Not another gotcha paladin situation [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Darg

2020-11-27, 04:25 PM

I tend to take a narrow interpretation of things like 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature', because if you allow them too broadly then Dominate basically just doesn't do anything ever for anybody, so I disagree with this. (The example order would be against the Paladin's nature, but I assume the extreme disparity between the Paladin and the Evil Wizard that is trying to make the Paladin fall for his own amusement is there to make it extremely unlikely that the Paladin can succeed the second save.)

The point I was making is that if the action would make the paladin fall it would fall under the "obviously self destructive" clause. Losing class features and the favor of your God is worse than cutting off your own hand to paladins. I would think that the higher expected level of conduct central to ones way of life would present a much higher difficulty in the ability to control.

This, however, is true. The Paladin does not fall in either of these cases, because he is not the one responsible for the evil act in either case. Being physically or magically compelled into the action absolves the Paladin - it's why most of these attempts to force a Paladin into falling leave the hapless Paladin with their free will and try to present a lesser-of-two-evils choice with no obvious Third Option escape.

How would this work? Dominate only provides for compulsion and orders. Ordering them to make a choice is still compulsion. They do have some protection. If their CoC compels them to make a choice that leaves another impossible, then by virtue of that choice they do not willfully not make the other choice as they had to follow their CoC. If at any time it's obvious the order directly leads you into a self destructive situation then it triggers the clause.

137beth

2020-11-28, 10:46 PM

I'm away from my books, but assuming d20srd.org is accurate, the Paladin Code says

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
(Emphasis mine).
Being dominated is not willing, so I'd say the paladin doesn't fall in either case in the OP.

And, personally, I house-rule that a paladin falls if and only if the paladin's player wants them to fall. And since the existence of players is meta-knowledge that in-game characters don't have, any "make the paladin fall" gotchas that rely on the paladin having meta-knowledge of this rule don't work.

Bovine Colonel

2020-11-28, 10:54 PM

I find it telling that OP posts scenarios about paladins falling without actually reading the rules about paladins falling.

vasilidor

2020-11-28, 11:07 PM

I find it telling that OP posts scenarios about paladins falling without actually reading the rules about paladins falling.

generally, I see these after the DM they play under did the thing to their paladin.
wondering if that is the case now.

SangoProduction

2020-11-28, 11:14 PM

That's not how paladin falls work.

But Heracles does present mythological precedent for arduous atonement for magically-induced madness.

Segev

2020-11-29, 01:21 AM

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

hamishspence

2020-11-29, 01:36 AM

In 3.0 and earlier, it was fall permanently for a willing evil act, fall temporarily (assuming the paladin does atone) for an unwilling or unwitting one.

3.5 made it possible to atone for willing evil acts.

But the phrasing of the ex-paladins section in the paladin's code, was the same.

It was the atonement spell that was phrased differently.

3.0 ex-paladins: page 43:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities, including the service of the paladin's warhorse. She regains her abilities if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 176), as appropriate.

3.0 Atonement: page 176:

Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to unwillingly or unwittingly committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. Note: A paladin who willingly and deliberately commits an evil act may never regain her paladinhood.

3.5 ex-paladins: page 44-45:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities, (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She regains her abilities if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate.

3.5 Atonement: page 201-202:

Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

So - in both 3.0 and 3.5, the Paladin section of the rulebook only specified "willfully" - you needed to look up the atonement spell, to discover that you could fall for unwilling evil acts.

Conradine

2020-11-29, 06:11 AM

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

This is, by far, the best and most logical answer I ever got.

hamishspence

2020-11-29, 06:27 AM

I said something along those lines a long time back:

Sample reason for powers being lost if compelled to do evil: because if they weren't lost, we'd have an example of powers of good being used to further the cause of evil.

Or:

A paladin is a weapon with a safeguard: when used against those he serves, his powers cease to function.

Batcathat

2020-11-29, 06:41 AM

The idea of a paladin losing their powers as a safety measure makes sense but, to me at least, having to atone in order to restore them doesn't. If the paladin fell for reasons beyond their control (such as being dominated) why would they have to jump through hoops in order to turn the power back on? I guess some deities could feel something along the lines of "if you lost the car keys you have to work before I give you a new car" but hardly all of them.

hamishspence

2020-11-29, 06:49 AM

Makes more sense in the context of the spell than of actions.

Because there's no XP cost to the caster if the actions were committed under compulsion, the caster has no reason to make you jump through hoops to justify them expending XP on you - because, they aren't having to expend XP.

Basically the caster is "reopening the link through which power is gained" which was originally closed.

Saint-Just

2020-11-29, 08:07 AM

Darg

2020-11-29, 08:46 AM

But Heracles does present mythological precedent for arduous atonement for magically-induced madness.

You have to understand their mindset at the time. They believed that the mind (soul) and body were one and the same. You can't have one without the other. Therefore if one does something then the other is also culpable.

Well, at least we know how a paladin king can exist in D&D: 24/7 Atonement service. Using the relative evil variant makes it much more of a possibility.

I concur. If you buy a "safeguard" explanation and make paladin lose powers for unwilling or unwitting evil acts, then using atonement to restore the link makes sense. If powers are lost and not suspended then god is unlikely to have easy access to the paladin's state. Fuses need to be replaced or at least manually turned in once they have activated. Because it doesn't cost XP anyone sympathetic to the paladin's cause is unlikely to demand significant concessions.

I think it's pretty hamfisted to require a specific spell for a class that could lose their power at a drop of a hat. It makes much more sense for it to be a lot tougher for a paladin to fall than what people make it out to be. Even the BoVD accepts the fact of reality that there are grey areas that can't simply be termed good or evil. BoED Makes it so that it's impossible for a paladin to function without losing access to their abilities simply walking around a corner. It never even defines a situation in which a "lesser of two evils" exists that a choice had to be made. Take for example walking into the room with 2 buttons. The BBEG on loud speaker says that each button destroys one city and kills all the inhabitants. Do nothing and both cities are doomed. The evil act was already committed. Mitigating losses is not an evil act, but a paladin wouldn't believe the words of evil that could lie and move on. If the BBEG's words rang true then the paladin never committed an evil act.

Saint-Just

2020-11-29, 11:53 AM

I think it's pretty hamfisted to require a specific spell for a class that could lose their power at a drop of a hat. It makes much more sense for it to be a lot tougher for a paladin to fall than what people make it out to be. Even the BoVD accepts the fact of reality that there are grey areas that can't simply be termed good or evil. BoED Makes it so that it's impossible for a paladin to function without losing access to their abilities simply walking around a corner. It never even defines a situation in which a "lesser of two evils" exists that a choice had to be made. Take for example walking into the room with 2 buttons. The BBEG on loud speaker says that each button destroys one city and kills all the inhabitants. Do nothing and both cities are doomed. The evil act was already committed. Mitigating losses is not an evil act, but a paladin wouldn't believe the words of evil that could lie and move on. If the BBEG's words rang true then the paladin never committed an evil act.

I said "If you buy the "safeguard" explanation". I am entirely not sure that a paladin is supposed to fail for unwilling evil (or, rather I am almost 100% sure that examples from the different books (and possibly different parts from the same book, like with PHB's CoC and Atonement spell) contradict each other and DM have no choice but to ignore at least some of them).

I am not sure where you go with your two buttons\trolley dilemma example. It seems to me that D&D morality in general and Exalted and Paladin morality specifically has always been presented as deontological (rule-based) and not utilitarian, so yes, you are supposed to let both cities perish. It's not like people IRL have not seriously and arduously argued for inaction in trolley problems.

Conradine

2020-11-29, 12:05 PM

The Joker created a textbook example of gotcha-paladin situation with those two boats rigged with explosives.

D+1

2020-11-29, 12:28 PM

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.Nope. 1E states, for example, that a paladin falls if they "knowingly perform a chaotic act" they lose their powers but may atone, and if they "knowingly and willingly do evil" then they fall and can't get back up. However, because 1E in particular has some contradictory bits of advice, rules, and examples (including the suggestion under rules regarding lycanthropy that becoming a werewolf - even if not desired in any way by the paladin - is grounds for them to lose their status), then it is possible for a DM to attempt to be a jerk and claim otherwise. This, then, has been happening in contradiction to the class description in the PH as well as contradicting good sense and fair play, ever since. 3.5 says that, "A paladin who ceases to be LG, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct" loses their powers but may atone. So, any circumstance which removes the paladin's free will and magically forces them to do things they would otherwise NEVER choose to do, cannot be considered in any way a willful or knowing act that the character themselves INTENDED to do, and can't reasonably cause them to fall.

It's never been a thing that paladins can accidentally and/or UNwillingly do wrong and thus fall. This has only been inferred from rules that didn't directly deal with alignment or paladins but that deal with OTHER aspects of the game (and which were simply a result of failure of proper editing to correct the contradictions they introduce), or were instituted whole-cloth by DM's who insisted on FORCING paladins to fall whenever wanted to. (See also "Orc Babies").

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.Nope. This sort of nonsense with paladins has ALWAYS been a matter of A) bad rules editing in the case of 1E in particular, B) a matter of DM's being obnoxious jerks, and to some extent C) writers of supplement rules books who took it upon themselves to redefine the paladin class and the rules that govern their conduct.

lylsyly

2020-11-29, 06:33 PM

The Joker created a textbook example of gotcha-paladin situation with those two boats rigged with explosives.

Neither of which Batman (the Paladin) was in a position to save!!! If you hate paladins so much then don't play them/allow them in your game.

Clementx

2020-11-30, 07:30 AM

Back to the OP, a paladin doesn't fall for either because neither are willing. But if the paladin willingly chooses to ignore what happened, because they got off on the letter on the Code, then they would fall. They have a responsibility to oppose evil. The second the spell wears off, they need to make amends, attempt to bring the caster to justice, or make some other RP effort to acknowledge that their weakness (failing the save) made the world worse.

So this situation is the start of a paladin's training/depression montage, not a fall from grace unless the player willingly chooses to ignore the events.

Batcathat

2020-11-30, 07:46 AM

I concur. If you buy a "safeguard" explanation and make paladin lose powers for unwilling or unwitting evil acts, then using atonement to restore the link makes sense. If powers are lost and not suspended then god is unlikely to have easy access to the paladin's state. Fuses need to be replaced or at least manually turned in once they have activated. Because it doesn't cost XP anyone sympathetic to the paladin's cause is unlikely to demand significant concessions.

I guess. Though I still think it's weird that a paladin who only lost their power as a safety measure — rather than because something they did — would need outside help (which may or may not be readily available) to restore it. Wouldn't something like having to pray/meditate for a while make more sense in the situation? Is there anything supporting a "technical" reason like the god not having access to turn the paladin's powers back on? To me, a paladin falling to stop their powers being used against their god's wishes reads more like "flipping an off switch" than "burning out a fuse".

Morty

2020-11-30, 08:48 AM

This is, by far, the best and most logical answer I ever got.

Do you plan to address the fact that the paladin wouldn't fall in either of those scenarios?

Conradine

2020-11-30, 10:08 AM

Do you plan to address the fact that the paladin wouldn't fall in either of those scenarios?

Paladins always fall in my scenarios.

liquidformat

2020-11-30, 11:27 AM

Why would the first option make the paladin fall? Because the order is "obviously self destructive" and if it wasn't the paladin was actually an ex-paladin.

I tend to take a narrow interpretation of things like 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature', because if you allow them too broadly then Dominate basically just doesn't do anything ever for anybody, so I disagree with this. (The example order would be against the Paladin's nature, but I assume the extreme disparity between the Paladin and the Evil Wizard that is trying to make the Paladin fall for his own amusement is there to make it extremely unlikely that the Paladin can succeed the second save.)

I think you two are confusing charm (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm)with dominate (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm), charm causes the victim to view the caster as a trusted ally holding your words and actions in the most favorable way but not be controlled like an automaton, it does have language about 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature'. On the other hand Dominate has no such language and the person is pretty much just a meat puppet that does exactly as you command as long as you share a common language even if you don't it does 'roughly' as you command the only caveat being it still performs basic functions like eating sleeping and going to the bathroom.

Interestingly for the broader conversation I agree that a dominated paladin shouldn't be subjected to falling on the other hand a paladin that has been charmed by a level 35 maximized spellcaster who also is setup to be able to convince the paladin to follow his orders would fall as he did 'willingly' follow said orders...

gijoemike

2020-11-30, 12:17 PM

To the OP

Neither scenario is a fall scenario as no choice of the paladin was involved.

In General:

A paladin is a warrior that CHOOSES to uphold good and righteousness above all else. As long as the player chooses a good path they are fine.

Take the classic trolley car problem. You, and you alone are on a Trolley/Train/Tracked vehicle, and there is a fork in the track. Down one path is a single person tied up and down the current and only other path there are 2 or more people ( I normally see 5). You have the ability to do nothing and kill 5 people saving 1. Or diverting the trolley and saving 5 people but killing 1 by your action.

Many people consider this a paladin falls scenario. They are all wrong. The paladin is choosing to save someone no matter which choice is made. Sure people die. But at least one person is also saved. If there was a choice to derail the trolley then the pally needs to take that choice. But that is never given as a choice.

To the Joker and 2 boats full of people scenario...

Not in any way a pally falls scenario. The paladin cannot affect the outcome, thus there is no choice. It is a tense situation and then the paladin beats the living snot out of the Joker. Heck, if said paladin tries to rush to a boat and lets the Joker get away while both boats blow up, they are fine as they chose to try and save somebody.

Paladins and their falling hinges on the choice the paladin makes. If the paladin's hand is forced it isn't the choice of said paladin. A paladin falls when they lack the will to uphold the cause of good and right. The do not fall when they try but still fail. They are only mortal. This has been the way since 1e. 5e has strict code of conduct rules that actually muddy the waters.

gijoemike

2020-11-30, 12:26 PM

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

It is not a safety measure as almost all the powers of a paladin (depending on version of the game) only affect non-good persons. in 3.5 smite evil only worked on beings that were evil, which a paladin cannot adventure with anyway. Also, the ability to overcome the spell effect is saving throws which are bolstered by said powers. Having your powers fail at this moment is the worst thing. That is the concept of good and righteousness failing not the paladin. Failing a saving throw like that (doesn't change alignment) shouldn't strip you of your powers when they are needed the most.

tyckspoon

2020-11-30, 12:56 PM

On the other hand Dominate has no such language and the person is pretty much just a meat puppet that does exactly as you command as long as you share a common language even if you don't it does 'roughly' as you command the only caveat being it still performs basic functions like eating sleeping and going to the bathroom.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

Charm requires a Charisma check to get the Charmed subject to do something it 'wouldn't ordinarily do' (in the context of combat usages this is usually trying to get them to attack their other friends or at least sit out the combat while you fight everybody else, but could be as mundane as something like trying to get a vegetarian to purchase or eat meat), and does not permit for forcing the subject to do something they really really don't want to (your arguments are seen as more persuasive and they want to make you happy, but you can't really force them to do something.) Dominate has stricter limits - orders are absolute and compulsory unless they are 'against the subject's nature.' In order for Dominate to actually.. dominate somebody, I take a very narrow interpretation of 'against nature' because if you don't you can find reasons to argue that basically any action at all should award a new saving throw and the spell is pointless.. basically, if you were in a game that uses Ideals or similar statements of a characters principals and motivations, you should only give the new saving throw if an order directly opposes a characters primary Ideal.

Morty

2020-11-30, 02:28 PM

Paladins always fall in my scenarios.

Clearly they don't, because you said that the paladin doesn't fall if grabbed by a giant and flung at an innocent person. So which is it?

noob

2020-11-30, 02:50 PM

Clearly they don't, because you said that the paladin doesn't fall if grabbed by a giant and flung at an innocent person. So which is it?

You do not understand.
The paladin was not thrown: it was used as a club.
So the paladin did not fall because it was not thrown.
The sentence:

A level 35 maximized spellcaster casts Dominate Person on a level 1 paladin and makes him kill an innocent. The paladin falls.
Did not imply causality.
The paladin fell in stairs unrelatedly from the action.
What he meant by "paladins always fall" meant that no matter the adventure at some point the paladin would take falling damage.

Vaern

2020-11-30, 03:42 PM

The paladin wouldn't fall in either case. The text of both dominate person and the paladin's code protect him from this.
The paladin's code requires that he commit an evil act willingly to lose his powers. He is not willing if he is under a compulsion effect, nor if he is physically being swung as a weapon.
Dominate person allows an additional saving throw at a bonus when performing an action against the subject's nature. Committing an evil act is against the paladin's nature. For that matter, dominating any good character and trying to force them to commit a distinctly evil act would arguably be against their nature, as would be trying to force an evil character to perform an uncharacteristically good act.
Dominate person doesn't allow you to force someone to perform self-destructive actions. For paladins in particular, since they literally lose all of their power for committing an evil act, it would be easy to argue that any evil act performed by a paladin could be considered self-destructive.
If I recall correctly, though, there's a bit in BoED about paladins specifically and what might happen if they should encounter a scenario where they have no choice other than to do something unsavory. Even in a situation where being forced to commit an evil act wouldn't cause the paladin to fall, it's likely he would feel guilty enough about having been used as a tool for evil that he would seek atonement anyway despite still having access to all of his powers.

Ajustusdaniel

2020-11-30, 03:59 PM

That's not how paladin falls work.

But Heracles does present mythological precedent for arduous atonement for magically-induced madness.

Worth noting, perhaps, that at least in some sources, the deity that caused the madness was the same one who assigned the (highly dangerous) atonement.

But it does present an interesting question. I don't think that a paladin who is mind controlled into killing an innocent/desecrating a temple/eating a big ol' bowl of babies should fall for that. But a paladin who shrugs it off with a swig of mouthwash and continues on his way as though nothing happened probably isn't headed in the right direction.

But now we're into roleplay/

Segev

2020-11-30, 04:04 PM

Charm requires a Charisma check to get the Charmed subject to do something it 'wouldn't ordinarily do' (in the context of combat usages this is usually trying to get them to attack their other friends or at least sit out the combat while you fight everybody else, but could be as mundane as something like trying to get a vegetarian to purchase or eat meat), and does not permit for forcing the subject to do something they really really don't want to (your arguments are seen as more persuasive and they want to make you happy, but you can't really force them to do something.) Dominate has stricter limits - orders are absolute and compulsory unless they are 'against the subject's nature.' In order for Dominate to actually.. dominate somebody, I take a very narrow interpretation of 'against nature' because if you don't you can find reasons to argue that basically any action at all should award a new saving throw and the spell is pointless.. basically, if you were in a game that uses Ideals or similar statements of a characters principals and motivations, you should only give the new saving throw if an order directly opposes a characters primary Ideal.

"Against his nature" is there for the DM and the player to have excuses to deny things that truly ruin the fun of the game, I think. Whether by making something too easy or by ruining a character.

The hard-line definition of it just isn't really there. Is violating his Oath "against [a paladin's] nature?" Certainly, some things probably are. A mother wouldn't kill her own beloved child under Domination, perhaps?

I do like the idea of using this with 5e's Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, but 3.5 and PF don't quite support that on their own.

Bovine Colonel

2020-11-30, 05:00 PM

Paladins always fall in my scenarios.

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

Are you saying the Paladin was willing to go along with the Dominate spell and kill the innocent? Because that's nowhere in your scenario. Which means you're talking about Paladins falling for reasons specifically excluded by the actual rules. Are you using some kind of house rules you're not telling us about, or do you just have a grudge against Paladins (for some reason) so bad you're ignoring the rules to make up scenarios where Paladins fall?

Morty

2020-11-30, 05:01 PM

Worth noting, perhaps, that at least in some sources, the deity that caused the madness was the same one who assigned the (highly dangerous) atonement.

But it does present an interesting question. I don't think that a paladin who is mind controlled into killing an innocent/desecrating a temple/eating a big ol' bowl of babies should fall for that. But a paladin who shrugs it off with a swig of mouthwash and continues on his way as though nothing happened probably isn't headed in the right direction.

But now we're into roleplay/

This is why I think the paladin code's main purpose is to shoot down potentially interesting roleplay scenarios and turn them into a binary pass/fail.

Conradine

2020-11-30, 06:02 PM

Guys, I was just joking about my dislike for paladins. ^ ^

Seriously speaking, logic should dictate that paladins do not fall in either situation ( Dominated or grabbed by a giant ).

I suspect RAW dictates instead that actions done under Domination or Suggestion still count as Evil.

---

And, by the way, I don't always make paladins fall. It's far more funny let them build their character in a way that is desperately focused on Good abilities, then strip them of everythink without warning.

The holier they are, the harder they fall....

JNAProductions

2020-11-30, 06:03 PM

Guys, I was just joking about my dislike for paladins. ^ ^

Seriously speaking, logic should dictate that paladins do not fall in either situation ( Dominated or grabbed by a giant ).

I suspect RAW dictates instead that actions done under Domination or Suggestion still count as Evil.

Yes-but the evil is done by the dominator, not the dominated.

It's been pointed out, multiple times, that a Paladin only falls for willing evil. Under the effects of a compulsion is not willing.

Bovine Colonel

2020-11-30, 08:43 PM

I suspect RAW dictates instead that actions done under Domination or Suggestion still count as Evil.

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

ten characters

hamishspence

2020-12-01, 12:40 AM

It's never been a thing that paladins can accidentally and/or UNwillingly do wrong and thus fall. This has only been inferred from rules that didn't directly deal with alignment or paladins but that deal with OTHER aspects of the game (and which were simply a result of failure of proper editing to correct the contradictions they introduce),

The 3.0 version of the Atonement spell. And I think previous edition versions of the Atonement spell had similar text.

Darg

2020-12-01, 11:23 AM

137beth

2020-12-01, 06:58 PM

And, by the way, I don't always make paladins fall. It's far more funny let them build their character in a way that is desperately focused on Good abilities, then strip them of everythink without warning.

The holier they are, the harder they fall....

So, does this mean that someone has played a paladin in a game that you were GMing since October of last year (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?601481-An-act-of-kindness-toward-an-evil-being-who-don-t-deserve-it-is-an-evil-act&p=24229749&viewfull=1#post24229749), when you said no one had ever tried to play a paladin in your group?

(Also, I'm having a bit of trouble squaring your claim that you don't always make paladins fall, with your subsequent claim that "The holier they are, the harder they fall":smallconfused:)

Conradine

2020-12-02, 11:31 AM

Well, no one after knowing me a bit. :)

(Also, I'm having a bit of trouble squaring your claim that you don't always make paladins fall, with your subsequent claim that "The holier they are, the harder they fall")

It means it's funnier to let them struggle for some session before mercilessly crush them, like a child playing with an insect. ^ _ ^

But seriously, I kinda like paladins. Of Tyranny. Or Slaughter.

Cygnia

2020-12-02, 11:50 AM

So the only ones you like are the Evil ones. :smallconfused:

Do you ever try to screw those guys over too or is it only the LG ones you're blatantly biased against?

Because if I had a GM who went out of his way to intentionally screw over a player with constant no-win GOTCHA situations solely because of a character class choice (and the player isn't being Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good/Lawful Anal), I'd say that GM is being an [EXPLETIVE].

D+1

2020-12-02, 02:18 PM

The 3.0 version of the Atonement spell. And I think previous edition versions of the Atonement spell had similar text.

Strict readings would imply that there are many different interpretations. Philosophically, willing and unwilling depend on ones biases about responsibility. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the ancient greeks believed the mind (soul) and body were one. In such a case the whole of responsibility for the action regardless if it were willing or unwilling falls on the actor and not on the source of their madness.

Overall, it's up to the paladin and the DM to come to an understanding in this regard as it generally feels like a betrayal if the GM forces the paladin to fall if the paladin player doesn't feel the situation warrants it (especially because the paladin is already bottom tier in power level).
The beliefs of the ancient greeks doesn't hold much water as actual rules. Having now just checked again, 3.0/3.5 paladin class description says paladins fall if they cease to be LG, willfully commit evil, or grossly violate their code of conduct (COC = being LG, respecting legitimate authority, acting with honor, helping those in need of help, and punishment of those who harm or threaten innocents). Now, to "grossly violate" that code is not really something that can be done by accident and certainly should never be assumed to be done out of sheer ignorance of what's right/wrong in a given situation (because doing what's right ALL THE TIME is very much the point of being a paladin at all). Yes, a DM can insist that a paladin does indeed blunder their way into losing their class, but that's a DM being a jerk, not a player being ignorant and careless about their paladin's pursuit of what's right. The fact that the 3E version of the Atonement spell wants to say that it applies whether a character did evil unwillingly (and that's rather a logical impossibility) or as a result of magical compulsion, in addition to willful misdeeds, is at best (as I suggested) a CONTRADICTION of what the rules have then already established in the description of the class for how a paladin loses their class status, but is otherwise simply not applicable to paladins in that way. Paladins don't need to atone for accidental/unintentional misdeeds in order to regain their class abilities - because they don't ever lose their class abilities for accidental/unintentional misdeeds.

And it IS a betrayal if the DM forces the paladin pc to fall when the paladin player has absolutely no such intent or desire to do so DMs who engineer circumstances deliberately to be able to argue that either the player should have known better (despite no warnings or explanations to the player of the significance of actions that would lead to that outcome, and sensible reasons for a player to assume otherwise), or that it wouldn't have mattered if the player knew better or not, NO CHOICE that was permitted to the player was one that would have avoided the fall, is a jerk. A moral Kobayashi Maru scenario, where there was by intent of the DM's design no way to win, is only that DM being a jerk to the player of the victimized paladin. It's not a player playing the class in such a way as to bring on their own downfall - that is a DM mandating that the pc to fall by whatever means the DM finds most convenient because it's what the DM wants IN SPITE of how the player actually wishes and tries to play the character.

Never (not once, ever) have I even read of a PROBLEM where a player wanted their paladin PC to fall, and then DID get them to fall, roleplayed the consequences and so on. That's not something anyone ever complains about. Player wants it, DM lets it happen, all is right with the world. It is only ever a problem when a player wants their paladin to remain upright and in good standing with their class/deity/morality - but the DM insists that BY THE GODS that is just not gonna happen and makes the PC fall, disregarding all attempts and intents by the player to simply do right. That is now and always has been a DM problem, and it's the only reason it repeatedly comes up for discussion. DM's get it into their heads that, when it comes to paladins, DM's have a special right to be jerks.

GloatingSwine

2020-12-02, 02:22 PM

Scenario 3: The GM wakes up one morning and finds out the hard way that there were D4s in his slippers. Does the Paladin fall?

noob

2020-12-02, 03:11 PM

Scenario 3: The GM wakes up one morning and finds out the hard way that there were D4s in his slippers. Does the Paladin fall?

Yes because the gm slams his door out of anger afterwards and the air current caused by that causes the paper sheet with paladin written on it to be carrier away from the table and fall on the ground.
Gms hate paper sheets with paladin written on it.
I suggest that as a method to detect gms we can brandish paper sheets with paladin written on them.

Saint-Just

2020-12-02, 03:32 PM

Now, to "grossly violate" that code is not really something that can be done by accident and certainly should never be assumed to be done out of sheer ignorance of what's right/wrong in a given situation (because doing what's right ALL THE TIME is very much the point of being a paladin at all). Yes, a DM can insist that a paladin does indeed blunder their way into losing their class, but that's a DM being a jerk, not a player being ignorant and careless about their paladin's pursuit of what's right. The fact that the 3E version of the Atonement spell wants to say that it applies whether a character did evil unwillingly (and that's rather a logical impossibility) or as a result of magical compulsion, in addition to willful misdeeds, is at best (as I suggested) a CONTRADICTION of what the rules have then already established in the description of the class for how a paladin loses their class status, but is otherwise simply not applicable to paladins in that way. Paladins don't need to atone for accidental/unintentional misdeeds in order to regain their class abilities - because they don't ever lose their class abilities for accidental/unintentional misdeeds.

And it IS a betrayal if the DM forces the paladin pc to fall when the paladin player has absolutely no such intent or desire to do so DMs who engineer circumstances deliberately to be able to argue that either the player should have known better (despite no warnings or explanations to the player of the significance of actions that would lead to that outcome, and sensible reasons for a player to assume otherwise), or that it wouldn't have mattered if the player knew better or not, NO CHOICE that was permitted to the player was one that would have avoided the fall, is a jerk. A moral Kobayashi Maru scenario, where there was by intent of the DM's design no way to win, is only that DM being a jerk to the player of the victimized paladin. It's not a player playing the class in such a way as to bring on their own downfall - that is a DM mandating that the pc to fall by whatever means the DM finds most convenient because it's what the DM wants IN SPITE of how the player actually wishes and tries to play the character.

I have argued above that Kobayashying a paladin should indeed be impossible (however unfavourably I view what the moral framework of D&D suggests when pushed to extremes). But the idea that because "doing what's right ALL THE TIME" is the point of playing paladin, paladin players should get specific nudges (warnings, explanations etc.) from the DM when they are about to do wrong... nah. Paladins don't get "detect WHATEVER IS RIGHT" class ability. There are examples in rulebooks of paladins who didn't intend to fall but fell. More in the official literature (but that's not a strong argument in any case). Plot armour against falling from the grace is still plot armour. Arguing that playing without plot armour is badwrongfun, is bad, wrong, and unfun.

Example: Miko from OotS. If she was a PC played by an actual person (and all of us have heard tales of pretty clueless players, and I once have played in a campaign characterized by everyone jumping to conclusions) - would you say that a good DM is obliged to say "no, that's not what Gods want of you" when they hear "I attack the Lord Shojo"?

There is plenty of situations in which paladin can willingly blunder into violating CoC. Not all of those even require special setup by a DM, and I defy the idea that all moral decisions should be either obvious or require special handholding by DM. If that's how you group rolls, godspeed to you, but please do not say that either rules or... I don't know what, community standards? - say that paladins only fall when their players want them to fall.

P.S. Has there been any discussion about general rule for RAW when one part of one book contradicts the other, like PHB CoC and Atonement? Neither specific vs general nor primary source seems to help (though if I were DMing I'd probably go on the side of "CoC is stronger\more directly related").

Buddy76

2020-12-02, 04:36 PM

I think it's important to remember that D&d is about telling stories with a group of people. 3E/3.5, for all it's crunchiness, is not a complete formal system (in the logical sense). Sure, RAW can help resolve mechanical concerns but paladins falling is an intersection of mechanics and roleplay, and there's no way that reading the paladin code verbatim will yeild a "logical" answer. Again, 3E is very crunchy but it's not supposed to "run" with zero interpratation from the GM and the players part.

As for your dislike of paladins, fair enough. To each their on. I personally like them and they've been a part of the game's DNA for a long time (Three Hearts and Three Lions being one of the big influences of early d&d). I agree that they might not be an adequate choice for more "mature" or shades of gray campaign (although they can work) but there's nothing wrong with a player wanting to play a classic knight in shining armor in a d&d game.

If a player picks a pally for your game and you intent to make them fall, give them a heads up first. If they're into it cool, it can be fun for everyone. If not, either work out a different character with them or let them play a paladin without contriving these scenarios as you might end up limiting the player's enjoyment of the game.

Another thing I never understood is when a GM has this intent arbitrarily making paladins fall (in real games, not thought experiments). If it was a clearly overpowered class kept in check only by the code them sure, maybe. But as it stands, even a fully optimized paladin with a bunch of ACFs ends up being very competent and not game breaking. I don't see people so intent on taking away other classes ' abilities. Like, imagine always contriving scenarios for wizards to lose their spellbooks or for a fighter with a bunch of say, Greatsword feats, to find himself constantly having to fight unarmed because people keep stealing his greatsword.

Anyway, those are my two cents. I'm not trying to be adversarial, I just genuinely don't understand why palading falling in impossible to win scenarios comes up so often :smallsmile:

Conradine

2020-12-02, 06:53 PM

Do you ever try to screw those guys over too or is it only the LG ones you're blatantly biased against?

Only LG , and only LG paladins.
I play with goody-two-shoes as a master or fellow player without any problem.
Lawful Good ranger or cleric, Chaitic Good paladin? Don't like much the flavor but, hey, no problem, whatever goes for a good story.

Obviously I prefer Evil characters. Or Neutral, the balanced guys.

---

Just don't get one of those LG knights in diamond armor near me...

Batcathat

2020-12-03, 03:36 AM

As for your dislike of paladins, fair enough. To each their on. I personally like them, and they've been a part of the game's DNA for a long time (Three Hearts and Three Lions being one of the big influences of early d&d). I agree that they might not be an adequate choice for more "mature" or shades of gray campaign (although they can work) but there's nothing wrong with a player wanting to play a classic knight in shining armor in a d&d game.

While I'm not much of a paladin fan, I would think they'd be more interesting to play or GM in a morally gray campaign. A hero always trying to do good and live by a strict code in an idealistic world with clearly labeled Good and Evil? Sounds super boring. The same hero trying to hold onto his principles and idealism in a world full of shades of gray? Now that sounds like something I would play or watch.

Another thing I never understood is when a GM has this intent arbitrarily making paladins fall (in real games, not thought experiments). If it was a clearly overpowered class kept in check only by the code them sure, maybe. But as it stands, even a fully optimized paladin with a bunch of ACFs ends up being very competent and not game breaking. I don't see people so intent on taking away other classes ' abilities. Like, imagine always contriving scenarios for wizards to lose their spellbooks or for a fighter with a bunch of say, Greatsword feats, to find himself constantly having to fight unarmed because people keep stealing his greatsword.

It might be that the potential for falling built into every paladin (in a more obvious way than the potential for losing important equipment is built into a wizard or fighter, I think) act as challenge — consciously or subconsciously — to many GMs.

Another reason might be similar to why some don't like Evil characters — because some people use it as a license to be a **** — so trying to make them fall could be a punishment whether against a specific player or an entire style of playing.

Morty

2020-12-03, 04:18 AM

The 3.5 paladin class is a trainwreck in just about every respect. It just has very little to do with the situations the OP proposes - which are absurd and have never come up in any actual games.

Buddy76

2020-12-03, 08:19 PM

While I'm not much of a paladin fan, I would think they'd be more interesting to play or GM in a morally gray campaign. A hero always trying to do good and live by a strict code in an idealistic world with clearly labeled Good and Evil? Sounds super boring. The same hero trying to hold onto his principles and idealism in a world full of shades of gray? Now that sounds like something I would play or watch.

Oh, I agree. Trying to stick to the paladin code in a morally gray campaign can be awesome. But it can also take up a lot of time during sessions and bring a lot of conflict with the rest of the party (even if everyone is playing their characters well and not being an a**hole). If that's what everybody involved is interested in sure, go for it. But if you're the DM and you feel that a paladin is not right for your campaign it's best to be upfront with the player and ask them to roll up something else (a crusader or cleric or something like that) than arbitrarily conjuring up 30+ level characters against a level 1 paladin just to make them fall through some contrived reading of the code.

Even if I felt that paladins are ok in the campaign, I would still give the player a heads up if the campaign is going to involve a lot of tough moral choices. Falling, seeking atonement and having conflicts with the party very often might not be everyone's cup of tea.

It might be that the potential for falling built into every paladin (in a more obvious way than the potential for losing important equipment is built into a wizard or fighter, I think) act as challenge — consciously or subconsciously — to many GMs.

Another reason might be similar to why some don't like Evil characters — because some people use it as a license to be a **** — so trying to make them fall could be a punishment whether against a specific player or an entire style of playing.

Yeah, a-hole paladins should definitely fall. Miko really is a perfect example of a paladin played badly (oots also gave us great paladins, O-Chul is probably my favorite).

But OP seems to want the paladin to fall not because of something the player (or character) has done, but because he personally doesn't like LG paladins. Again, you don't have to like them, but it's better to be upfront with the player and ask them to roll up something else than taking the core abilities of a already lackluster class just because you dislike it. I've also seem this with some other GMs. A paladin joins the game and they immediately try to find no-win situations for paladins to fall. Like, I get that LG paladins are a silly concept but, c'mon, so are paladins of slaughter and I've never seem people coming up with scenarios for them to accidentally help an old lady or something (although, granted, they see nowhere the amount of play that standart LG paladins see).

Asmotherion

2020-12-03, 08:49 PM

I was thinking...

A level 35 maximized spellcaster casts Dominate Person on a level 1 paladin and makes him kill an innocent. The paladin falls.

A level 30 Fire Giant with uber strenght grab a paladin for the wrist and uses the armored paladin hand to kill an innocent. The paladin do not fall.

Why?
In both situations the paladin had zero chances of opposing the action. Why the first is considered an evil - albeit minor evil - action and the second is not?

Frankly, I don't see the Paladin falling in either situation, as neither was an act of his own free will.

But either way, alignment-based classes (and most alignment-based effects) are kind of a bad mechanic IMO, and one of the worst things that could happen to your game table is to spend half a session arguing the morality of the group's Paladin.

This is part of the reason I rarelly allow paladins in games I run. Anyone who wants to play a Holly Warrior type can play a Cleric with the War Domain, and anyone who needs a fancy mount can planar bind a Nightmare or some other exotic outsider horse-like creature. There; You get all the fun of playing a Hollyer-than-thou Warrior, with less drama around if the Paladin should fall for putting up with the Rogue's antics or if he should Smite the Party's Wizard for transcribing a necromancy spell in their spellbook when given the chance.

I'm a married man, a father and a small buisness owner. The 1 night of the week I have enough free time to play D&D, I want to spend it playing actual D&D, not arguing about the moral compass of a single PC.

Sorry if this escalated quickly, but honestly screw Paladins, man. :smallamused:

Conradine

2020-12-04, 05:19 AM

But OP seems to want the paladin to fall not because of something the player (or character) has done, but because he personally doesn't like LG paladins.

Actually, I'm honestly persuaded that a paladin shouldn't fall in both situation but RAW says that actions done under magical compulsion can still be evil... and I never understood what logic lies behind that.

Darg

2020-12-04, 09:22 AM

Actually, I'm honestly persuaded that a paladin shouldn't fall in both situation but RAW says that actions done under magical compulsion can still be evil... and I never understood what logic lies behind that.

Where does it say that?

Buddy76

2020-12-04, 10:25 AM

This is part of the reason I rarelly allow paladins in games I run. Anyone who wants to play a Holly Warrior type can play a Cleric with the War Domain, and anyone who needs a fancy mount can planar bind a Nightmare or some other exotic outsider horse-like creature. There; You get all the fun of playing a Hollyer-than-thou Warrior, with less drama around if the Paladin should fall for putting up with the Rogue's antics or if he should Smite the Party's Wizard for transcribing a necromancy spell in their spellbook when given the chance.

I'm a married man, a father and a small buisness owner. The 1 night of the week I have enough free time to play D&D, I want to spend it playing actual D&D, not arguing about the moral compass of a single PC.

Sorry if this escalated quickly, but honestly screw Paladins, man. :smallamused:

A very sensible approach that, indeed, bypasses most those endless discussions entirely :smallsmile:

Actually, I'm honestly persuaded that a paladin shouldn't fall in both situation but RAW says that actions done under magical compulsion can still be evil... and I never understood what logic lies behind that.
Ah, ok, fair enough. Although I don't recall that line about acts under magical compulsion being potentially evil. Is that from BoED?

Conradine

2020-12-04, 10:34 AM

I remember reading that on the Fiend Folio about actions performer under a Corrupter magical influence.
Also, if I remember well, the Atone spell talks about atoning from non voluntary actions ( but the first manual I read vas edition 3.0, mabye they changed that in 3.5 ).

Darg

2020-12-04, 11:37 AM

Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to unwillingly or unwittingly committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. Note: A paladin who willingly and deliberately commits an evil act can never regain her paladinhood.

Restore Class

A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.

They got rid of the unwilling part and the permanent loss of paladinhood upon willful commitment of an evil act. It makes no sense when reading the paladin description which also has the only falls when willfully committing an evil act clause, or grossly violates their CoC. Which description has more priority? Paladin description obviously. At which point the atonement spell contradicts the paladin description by saying they can't seek Atonement after willfully committing an evil act which is the only way an evil act can make a paladin fall.

Honestly, I think the scenario in the heads of WotC when they worded it was similar to the Ajantis goblin scenario in Baldur's Gate 2. An illusion was cast on both parties making them both think that the other was a group of evil creatures. Makes me wish they would have implemented a dispel/overwriting mechanic similar to the charmed knight in the de'arnise keep. Would have been awesome.

As for the fiend of corruption, I don't see anything that says that a paladin would fall from using any of the abilities. I could see it slowly tempt the paladin to evil and use temptation to alter the paladin's alignment, but that still requires the paladin to be willing to be evil in the first place.

D+1

2020-12-04, 12:02 PM

But the idea that because "doing what's right ALL THE TIME" is the point of playing paladin, paladin players should get specific nudges (warnings, explanations etc.) from the DM when they are about to do wrong... nah. Paladins don't get "detect WHATEVER IS RIGHT" class ability.Yet other classes don't NEED to have detect rightness radar because their faithfulness to their class and alignment is NEVER tested. When was the last time a moral landmine was placed in front of a LG cleric to intentionally try to trip them up and get them in trouble with their deities? Rangers? Druids? Or go the other way and lay down a morality trap for an assassin who instead doing EVIL chose to do something good: "It doesn't matter if you were just being polite, you're supposed to be deliberately EVIL, so you blundered your way into an alignment change. Of course you can get an atonement spell but you should have known better than to do good things, and of course it's not MY job as DM to even suggest to you that you're being too nice..."

Plot armour against falling from the grace is still plot armour. Arguing that playing without plot armour is badwrongfun, is bad, wrong, and unfun.Who's talking about plot armor? I'm talking about giving paladin players the same break a DM gives ALL OTHER PC's, but for paladins they are singled out for particular persecution.

There is plenty of situations in which paladin can willingly blunder into violating CoC. Not all of those even require special setup by a DM, and I defy the idea that all moral decisions should be either obvious or require special handholding by DM.Paladins were not inserted into the game to give the DM a special opportunity to trip them up that they don't get with every other PC, but that is how they are used. YOU BET they should get special handling by the DM - because (IME in games and on forums) it's the DM's alone who are responsible for the fact that the ONLY characters that ever need atonement spells are paladins.

If that's how you group rolls, godspeed to you, but please do not say that either rules or... I don't know what, community standards? - say that paladins only fall when their players want them to fall.If they only fell when their players wanted them too then they'd be getting handled like other PC's. But they also fall when DM's want them too, and in way too many instances the DM's put particular traps for paladins ALONE. Again and again people go to online forums not to ask advice about how to deal with a DM who has made their LG magic-user become evil - but about how the DM made their LG paladin become evil. By ACCIDENT.

I'm not saying that paladins should AT ALL be "immune" from falling unless the player is willing for that to happen. What I'm saying is that paladins should have no significantly greater danger of it than any other PC, and especially that the DM should not be targeting paladins in particular in attempts to LURE them into misdeeds simply because they pay a more readily identified or higher price for it if they DO transgress. Paladins are vulnerable to being overly abused by DM's - therefore paladins ARE overly abused by DM's because it's easier to abuse them than other classes. Hell, it's practically expected and I've seen DM's say in all seriousness that they consider it THEIR JOB to make every paladin PC fall.

P.S. Has there been any discussion about general rule for RAW when one part of one book contradicts the other, like PHB CoC and Atonement? Neither specific vs general nor primary source seems to help (though if I were DMing I'd probably go on the side of "CoC is stronger\more directly related").
My own reasoning stems from the 2004 3.5 PH errata document that gave the formal rules regarding rule precedence, summed up as:

unless errata'd the earlier/primary source is correct
text takes precedence over a table entry
the short descriptions in the beginning of the spells chapter are superseded by individual spell descriptions
PH gives the rules for playing the game, playing PC races, and base class descriptions and if something on those topics from the DMG or MM that disagrees, the PH takes precedence
DMG is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on
MM is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

From that I infer that the description of how a class works including what makes a paladin fall, should take precedence over the description of a spell like Atonement which suggests something different.

Cygnia

2020-12-04, 12:08 PM

There's the Gray Guard PrC for LG pallies.

Saint-Just

2020-12-04, 01:53 PM

Yet other classes don't NEED to have detect rightness radar because their faithfulness to their class and alignment is NEVER tested. When was the last time a moral landmine was placed in front of a LG cleric to intentionally try to trip them up and get them in trouble with their deities? Rangers? Druids? Or go the other way and lay down a morality trap for an assassin who instead doing EVIL chose to do something good: "It doesn't matter if you were just being polite, you're supposed to be deliberately EVIL, so you blundered your way into an alignment change. Of course you can get an atonement spell but you should have known better than to do good things, and of course it's not MY job as DM to even suggest to you that you're being too nice..."

1. There are other classes with code of conduct: Knight, Kensai, Samurai, I bet there is probably at least one more. They are only rarely seen because they are not too powerful AND because they are not in the Core.
2. Paladins have a unique (among the Core classes) feature - Code of Conduct. It is supposed to be limiting their actions more significantly than other classes' restrictions (many of them have a section on ex-X, and in fact consequence of becoming ex-Monk is significantly less than ex-Druid so it's not like there is a single standard). Most pertinent part is "paladin falls for a single evil act" while other classes need at least enough evil to shift their alignment one step. Paladin may fall while remaining LG.
3.Parsing your arguments in a charitable way you and I seem to have a disagreement not about limits of CoC , but about how those limits should be enforced. To make a parallel with chess - some rulesets punish illegal moves with time penalty and the player must make another move with the same piece, others simply restore position before the illegal move. D&D is not a competitive game (normally) and punishing players is not a good idea, but character suffering consequences for their actions is widely (but not universally) accepted, even if that makes a player unhappy. It is not that different from another active thread - whether or not it is acceptable to break or steal PC's stuff, and the answer is the same - "It depends"

You are also using emotional but imprecise parallels: other classes may become ex-X if they do enough evil (or chaos or good or whatever) if they change alignment, paladins are supposed to fall for a single evil act. And I do not think you can produce rules that say or even imply that being polite is a good act.

Who's talking about plot armor? I'm talking about giving paladin players the same break a DM gives ALL OTHER PC's, but for paladins they are singled out for particular persecution.

YOU BET they should get special handling by the DM - because (IME in games and on forums) it's the DM's alone who are responsible for the fact that the ONLY characters that ever need atonement spells are paladins.

If they only fell when their players wanted them too then they'd be getting handled like other PC's. But they also fall when DM's want them too, and in way too many instances the DM's put particular traps for paladins ALONE. Again and again people go to online forums not to ask advice about how to deal with a DM who has made their LG magic-user become evil - but about how the DM made their LG paladin become evil. By ACCIDENT.

What I'm saying is that paladins should have no significantly greater danger of it than any other PC, and especially that the DM should not be targeting paladins in particular in attempts to LURE them into misdeeds simply because they pay a more readily identified or higher price for it if they DO transgress.

I agree that going out of your way to screw the player is not a good idea, but again - why it should be as hard for a paladin to make a single evil act as for other characters to do enough evil to shift alignment? You are just saying the same thing again and again without explaining why.

Obviously because CoC a moral prohibition it's going to generate much more disagreement than more objective prohibitions but there are examples of game mechanics which require you to abstain from activity which you can do accidentally (Wu jen's taboo: Cannot touch a dead body, Vow of Purity feat). Oh, and exalted Vows feats? You lose the benefit of them if you are mind controlled into breaking the prohibition (but can receive atonement, while if you break them intentionally they are lost forever, like in 3.0 text of atonement for paladins), so it's not even the strictest of all such mechanics. You can argue that CoC is a bad design decision, but it is a design decision. Paladins are supposed to fall for breaking CoC. And as I said above CoC is a stricter requirement than other classes' restrictions, but if you want official position about how much info DM should give about possible alignment change? Read p. 134 of DMG. So the same amount of info would be provided to players of any class, but there are a lot more actions for which paladin is supposed to fall than even the cleric of the same god.

Oh, and you have managed to ignore my point that if we think about D&D settings as worlds then we have examples of paladins falling when they intended to do good but did evil. If PCs are exempted from I am not sure how you can argue this is not a plot armour.

And it would be also nice if you addressed my example "what if Miko was a paladin played by a headstrong player".

My own reasoning stems from the 2004 3.5 PH errata document that gave the formal rules regarding rule precedence, summed up as:

unless errata'd the earlier/primary source is correct
text takes precedence over a table entry
the short descriptions in the beginning of the spells chapter are superseded by individual spell descriptions
PH gives the rules for playing the game, playing PC races, and base class descriptions and if something on those topics from the DMG or MM that disagrees, the PH takes precedence
DMG is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on
MM is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

From that I infer that the description of how a class works including what makes a paladin fall, should take precedence over the description of a spell like Atonement which suggests something different.

I do not think that inferences can be RAW. RAI-wise I do think that CoC is more important and mind-controlled paladins should not fall. But unlike in 3.0 there is no "unwittingly" language, so paladin who willingly but unwittingly commits an evil act = paladin who willingly commits an evil act.

Darg

2020-12-04, 02:54 PM

I do not think that inferences can be RAW. RAI-wise I do think that CoC is more important and mind-controlled paladins should not fall. But unlike in 3.0 there is no "unwittingly" language, so paladin who willingly but unwittingly commits an evil act = paladin who willingly commits an evil act.

The BoVD disagrees with this. Intent and context are important as defined on page 6. In fact, it makes it pretty difficult for a paladin to just fall accidently. I don't think I've seen a situation online that actually traps a paladin in a fall or fall situation.

A paladin only falls for willfully committing an evil act so the atonement text doesn't change anything. The 3.0 version made it impossible to atone except for gross violations of the CoC. These gross violations require the paladin to wittingly violate them in some outstanding way. Just because settings condone outcomes that don't make sense with the rules doesn't mean that settings should be the guide we should be following. Hell, they have paladin kings in settings. If anyone logically thinks about it, it would be impossible for that paladin king to remain a paladin if a strict interpretation of the CoC and Ex-Paladin rules was used.

Saint-Just

2020-12-04, 03:27 PM

The BoVD disagrees with this. Intent and context are important as defined on page 6. In fact, it makes it pretty difficult for a paladin to just fall accidently. I don't think I've seen a situation online that actually traps a paladin in a fall or fall situation.

I have argued (in my second post in this thread) that fall or fall should be impossible, there is no disagreement here.

There is a disagreement (surely between me and D+1 and a few others have outlined views similar both to mine and to their view) about what can qualify as what BoVD calls "recklessness or negligence". And there is also an additional complication to D+1's position, namely "it should be not easier for a paladin to fall than for other characters to fall", which taken literally contradicts CoC, and taken non-literally may mean a lot of different things (Should DM provide metagame knowledge of action's morality to paladin player? Should antagonists (played by DM) never arrange an opportunity for a paladin to fall, even if they are, say, devils? Etc. etc.).

Darg

2020-12-04, 05:38 PM

As the BoVD points out, recklessness and negligence aren't evil themselves. It's about intent and context. In the example in the book, the paladin knew that his reckless act could cause a landslide that would possibly kill someone. When the paladin didn't know, he wouldn't fall for it.

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

With how many people play druids, it is extremely easy to say they stopped revering nature as the players themselves tend to take nature within the world for granted. Not many people go out of their way to make them fall compared to paladins even though it is much easier.

Many people also forget that clerics also have to abide by a CoC based on their deity. These are generally strict to adherence similar to a paladin and gross violations are just as easy.

Morty

2020-12-05, 12:35 PM

I think those discussions are a pretty good illustration of why both 4E and 5E did well to chuck the code of conduct into the bin. It's never been actually necessary to play a noble hero, regardless of their class.

illyahr

2020-12-06, 02:24 PM

I have only ever set up a "gotcha" situation once, and that was an inverse example. The paladin fell because he did nothing when any action would've preserved his status.

The paladin was promiscuous and bedded women in every town, making sure that the woman knew that it couldn't be anything long-term and was only a moment of comfort for the night. As he made sure there were no false expectations, I allowed it. It started getting a bit disruptive, so I made a plot twist out of it: the paladin has unknowingly bedded a disguised succubus. I only had his powers start to "glitch" a bit: after, there was a 1/20 chance that whatever power he used simply didn't work.

The group kept wondering what was going on. He hadn't fallen as his powers still generally worked but they looked into what was going on. They found out about the succubus and tracked her down. In doing so, they learned that she had become pregnant and given birth to a demonic child. The succubus declared that the child was his problem now and teleported away.

If the paladin destroyed the monstrous abomination and, thus, prevented a great evil from terrorizing the world, his powers would have been fixed. If he had taken pity on the innocent child and raised it/given it to someone who could take care of it, his powers would have been fixed. He walked away, dooming the child to death by exposure. All the other players caught on to what was going on but the paladin player basically threw a tantrum that I was targeting his character and rage-quit.

Conradine

2020-12-06, 03:07 PM

To leave a newborn... or even a wounded adult to die of thirst and exposure is an horrible action. I seriously wonder what the player thought.

Darg

2020-12-06, 03:37 PM

He probably thought he didn't want to take care of a child and that murdering one in cold blood was just as heartless. It's not like there haven't been good tieflings before.

Saint-Just

2020-12-07, 11:08 AM

Bartmanhomer

2020-12-07, 11:33 AM

*I'm eating popcorn while everyone is discussing the paladin situation.*

Reading the whole thread about paladin is entertaining. :biggrin:

Conradine

2020-12-07, 01:36 PM

Unless there was an extenuating circumstance - like enemies around, too little food and water, deep into enemy territory or the like - it's a capital Evil action. If the father don't want to keep the baby, he has only to trasport him to the nearest Good aligned temple ( Pelor, probably ) and leave him here.

Death by exposure... bah.
Even a murderous rapist deserves the mercy of a quick death ( although I would understand if his victims choose to deny him mercy ).
But a newborn???!!??

noob

2020-12-07, 02:05 PM

There is usually ways to offload child care to npcs because usually when a plot is introduced there is also a solution that is introduced in the case the players are not creative this time.
But the player did not necessarily realise that if he carried the kid some time then they would have probably found quickly a npc that had a glowing arrow pointing at it with written "will take care of the children if asked to"

137beth

2020-12-11, 04:51 PM

So if a paladin posts in a "does the paladin fall" thread, does the paladin fall?

noob

2020-12-11, 05:20 PM

So if a paladin posts in a "does the paladin fall" thread, does the paladin fall?

Yes from their chair laughing.

icefractal

2020-12-11, 06:33 PM

Another reason to alert Paladins to potentially fall-worth acts in advance is that the player and GM can legitimately disagree on what "good" is. If the disjunction is revealed in advance, it's usually possible to find a solution that works for both, or at least to discuss it more objectively because nothing is yet on the line.

Although TBH, the "DM as arbiter of good and evil" thing is pretty questionable anyway. No offense, but I'm not going to consider someone a RL moral authority just because they're running a game (and neither would I expect players to consider me one when I'm running). Given some of the interesting statements I've seen here and on other boards about the best response to various moral dilemmas, I think there's quite a range of opinions.

So personally speaking, I ditch alignment when I run, and I don't play alignment-dependent classes when I play. And if it was a factor in a campaign, I'd go with the assumption that we may or may not sync up and should be prepared for discussion.

illyahr

2020-12-12, 12:24 AM

I was going to say how that tale illustrates how clueless (or at least how unwilling to constrain their actions in any way) some players can be, but it almost goes too far. It's not merely "a single evil act" but an act which would be enough to switch any character of Good alignment at least to Neutral, so there is no difference between a paladin and any other "must be of Good alignment" class.

Yeah, it wasn't a character action but a player action. The player himself decided the whole situation was bull**** (yay consequences) and left for the day, so the paladin essentially left the child there.

Bartmanhomer

2020-12-12, 12:28 AM

Yes from their chair laughing.

Best comment ever in 2020. :biggrin:

BlueWitch

2020-12-12, 02:24 AM

In response to the first post on the first page;

I wouldn't make the Paladin fall for any of those.

It's annoying when you have a GM who tries to make your Paladin fall just to bully the player. I've had GM's like that in the past and they were always very narrow minded.

But back to what I was saying; If I was GMing that situation, I wouldn't make the Paladin fall for that.

The Paladin may have been used but the Intention was the Mindcontroller's. Therefore any sin is their's not the Paladin's.

Conradine

2020-12-12, 11:28 AM

JNAProductions

2020-12-12, 12:04 PM

Despite my hatred for paladins, I would never make one fall for an action done under Domination or similar effects.

But I fear RAW says exactly that. So, I would not do that, but it would be homebrew.

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

How do you get Paladins falling from being forced into evil from that? It pretty clearly states that you have to do so WILLINGLY, not be dominated or physically forced into doing so.

hippo

2020-12-12, 12:28 PM

And it would be also nice if you addressed my example "what if Miko was a paladin played by a headstrong player".

Miko is a narrow-minded, ignorant fanatic that has "lawful stupid" printed all over her. Bringing such a character to the table is an act of trolling. If a PC like this would show up in my game, I'd have a talk with the problem player and offer them a simple choice: Stop lawful stupid or find another DM. If a player refuses to behave like a reasonable adult, which includes not harming everyones game and citing his characters alignment as an excuse, then I'm not playing with them anymore, simple as that. D&D (and other RPGs) are just not fun anymore when played with human trolls.
A Character such as Miko is the result of a problem player, game mechanics like falling can not solve it. A player that is not able or willing to play a LG character in a reasonable way should not play a LG character at all. So if Miko would happen at my table I would try to fix the human problem and not mess around with falling. RAW is just not the right way to deal with this.

Saint-Just

2020-12-12, 01:08 PM

Miko is a narrow-minded, ignorant fanatic that has "lawful stupid" printed all over her. Bringing such a character to the table is an act of trolling. If a PC like this would show up in my game, I'd have a talk with the problem player and offer them a simple choice: Stop lawful stupid or find another DM. If a player refuses to behave like a reasonable adult, which includes not harming everyones game and citing his characters alignment as an excuse, then I'm not playing with them anymore, simple as that. D&D (and other RPGs) are just not fun anymore when played with human trolls.
A Character such as Miko is the result of a problem player, game mechanics like falling can not solve it. A player that is not able or willing to play a LG character in a reasonable way should not play a LG character at all. So if Miko would happen at my table I would try to fix the human problem and not mess around with falling. RAW is just not the right way to deal with this.

Please don't ignore the context. My disagreement with D+1 was about Paladin players doing things that they think are ok but which are wrong or evil. I do not think that such characters can only be created to deliberately troll the people. Look above for the "death by exposure paladin". Or look for the "Party Foul" in the Roleplaying Forum. And these are only the recent threads, on these forums only, older examples are innumerable.

Even if Miko and examples above are too obvious for your tastes (they were not so obvious to the players, it seems), will you say that no good player has ever committed an evil act without knowing full well it is evil? I think the answer is no, so here is the question: should a DM stop a game to ask the player "Do you want to commit an evil act, y/n" or should he proceed with the game and let the consequences be whatever they should be? Would you also do so for significant chaotic and lawful acts?

Darg

2020-12-12, 02:23 PM

Please don't ignore the context. My disagreement with D+1 was about Paladin players doing things that they think are ok but which are wrong or evil. I do not think that such characters can only be created to deliberately troll the people. Look above for the "death by exposure paladin". Or look for the "Party Foul" in the Roleplaying Forum. And these are only the recent threads, on these forums only, older examples are innumerable.

Even if Miko and examples above are too obvious for your tastes (they were not so obvious to the players, it seems), will you say that no good player has ever committed an evil act without knowing full well it is evil? I think the answer is no, so here is the question: should a DM stop a game to ask the player "Do you want to commit an evil act, y/n" or should he proceed with the game and let the consequences be whatever they should be? Would you also do so for significant chaotic and lawful acts?

I couldn't find the exposure one, but the party foul post didn't have enough context. It appears that the paladin had the intention to leave the rogue behind prior to performing a reckless action. Would it lead to her death, torture? If the paladin had the intent to betray her prior to exposing her to the bbeg, then it was an evil act. If however the paladin decided to give up on her after her retaliatory action it would be a neutral action. The rogue would have sought revenge over the most likely chance of survival and therefore became hostile to the paladin. In this case the rogue committed the first evil act by attempting murder.

There are grey/neutral actions that aren't necessarily evil. There is a difference between performing a reckless act and knowing the outcome or not. The landslide example in the BoVD showcases the how it works without the intent to do harm. The poisoned well example shows how it works when there is an intent to do harm. Collateral damage is only evil if you know there is a possibility of a bad outcome or if you intentionally perform a harmful action and innocents accidentally get caught up in it.

Saint-Just

2020-12-12, 03:05 PM

Death by exposure was in this thread. Should have left the link in the post. This.

I have only ever set up a "gotcha" situation once, and that was an inverse example. The paladin fell because he did nothing when any action would've preserved his status.

The "foul" example significantly depends on how you interpret the paladin's words "take her" (before the rogue attacked) and also whether "the boss was already talked to me telepathically, and as best judgement, I decided to agree with her demands" happened before or after the words "take her".

And my question was general. Even if I making the bad job illustrating my point with examples (though I do not think the only way someone could take Miko-like actions is to deliberately troll the group). Do you think that situation where player is taking an action which DM to the best of their ability classifies as evil and the player honestly thinks is ok never happens? I think it happens, and if it happens I do not think that DM should inform the player about it's morality.

hippo

2020-12-12, 07:38 PM

Please don't ignore the context. My disagreement with D+1 was about Paladin players doing things that they think are ok but which are wrong or evil. I do not think that such characters can only be created to deliberately troll the people. Look above for the "death by exposure paladin".

I'd not let this paladin fall. Why should I? Refusing to clean up after another persons evil act is not evil itself. If it would be an evil act to refuse to do a good act, then there would simply be no more paladins left. Since killing the child was an acceptable solution that would even fix the paladins powers, i can't see any reason to let him fall because of doing nothing.

Even if Miko and examples above are too obvious for your tastes (they were not so obvious to the players, it seems), will you say that no good player has ever committed an evil act without knowing full well it is evil? I think the answer is no, so here is the question: should a DM stop a game to ask the player "Do you want to commit an evil act, y/n" or should he proceed with the game and let the consequences be whatever they should be? Would you also do so for significant chaotic and lawful acts?

If a players manages to play all this "Holy Warrior fighting for the greater good" - Theme reasonably well then I'm not going to change his class against his will, even if there are some transgressions against his CoC or minor acts that I'd consider evil. If a player constantly does minor evil acts or some really bad stuff (like freeing the Snarl to stop both Xykon and the OotS) then I would just have a talk with this player about his character and if he wants to play something else (or if he wants to fall), since he is obviously not playing a paladin. Depending on the outcome I might maybe change his alignment and houserule some apropriate class for him to become. Like a Paladin for a CG or LE God with an apropriate CoC (all this "LG only" stuff never made sense to me anyway). I've seen so much drama and bad blood spill into the game for DMs sabotaging a PC that I just consider it not worth it.

icefractal

2020-12-13, 05:44 AM

Do you think that situation where player is taking an action which DM to the best of their ability classifies as evil and the player honestly thinks is ok never happens? I think it happens, and if it happens I do not think that DM should inform the player about it's morality.Why shouldn't they? If a GM describes a mountain pass, a player misunderstands the description and says "I continue walking north", but north is off a cliff, do you think the character should just mindlessly walk off a cliff? Mistakes caused by misunderstanding aren't challenge, they're disfunctionality, like the difference between "a difficult platformer game" and "an easy platformer game being played with a half-broken controller and a glitchy screen".

If the GM thinks something is blatantly evil and the player doesn't, that's a miscommunication. Not an IC choice. If it's more like "subtly evil if you really think about it" and it makes sense IC that they might not come to that conclusion, then it's not enough to fall for.

And for that matter: "to the best of their ability classifies as evil" -
Given that the DMG does not, in fact, include the complete formula for morality that philosophers throughout history have otherwise failed to find, wouldn't it be wiser to see whether the rest of the group agrees on that point, and discuss the reason if not, than to declare oneself a perfect moral arbiter? The advantage of mentioning it in advance is that this discussion occurs naturally when needed without any rewinding.