be a name for the fallacy of "If X only bad when it is misused, then that's not a valid indictment of X".

In 19 years of playing this game, and 17 years of discussing it on this and the old WotC forums, I can say, positively, that 100% of stories I have ever heard people share about "why alignment is a bad system" stem from some deviation from the RAW. Players who try to use alignment to excuse bad behavior, DMs who use it to straightjacket or otherwise control players, or DMs who use the mechanics inappropriately, or use their own definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. A whole bunch. And those are problems with people, not the rules.


I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of Fallen paladins in the fluff genuinely believe they committed no Evil act. Look at Miko in OOTS, for example.
The point is that they willingly committed the act. Miko knew she was going to kill Shojo with that strike. She knew he was her liege lord, she knew he was unarmed. Take Hinjo, for example, he heard the same thing she did, had the same bad impression of it, and he didn't muder Shojo. She was under no form of charm or compulsion, she was just an ***hole.

They are. At level 3+. Before Level 3 they arent and could contract it.
Okay, but you don't change alignment permanently unless you embrace the change willingly, right? Isn't that in the rules? And if you hit level 3 before you find a cure, problem solved as well.

The DM decided that it was a Chaotic act and thus suitable for falling.

As has been pointed out, paladins do NOT fall for committing Chaotic acts. Nor does one act change your alignment (DMG pg 134).

Mind you, as this is a 3e forum, I assumed you meant 3e when you did not specify so at first.


You do not seem to be grasping the point of "losing" a class. You're not supposed to be able to keep advancing in it.
Those were prestige classes that advanced bard abilities. Monks were not allow to return to Monk if they multiclassed out. But a Monk who took a few levels of Sorcerer and then went into the Enlightened Fist Prestige Class still advanced their Monk abilities as per the PrC.


I feel mildly offended by the book of exalted deeds, because those guys who wrote it have no moral autority to tell me what is good and what is evil, not in those matter-of-fact terms.
Minor note, but since D&D is a construct of FANTASY (whether or not you want to call it a game, rules for a game, etc), that means that the designers actually DO have the authority to say "in the default rules of D&D X is Good, Y is Evil" and that will be true for the RAW. Individual DMs will of course customize what they wish, but the devs can say whatever they wish for the default, and it is true.

It's one of the reasons so many of my arguments in alignment threads end up trying to make people realize that they're blaming the alignment mechanics (which are logical, resonate with Western ethical mores, and are internally consistent and coherent for the most part) just because the RAW don't resonate with their personal values. One common example is the people who don't think skeletons and zombies should be Evil (because they're mindless), and animating them shouldn't be an Evil act. Meanwhile, by the RAW we can see that Animation/Creation of Undead by any means is an Evil act (BoVD, Ch 2). Ergo, there is Evil in their creation, and thus in the magicks that animate their bodies (and I don't mean just Negative Energy, which is obviously Neutral). This is internally consistent with the fact that undead register on a Detect Evil spell (regardless of the undead's alignment). It also means that the RAW on creatures to whom alignment is an inherent part of their nature (just like fiends) specifically override the general rules about how mindless creatures (like vermin or animated objects) are incapable of having alignment. Specific Overrides General. But some people can't wrap their minds around the first part (that animating/creating undead is Evil, objectively), and they blame alignment mechanics and say they are bad.

Here's a relvant quote from The Giant himself: "Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?"



So, I don't want the game designers to tell me how a paladin should behave. I want the game designers to tell me that a paladin is supposed to be a righteous warrior pure of heart, and then let me decide how I want to interpret that, by agreement with my table if needed.
That's more or less what 5e did. The text all suggests that Paladins should be Good aligned, but there's no actual mechanical restriction that says so.



I don't understand all those people complaining about the rules all the time and then insisting on strict RAW. If the rules are so bad, why must one commit to follow them in the strictes and worst sense?

To be fair, it's usually the reverse. It's one camp saying "the rules are bad", and the other saying "you didn't use RAW, how can they be bad?".

I fall in the latter category. And I should clarify something here, in case it seems at odds with what I said about how there's "no right way to play". I do not think that "playing by strict RAW" somehow gets one a superior play experience. However, I firmly espouse that once you have deviated FROM them, you do not get to blame them when your experience was terrible.

To wit, I was recently in an argument with someone about the encounter at the end of the first module of the Age of Worms adventure path. He claimed the Wind Warriors (unique elemental creatures to that module) were "an impossible fight for 3rd level characters". I asked him if he followed what the module says for their tactics (open with their ranged sonic blast, then close to melee and fight with 2 longswords). He said, "No, I kept them flying out of the player's reach at fats fly speeds, using the sonic blasts as hit-and-run tactics, I thought the module's tactics were dumb." At which point, I told him point-blank that he didn't get to blame the module. I've run that module with 2 different groups, used the tactics in the module, and it was a decent fight, but not "impossible" by any means.

If the RAW are only problematic when they are deviated from, how can the RAW themselves be the problem?


Ok, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about miko. I'm talking about paladins being tricked into taking seemingly innocent actions that they cannot believe are bad.
Like one of the examples brought into this post; the paladin buys something from a merchant, surprise! the merchant was a disguised devil, the paladin then made a pact with a devil and fall. Or "by stepping on this trap, you have activated a mechanism that shoots a dart... at someone else who is kept prisoner in another place. you caused the death of an innocent, you fall". Or "the halfling knight you vanquished in fight was actually a kid who was dominated and put into a concealing armor. you killed the kid, you fall". those should never cause one paladin to fall as there would be no realistic way for the paladin to know that they are being tricked.
Becoming miko is an entirely different thing.

Then again, the dm that use that kind of crap to justify falling a paladin are generaly looking for ways to make them fall regardless, so it won't matter that the causes are legitimate or not.
Actually, by the RAW none of those examples should cause a fall. I refer you to the Book of Vile Darkness Chp 2 (The Nature of Evil) and specifically the section titles "Intent and Context". 3 examples of a situation where a Paladin named Zophas climbs some rocks to escape some monsters and triggers a rockslide which crushes a hut down the mountain and kills some innocent villagers. If it was an honest accident, and he had no way of predicting the consequences, he does not lose his paladinhood. All of those examples are a jerkbag DM. Even the first one. Buying somethign from a merchant is not the same as "Consorting With Fiends" (again, check Ch2 of the BoVD). If the merchant explicitly asked for his soul and told him to sign a contract, then he should immediately refuse the deal and be suspicious of the merchant. But that's the only way he should fall for that.

Also, defending yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force is not "murder", either. Not by D&D mores. If Roy had gotten in a lucky crit and killed Miko during their first encounter in the rain, it would not have been an Evil act, even though she's a Paladin. Intent and Action (framed by Context) determine the alignment of an act, not Consequences.


Indeed. As WoTC puts it in Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.
Very much this. On my home computer I have that article bookmarked, because I refer to it so frequently in alignment arguments.


Part of the problem is there is no precedent for slowly losing your class features or them fading, its an all or nothing approach. How many chaotic acts does it take to switch from being lawful? Because as soon as that LG is gone so are all of your paladin abilities.

By the 3.5e RAW, a period of time (to be no less than a week of in-game time) during which behavior which is repeated and consistent that is more in keeping with an alignment other than the character's own will cause the character's alignment to shift "one step" closer to that alignment. This is on page 134 of your DMG.



He's one of the most worshiped deities in the lore, and has some of the most published content under his name. There are going to be editing errors and items that don't make sense. It happens because those are made by different people with different ideas and concepts and working for different "directors". As for Paladins going to hell, well... since I haven't read specifically what your talking about all I can say is that I doubt Pelor specifically sent that paladin to hell, especially not for some nefarious reason.

Let's just say I disagree with your assertation of Pelor's true alignemnt and motives, and be done with it. Neither of us will change our minds and that's fine. If we ever find ourselves in a game together, we'll just have to find out what the DM subscribes to and follow suit as players.
The Burning Hate is sort of a tongue-in-cheek kind of a thing. Aside from the examples mentioned in that link, there's also the fact that Jozan in the PHB is shown casting a Symbol of Pain spell (which has the [Evil] descriptor), and shown stepping on Krusk's face in the picture of Aid Another actions with Skills. It's a cheeky fan-theory, and very amusing. But not serious.

The picture probably mis-labelled the spell, for example.



Setting aside my feelings about the code of conduct and paladins in general, they should fall for failing to live up to the moral standard they set, not because they misjudged a situation or made a mistake. Punishing people for failure is a Lawful Evil thing to do, not Lawful Good. So the same action can cause a paladin to fall or not, depending on whether they try to do the right thing or because of pride, anger, vengeance etc.

The part I bolded is actually supported by the RAW. Like I said, BoVD, Chp. 2, Zophas example.

As for the rest of it...it depends on what you mean by "failure". Paladins are set to a higher standard where they do not accept Evil as a meand to do Good. That's part of the balancing act they do to get all their ridiculous powers (immune to all disease, even magical ones, immune to fear, healing hands, detect evil at will, smite evil, celestial mount, etc.). A Paladin who "fails" to resist temptation to do something evil because it is more convenient than other alternatives should absolutely lose their powers. A Paladin who fails to save a villager because the goblins used tanglefoot bags to root him to the ground while they cut the villager's throat should not.

EDIT: Is there a limit on multi-quoting now? I had a bear of a time trying to quote the last few people.
2nd EDIT: relaized one of my sentences needed to be moved to make the post make more sense.

[AnimeTheCat]

The Burning Hate is sort of a tongue-in-cheek kind of a thing. Aside from the examples mentioned in that link, there's also the fact that Jozan in the PHB is shown casting a Symbol of Pain spell (which has the [Evil] descriptor), and shown stepping on Krusk's face in the picture of Aid Another actions with Skills. It's a cheeky fan-theory, and very amusing. But not serious.

The picture probably mis-labelled the spell, for example.
I figured it was an editorial error when I first saw it and never thought otherwise after that.

[MisterKaws]

That's part of the balancing act they do to get all their ridiculous powers


Please do tell me: in which context is it ridiculous?Seriously, though, so weak.


EDIT: Is there a limit on multi-quoting now? I had a bear of a time trying to quote the last few people.

I guess they never expected people to write a scientific paper's worth of quotations in a single post.

[RedMage125]

Please do tell me: in which context is it ridiculous?Seriously, though, so weak.
In context with other characters of their level, at the levels at which they gain those powers, that is. Level 3, immune to fear, immune to ALL disease (including magical ones), get CHA bonus to saves, heal at a touch without a spell, detect/smite evil. Even a level 3 Wizard isn't that impressive yet.



I guess they never expected people to write a scientific paper's worth of quotations in a single post.
:tongue:

I have been described as...verbose. That's a nice way to say it. Verbose.

[MisterKaws]

In context with other characters of their level, at the levels at which they gain those powers, that is. Level 3, immune to fear, immune to ALL disease (including magical ones), get CHA bonus to saves, heal at a touch without a spell, detect/smite evil. Even a level 3 Wizard isn't that impressive yet.

True that.

Except Color Spray exists.

[Zanos]

Tricking paladins into falling is kind of stupid. Paladins should really only seriously fall when they do something either tremendously arrogant believing themselves to be in the right, or knowing that it will make them fall but do it anyway. Temptation is everywhere, seems kind of stupid to make a Paladin fall because he was put into a situation where there either was no choice or not enough information to make a good choice. It should be appropriatley dramatic if you want to play with it, and even then I don't know why people feel that having the Paladin fall is mandatory or something. Sometimes Paladins are just Good, and that's fine.

My real issue with Paladins(and sometimes certain clerics) is almost always that they railroad the rest off the party. The Paladin is by default the character in the story with the most restrictions about what he can do and can associate with, making the game pretty frustrating for characters who don't always agree, even if they aren't out and out Evil.

[Segev]

To wit, I was recently in an argument with someone about the encounter at the end of the first module of the Age of Worms adventure path. He claimed the Wind Warriors (unique elemental creatures to that module) were "an impossible fight for 3rd level characters". I asked him if he followed what the module says for their tactics (open with their ranged sonic blast, then close to melee and fight with 2 longswords). He said, "No, I kept them flying out of the player's reach at fats fly speeds, using the sonic blasts as hit-and-run tactics, I thought the module's tactics were dumb." At which point, I told him point-blank that he didn't get to blame the module. I've run that module with 2 different groups, used the tactics in the module, and it was a decent fight, but not "impossible" by any means.

If the RAW are only problematic when they are deviated from, how can the RAW themselves be the problem?

To be fair, he's right that the tactics outlined are stupid. Which points to a flaw in the design of the creatures: they should have had the ranged attack as a one-off that could only be used once in the encounter. The "tactics" claim they'll fight as if this is the case; the designers should have made it the case so the tactics made sense. The DM here wasn't without blame for complaining that playing the monsters to their best tactical advantage made them too tough when the assumption was that the tactics wouldn't be to their advantage, but it still is a valid design flaw to complain about.

I don't know if it should be once per minute, once per hour, or even once per day, but the sonic blasts shouldn't have been usable in hit-and-run maneuvers if the module relied on the creatures not using them for such to keep the creatures balanced.

[ShurikVch]

When a Paladin fall, does Imp yell "Timber!"?

[RedMage125]

To be fair, he's right that the tactics outlined are stupid. Which points to a flaw in the design of the creatures: they should have had the ranged attack as a one-off that could only be used once in the encounter. The "tactics" claim they'll fight as if this is the case; the designers should have made it the case so the tactics made sense. The DM here wasn't without blame for complaining that playing the monsters to their best tactical advantage made them too tough when the assumption was that the tactics wouldn't be to their advantage, but it still is a valid design flaw to complain about.

I don't know if it should be once per minute, once per hour, or even once per day, but the sonic blasts shouldn't have been usable in hit-and-run maneuvers if the module relied on the creatures not using them for such to keep the creatures balanced.


The Advanced Wind Warriors in the later Wind Duke Tomb in "A Gathering of Winds" DO use better tactics. But by then, the party is like, 11th level, and has measures to combat that kind of thing.

[FaerieGodfather]

I know I'm in the "pro-alignment" camp, but at least I can distinguish between opinion and fact.

Ah, but have you yet perceived the difference between pedantry and insight?


RAW is the only thing that can be classified as true in a forum discussion about the rules.

So anybody who read the rulebook differently or (more importantly) played with a DM who read the rulebook differently was playing a different game and therefore their experiences and arguments didn't have anything to do with the platonic ideal of the game that you were defending.

I can see now why you think you're so smart.


Now, that said...alignment rules and mechanics can be useful to the game. They can give mechanical voice to classic tropes of fantasy in an objective manner that would otherwise be left to DM fiat.

Surely, a person of your impossibly advanced intellect would have noticed that I said that the "alignment rules" were cancer, and that they had been so since 1979. Implying, among other things, that different alignment rules might possibly not be cancer... and that the existing alignment rules were not cancer prior to 1979 when Gygax included more extensive roleplaying guidelines and built in mechanical penalties from "deviating" from the character's chosen alignment. Or, as is the case in these threads after threads after threads of the alignment system not working, deviating from the Dungeon Master's idiosyncratic, unspoken vision of that alignment.

Which the PHB told him was objective, and that he was the sole arbiter of, and that he was responsible for holding his players to.

You might notice I am not complaining about the alignment systems in Old/Classic D&D, or in 4e or 5e. It's because they don't do this. They allow all of the things you use as positive examples in your response... but they don't do the things I'm complaining about.


This is actually something I love discussing on alignment threads. because what you're discussing here isn't a problem with alignment mechanics. Your issue is with class design.

No, ackshually, it's alignment. PCs don't get penalized for the DM arbitrarily making them literate. In all of my years playing D&D, I've never seen a Druid fall for "ceasing to revere nature", I've never seen a Paladin fall for breaking their Oaths... and the Monks and Bards and Barbarians never actually had Codes of Conduct to fall from except their asinine and arbitrary alignment prerequisites.

So Bards, apparently, can live up to any archetype their player desires as long as they don't pay their taxes on time.


Cleric: All the times I see alignment detractors complain about classes with alignment restrictions, and no one ever mentions Clerics.

I would argue that's because of all of the classes that have alignment requirements, Clerics and Paladins are the only ones that make any kind of sense... and Dungeon Masters have historically been less encouraged to be ridiculously punitive towards Clerics.

I would like to replace the alignment restriction with ethos-specific codes of conduct, but I haven't spent the last twenty-some years hearing about games it ruined.


People have already quoted the PHB to you. There's more than just 2 words. But it's still a pretty general guideline.

Specifically, it's a guideline that nobody knows what's in it until it occurs in game. Sure, no lying and no poison... but the vast majority of it lies undefined under the nature of "Lawful" and "Good".


If you look up the definition of "Paladin", you will get (aside from the Peers of Charlemagne) somethign along the lines of "a noble knight" or "defender of a righteous cause". With the sole exception of 4th edition, Paladins are not bound to serve deities. Even the 3e Paladin class says "devotion to righteousness is enough".

I'm not the guy saying we need Evil Paladins. I'm the guy saying Good Paladins need more guidance than is in the PHB, and if we're defining a bunch of specific flavors of LG anyway... could we maybe have a couple of NG and CG variants?

Because the alignment rules say that Lawful Good isn't the "best" good, but the class rules say otherwise.


Honestly, I have big issue with the Paladins of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter more than anything else. I know Unearthed Arcana is all "optional rules", but calling those things "Paladins" made no sense.

In a desperate bid to find some point of accord between us... I will say that I agree with you here but say that so-called "Gray Guard" Paladins are even worse


There should be a name for the fallacy of "If X only bad when it is misused, then that's not a valid indictment of X".

If it gets misused that frequently, it damned well is.


In 19 years of playing this game, and 17 years of discussing it on this and the old WotC forums, I can say, positively, that 100% of stories I have ever heard people share about "why alignment is a bad system" stem from some deviation from the RAW. Players who try to use alignment to excuse bad behavior, DMs who use it to straightjacket or otherwise control players, or DMs who use the mechanics inappropriately, or use their own definitions of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. A whole bunch. And those are problems with people, not the rules.

No.

See, it's the rules that give grossly undefined parameters for what the alignments mean, tell the Dungeon Master to color the rest in by themselves, and then tell them that this is the objective morality of the game world. They are required to use their own subjective definitions of the alignments, because those are the only definitions available to them. And when you accuse Dungeon Masters of being bad actors, they are only following the Rules-as-Badly-Written according to their own equally legitimate understanding of the words.

It's the rules that say a Paladin Falls for committing "any evil act" without ever actually defining what actually constitutes the smallest possible Evil act.


Minor note, but since D&D is a construct of FANTASY (whether or not you want to call it a game, rules for a game, etc), that means that the designers actually DO have the authority to say "in the default rules of D&D X is Good, Y is Evil" and that will be true for the RAW. Individual DMs will of course customize what they wish, but the devs can say whatever they wish for the default, and it is true.

Ironically, I'm currentlly arguing that the problem is that they never really did this, so there's no real universal reference. Except for BoVD and BoED, which I still spend thirty minutes a day trying to forcefully will out of existence. Kind of a Catch-22, now that I think of it.


Also, defending yourself with lethal force when attacked with lethal force is not "murder", either. Not by D&D mores.

I agree with you! Does the RAW, though?

I'd like to see an offiicial D&D rules source that actually discusses the specific alignment values of the continuum of force, the provision of low justice, all the sundry issues that attend medieval warfare, and all the various issues pertaining to prisoners and noncombatants. Oh, and of course, the boundaries of Lawful and Good characters in response to Evil authorities.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.