Hallucinations, actions, and alignment

[cartejos]

Is alignment based on your beliefs or your actions? I /think/ certain abilities specify that your actions affect your vow/code (sacred vow/paladin) even if you're mind controlled.

But what about a character who experiences some form of hallucinations, and acts according to the hallucination's wishes?

Edit: Simpler question, similar enough. Does the spell 'Insanity' affect alignment?

[Battlechaser]

The paladin’s code is only broken when she willingly commits an evil act. I don’t think that being deceived into killing an innocent counts as an inherent evil act. It would on the other hand set the character on a path towards falling from grace. She would constantly doubt herself and her faith.

[tyckspoon]

Something can both be an aligned act (for the most obvious ones, casting a spell with an alignment flag or destroying an aligned object/creature - if a spell is Good, then casting that spell is a Good act. If a thing/creature is Good, destroying it is Evil) and be something the character performing the act is not held responsible for. In the case of the Paladin Code of Conduct, it does state 'willingly' perform an evil act. The Confusion effect can remove a character's free choice about what they do, and so would not be considered a willing act. It would likely be in character for many Paladins to seek atonement if such an effect caused them to do something that would break the Code, but it would not remove their class abilities.

[Duke of Urrel]

The description of the Atonement spell (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) gives us a lot of good guidance.


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject.

This indicates that it is really your actions that you are judged for, not your thoughts. If you are tempted, but you never act as you are tempted to do, you are innocent.

On the other hand, if you act wrongly, even if you are magically compelled to do so, the gods may punish you. This is implied by the following passage.


If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 500 XP) in order to expunge the subject’s burden.

You may need the Atonement spell even if you were only acting under a magical compulsion, such as the Insanity spell. However, if you acted against your will, casting the Atonement spell is less costly for the cleric who casts it. It is more costly if you acted deliberately. So it does make a difference whether you acted intentionally or were magically compelled to act against your will.

[SangoProduction]

The description of the Atonement spell (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/atonement.htm) gives us a lot of good guidance.



This indicates that it is really your actions that you are judged for, not your thoughts. If you are tempted, but you never act as you are tempted to do, you are innocent.

On the other hand, if you act wrongly, even if you are magically compelled to do so, the gods may punish you. This is implied by the following passage.



You may need the Atonement spell even if you were only acting under a magical compulsion, such as the Insanity spell. However, if you acted against your will, casting the Atonement spell is less costly for the cleric who casts it. It is more costly if you acted deliberately. So it does make a difference whether you acted intentionally or were magically compelled to act against your will.

Although it is a **** move from the DM, if actually done... the idea that your intentions (or lack there of) excuse your (majorly) wrong actions is relatively recent.
But the most famous example is perhaps the Labors of Hercules, which is initiated by Hera magically inducing insanity to have Hercules kill his wife and kid. (Greek gods were not good people, in case that wasn't already known.)

I will stress, however, that it is a **** move on the DM's part. So. No. Not acceptable. Paladins have it hard enough as is.

[Jay R]

All such cases will be complex judgment calls for the DM. If the last 5,000 or more years teaches us anything, it's that moral questions rarely have easy answers. They are often hard, and deep, and complicated.

One thing I would look for as a DM -- what was the intent? Any attempt on the part of the player (who is in fact driving the paladin) to cleverly pretend an Evil act is Good would be prima facie evidence that the act was in fact Evil.

If it was really not the paladin's doing? Now the essential fact would be how the paladin reacts when he is in his own mind again.

Suppose a kobold sorcerer cast an illusion of a known murderer over an innocent person, and the paladin killed her. Once he sees what he's done, he should be horrified. He should try to have the innocent person resurrected, and/or pay a huge indemnity to the victim's family. Maybe he would go on a self-imposed quest. He should try to buy a magic item to improve his Will save, so it can't happen again. He should become committed to using non-lethal damage, so he can defeat criminals and bring them to justice alive.

Those would be the responses of a Good paladin.

But if the paladin does nothing except to say, "Well, that wasn't my fault; the sorcerer made me do it. I don't have to worry about it." That paladin should probably fall.

But remember my first point. Moral questions are hard, and deep, and complicated.

[Zanos]

Intention based morality is not new, intention based legal codes being mainstream are a new-ish convenience of having successful societies that can afford to explore deeply before punishing illegal acts. But being able to understand that there's a difference between bumping into someone by accident and shoulder checking someone to assert dominance is something that even apes can do.


Suppose a kobold sorcerer cast an illusion of a known murderer over an innocent person, and the paladin killed her. Once he sees what he's done, he should be horrified. He should try to have the innocent person resurrected, and/or pay a huge indemnity to the victim's family. Maybe he would go on a self-imposed quest. He should try to buy a magic item to improve his Will save, so it can't happen again. He should become committed to using non-lethal damage, so he can defeat criminals and bring them to justice alive.

Those would be the responses of a Good paladin.

But if the paladin does nothing except to say, "Well, that wasn't my fault; the sorcerer made me do it. I don't have to worry about it." That paladin should probably fall.
This is my feeling on it. You don't need a formal atonement for something that wasn't done willfully, but I would question the sincerity of a Paladin who didn't care that they had been enchanted or misinformed so that they did something Evil unwittingly. A sincerely Good Paladin would want to do something to atone for their acts, not merely brush it off as a nothingburger because it "wasn't their fault", even if it really wasn't.

[Duke of Urrel]

I will stress, however, that it is a **** move on the DM's part. So. No. Not acceptable. Paladins have it hard enough as is.

It is not the purpose of the dungeon master to be the player's ally. It is the purpose of the dungeon master to make the game challenging.

Moreover, seeking and finding a cleric who is able and willing to cast the Atonement spell for you – especially if the cleric doesn't have to sacrifice any XPs to do it – is not an unachievable quest, not even for a paladin whose life is hard.

[JNAProductions]

It is not the purpose of the dungeon master to be the player's ally. It is the purpose of the dungeon master to make the game challenging.

Moreover, seeking and finding a cleric who is able and willing to cast the Atonement spell for you – especially if the cleric doesn't have to sacrifice any XPs to do it – is not an unachievable quest, not even for a paladin whose life is hard.

It is the purpose of all players at the table, DM included, to make the game a good time.

Being compelled to hurt an innocent via magic, trickery, or any other way and then facing punishment for it is highly likely to work against the game being fun.

[Zanos]

It is the purpose of all players at the table, DM included, to make the game a good time.

Being compelled to hurt an innocent via magic, trickery, or any other way and then facing punishment for it is highly likely to work against the game being fun.
Why would you even be playing a Paladin if you view this as a punishment? You aren't losing your powers, you're getting an opportunity to roleplay.

[JNAProductions]

Why would you even be playing a Paladin if you view this as a punishment? You aren't losing your powers, you're getting an opportunity to roleplay.

If you Fall (and lose your Paladin abilities) as a result of something you didn't have control over, that's gonna feel punitive for most people.

Even besides that, what if I picked a Paladin because I want to be a knight in shining armor, a glorious hero for the cause of justice and goodness?
There are players who pick Paladin specifically because they can Fall. And, if I had to guess, I'd say they're in the minority relative to those who just want to play a big ol' hero.

But, to elaborate on my position... If you (the DM) talk to the player and they're interested in exploring complex moral quandaries with their PC, then feel free to put them in situations like that.
If you talk to the player and they just want to fight bad guys and be the good guy, then you should avoid situations like that.
If your preferences are incompatible, like the DM wants a world of grimness and shades of grey while the player wants a classic Good Guy fights Bad Guy story, then you should probably not play D&D together. Neither of the players are wrong, their fun just doesn't gel with each others'.

[Zanos]

I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that you should fall for doing something unwittingly, only that it would probably be appropriate for someone who is sincere about their commitment to upholding Good and Justice and all that to head down to the local priest for a chat after they are bewitched into decapitating a baby.