quickest loss of paladinhood

[Zerkai]

The Nazi thing was a joke. >,>

But I still wanna see some Deity playing Paladin football instead of the normal losing their powers thing.

Edit/ Also, I've read that people would say it's alright if Orc killed the Paladin's parents or something, and that it wold justify it. No matter how they say it, they're meaning that it's justified because his teamate was part Orc. :smallannoyed:

[Anteros]

The Nazi thing was a joke. >,>

But I still wanna see some Deity playing Paladin football instead of the normal losing their powers thing.

Edit/ Also, I've read that people would say it's alright if Orc killed the Paladin's parents or something, and that it wold justify it. No matter how they say it, they're meaning that it's justified because his teamate was part Orc. :smallannoyed:

I wish people would stop relating fantasy races to real world races. It's an orc. It's not a white person, or a hispanic person, or a whatever. In DND there are very real differences between the races. Humans for example, are inherently smarter than orcs. Some races are inherently evil. ETC. Real world racism is a ridiculous and terrible thing. But it does not apply to DND.

[Dervag]

That Paladin took the time to bury enemies that tried to kill him, and yet he rufused to bury a fallen party member that died to save his life because of his race, and then insulting his teamate that died for him, calling the Half-Orc, "Just an Orc", even though he's part human, the Paladin also doesn't acknowledge that he's human too.This is by no means an unusual concept of race or of species, and you can typically find it on both sides of a racial divide. PM me for examples.


That Paladin is scum, and he deserved to fall. Even moreso, the hand of his diety should have descended and flick him like a paper football into the horizon.I do not believe they can be called "scum" without context. I believe that this was a dishonorable action, but not every culture is going to adhere to my idea of honor. For example, I do not consider disemboweling oneself to atone for failure as an inherently honorable thing to do.

Should they fall? This depends heavily on the paladin code. What is the paladin code in this situation?

Should the paladin be able to atone? Almost certainly. Remember, this paladin did not make a victim of anyone. Nor did they harm any person, attack any person, or even try to hurt any person by their actions. The action taken was callous and disrespectful in the extreme, but was not an act of malice.


No, that's it. That's all. There's no backstory justifying an action like that, stop kidding yourselves.I have no interest in justifying it, but I do not consider it unforgivable, nor does it make the (ex)paladin one of the vilest creatures to walk the Earth by any means. I can think of many far more vile creatures who have walked the Earth. There have probably been millions, if not billions, of such.


Anyone attempting to justify this behavior, or trying to claim that he did no wrong I have two words for you;
'Sieg Heil!'As I said, I have no interest in justifying his behavior. Had I been present I would have counseled him against what he did. I consider this hypothetical paladin to be callous and disrespectful in the extreme, and probably not worthy of paladinhood.

However, the sins he has committed here are not those of true evil. He did not personally slay the half-orc or try to arrange the half-orc's death. He is, at most, being shockingly callous and disrespectful towards orcs and pseudo-orcs in general and to his comrade-in-arms in particular.

Should he be humbled by his loss of powers and sincerely seek forgiveness from men and gods, I think it would be totally reasonable to give him back his paladin powers as if nothing had happened. A good start for atonement would be to bury that body.


Who said it wasn't? How does the average adventurer know? Does he/she bother to find out before destroying things?
And maybe the door is owned by the pink happy creatures of funland. Until the PC finds out, he's not sure. What we can be sure of, is that it was put there by something.Typically, that information is contained in the adventure hook. Breaking down doors in an abandoned crypt under a mountain isn't an Evil-aligned act.* Neither is breaking down doors in the stronghold of an enemy one is waging a just war against. Most of the time, the places the PCs are raiding fall into those categories.

*Well, if you really want to, I suppose you can call Howard Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Carter_%28archaeologist%29) evil. I wouldn't, though.


Oh, and just because an area isn't ordered doesn't mean it's not wrong for the players to follow suit. "When in Rome" doesn't apply to evil acts. Or, if it does, they're still evil.My point is that you can't talk about property rights in the same terms in the wilderness. Nor can you apply the same rules of property rights to rulers as you do to subjects- especially when the rulers in question rule by force and gain their wealth by confiscating it from others.

We live in a society where the boundaries between 'morally right', and 'political rights' (as in "you have the right to remain silent") have blurred. It's not clear that either a perfect objective morality, or the morality of a D&D universe, agree to that blurring.

For instance, take freedom of the press. In modern, fully civilized societies, it is usually taken for granted that news agencies and reporters have a right to be free from government harassment when they say things inconvenient to the government. That the government is wrong to harass those people.

But is it automatically obvious that this is a moral issue? Is it somehow demonic to shut down a paper that opposes the state? As a practical matter, societies with a free press will do better. And they will be in a better position to restrain an Evil government. But does that make the government Evil if it restricts the press? What if it simply classifies documents and prosecutes people who spill state secrets to the public? What if it adopts an absurdly broad definition of 'state secret' and uses that to restrict the press?

Are these acts of true Evil? Or are they acts of Lawful Neutral, in which the government is construed to be within its rights to do whatever it takes to maintain an orderly society? Are D&D angels more likely to promote a free press than devils are?

Making it against the law for a newspaper to condemn the government isn't obviously Evil in the D&D sense. But you and I, and billions of other people around the world, would likely agree that it is a bad government policy that should be reversed.

It's worth remembering that the customs of our tribe are not automatically the laws of the universe. We may consider it a great sin to destroy people's property or to punish people for insulting the government. But there have been times and places when that sort of thing was far more acceptable- especially when it was a matter of one group of powerful people going up against another group of powerful people.

That doesn't mean all those people were Evil in a D&D sense for accepting that kind of behavior. Especially since D&D is explicitly meant to hearken back to the era when that sort of people dominated the world.


True. But even were those laws not in place, would people not, as a basic right, be entitled to keep what they own?Define "ownership." Does a warlord "own" the treasure he patiently accumulated by confiscating the strongboxes of passing caravans? Does a lich "own" the magical items he took from the shambling reanimated corpses of his enemies? Who "owns" the treasure in the hall of a long forgotten dwarven king? Who "owns" the weapons of a goblin warband, if the warband is killed in battle?


Law isn't here to define good. It's here to serve it. It's here to provide a concrete system of enforcement for rights that people have, simply for being people. Those rights are held by all people, in all places. Just, without the rule of order, nothing stops marauding orcs from taking that right from you.Yesbut.

I'm not kidding, I adhere to a very similar concept of law. But I know that law only works well among law-abiders. It is a mechanism for protecting people who are willing to honor a social contract. It does not serve for the protection of outlaws. Indeed, the very concept of "outlaw" is of someone whose crimes place them outside the sphere of the law- someone who has declared a Hobbesean war of all against all on the rest of humanity.

Some adventurers go break into the mansions of random merchants. However, the archetypal model of D&D has the adventurers go up mainly against people who either are outlaws, or whose actions would warrant outlaw status were that status known.

If you want to deny the validity of the concept of outlaw, fine. That's a very legitimate thing to do, and a very consistent approach to natural law theory. Do you wish to do so?


But you realize the limitation of any system. The inability to control those more powerful than it is.Exactly. In a D&D world, the 'law' of civilizations as we know them is surrounded by things more powerful than civilizations. There are demons who no doubt find the entire notion humorous and who would cheerfully tear down entire cities as an elaborate statement of contempt for mortals and their mayfly "laws." There are wizards who can do whatever they damn well please, and who will obey "laws" only out of inertia, as an ordinary mortal might be in the habit of biting their nails or cracking their knuckles.

Unless we invoke the concept of divine law (literally), most of the beings adventurers face in a D&D universe are beyond the law. Either they can ignore law because they can ignore the police, or they can avoid law because they live in a world of city-states and kingdoms where they can fly to a distant city in hours or days. At which point law simply breaks down. Law as we know it isn't written in a world where most people are ordinary and a few are demigods.

Since law breaks down in this situation, we find ourselves in an environment where both laws and rights mean something different. When powerful beings use their power to attack the lives, prosperity, and rights of others, the only recourse is to respond with similar force. At which point those powerful beings are in a war. And the rules are different in war- destroying property of the enemy and killing his troops become perfectly reasonable and acceptable tactics.


Are you sure? Perhaps he feels that you are too reliant on those things, and their loss would make you more self sufficient, and better able to survive. Does that make it right?No, because he has no moral rightness there, only the delusion of moral rightness. He is a bastard in sheep's clothing, no more.


"What use is talking, except to end the fighting? And what use is fighting, except to end the talking?" It's been argued that war is theft on a grand scale. It boils down to people killing each other over disagreements. You can justify that as non-evil if you want. You keep that illusion.Yes. War boils down to people killing each other over disagreements. Did you expect me to deny that?

But that doesn't automatically mean the things you imply it means. War is bound to happen in an environment where swords are a more efficient means of resolving dispute than subpoenas. D&D worlds are exactly this kind of environment. And as long as the regions within which subpoenas beat swords are small (city-states and kingdoms, and even then only among the low-level inhabitants thereof), war will be the default state of affairs. Our concept of peace exists largely because subpoenas have become so much more powerful over the past few centuries. Regions that respect each others' law now tile most of the globe edge to edge.

In an environment where this is not true, you get "law of the jungle." In such an environment, it is absurd to propose that everyone who behaves accordingly is Evil because they do not respect Lockean concepts of property-as-inviolate.


I'll keep my reality.Your reality seems to be inextricably tied to twentieth century America, and therefore alien sixth century Oerth or fourteenth century Abeir-Toril. And that's probably a sane thing. But it means that your assumptions about how the world works and should work aren't going to be as applicable to D&D as they might be.


They all have the same rights, compadre. This doesn't change if it isn't convenient for you.My convenience is irrelevant, and I never claimed otherwise. But convenience is not at stake here- convenience goes out the window in the jungle. Thing is, rights tend to do the same thing. Many people have many rights, and you can't always construct a social system that could protect them all for everyone. In the jungle, you have to start by building safe communities, because rights that are actually respected are a luxury of civilization.

And safe communities have the life expectancy of a flea in a D&D setting without adventurers.


Yes, and the bulk of in game solutions are solved by shoving a sword in somebody's gullet. Is that usually a noble and good act?Well, it's certainly "noble" (back when nobles were popular, they did it all the time). Is it good?

The answer depends heavily on circumstances. Of the people you and I are likely to meet, hardly any would deserve a sword in the gullet. What about the people that Dervag the barbarian might hypothetically meet in a D&D world? Random peasants do not deserve a sword in their gullet; attempting to insert one would be wrong and indeed Evil.

Orcish brigands, vampires, demons, and ferocious dire animals that attack intelligent beings practically on sight generally do deserve swords in their gullets. Refraining from implanting a sword in those cases would not be an act of moral righteousness.

Thus, the answer to the question is "almost certainly not," "occasionally but not always," or "quite often but not always," depending on the sort of crowd you hang out with.

[Zerkai]

I wish people would stop relating fantasy races to real world races. It's an orc. It's not a white person, or a hispanic person, or a whatever. In DND there are very real differences between the races. Humans for example, are inherently smarter than orcs. Some races are inherently evil. ETC. Real world racism is a ridiculous and terrible thing. But it does not apply to DND.

It was a Half Orc, Half-Orc/Half Human. Why are people forgetting that? Human are physically stronger then elves? If the Half Orc was an Elf or half-elf, I bet there would be some different things to be said. Also, don't use teh world 'real' so much. You even used it to describe the differences between race, right after saying it's a fantasy race. Orc is a sentient race, and a Half-Orc, which is part human, definately is. People who play the game fail to realize that race doesn't only include human in it. Although the more humanlike a race is apparently... >,>

I digress though, people who say Racism desn't apply to DnD, really make me feel queezy, like a fantasy world is a free pass to acting rascist, like a discussion I once read on this site, wherin someone said that killing orc or goblin babies wouldn't be an evil act because it would probably be evil when it grew up.

:smallmad:

[Talic]

Should they fall? This depends heavily on the paladin code. What is the paladin code in this situation?
Simple. Falls are for gross violations or evil acts. This should be neither. It's a minor violation at best, and an iffy one at that, if it's spawned 9 pages of debate.


Should the paladin be able to atone? Almost certainly. Remember, this paladin did not make a victim of anyone. Nor did they harm any person, attack any person, or even try to hurt any person by their actions. The action taken was callous and disrespectful in the extreme, but was not an act of malice.
What's there to atone for? See above.


As I said, I have no interest in justifying his behavior. Had I been present I would have counseled him against what he did. I consider this hypothetical paladin to be callous and disrespectful in the extreme, and probably not worthy of paladinhood.

For a single mistake, and a minor one at that? Hmm.


However, the sins he has committed here are not those of true evil. He did not personally slay the half-orc or try to arrange the half-orc's death. He is, at most, being shockingly callous and disrespectful towards orcs and pseudo-orcs in general and to his comrade-in-arms in particular.

Remove shockingly, and I'll bite. Anti-orcism is pretty prevalent in fantasy.


Should he be humbled by his loss of powers and sincerely seek forgiveness from men and gods, I think it would be totally reasonable to give him back his paladin powers as if nothing had happened. A good start for atonement would be to bury that body.

But that's assuming that he lost his powers in the first place. Which he shouldn't.


Typically, that information is contained in the adventure hook. Breaking down doors in an abandoned crypt under a mountain isn't an Evil-aligned act.* Neither is breaking down doors in the stronghold of an enemy one is waging a just war against. Most of the time, the places the PCs are raiding fall into those categories.

What gets tricky is when it's not those categories. Any evil act, no matter how small, and the paladin loses abilities.


My point is that you can't talk about property rights in the same terms in the wilderness. Nor can you apply the same rules of property rights to rulers as you do to subjects- especially when the rulers in question rule by force and gain their wealth by confiscating it from others.

Which is not always the case. However, in those situations, where the ruler is also protecting the subjects, there is a certain leeway to be allowed for taxation.


We live in a society where the boundaries between 'morally right', and 'political rights' (as in "you have the right to remain silent") have blurred. It's not clear that either a perfect objective morality, or the morality of a D&D universe, agree to that blurring.

But certain ones are easy. You build something, someone shouldn't come along and break it. You live, someone shouldn't come along and kill you. There are exceptions, and in D&D, some thngs DO "need killin' ". But without careful consideration each time you draw your sword, a paladin's not a paladin for long.


For instance, take freedom of the press. In modern, fully civilized societies, it is usually taken for granted that news agencies and reporters have a right to be free from government harassment when they say things inconvenient to the government. That the government is wrong to harass those people.

See China. Freedom of the Press is not universal. I won't argue one way or the other on whether it should be. I'm not interested in RL politics. Just D&D morality, here.


But is it automatically obvious that this is a moral issue? Is it somehow demonic to shut down a paper that opposes the state? As a practical matter, societies with a free press will do better. And they will be in a better position to restrain an Evil government. But does that make the government Evil if it restricts the press? What if it simply classifies documents and prosecutes people who spill state secrets to the public? What if it adopts an absurdly broad definition of 'state secret' and uses that to restrict the press?

Are these acts of true Evil? Or are they acts of Lawful Neutral, in which the government is construed to be within its rights to do whatever it takes to maintain an orderly society? Are D&D angels more likely to promote a free press than devils are?

Making it against the law for a newspaper to condemn the government isn't obviously Evil in the D&D sense. But you and I, and billions of other people around the world, would likely agree that it is a bad government policy that should be reversed.

Then it's politics, and beyond the scope of our ability to discuss on this site.


It's worth remembering that the customs of our tribe are not automatically the laws of the universe. We may consider it a great sin to destroy people's property or to punish people for insulting the government. But there have been times and places when that sort of thing was far more acceptable- especially when it was a matter of one group of powerful people going up against another group of powerful people.

And that's when we get into Absolute Morality. Regardless of what's acceptable, Absolute Morality (D&D alignment falls in this category) states that one thing is always good, and another is evil. Theft isn't just theft when it's in a city. Same goes for murder, and other evil acts. The rule of law has no bearing on the morality of the act.


That doesn't mean all those people were Evil in a D&D sense for accepting that kind of behavior. Especially since D&D is explicitly meant to hearken back to the era when that sort of people dominated the world.

But it might be, for people who perform those acts.


Define "ownership." Does a warlord "own" the treasure he patiently accumulated by confiscating the strongboxes of passing caravans? Does a lich "own" the magical items he took from the shambling reanimated corpses of his enemies? Who "owns" the treasure in the hall of a long forgotten dwarven king? Who "owns" the weapons of a goblin warband, if the warband is killed in battle?

All good questions for a DM to decide. Remember though, a paladin needs to get every call right. Taking something that's not his to take, regardless of location, is insta-smackdown.


I'm not kidding, I adhere to a very similar concept of law. But I know that law only works well among law-abiders. It is a mechanism for protecting people who are willing to honor a social contract. It does not serve for the protection of outlaws. Indeed, the very concept of "outlaw" is of someone whose crimes place them outside the sphere of the law- someone who has declared a Hobbesean war of all against all on the rest of humanity.

However, while society might declare "law for the lawful", it's a bit harder to justify "good for the goodly". Especially when some goodly people are punished for evil to anyone, not just evil to good people.


Some adventurers go break into the mansions of random merchants. However, the archetypal model of D&D has the adventurers go up mainly against people who either are outlaws, or whose actions would warrant outlaw status were that status known.

Then their actions are lawful, but not necessarily good.


If you want to deny the validity of the concept of outlaw, fine. That's a very legitimate thing to do, and a very consistent approach to natural law theory. Do you wish to do so?

As it's outside the scope of my argument, I prefer to keep a neutral stance on it.


Exactly. In a D&D world, the 'law' of civilizations as we know them is surrounded by things more powerful than civilizations. There are demons who no doubt find the entire notion humorous and who would cheerfully tear down entire cities as an elaborate statement of contempt for mortals and their mayfly "laws." There are wizards who can do whatever they damn well please, and who will obey "laws" only out of inertia, as an ordinary mortal might be in the habit of biting their nails or cracking their knuckles.

True. But again, there is a difference between "Law" and "Good", in D&D.


Unless we invoke the concept of divine law (literally), most of the beings adventurers face in a D&D universe are beyond the law. Either they can ignore law because they can ignore the police, or they can avoid law because they live in a world of city-states and kingdoms where they can fly to a distant city in hours or days. At which point law simply breaks down. Law as we know it isn't written in a world where most people are ordinary and a few are demigods.

Divine Law is hard to apply in a pantheonic system, as D&D was designed. While it's perfectly reasonable to apply an overdeity or alter the standard D&D cosmology to a monotheistic one (to allow for a divine will that prevails, defining good), the concept of divine law is really hard to apply. Indeed, D&D pantheons bear little resemblance to many pantheons in ancient society, where there was a defined leader (greece and rome bear mentioning), in favor of relatively seperated beings. And when the deities themselves have alignments, it's clear that whatever mandates good and evil is beyond the ken of them.


Since law breaks down in this situation, we find ourselves in an environment where both laws and rights mean something different. When powerful beings use their power to attack the lives, prosperity, and rights of others, the only recourse is to respond with similar force. At which point those powerful beings are in a war. And the rules are different in war- destroying property of the enemy and killing his troops become perfectly reasonable and acceptable tactics.

Correct. That is a war in defense of rights. There is an aggressor, and that's those who are using power to strip the rights of others. One would hope that peaceful solutions are attempted first, though.


No, because he has no moral rightness there, only the delusion of moral rightness. He is a bastard in sheep's clothing, no more.

Really? Out in the real world, perhaps. But in D&D, the interesting thing is, the illusion can be different. Perhaps the ultimate good is in "teaching" people. In which case, this could be a test, or lesson, of sorts. The campaign can be designed around the ideal, creating a world, that, while still absolute, is different in moral code than others. Thus, your campaign setting can manifest different concepts of "good", due to the vagarites of the system.


Yes. War boils down to people killing each other over disagreements. Did you expect me to deny that?

No.


But that doesn't automatically mean the things you imply it means. War is bound to happen in an environment where swords are a more efficient means of resolving dispute than subpoenas. D&D worlds are exactly this kind of environment. And as long as the regions within which subpoenas beat swords are small (city-states and kingdoms, and even then only among the low-level inhabitants thereof), war will be the default state of affairs. Our concept of peace exists largely because subpoenas have become so much more powerful over the past few centuries. Regions that respect each others' law now tile most of the globe edge to edge.However, don't confuse "efficient" with "right".


In an environment where this is not true, you get "law of the jungle." In such an environment, it is absurd to propose that everyone who behaves accordingly is Evil because they do not respect Lockean concepts of property-as-inviolate.

The "law of the jungle" is defined in D&D. It's in the section on alignments, under "chaotic". Some concepts of it are defined under "evil". "When in Rome" does not apply to good vs evil.


Your reality seems to be inextricably tied to twentieth century America, and therefore alien sixth century Oerth or fourteenth century Abeir-Toril. And that's probably a sane thing. But it means that your assumptions about how the world works and should work aren't going to be as applicable to D&D as they might be.

No, my concepts are tied to the concept of absolute morality, which is the concept laid down in D&D. While it's somewhat mutable from campaign setting to campaign setting, it's not mutable within a setting.


My convenience is irrelevant, and I never claimed otherwise. But convenience is not at stake here- convenience goes out the window in the jungle. Thing is, rights tend to do the same thing. Many people have many rights, and you can't always construct a social system that could protect them all for everyone. In the jungle, you have to start by building safe communities, because rights that are actually respected are a luxury of civilization.

But good and evil do not, nor does law and chaos. The acts are still aligned acts, even if performed in areas that are less bound. If someone carves himself a defensible position in the mountains, and puts a door on it to protect that position, he is bringing order from the "jungle". Whether it's for good or evil, he is certainly bringing order to that area. Kicking in that door? Well, at the very least, it's destroying that order.

Well, it's certainly "noble" (back when nobles were popular, they did it all the time). Is it good?

Oddly enough, the concept of "noble acts" bears precious few similarities to the acts of nobles. :smallbiggrin:


The answer depends heavily on circumstances. Of the people you and I are likely to meet, hardly any would deserve a sword in the gullet. What about the people that Dervag the barbarian might hypothetically meet in a D&D world? Random peasants do not deserve a sword in their gullet; attempting to insert one would be wrong and indeed Evil.

Orcish brigands, vampires, demons, and ferocious dire animals that attack intelligent beings practically on sight generally do deserve swords in their gullets. Refraining from implanting a sword in those cases would not be an act of moral righteousness.

Agreed. But there are the gray areas too. Not everything is clear cut.


Thus, the answer to the question is "almost certainly not," "occasionally but not always," or "quite often but not always," depending on the sort of crowd you hang out with.

Acceptable.

[Starbuck_II]

It was a Half Orc, Half-Orc/Half Human. Why are people forgetting that? Human are physically stronger then elves? If the Half Orc was an Elf or half-elf, I bet there would be some different things to be said. Also, don't use teh world 'real' so much. You even used it to describe the differences between race, right after saying it's a fantasy race. Orc is a sentient race, and a Half-Orc, which is part human, definately is. People who play the game fail to realize that race doesn't only include human in it. Although the more humanlike a race is apparently... >,>


If it was a elf or 1/2 elf: he should have pissed on the dead guy. Maybe heven pooed on him.
Their elves they like natural stuff :smallcool:

But seriously, you aren't helping your case by calling him an elf. Now a human or Gnome I can see, but not the elf or Orc races.

[Frosty]

And that's when we get into Absolute Morality. Regardless of what's acceptable, Absolute Morality (D&D alignment falls in this category) states that one thing is always good, and another is evil. Theft isn't just theft when it's in a city. Same goes for murder, and other evil acts. The rule of law has no bearing on the morality of the act.


And again, this is why, in my campaigns, there is no absolute morality system. I base my morality on the real world, because I can relate to it best.

Here's how it goes: In the world of DnD as I see it, who really judges the mortals? the gods do. When Moradin sees something he doesn't like in you, he makes you fall. Well, the thing is, deities in DnD aren't perfect. They have finite (albeit HIGH) mental stats. They can and do make mistakes. And hey, if the JUDGES of who is good/evil/chaotic/lawful can get it wrong, who can really say what the criteria for morality is? It's certainly not spelled out in the Player's Handbook in an detail.

If we don't know what this absolute/universal law/criteria for morality, how can we apply it fairly? You can't, and so I, as the DM, and the deities, treat each act on a case by case basis.

[Dervag]

What gets tricky is when it's not those categories. Any evil act, no matter how small, and the paladin loses abilities.Well, it seems fairly clear to me that a paladin should/would think seriously about the question "Is this an enemy I should wage war against, and if not what is my business in attacking them and/or taking their stuff?"


But certain ones are easy. You build something, someone shouldn't come along and break it. You live, someone shouldn't come along and kill you. There are exceptions, and in D&D, some thngs DO "need killin' ". But without careful consideration each time you draw your sword, a paladin's not a paladin for long.If someone is charging at a paladin with weapons (or charging at a paladin while being a weapon, as might a Dire Wolf), then there is no need for moral consideration. Defending oneself against a threatening opponent, even with lethal force is not an Evil act.

However, I would argue that any entity that "needs killin' " is an entity that has no particular right to not be robbed; only those who would merit the status of outlaw "need killin'."


See China. Freedom of the Press is not universal. I won't argue one way or the other on whether it should be. I'm not interested in RL politics. Just D&D morality, here.I don't really want to argue about it either. What I'm trying to say is that a D&D government does not automatically make itself Evil, or shift towards Evil, if it suppresses a newspaper. We may think that's wrong, but it's not a priori obvious that it is part of the D&D universe's objective moral system.

Likewise, our tendency to regard property as sacred, such that even random warlords in the wilderness have a right not to be robbed by someone more powerful than themselves, may be an artifact of our culture and not part of the objective Good/Evil system of D&D. Taking a peasant's cow might well be Evil where stealing a clan chief's cattle is not- especially if the clan chief got those cattle by raiding himself!


And that's when we get into Absolute Morality. Regardless of what's acceptable, Absolute Morality (D&D alignment falls in this category) states that one thing is always good, and another is evil. Theft isn't just theft when it's in a city. Same goes for murder, and other evil acts. The rule of law has no bearing on the morality of the act.You're not putting enough parameters into the decision.

I mean, talking about "theft" is like talking about "throwing a rock." It's an act with a specific definition, but you can't say much about it without context. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock," you cannot tell whether Bob is good or evil. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a baby," you can. Likewise if I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a ferocious ogre, endangering his own life to distract it from a baby."

What I'm saying is that if I only tell you "Garrett commits theft," you do not have sufficient information to judge whether or not he is D&D Evil or not. Robbing may be Evil if it is done to one entity in one situation, and not-Evil if it is done to a different entity in a different situation. Just like throwing a rock.

Which is why D&D does not say that theft, or killing people, is "always Evil." Because in D&D there are an infinite number of imaginable circumstances under which it is an entirely right and fitting thing to do.


All good questions for a DM to decide. Remember though, a paladin needs to get every call right. Taking something that's not his to take, regardless of location, is insta-smackdown.In which case paladins have the life expectancy of Lawrencium-258, unless:
-Paladins have an exceptional ability to know what they should do (a well defined code that they can always know whether or not they are violating), or
-Paladins have enough leeway that taking something that does not belong to them is not an Evil act in and of itself, assuming they don't do it out of malice or when they know damn well that it belongs to someone who has a solid right to it or a solid need of it.

I mean, commandeering the peasant's plowhorse to save the world is technically stealing in a sense. But I wouldn't say a paladin should fall the way for doing that, even if they would fall for, say, killing the peasant.


However, while society might declare "law for the lawful", it's a bit harder to justify "good for the goodly". Especially when some goodly people are punished for evil to anyone, not just evil to good people.What I'm saying is that theft lies on a border between Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. It's not obvious that the objective Good/Evil system of D&D will always condemn taking something that you didn't pay for or build on your own the way the US legal code might.


Divine Law is hard to apply in a pantheonic system, as D&D was designed. While it's perfectly reasonable to apply an overdeity or alter the standard D&D cosmology to a monotheistic one (to allow for a divine will that prevails, defining good), the concept of divine law is really hard to apply.Yeah, I know. However, even in polytheistic cases we have plenty of myths about people being punished for transgressing against the gods- divine law. What I mean is that in a D&D world, the only thing powerful enough to enforce a social contract are the gods themselves. And if they don't step in to trounce every wizard or demon or vampire who decides to start killing and robbing and terrorizing, then no one else has a monopoly of power over them.

And without a monopoly of power, enforcement of law as we know it can't happen. Instead of getting "innocent until presumed guilty," "minimum force approach by law enforcement," and so forth, you get a lot more "law of the jungle." As in, either the guys dedicated to stopping the villains end up being much rougher characters than we'd tolerate in a modern police force, or the villains win and everyone ends up as a zombie or a slave of the Illithid Empire or something.


No.
However, don't confuse "efficient" with "right".Conversely, don't assume that "not always right" means "never right" and therefore means "Evil-aligned."


The "law of the jungle" is defined in D&D. It's in the section on alignments, under "chaotic". Some concepts of it are defined under "evil". "When in Rome" does not apply to good vs evil.Actually, a lot of stuff we think of as jungle law occurred even in preindustrial 'lawful' societies. Ancient Rome was a fairly lawful place, with the prevailing philosophies being stoic and disciplined, strong honor codes, and a very well organized society.

And yet the actions of senior Roman political figures often resemble what Mafia dons would do if the Mafiosos could get away with it. "Police" would actually be a bunch of toughs in the ruler's employ (not the government, the ruler) whose job it is to bash heads the ruler wants bashed. The ruler probably wants the heads of thieves and murderers bashed in, but the standards of who the police goes after wouldn't be uniform. Political assassinations were common. Roman aristocrats constantly schemed for positions that would grant them enough political power to have a shot at the top tiers of office in the government.

Frankly, it was law of the jungle in a lot of ways. If you were a rich and powerful person, you could do damn near anything you wanted as long as you didn't cross your equals and followed certain forms. If you were a poor and weak person and you crossed someone a lot stronger than you, you might well vanish without a trace.

And yet if the Romans weren't lawful, you'd be hard pressed to find a culture that ever was lawful in D&D terms. Except possibly in the past few centuries. But if that's true, then the D&D concept of law is a complete farce because it never existed in the period D&D is drawing its cultural inspiration from. In that case, it would be almost as much of an anachronism for your fighter to be Lawful as for him to have an iPod.


But good and evil do not, nor does law and chaos. The acts are still aligned acts, even if performed in areas that are less bound. If someone carves himself a defensible position in the mountains, and puts a door on it to protect that position, he is bringing order from the "jungle". Whether it's for good or evil, he is certainly bringing order to that area. Kicking in that door? Well, at the very least, it's destroying that order.Again, I don't think that "objective morality" means "actions can be judged with no knowledge of when and where they occured or who they happened to." Just as you cannot determine the meaning of a sentence that's nothing but a verb, you cannot determine if an action is a crime without knowing the subject and object- and maybe some other stuff too.

[Talic]

Preface: Definition of theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny


Well, it seems fairly clear to me that a paladin should/would think seriously about the question "Is this an enemy I should wage war against, and if not what is my business in attacking them and/or taking their stuff?"You'd think, right? But that's not usually the case with ANY player of D&D.

If someone is charging at a paladin with weapons (or charging at a paladin while being a weapon, as might a Dire Wolf), then there is no need for moral consideration. Defending oneself against a threatening opponent, even with lethal force is not an Evil act.Really? What if it's your comrade, under the effect of Dominate Person? What if it's goblins, who jumped up to defend THEIR homes, when you entered unannounced?


However, I would argue that any entity that "needs killin' " is an entity that has no particular right to not be robbed; only those who would merit the status of outlaw "need killin'."Except for robbery is by definition unjust. There is a distinction between taking something and stealing it.

I don't really want to argue about it either. What I'm trying to say is that a D&D government does not automatically make itself Evil, or shift towards Evil, if it suppresses a newspaper. We may think that's wrong, but it's not a priori obvious that it is part of the D&D universe's objective moral system. Nobody said otherwise, to my knowledge.

Likewise, our tendency to regard property as sacred, such that even random warlords in the wilderness have a right not to be robbed by someone more powerful than themselves, may be an artifact of our culture and not part of the objective Good/Evil system of D&D. Taking a peasant's cow might well be Evil where stealing a clan chief's cattle is not- especially if the clan chief got those cattle by raiding himself!And two wrongs make right? Nobody has a right to be robbed. Now, returning stolen goods to the owner? That's a different matter. But taking them for yourself? You're no better than the clan chief.

You're not putting enough parameters into the decision.

I mean, talking about "theft" is like talking about "throwing a rock." It's an act with a specific definition, but you can't say much about it without context. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock," you cannot tell whether Bob is good or evil. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a baby," you can. Likewise if I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a ferocious ogre, endangering his own life to distract it from a baby.""theft" is enough by itself. Though, if "Bob threw a roc", then I'm not messing with Bob. :)

What I'm saying is that if I only tell you "Garrett commits theft," you do not have sufficient information to judge whether or not he is D&D Evil or not. Robbing may be Evil if it is done to one entity in one situation, and not-Evil if it is done to a different entity in a different situation. Just like throwing a rock.Yes. Yes you do. By definition, theft is wrongful appropriation. There is a difference between taking something and stealing it.

Which is why D&D does not say that theft, or killing people, is "always Evil." Because in D&D there are an infinite number of imaginable circumstances under which it is an entirely right and fitting thing to do.No. No there aren't. There is never a situation where the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another isn't wrongful. The very definition of theft states that it's wrongful. Thus, it cannot be right, or fitting. Ever.


In which case paladins have the life expectancy of Lawrencium-258, unless:
-Paladins have an exceptional ability to know what they should do (a well defined code that they can always know whether or not they are violating), orThey can't

-Paladins have enough leeway that taking something that does not belong to them is not an Evil act in and of itself, assuming they don't do it out of malice or when they know damn well that it belongs to someone who has a solid right to it or a solid need of it.Odd, typically when you're doing that, you make damn sure it's right before you do it. Unless you're arguing that Paladins can willfully life in ignorance, and take the meals from orphans because he "didn't know it was wrong". It's the paladin's burden to never do wrong. It's not the world's burden to the paladin to tell him what's wrong. It's his burden to find out. And yes, that might mean slowing the hacking of bloodthirsty sword, so as to find facts. Paladin is a class with an exceptionally short lifespan... Unless you roleplay heavily, and you take the time to distinguish right from wrong.

I mean, commandeering the peasant's plowhorse to save the world is technically stealing in a sense. But I wouldn't say a paladin should fall the way for doing that, even if they would fall for, say, killing the peasant.
Odd. RAW disagrees with you. They lose all rights if they ever do something evil. "The Greater Good" is a tool for justification of evil acts. What if the only way to save the world was to stop a ritual, by slaughtering a dozen babies, and fifty kittens, before an altar to Pazuzu? It the paladin justified in that?

What I'm saying is that theft lies on a border between Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. It's not obvious that the objective Good/Evil system of D&D will always condemn taking something that you didn't pay for or build on your own the way the US legal code might.And what I'm saying is, that if you believe that, you don't yet have an accurate definition of theft. All's well though, I provided it above, so that should be resolved now.

Yeah, I know. However, even in polytheistic cases we have plenty of myths about people being punished for transgressing against the gods- divine law. What I mean is that in a D&D world, the only thing powerful enough to enforce a social contract are the gods themselves. And if they don't step in to trounce every wizard or demon or vampire who decides to start killing and robbing and terrorizing, then no one else has a monopoly of power over them.Problem with that is that something determines the alignments of the gods as well. Thus, even they are not the originators of right and wrong, in a traditional D&D world. They are merely the enforcers of their own agendas. Easiest to think of them as countries, rather than religions. They bear more resemblance to those.

And without a monopoly of power, enforcement of law as we know it can't happen. Instead of getting "innocent until presumed guilty," "minimum force approach by law enforcement," and so forth, you get a lot more "law of the jungle." As in, either the guys dedicated to stopping the villains end up being much rougher characters than we'd tolerate in a modern police force, or the villains win and everyone ends up as a zombie or a slave of the Illithid Empire or something.Please stop using the term "law of the jungle". It's misleading. "Law of the Jungle" is just another term for "neutral evil", in D&D terminology.

"She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has." - SRD, Neutral Evil.

"Law of the Jungle" when applied to things other than animals, is treating them as neutral evil. Animals, like children, share the insulating protection of being completely unable to determine the moral impact of any action they make. So they're neutral. However, humanoids, following this code are Neutral Evil. Thus, any paladin would do well to avoid following the "Law of the Jungle", at every cost.


Conversely, don't assume that "not always right" means "never right" and therefore means "Evil-aligned."
Paladins don't need to be evil aligned to lose powers. "Wrong that one time I did it, once" and "Wrong always" are exactly the same to a paladin, for purposes of keeping his powers.

Actually, a lot of stuff we think of as jungle law occurred even in preindustrial 'lawful' societies. Ancient Rome was a fairly lawful place, with the prevailing philosophies being stoic and disciplined, strong honor codes, and a very well organized society.See above. Doing what you can get away with is not lawful, by D&D standards. Please cease clouding the issue by inferring that it may be.

And yet the actions of senior Roman political figures often resemble what Mafia dons would do if the Mafiosos could get away with it. "Police" would actually be a bunch of toughs in the ruler's employ (not the government, the ruler) whose job it is to bash heads the ruler wants bashed. The ruler probably wants the heads of thieves and murderers bashed in, but the standards of who the police goes after wouldn't be uniform. Political assassinations were common. Roman aristocrats constantly schemed for positions that would grant them enough political power to have a shot at the top tiers of office in the government.And the majority of that isn't lawful. Thus, any misconceptions otherwise, are false.

Frankly, it was law of the jungle in a lot of ways. If you were a rich and powerful person, you could do damn near anything you wanted as long as you didn't cross your equals and followed certain forms. If you were a poor and weak person and you crossed someone a lot stronger than you, you might well vanish without a trace.And that's neither lawful, nor good. It's neutral evil.

And yet if the Romans weren't lawful, you'd be hard pressed to find a culture that ever was lawful in D&D terms. Except possibly in the past few centuries. But if that's true, then the D&D concept of law is a complete farce because it never existed in the period D&D is drawing its cultural inspiration from. In that case, it would be almost as much of an anachronism for your fighter to be Lawful as for him to have an iPod.Societies can be lawful, without the individual members being so. Checks and balances ensured that nobody out for themself could get too far. Yes, there were power struggles. In Rome, several people (Caesar) took power by the sword. However, Rome also united most of the known world under one rule. Improved quality of life. Lowered the threats of warring warlords. Advanced health care, roads, aqueducts. Improved Quality of life, established uniform currency, provided punishments for crimes.

No, it wasn't a perfect system. However, from a standpoint of analyzing the chaos in it versus the order, it becomes clear which side it fell on.

Again, I don't think that "objective morality" means "actions can be judged with no knowledge of when and where they occured or who they happened to." Just as you cannot determine the meaning of a sentence that's nothing but a verb, you cannot determine if an action is a crime without knowing the subject and object- and maybe some other stuff too.However, the word "theft" is enough to know crime, just as with "murder". Both terms are defined by being wrongful. "taking" and "killing" are neutral words, without such implications. However, theft? Always wrong, by definition.

[Frosty]

Odd. RAW disagrees with you. They lose all rights if they ever do something evil. "The Greater Good" is a tool for justification of evil acts. What if the only way to save the world was to stop a ritual, by slaughtering a dozen babies, and fifty kittens, before an altar to Pazuzu? It the paladin justified in that?

A good DM would not put that situation before the Paladin. Still, the Paladin would choose to save the world, because to let the world come to an end would be the greater evil. And what paladin would knowingly and willingly choose the greater evil?

Pelor, if he really is the forgiving god he is, will understand that, to the best of the Paladin's knowledge and ability to decide, that the Paladin choose the action that did the least evil. That means, Pelor will send the paladin on a quest of Atonement, and eventually will get his powers back.

To answer your question of is the paladin justified in doing the ritual: I'd say yes. Because if he took the other route, besides the fact that he's probably dead due to the world ending, he would be stripped of his powers perhaps permanently because he chose the greater evil instead of the lesser evil.

[hamishspence]

talic: how come most of what you say agrees word for word with Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness definitions of Good and Evil (theft always evil, murder always evil, etc) yet you pour scorn on the books themselves? seems a bit odd.

Committing evil acts to save world? Evil acccording to Exalted Deeds.
Stealing? Evil according to Vile Darkness.

and many more.

That said, on original topic, Paladin's failure of showing a fallen comrade respect is hard to classify as directly wronging them, but fellow party memebers might see disrespect to a fellow as almost as bad as disrespect for themselves.

Point to remember is half orcs aren't orcs, they are as varied in alignment as the other player races. So, prejudice of paladin might be a bit uncalled for.

Is player a longtime 2nd ed player, who thinks half orcs have always been nasty creatures? If so, might be a case of person trying to roleplay too hard, and in the process, exceeding what is called for.

Bigotry is more useful term than racist or specisist, since it can be applied to any discrimination. Halruaan wizards are called Bigoted toward non-wizards. So was Lord Voldemort.

Mild bigotry can be an interesting feature in some heroes. Druss the Legend is mildly bigoted toward the Nadir (and almost anyone who's not Drenai) That didn't stop him from fighting heroicly alongside them when it was called for. In this case, it might be called Chauvinism (belief that their group is most special)

A person who generalises aboout a group, yet still treats members he comes into contact withon a case by case basis, is more palatable than one whose bigotry remains nasty even toward fellow party members. Which is not to say very pleasant. Yet there are bigoted D&D characters who are of good alignment.

Bruenor Battlehammer is very bigoted toward orcs, Yet, when situation demanded it, he fought alongside King Obould, and signed a treaty with him.

[Fiery Diamond]

First off, I happen to agree with most of what Talic said (at least on this page).

Secondly, in response to hamishspence: I DM. I would classify spoken or otherwise displayed bigotry as a mildly Evil act. Simply being bigoted in your heart of hearts, but never acting on it - Neutral.

-Fiery Diamond

[hamishspence]

another example might be the Redwall books, where the "orc" type creatures are evil a lot, and the heroes generalise about them, but, every few books, there is one with a few nice traits, sometimes even self sacrificing behaviour, which might partially make up for a mostle evil career.

The phrase attributed to Boar the Fighter was "when mountains crumble into dust, vermin will still remain vermin" Not a very nice sentiment.

One would expect a dwarf, maybe even a dwarf paladin, to make sweeping generalisations about orcs (various novels) At the same time, when said character meets an exception to the rule, the least they should do is be politer around their comrade.

unfortunately, Exalted Deeds is almost the only sourcebook that stresses that creatures, even orcs, goblins, and drow, should be judged individually, and assumed to be capable of redemption.

If a paladin is explaining the various unpleasant traits of most orcs in a lecture to a village about to be attacked, he's not being bigoted, he's being realistic.
If a paladin treats an Orc or half orc he KNOWS to be brave and heroic with the same attitute, he is being bigoted, and that level of bigotry is evil. Mildly so, but still a little evil.

[Citizen Joe]

I think I see what the fundamental problem is...

Everyone is throwing around examples of what a paladin should be, but they are doing so as if that is the ONLY way it should be. Meanwhile the question becomes can a paladin be envisioned and played in manner X while another is played in manner Y?

Can you play militant paladins? Yes you can
Can you play redeemer paladins? Yes you can

[Rutee]

A good DM would not put that situation before the Paladin. Still, the Paladin would choose to save the world, because to let the world come to an end would be the greater evil. And what paladin would knowingly and willingly choose the greater evil?

Pelor, if he really is the forgiving god he is, will understand that, to the best of the Paladin's knowledge and ability to decide, that the Paladin choose the action that did the least evil. That means, Pelor will send the paladin on a quest of Atonement, and eventually will get his powers back.

To answer your question of is the paladin justified in doing the ritual: I'd say yes. Because if he took the other route, besides the fact that he's probably dead due to the world ending, he would be stripped of his powers perhaps permanently because he chose the greater evil instead of the lesser evil.
IMO, Pelor wouldn't even make him fall, but that's a different discussion, I suppose.

[hamishspence]

yes, but when militant goes all the way to chopping down surrendering enemies, its a little too far.

I do agree that not everyone want to play redeemer paladins. And those who don't want to don't neeed to try redeeming their foes, and can leave it to the authorities. But the surrender dilemma can stil apply.

[hamishspence]

I go with the view that an evil act can be justifiable, but not change from being an evil act. some people argue deities cannot choose whether a paladin falls or not. Might possibly depend on setting.

Or it might be a case of powers coming from paladin being "In line" with "abstact forces of law and good" and its the shift in his own personality that causes him to lose contact with these forces. So its the change in him (or her) rather than an active choice from the powers.

Not the best wording, but does it provide a reason for falling that makes sense for Eberron paladins, who serve forces that they do not know for certain actually exist?

[Dervag]

Preface: Definition of theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larcenyAh. I see.

You do realize that by using this definition of "theft" and describing what D&D characters in a dungeon do as "theft," one is automatically making assumptions about the rightness or wrongness of what they are doing?

If you decide right off the bat that taking any thing that you did not create or pay for is wrong, then sure you can argue that doing so is automatically Evil. However, I can point to plenty of examples that make a mockery of the idea that taking things you did not create or pay for is always wrong, so I do not adhere to this approach.


You'd think, right? But that's not usually the case with ANY player of D&D.OK, then they're screwing up their own paladins. Can I help it if someone decides to roleplay a revenge fantasy with a character that, by definition should lose their powers in the process of enacting the player's revenge fantasy?


Really? What if it's your comrade, under the effect of Dominate Person? What if it's goblins, who jumped up to defend THEIR homes, when you entered unannounced?Duh, in both cases. In the former case, it is not wrong to fight back with lethal force, though it is certainly and by far preferable to evade or to fight back by non-lethal means. In the latter case, they aren't attacking you; you're attacking them by intruding on their groundspace.


Except for robbery is by definition unjust.In which case there are plenty of examples of D&D characters taking things they did not create or pay for without being robbers- which undermines the argument that they're doing Evil things on a regular basis.


There is a distinction between taking something and stealing it. Nobody said otherwise, to my knowledge.And two wrongs make right? Nobody has a right to be robbed. Now, returning stolen goods to the owner? That's a different matter. But taking them for yourself? You're no better than the clan chief.Here's the problem. Adventurers tend to take stuff as a way of fueling their own combat operations- making war support war, if you will. In fact, it's arguably the only way they can sustain their own combat operations. Unless someone with a large tax base is bankrolling them, they can't make a living, let alone keep up an arsenal of useful weapons, without taking stuff that they didn't make or pay for.

And yet they can easily be a damn sight better than the clan chief, depending on circumstances. If the clan chief will steal a peasant's cow and you won't, then you're a damn sight better than the clan chief.

"You're just as bad as the villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim)" is a trope that gets overused, I think. People who live in happy and peaceful societies can easily forget just how many levels of morality there are within both good and evil, and in between the two.


By definition, theft is wrongful appropriation. There is a difference between taking something and stealing it....

No. No there aren't. There is never a situation where the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another isn't wrongful. The very definition of theft states that it's wrongful. Thus, it cannot be right, or fitting. Ever.In which case a lot of what PCs do in dungeons isn't theft because it isn't wrongful. One can't use the word "theft" to describe something before deciding whether it's right or wrong (as I did) and then say that it must be wrong because "theft" is wrong by definition (as you do).

You're taking a very dogmatic line on the definition of "theft." I admit to using the word "theft" loosely, to include things like taking useful items from an enemy's stronghold in the process of fighting and defeating him. However, I do not for a moment accept that my incautious use of the word "theft" somehow means that I am conceding the inherent wrongness of the act under all circumstances. Had I known you would interpret it in that way, I would have used a different word.


Odd, typically when you're doing that, you make damn sure it's right before you do it. Unless you're arguing that Paladins can willfully life in ignorance, and take the meals from orphans because he "didn't know it was wrong".Odd, you seem to expect that I think paladins can excuse wrong conduct by claiming ignorance without actually having it. Or that paladins can be paladins while being so stupid that they do not even understand morality, let alone have the ability to practice it.

I believe no such thing.


It's the paladin's burden to never do wrong. It's not the world's burden to the paladin to tell him what's wrong.No, but in a universe with external objective morality that has active personifications, it's the world's burden to define wrong. A paladin can't swear to obey a code he doesn't know. The idea is nonsense. So a paladin must know what his own code is. Therefore, he will know, after even brief contemplation, whether or not his code forbids a given category of action.


Odd. RAW disagrees with you. They lose all rights if they ever do something evil. "The Greater Good" is a tool for justification of evil acts.You misunderstood what I said.

I said that one of the ways to make paladins a class with some hope of making it to second level is that it is not an Evil act to do things with bad consequences unknowingly, or when one is sincerely mistaken about the situation. I said nothing about "Greater Good," or about sacrificial alters.

In that case, we get things like this:

Stealing food from starving orphans is Evil. Killing the crazy druid who jumped out in front of you on the road and summoned a bear to eat you, but who also uses his magic to make sure there will be plenty of food for the orphans, is not Evil. Even though the same result occured (something bad happening to someone innocent), the intentions with which one committed the action determine whether or not the action was in fact Evil.


And what I'm saying is, that if you believe that, you don't yet have an accurate definition of theft.What, my definitions are inaccurate because I think I live in a culture that conflates 'legal' with 'right' and 'illegal' with 'wrong', and that has customs that make certain acts far more taboo than they were in other societies?


Thus, even they are not the originators of right and wrong, in a traditional D&D world. They are merely the enforcers of their own agendas. Easiest to think of them as countries, rather than religions.You know, I was already doing that. You see, I know very well that the Greek gods weren't a particularly righteous bunch.

My sole point was that the gods are powerful enough to enforce their will on things like wizards and demons that ordinary mortal law enforcement agencies wouldn't stand a chance against. Therefore, they, and only they, are powerful enough to create the atmosphere of pervasive law that you and I are accustomed to. And they don't do that in D&D worlds.

It does not matter what alignments gods have for that purpose.


Please stop using the term "law of the jungle".By no means will I do so, because...
It's misleading. "Law of the Jungle" is just another term for "neutral evil", in D&D terminology.I do not agree. I do not thing 'law of the jungle' means what you think it means. I think it means an environment in which there's nothing that can make strong people do what they don't want to.

That is the sum total of the law of the jungle. "Jungle law" does not tell you what you should do or think. It does not tell you to be neutral evil. It tells you that, as a practical matter, if you are neutral evil then very few people can stop you.

For some people, this is enough to make them neutral evil. For others, it isn't.


However, humanoids, following this code are Neutral Evil. Thus, any paladin would do well to avoid following the "Law of the Jungle", at every cost.Jungle law isn't a code of ethics at all. It is a situation- the absence of an authority powerful enough to control the actions of individuals for the good of all, even in theory. Jungle law does not tell you what to do; it just tells you what you could get away with if you wanted to.


Paladins don't need to be evil aligned to lose powers. "Wrong that one time I did it, once" and "Wrong always" are exactly the same to a paladin, for purposes of keeping his powers.Not quite.

For instance, some acts are just plain Evil. Others are usually Neutral but might be Evil under some circumstances if you intended evil when you did them. For instance, throwing a stone into a bush is normally Neutral. Hitting a random stranger who has done nothing to you with a rock is Evil. Throwing a stone into a bush and accidentally hitting a random stranger who has done nothing to you is Neutral, not Evil.

Likewise, taking property that belongs to an enemy you are justly at war with is Neutral. Taking property from someone you have literally every reason to believe is an enemy you are justly at war with, but who is not, is Neutral. Taking property you have every reason to believe belongs to your enemy, but which does not, is again Neutral. A paladin should not fall for any of those things, unless (in the latter cases) they find out that the war is unjust or that the property rightfully belongs to someone other than the enemy, and still refuse to relinquish it.


See above. Doing what you can get away with is not lawful, by D&D standards. Please cease clouding the issue by inferring that it may be.OK. So we can safely conclude then that there were basically no preindustrial societies with a persistently Lawful government.

If this conclusion strikes you as disagreeable, then there's a problem with the premises- perhaps being a scheming aristocrat is not intrinsically un-Lawful after all? Perhaps being a tyrant is not intrinsically unlawful? I mean, many would regard it as stereotypically Lawful.


However, the word "theft" is enough to know crime, just as with "murder". Both terms are defined by being wrongful. "taking" and "killing" are neutral words, without such implications. However, theft? Always wrong, by definition.If I had known how much you would make of my word choice in using the word "theft," I would have chosen a different word, because I did not use the word "theft" in the sense that you tried to apply to make an argument-from-dictionary. In hindsight, this was sloppy word choice, but sloppy word choice on my part does not produce an open and shut proof on your part.

[Citizen Joe]

I go with the view that an evil act can be justifiable, but not change from being an evil act. some people argue deities cannot choose whether a paladin falls or not. Might possibly depend on setting.

Not the best wording, but does it provide a reason for falling that makes sense for Eberron paladins, who serve forces that they do not know for certain actually exist?

Here's a trick... Don't MAKE the paladin fall, convince him that he has fallen. Ultimately, the player needs to accept that he's done something evil. If you, the DM, can convince the player that his character committed a fall worthy offense, then that pretty much solves everything.

[Thane of Fife]

Except for robbery is by definition unjust. There is a distinction between taking something and stealing it.

Let me try to provide a counter-point here.

Imagine, if you will, that Menander the Paladin is traveling with a caravan of other paladins, escorting the recently found Staff of Maleficus the Vile, long deceased evil wizard extraordinaire, to someplace where it is to be destroyed, thus ending the threat it poses to all that is right and just merely by existing. Along the way, a wizard appears, as if from nowhere, and attacks the paladins. During the fighting, the knights are defeated, and the wizard escapes with the staff.

Afterwards, Menander, the only survivor (he checks) stabilizes, having been reduced to negative hit points, and takes advantage of the few spells and healing potions he has to bring himself up to reasonable effectiveness. Passing a Knowledge (Ancient History) check, he is certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the wizard is, in fact, Maleficus, the rightful owner of the staff. Nonetheless, battered though he is, he sets off in pursuit, taking advantage of that Tracking ability he picked up for whatever reason.

Menander arrives at a cave, which he enters, finding the foul wizard lurking inside. Menander, uncertain of his ability to slay the wizard in his weakened state, makes an Intimidate check, demanding that the caster surrender the staff or die. Maleficus, having spent many of his spells, is uncertain that he'll be able to defeat the paladin (Maleficus lacks a high Wisdom score), and submits, grudgingly surrendering his staff. Menander, knowing that he needs to destroy the weapon, takes off, making a mental note of the cave's location for later.

In all likelihood, the next day, Maleficus casts a few divination spells, teleports to Menander's location, and kills him, but that's unimportant. What Menander did in this case is undeniably robbery, but is it evil? I don't think so. He did the morally responsible thing to do, which seems, to me, to fit the ideal of good quite well.

[Citizen Joe]

Robbery is not the action though. The action is picking up something. It only becomes unjust after you apply a subjective intent (in this case from both the person committing the action and the victim).

Example: An armed man stops you on a road and demands money. Evil? Now imagine a small building next to him with a sign: Toll Road, 5 silver per axle. Same exact action, but one is evil and one isn't?

[Talic]

You do realize that by using this definition of "theft" and describing what D&D characters in a dungeon do as "theft," one is automatically making assumptions about the rightness or wrongness of what they are doing?Correct, some are made. That is because, ineveitably, you will make a mistake. Eventually, the thing you take, you'll not be entitled to. But you won't always know that. Because eventually, you make a mistake. And if you do it when taking things that aren't yours, that mistake will be theft.

If you decide right off the bat that taking any thing that you did not create or pay for is wrong, then sure you can argue that doing so is automatically Evil. However, I can point to plenty of examples that make a mockery of the idea that taking things you did not create or pay for is always wrong, so I do not adhere to this approach.You're right. It's not always wrong. But it is quite often wrong. And all a paladin needs for the revoke is "once". Every time they take something, every single time, they're rolling the dice with their class abilities.

OK, then they're screwing up their own paladins. Can I help it if someone decides to roleplay a revenge fantasy with a character that, by definition should lose their powers in the process of enacting the player's revenge fantasy?Doesn't need to be a revenge fantasy. All it needs to be is someone wanting to be the hero, and kicking in the door. You can argue this all you want, but take a look at your games. When the enemies draw weapons and charge, for whatever reason, how often is the first player reaction, "parley"? After all, goblins wouldn't be out in a cave, in the middle of nowhere, unless they were up to no good. And they certainly wouldn't have those weapons to defend from natural wilderness threats. Nuh uh. I've DM'd games with dozens of paladins, and almost without fail, every player fails the same level 1 test. Village being harassed by goblins. Goblins have been spotted in four locations in the mountains. Players go to each and remove the goblins, and, in two cases, they kill a small tribe that keeps to itself, one an evil tribe that had nothing to do with the village, and the one that harassed the village. And every time, I yank the paladin's powers so fast it makes their head spin, the moment he makes a single attack on the goblins that drew arms when he busted into their homes. The problem isn't with the players, when almost every group does it. The problem is with the archetype of the Action Hero, and the role they play in contemporary fantasy. Quite simply, contemporary fantasy has little room for goblins that aren't evil. And so, the paladin needs an atonement almost every... single... time. Why? Because heroes don't check facts; they burst in dramatically, and save the day.

Duh, in both cases. In the former case, it is not wrong to fight back with lethal force, though it is certainly and by far preferable to evade or to fight back by non-lethal means. In the latter case, they aren't attacking you; you're attacking them by intruding on their groundspace.But all most players see is "threat drawing weapons against, eliminate threat". I say most, because I had 2 players, in my 2 decades of DM'ing, two players, that passed the paladin test. Look at most party makeups. Most don't bother learning the languages of the people they plan on slaughtering. No need to find out. They're just there to provide XP. (or dramatic tension)

In which case there are plenty of examples of D&D characters taking things they did not create or pay for without being robbers- which undermines the argument that they're doing Evil things on a regular basis.Honestly, the figure in history that I most often associate with adventurers is Sir Francis Drake. Life of intrigue, associated with royalty, and a highly successful privateer. But, he was a thief. He plundered ships based on the flag they bore, in times when England was at peace, and couldn't directly attack her enemies. There are others, but precious few follow the King Arthur model. Most follow the Lord of the Rings model, and that fails whenever enemies aren't clearly defined by race (Orcs and Uruk-hai and trolls = evil. Elves and hobbits = good. Humans and wizards are the only races with a bit of self determination. Everything else is "always good" or "always evil", and the parallel doesn't cross to D&D well.

Here's the problem. Adventurers tend to take stuff as a way of fueling their own combat operations- making war support war, if you will. In fact, it's arguably the only way they can sustain their own combat operations. Unless someone with a large tax base is bankrolling them, they can't make a living, let alone keep up an arsenal of useful weapons, without taking stuff that they didn't make or pay for.Correct. However, making war to support war is only as good as the war. Face it. The game's rules of paladins are DESIGNED so that they'll fall. It's another quest for the DM. Paladin gets an opportunity to go light side or dark side. Either way, plot develops. Because whether you knew it or not, if the gold you took from the chief was picked up in trade for legitimate protection from a northern threat, you just stole. And likely killed. And probably left the town defenseless against the northern threat. Even if you didn't know... You should have, before you did it. Evil act.

And yet they can easily be a damn sight better than the clan chief, depending on circumstances. If the clan chief will steal a peasant's cow and you won't, then you're a damn sight better than the clan chief.That's a lot of if's there. What if the peasant lost a bet, didn't pay, and the cow was taken as a debt? Let's say the peasant is pissed, and tells everyone and their brother how the cruel tribe of <fill in blank> came and stole his cow. Adventurers come in and save the day... Or do they?

"You're just as bad as the villain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim)" is a trope that gets overused, I think. People who live in happy and peaceful societies can easily forget just how many levels of morality there are within both good and evil, and in between the two.In RL, sure. In fantasy? D&D has 3 levels. Good, Neutral, and Evil. Don't forget how many there are.

In which case a lot of what PCs do in dungeons isn't theft because it isn't wrongful. One can't use the word "theft" to describe something before deciding whether it's right or wrong (as I did) and then say that it must be wrong because "theft" is wrong by definition (as you do).Again, it only takes once. Only once. Is every single thing PC's do in dungeons rightful?

You're taking a very dogmatic line on the definition of "theft." I admit to using the word "theft" loosely, to include things like taking useful items from an enemy's stronghold in the process of fighting and defeating him. However, I do not for a moment accept that my incautious use of the word "theft" somehow means that I am conceding the inherent wrongness of the act under all circumstances. Had I known you would interpret it in that way, I would have used a different word.Interpret it what way? By the meaning of the word? How else would you have me interpret it?

Odd, you seem to expect that I think paladins can excuse wrong conduct by claiming ignorance without actually having it. Or that paladins can be paladins while being so stupid that they do not even understand morality, let alone have the ability to practice it.Ok. Paladin goes into an orphanage. He sees nobody there. There's food on the table. Why, the door's wide open, that food could have been put there by anyone. As long as I don't bother to find out whose it is, it's ok to take it. Or...
Same example, coinpurse on the street. Or...
Same example, the 17sp, two light crossbows, and handful of crude spears in the goblin cave.

See? Not knowing is not an excuse. To protect life, and respect it (two pieces of good), you must be very sure you don't take it without cause. You also must be sure you don't take people's things unless you KNOW that it's ok. To do any less is negligence. And a lack of knowledge on your part isn't going to help the people you wrong. It might be enough to prevent your alignment shift... But not enough to stop a diety from knowing, and revoking your powers.
No, but in a universe with external objective morality that has active personifications, it's the world's burden to define wrong. A paladin can't swear to obey a code he doesn't know. The idea is nonsense. So a paladin must know what his own code is. Therefore, he will know, after even brief contemplation, whether or not his code forbids a given category of action.Oversimplification, and false assumptions. You don't need to define something, to know it. You didn't define "theft". Nor did I. We both know what it means now, right? Yep. There can be an outside force that lays the law down for what you should do. Great. You know it now. You didn't DEFINE it (that's subjective morality), but you know it. Now, ASSUMING you have all the facts of the matter, it should be simple enough to determine if what you're doing is right or wrong...

But how often do you have all the facts?

I said that one of the ways to make paladins a class with some hope of making it to second level is that it is not an Evil act to do things with bad consequences unknowingly, or when one is sincerely mistaken about the situation. I said nothing about "Greater Good," or about sacrificial alters.
Yes. Yes it is. If you stab the old leader of the paladin city under the false belief that he's in league with evil agents, and when you kill him, you don't know he was good the whole time, and doing the right thing? Yup, 12 god smackdown, Zodiac style. Ignorance is no excuse. If you run the goblin through, and he was defending his home? Yup. 12 god smackdown. Zodiac style.

Stealing food from starving orphans is Evil. Killing the crazy druid who jumped out in front of you on the road and summoned a bear to eat you, but who also uses his magic to make sure there will be plenty of food for the orphans, is not Evil. Even though the same result occured (something bad happening to someone innocent), the intentions with which one committed the action determine whether or not the action was in fact Evil.Wrong. You assume that one good act is justification for an evil one. If a druid is waylaying travellers, that needs to be stopped. If the good he does is also stopped, that's unfortunate. But let's flip the situation. That crazy druid is really a neutral good character, and he's been watching the roads for months, looking for smugglers that have been transporting poisons into the city. He sees a small group, travelling quickly, and alone, and moves out to stop and search them. He summons a bear and advances down the hill (there are 4 of them after all), and promptly gets lit up with a lightning bolt.

Party thinks they're protecting the roads from a wacko. Druid thinks that the initial hostility proves they're the smugglers. Both are tragically mistaken.

But that's how war's start. Even in real life. Misunderstandings. Neither side would shift alignment from this, after all, they're trying to do the right thing. But regardless, the party misinterpreted a defensive measure as an attack, and the druid misinterpreted the reason for their reaction. However, the party killed a good druid for trying to protect the roads, and the druid tried to kill the party when it did nothing wrong. Both acts, regardless of what the characters KNEW, were evil in nature. Either side could, at any point in the fight, try to find out more. But no, in this situation, it's almost always "power attack for 7, charge, let's take that lunatic down". Because most people are of the mindset that anything that comes at them in any way other than peacefully is evil. And that carries over to the real world too. "You're against me? Then you're wrong." Either side could have learned what was going on, and the party could have gotten a good quest to track down smugglers. But spring it on a group sometime. See how many times the druid dies. Most times, really.

You know, I was already doing that. You see, I know very well that the Greek gods weren't a particularly righteous bunch.

My sole point was that the gods are powerful enough to enforce their will on things like wizards and demons that ordinary mortal law enforcement agencies wouldn't stand a chance against. Therefore, they, and only they, are powerful enough to create the atmosphere of pervasive law that you and I are accustomed to. And they don't do that in D&D worlds.
And there are usually reasons for that. One of the biggies is "free will". But that's straying from the subject.

Oh, and the greeks weren't the only ones. Look at the Roman gods and the Norse gods, also. Those Norse gods could teach the greeks a thing or two about parties.

By no means will I do so, because...I do not agree. I do not thing 'law of the jungle' means what you think it means. I think it means an environment in which there's nothing that can make strong people do what they don't want to.Then that is every single environment anywhere. With the possible exception of max-security prison. I mean really, if someone's determined to do something wrong, how would any government stop them. The best they can do is punishment after the fact, IF they find out, which is unlikely. And if everywhere is under that law... then the term is meaningless.

For instance, some acts are just plain Evil. Others are usually Neutral but might be Evil under some circumstances if you intended evil when you did them. For instance, throwing a stone into a bush is normally Neutral. Hitting a random stranger who has done nothing to you with a rock is Evil. Throwing a stone into a bush and accidentally hitting a random stranger who has done nothing to you is Neutral, not Evil.And if that villager came out and attempted to kill the paladin who did that, would he be evil? What if the villager died as a result? The player's careless rock throwing causes the death of innocents, and yet, because the paladin decided that he'd throw a rock without knowing what he was aiming at, he's protected by the ignorance he chose to have? That's pure fallacy.

If I had known how much you would make of my word choice in using the word "theft," I would have chosen a different word, because I did not use the word "theft" in the sense that you tried to apply to make an argument-from-dictionary. In hindsight, this was sloppy word choice, but sloppy word choice on my part does not produce an open and shut proof on your part.
Upon your correction, fine. But it's not dictionary legalese. It's the simple meaning of the word.

[Starbuck_II]

A good DM would not put that situation before the Paladin. Still, the Paladin would choose to save the world, because to let the world come to an end would be the greater evil. And what paladin would knowingly and willingly choose the greater evil?

Pelor, if he really is the forgiving god he is, will understand that, to the best of the Paladin's knowledge and ability to decide, that the Paladin choose the action that did the least evil. That means, Pelor will send the paladin on a quest of Atonement, and eventually will get his powers back.

Inaction is the more paladinly choice. Any evil act will make you fall.
If killing puppies will save the world; you act like Einstien, " The theory of relativity is correct, we just don't know all the facts!"

Sure the DM says and it appears that you must do evil to save the world, but you are Paladin. It is never that easy. You keep trying, maybe you fail and it is game over, but you don't fall that way. You stick to your principles.


To answer your question of is the paladin justified in doing the ritual: I'd say yes. Because if he took the other route, besides the fact that he's probably dead due to the world ending, he would be stripped of his powers perhaps permanently because he chose the greater evil instead of the lesser evil.

No, he isn't justified. Also Pelor is evil: look he lets Jozan cast evil spells in the PHB (Symbol of Pain I believe).

[Frosty]

Inaction is the more paladinly choice. Any evil act will make you fall.
If killing puppies will save the world; you act like Einstien, " The theory of relativity is correct, we just don't know all the facts!"

Sure the DM says and it appears that you must do evil to save the world, but you are Paladin. It is never that easy. You keep trying, maybe you fail and it is game over, but you don't fall that way. You stick to your principles.


No, he isn't justified. Also Pelor is evil: look he lets Jozan cast evil spells in the PHB (Symbol of Pain I believe).

Inaction would cause the Paladin to fall in my games, if he values his Paladin powers and own purity over the good of the world. THAT's selfish. He certainly is justified. He'll just have to do a lot to make up for whatever evil he committed. I'd hate to live in a world with you as a paladin.

Maybe we just have different value systems. I value the action that will result the most net good or the least net evil for all. You value your paladin's own good/evil score (or at least that's what you're advocating it seems). To me, that looks selfish. As a Paladin, I'd have no second thoughts about sacricing my powers if that is what it takes to save the world. If I lose my powers, I'll go on a re-training quest and become a Knight or Fighter or something, and keep on doing the same kinda actions to save the world again, if need be.

[Starbuck_II]

Inaction would cause the Paladin to fall in my games, if he values his Paladin powers and own purity over the good of the world. THAT's selfish. He certainly is justified. He'll just have to do a lot to make up for whatever evil he committed. I'd hate to live in a world with you as a paladin.

Maybe you define selfish differently than me. The Paladin does non-evil due to his beliefs not for his own benefit.

If he succumbs to evil actions; he shows the world that evil is okay. That his whole idea/code was a stupid ideal to follow.

If evil is never the answer (and the code says as such) than he sahould'nt do evil even if it costs lives. 0-Chul agrees with this view.


Maybe we just have different value systems. I value the action that will result the most net good or the least net evil for all. You value your paladin's own good/evil score (or at least that's what you're advocating it seems). To me, that looks selfish. As a Paladin, I'd have no second thoughts about sacricing my powers if that is what it takes to save the world. If I lose my powers, I'll go on a re-training quest and become a Knight or Fighter or something, and keep on doing the same kinda actions to save the world again, if need be.

I am not a unitarianist (assuming spelled right) as you appear to be (that is the view that values the most good). This group believes that one should choose the action that promotes the most good even if it causes bad to happen to others.
Example:
An elderly rich old lady is in pain and wishes she would die. A unitarianist could kill her and take her money to donate to charity. He would be promoting more good than bad he did (she did want to die thought did not ask him).
The bad is obviously, he had no right to die her or steal her money.

I am more Kantian in my views I guess.

[Rutee]

By that definition, Frosty, the Paladin shouldn't even have to Atone for committing an 'evil' that truly serves the greater good (The classic example being "Having to kill an infant to save the world"). By definition, he has generated Good for the world. His action /can't/ be Evil, and thus, Fall-worthy.

[Citizen Joe]

Inaction would cause the Paladin to fall in my games,
That is not core.

Remember this... YOU are the DM... you have utter control over the circumstances and all sorts of NPC's and monsters and whatever you want.

The Player... he just gets to play his character. If you start playing his character, by way of saying inaction causes fall, then you are robbing him of the only thing the player has.

If you, as the DM, set up a situation where doing X causes a fall, and not doing X causes a fall, that should give the player the right to punch you right in the gut.

In the kill puppies now vs. everyone dieing in three months, the correct answer is: The blood shall not on my hands. And when doom comes to us in three months, I shall stand there shoulder to shoulder with everyone else to face our deaths with honor.

[Frosty]

Maybe you define selfish differently than me. The Paladin does non-evil due to his beliefs not for his own benefit.

If he succumbs to evil actions; he shows the world that evil is okay. That his whole idea/code was a stupid ideal to follow.

If evil is never the answer (and the code says as such) than he sahould'nt do evil even if it costs lives. 0-Chul agrees with this view.


I am not a unitarianist (assuming spelled right) as you appear to be (that is the view that values the most good). This group believes that one should choose the action that promotes the most good even if it causes bad to happen to others.
Example:
An elderly rich old lady is in pain and wishes she would die. A unitarianist could kill her and take her money to donate to charity. He would be promoting more good than bad he did (she did want to die thought did not ask him).
The bad is obviously, he had no right to die her or steal her money.

I am more Kantian in my views I guess.

1) O'chul wouldn't do it because he knows that giving the bad guys information would be a bigger evilthan letting the peasants die.
2) It would not be thieft if the Elderly Lady consents, which she may very well be doing if she WANTs to die. I am a support of euthanasia.
3) Rutee, you're right. The paladin wouldn't fall in my game...as long as he shows pain and remorse for having to do the lesser evil to save the world.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Greyguard: easier

[Dervag]

On a side note, I'm noticing that some people here seem to be trying to set the paladins they DM up for a fall by drawing them into situations where they are likely to commit an Evil act completely by accident if they don't do "enough" background research.

I don't like this approach. As Joe says, if you, the DM, start trying to manipulate a player's character you're destroying the only part of the game that's any fun for him.

One way to do that is by creating situations where the logical course of action is wrong and only an extremely counterintuitive or obscure course of action is 'right', and then Falling the paladin because they did what seemed logical the time and you deem this an Evil act.

Note that I'm not talking about "kill one to save fifty" scenarios. I'm talking about situations where the paladin is not at all conscious of having done anything evil or wrong, and yet falls anyway because of something they didn't know about.

It's all very well to say they should have done their homework, but that's a very unfair standard unless the DM makes it clear that homework is required. After all, the DM can bury important information as deep as he likes while PCs have only limited ability to dig it up. For instance, imagine that a DM sets up a scenario where the paladin finds a treasure in the ancient tomb of King Gorbo the Grappler. But the treasure rightfully belongs to the distant descendants of Gorbo's fifth cousin according to the inheritance law of the kingdom. Said descendants live in a remote village on the other side of the world, but they do exist, and therefore have a lawful claim on the sword.

Therefore, the DM concludes, if the paladin takes the sword he is a thief, and is therefore committing an Evil act, and should therefore fall.

Thing is, that's so obviously stacked against the player that it's the equivalent of using "rocks fall, you die" to kill him off because you want him dead. Even if that paladin were to keep a staff of historians and genealogists on retainer to figure out the rightful owners of ancient treasure, they might overlook the remote descendants in an obscure village. How is it right for the DM to make the paladin fall in this situation?

And yet this is by no means unrealistic. You can almost always find some distant collateral descendants of a monarch who could technically be called the monarch's heir if you look hard enough.

From this, you can conclude one of two things:

1)Paladins are supposed to fall almost immediately (the position Talic propounds). I find this very unreasonable, because paladins are given as a playable option along with wizards and rogues and the like. This implies that you can play a paladin, and not a featless fighter, for long periods of time. Likewise, paladins have plenty of class abilities above level 1. Again, this suggests that Wizards does mean for paladins to be playable for long periods without falling- the fall of a paladin should be an unusual event of great significance, and not a routine occurence that happens every time they overlook some obscure detail of their situation.

2)The paladin code has enough wiggle room that actions carried out in good faith don't cause a paladin to fall.

If the act is something they ought to know better than to do because it is always wrong, then they fall for it. Killing 80-year old aristocrats without letting them speak in their defense and without even attempting to bring them to justice, just because you heard them say something that implies that they're part of an evil conspiracy, is always wrong. Now, if the old man is a powerful wizard readying a spell, matters are different, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Killing a defenseless old man is not an act that can be committed "in good faith." Neither is robbing an orphanage. Taking the treasure in the tomb of an ancient king can be done in good faith, with no evil intentions whatsoever. A paladin whose soul is totally free of evil could nonetheless do this, simply because he is a mortal being who does not have the power of omniscience.

I adhere to this interpretation. A paladin can only fall if they intended to commit an evil act. Mind control effects are a borderline case because it's hard to say what a person under the influence of a Dominate effect intends to do. I think I'd apply situational rules. As I recall, the given rules say that paladins can fall for Evil-aligned acts committed under mind control, but will consistently be able to atone for their deeds.

[Talic]

If the act is something they ought to know better than to do because it is always wrong, then they fall for it. Killing 80-year old aristocrats without letting them speak in their defense and without even attempting to bring them to justice, just because you heard them say something that implies that they're part of an evil conspiracy, is always wrong. Now, if the old man is a powerful wizard readying a spell, matters are different, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Killing a defenseless old man is not an act that can be committed "in good faith." Neither is robbing an orphanage. Taking the treasure in the tomb of an ancient king can be done in good faith, with no evil intentions whatsoever. A paladin whose soul is totally free of evil could nonetheless do this, simply because he is a mortal being who does not have the power of omniscience.

I adhere to this interpretation. A paladin can only fall if they intended to commit an evil act. Mind control effects are a borderline case because it's hard to say what a person under the influence of a Dominate effect intends to do. I think I'd apply situational rules. As I recall, the given rules say that paladins can fall for Evil-aligned acts committed under mind control, but will consistently be able to atone for their deeds.
You would, I'm sure. It supports your view, as unsupported as it is by RAW and as full of half-rationalizations as it is.

You can explain almost anything to be "good" or "evil", if you want to spend time in it. Heck, lawyers do exactly that, every day. But painting that picture won't change one simple fact. That fact is as follows:

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

Check 1: Is the act evil?
If yes:
Check 2: Did the paladin willingly commit the act?
If yes:
Paladin loses powers.

If the act is evil, and the paladin willingly commits it, lose abilities. Luckily, paladins atone.

Bear in mind, also, most players don't stop to give the "bad guys" time to defend or explain themselves. It's an additional combat risk. What if the enemy has a caster? Not to mention, it Law and Order doesn't usually have the same feel to it as NYPD Blue. Most players that even get in the "kick in the door" scenario are more interested in being the hero than being the judge.

Also, bear in mind, if a paladin from time to time loses his powers, it's not the end of the world. He does an atonement, if the cleric believes he atoned, then there's not even necessarily a quest!


This spell removes the burden of evil acts or misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. 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. Many casters first assign a subject of this sort a quest (see geas/quest) or similar penance to determine whether the creature is truly contrite before casting the atonement spell on its behalf.
Note the use of "unwittingly" vs "willingly". This shows that if the subject of an atonement committed an evil act under a condition of ignorance or not knowing, the spell is absolutely no cost. And the "assign a quest" schtick? It's called "plot hook". A good DM doesn't throw such quandaries at a player every level. Most of the time, things can be what they appear. However, every so often, that class feature should have a meaningful game impact, else it's not even worth having.

If there is a quest, it could easily be any of the following:
escorting a member of the clergy to X location, by caravan.
Returning the lost/stolen item to its rightful owner.
Investigate the disturbance in the graveyard.

See? These quests do not need to be, "Go to the sacred altar of Al'Tar, deep in the jungles of Chult. Rip the wings off a two-day old dragonfly, and lay them upon the altar of Al'Tar. The great dragon Dra'gonn will descend from the skies, and you must best it in single unarmed combat." Heck, there need not be a quest at all, if the cleric trusts you.

Further, if the paladin picks up the sword from the tomb, takes it to a nearby sage of some sort, and tries to get the family crest or somesuch located, as a means to locate the owner? Perfectly fine. Well, unless you're a VoP pally. Then that's a violation of the VoP. But that's another can of worms entirely.

[Rutee]

Heck, lawyers do exactly that, every day. But painting that picture won't change one simple fact. That fact is as follows:
Lawyers very rarely paint acts as good, in the real world. Lawyers typically (attempt to) establish doubt, yes, because if there's any doubt, by the law, you aren't supposed to convict people if there's a shred of doubt (At least in places that follow the practices of English Law), but they very rarely paint a practice as good, just that it can't be traced back

[hamishspence]

one of most famous examples of someone commiting an evil accident under magical compulsion, and being required to atone on a large scale, is Hercules. Magically driven to madness by Hera, kills his family, is required to work for his unpleasant cousin for 12 years.

If it works for him, why not paladins?

[Citizen Joe]

Hercules didn't lose any of his powers

[Rutee]

The real reason Hercules had to do that quest was because he was one of Zeus' progeny, and Hera was something of a bitch about that. He had to seek atonement /from the one responsible for his mind controlled rage/. Who was already pissed at him for reasons that had nothing to do with the killing, and who was out to get Hercules. I don't think that's really equivalent.

[Starbuck_II]

The real reason Hercules had to do that quest was because he was one of Zeus' progeny, and Hera was something of a bitch about that. He had to seek atonement /from the one responsible for his mind controlled rage/. Who was already pissed at him for reasons that had nothing to do with the killing, and who was out to get Hercules. I don't think that's really equivalent.

Some would say Hera=DM in some cases. after all, DMs who try to make Paladin put in no win situations certainly fit the vibe Hera gives off.

Though, didn't Hercules see his family in underworld and they were happy? So it wasn't a total bad thing.

[Dervag]

one of most famous examples of someone commiting an evil accident under magical compulsion, and being required to atone on a large scale, is Hercules. Magically driven to madness by Hera, kills his family, is required to work for his unpleasant cousin for 12 years.

If it works for him, why not paladins?Remember, the Greek gods were capricious, cruel, and by no means just according to modern ideas of ethics. Is that the kind of code paladins should have to follow? Is the definition of what they have to atone for created by cruel and capricious beings, or by beings that literally embody the ideals of good and justice?

And if the latter, what standards would such beings apply to mortals of known limitations?



You would, I'm sure. It supports your view, as unsupported as it is by RAW and as full of half-rationalizations as it is.OK. You think I am wrong, and regard arguments along the line of "X leads to absurd consequences, therefore X is not true" as invalid. I already gathered that. However, unless you are willing to come up with an argument there's no way I am going to believe the thesis that I am wrong.


But painting that picture won't change one simple fact. That fact is as follows:

Check 1: Is the act evil?
If yes:
Check 2: Did the paladin willingly commit the act?
If yes:
Paladin loses powers.

If the act is evil, and the paladin willingly commits it, lose abilities.Not "willingly," "willfully." If we're in the business of quoting dictionaries, I should point out that willfully (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w014.htm) means:

"Committed voluntarily and purposely, with the specific intent to do something; voluntarily and intentionally assisting or advising another to do something that the person knows disobeys or disregards the law. A person does not act "willfully" if the person acts as a result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law."


Also, bear in mind, if a paladin from time to time loses his powers, it's not the end of the world. He does an atonement, if the cleric believes he atoned, then there's not even necessarily a quest!Thing is, you seem to have paladins falling all the time. This is a significant disadvantage for paladins, because it means that in a large fraction of their encounters they spontaneously lose all their class abilities and keep them lost until they run into a cleric willing and able to cast a 5th level spell on them. For low level characters (like the paladin this thread was originally about), that is a truly crippling disadvantage.

Of course, this is no problem if you engineer your game world so that virtually all property controlled by monsters is completely abandoned and virtually all enemies are so irredeemably evil that it's pointless to talk to them. In that case, the paladin need have little worry of losing his powers in the middle of a battle.

The downside is that you've added a layer of contrivance to the gaming system. The "someone has a legal claim to this thing" status of every item the PCs find suddenly becomes a matter of signficant in-game mechanical importance. And it still sucks to be the paladin who loses his powers because his DM interprets "willfully" to include actions the paladin didn't even know he was committing at the time.

You could reasonably retort that many DMs do this anyway. However, I think it's more accurate to say that many DMs simply do not worry about it. The assumption is that it's OK for the paladin to take the magic sword he found in the ancient tomb, even if there might be some distant descendants of a fourth cousin of the sword's original owner somewhere in the world. Or that it's OK for the paladin to respond with lethal force against a powerful enemy who attacks them without warning or pause for negotation (as many D&D monsters do). The DM decides not to worry about that factor, implicitly ruling that these things are not breaches of the paladin code. And I don't think that is either wrong or contradictory to rules as written because of the use of "willfully."


Further, if the paladin picks up the sword from the tomb, takes it to a nearby sage of some sort, and tries to get the family crest or somesuch located, as a means to locate the owner? Perfectly fine.What if the sage doesn't know enough? Does the paladin need to find another sage, and another and another, until all possibility that he is ignorant of surviving relatives of the sword's original owner is lost? Because if paladins fall for committing 'theft' of that sort even when they have no idea the rightful owner even exists, then that's what the paladin code requires them to do.

After all, paladins are supposed to follow the code with sincerity and devotion, not just to make a half-hearted stab at it and then go "Meh. I'll just atone if this doesn't work out." Arguably, that's what they're doing if they don't do enough research. And they have no way of knowing how much is enough- when can they stop trying to track down the owners, given that the 'owners' may be living on some Godforsaken rock in the middle of an ocean on the opposite side of the planet?

[Kompera]

I think I see what the fundamental problem is...

Everyone is throwing around examples of what a paladin should be, but they are doing so as if that is the ONLY way it should be. Meanwhile the question becomes can a paladin be envisioned and played in manner X while another is played in manner Y?

Can you play militant paladins? Yes you can
Can you play redeemer paladins? Yes you can

Agreed. But you can't play bigoted Paladins, except for very briefly. :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

in the story I read, Hercules went to Oracle of Delphi to ask how he could be cleansed of his guilt.

would you expect a person who has been crotrolled in some way to feel guilty for actions done under that control? i find:

"I've been killing people and don't know it? Oh no! what can I do to make up for this terrible crime?" a little more plausible for a good guy, than:

"I've been killing people, but it was under influence, so I don't think it matters"

[Rutee]

The only guilt a Pally should feel is for failing his Will Save (I have a character in a much different RP who focused on status defense to prevent this very thing from coming to pass, actually). How can you feel guilt or shame at an act you had /no actual hand in committing/?

[hamishspence]

its quite reasonable for a person to feel guilty, even if he himself had no choice in the matter.

If said paladin was fully aware at the time, watching his own hands commit horrible acts, with his soul helpless to prevent it, you can imagine him feeling pretty screwed up and guilty, and saying "I have blood on my hands" After all, whoever said guilt was always rational?

On the other hand, more recent version refeering to the Hercules story in passing (David Gemmell) had him killing his family in a "drunken rage" with the deities in this style of writing having no evidence for their existance. Maybe thats the reality behind the Hercules story: that the "driven to madness" bit was made up after the event?

[Rutee]

The original Hercules story has Hera responsible for his rage, and Hera as the arbiter that determines what he has to do for atonement. You're not getting points for attempting to twist this. Seriously, stop trying.

It's not /reasonable/ if it's not /rational/. It's /understandable/ perhaps, but it's not /reasonable/. There's no legitimate train of thought that actually equates to the Paladin being responsible, aside from "I failed my will save". There's therefore no legitimate train of thought that can equate the paladin to needing to feel guilt.

[hamishspence]

and remember, there is a difference between game mechanics and novels. You can imagine a paladin thinking: I should have been stronger, I should have resisted. From our perpective as gamers it might be a failing of luck, but from the perspective of this fictional paladin, it might be personal weakness which must be atoned for.

Hence the: no alignment change, but atonement needed, plus atonement spell needed, no XP cost to caster.

[Rutee]

Even ICly, you can not legitimately claim that something you had no control over, realistically (I should have been stronger? REally? How?) should yield a sense of responsibility. And no, no atonement spell should be needed, unless "Good God" is equal to jerk. /He didn't do anything wrong/

[hamishspence]

we are getting off topic: the point to be made is that, By RAW, a paladin must atone for evil acts committed under compulsions, whereas you're saying a paladin should be completely unaffected.

similarly, Vile Darkness suggests that while a paladin should not fall for killing someone genuinely by accident, he should feel guilt, and responsibilty, and attempt to right the inadvertant wrong as best he can.

[Rutee]

Screw RAW! By RAW you fall if your /party members/ break your code and you don't ditch them! RAW is completely irrelevant in discussions on Paladins + Ethics or Morality, IMO.

[hamishspence]

thems the breaks. Guilt by association. Heck, you can be considered guilty by association in the real world, never mind the D&D one. so it does not seem all that unrealistic that a paladin whose buddies commit a serious evil act would fall for letting them get away with it.

And it says those who Consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code.

[Rutee]

thems the breaks. Guilt by association. Heck, you can be considered guilty by association in the real world, never mind the D&D one. so it does not seem all that unrealistic that a paladin whose buddies commit a serious evil act would fall for letting them get away with it.

And it says those who Consistantly offend against the paladin's moral code.
Guilty by Association is a colloquial phrase, not a legal reality (Without getting into politics) . And I'm not talking /evil/. I'm talking breaking the paladin code. That's not by definition evil.

RAW on Alignment is, frankly, generally stupid, wrong-headed, or written without any actual consideration on ethics or morality. THAT is why the the RAW on the paladin code is irrelevant.

[hamishspence]

seems you're not fond of paladins as ruled in PHB either. And Thornhold novel has a reference to same sort of problem between Paladins and Harpers

"I regretfully parted company with my old friend Rhys Brossfeather shortly after he entered Torm's service. My ways are not his, and that was too much of a stumbling stone for him. In fact, in the eyes of many paladins, I would dare say that a Harper is nearly as much an enemy as a priest of Myrkul"

thing is: the books say it, the novels say it. Exactly what sort of paladin do you want: one who can get along with almost anybody? Not sure that that sort of paladin has been a feature of D&D at all.

[hamishspence]

Paladin has always been a touchy class.

Remember it says consistantly. One lie in the presence of a paladin, companion not made to leave. Habitual liar: exactly why would person who is so concerned with honor continue to associate with people who offend againt what he stands for? again lying is not listed in PHB as an evil act, but we are told that paladins simple won't associate with people who consistantly do that.

yes, its a class that doesn't play very well with extremely different people, but thats the way it was written. I suspect it was the same in second ed. Its certainly the same in D&D novels.

[Citizen Joe]

Well, I've got something of a solution. Now this isn't RAW at all but I think it addresses the objective evil and subjective evil and who decides if a paladin falls or not.

First, we need to have objective evil. To that end, I suggest evil outer planes. So Baator and the Abyss, etc. Creatures from there are subtype [evil].

Next we need objective good... specifically lawful good. Creatures from there are subtype [good] and [lawful].

Now, the paladin, in order to get his divine powers, makes a pact with one of the creatures from the [lawful good] plane. As such he gains (while a paladin) the subtypes [lawful] and [good].

The paladin's job is to fight [evil] subtype creatures. And his detection ability works on [evil] subtype creatures.

Rules:
1. Do not knowingly associate with [evil] subtype creatures, to do so will sever the pact.
2. Do not work for [evil] subtype creatures. This immediately severs the pact.
3. "Punish" [evil] subtype creatures. Most paladin opt for simply killing.
4. Do not kill [good] subtype creatures. I don't say harm, because I believe paladins should be able to spar with each other. Killing a [good] subtype creature results in immediate severance of the pact.

Code of Conduct:
The lawful good planar creatures have made many alliances with various ruling bodies on the Prime Material Plane. Paladins basically act as representatives of those beings and thus need to act appropriately. Acting in a manner that ill befitting one of his stature may prompt some warnings and re-education of the paladin, usually involving penance or atonement to repair the alliance. Severing the pact is the last resort.

So, you see, there is some being on high that is monitoring the behavior of the paladin via the pact that he has made. The pact is power, but it is also a leash.

OK, all that being said, most creatures out there are NOT of the [evil] or [good] subtypes. Thus they are outside the interest of [lawful good] entity with which the pact has been made. How the paladin interacts with them is up to the paladin, however they should always try to act in a manner that will strengthen the alliance with the [lawful good] organization.

What creatures have the [evil] subtype? Appropriate outsiders have it. Anyone that has made a pact with them has it (like warlocks). Appropriate clerics and other religious types have it.

Undead may or may not have it depending on the DM.
Goblinoids, if treated as spirits would have the [evil] subtype.
Orcs probably would not, although their leaders and shamans might.

How do [evil] subtype creatures act? Well, some can be perfectly nice people, generous to a fault. But they have allied themselves with [evil]. Most however are total jerks.

How do [good] subtype creatures act? Pretty much just like the [evil] subtype creatures just directed at different people.

How do the rest of the people act? Everyone has their own motivations. There are checks and balances throughout. The [evil] and [good] factions are basically waging a war on the Prime Material plane and everyone else is basically innocent bystanders.

[Kioran]

The only guilt a Pally should feel is for failing his Will Save (I have a character in a much different RP who focused on status defense to prevent this very thing from coming to pass, actually). How can you feel guilt or shame at an act you had /no actual hand in committing/?


Guilty by Association is a colloquial phrase, not a legal reality (Without getting into politics) . And I'm not talking /evil/. I'm talking breaking the paladin code. That's not by definition evil.

RAW on Alignment is, frankly, generally stupid, wrong-headed, or written without any actual consideration on ethics or morality. THAT is why the the RAW on the paladin code is irrelevant.

Sorry, but no. The PHB might not be Kant´s "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft", but it´s morality is working, if crudely. And yes, it puts the Paladin in a somewhat uncomfortable place. No offense to you, but I put you firmly in the Chaotic camp. Of course you wouldn´t want to be held responsible for things you weren´t directly responsible. However, being lawful means just that, amongst others.

A Paladin is not only good, he´s lawful good. Sure, good is more important than the law, but Paladins who consistently tolerates offensive behaviour fails at it, simply because tolerating most transgression leads to a less conscious, less restricted rule breaking. Speed limits which are not enforced might, in a few months time, not even be there. A Paladin who doesn´t like people being small time crooks, liars and Oath-breakers (Things even CG heroes might get away with) should not tolerate, much less acceptand shelter these people. And yes, that means you can´t associate with these people, not because you´re "guilty by association", but you fall for aiding and abetting this behaviour.
You can either consort with these people, having a mutualy beneificial relation with them - but then you might in some situations shield them from the repercussions of deeds you find appaling or distasteful, in short making yourself accessory to breaks of your code.
Or you can exploit these people - using them without interceeding on their behalf or letting them get away with stuff. But unless this is somehow both necessary and warranted (some kind of sentence for example, in whoch case your not associating, but acting as a jailor), you´re basically a slaver, and fall immediately for being evil.

That simple. You can´t consistently associate with highly chaotic or even slightly evil people if you notice their behaviour since it would make you break your code as well.

And yes, a Paladin may very well feel guilty for failing in their duty/failing a will save even though their cahnces might have been bad/whatever, since, had he been stronger or somehow more determined or whatever (from an IC perspective), he might have made a difference. It´s, once again, the lawful thing to do - striving to the utmost to meet your responsibilities. If you didn´t make it, you will disappoint yourself. For a chaotic person, that´s external expectations and pressure. For a lawful person, it´s what one strives to do. No half-measure for Paladins.

[hamishspence]

Citizen Joe,sadly, there will be huge arguments over what constitutes Lawful Good, and what counts as acting appropiately. In a sense, its a nice idea, but not that different from the rules as written, since as it stands, no definition of good and lawful are given, simply the suggestion that paladins should abide by it.

[Dervag]

I'd just like to say I like Joe's proposal.


in the story I read, Hercules went to Oracle of Delphi to ask how he could be cleansed of his guilt.

would you expect a person who has been crotrolled in some way to feel guilty for actions done under that control? i find:

"I've been killing people and don't know it? Oh no! what can I do to make up for this terrible crime?" a little more plausible for a good guy, than:

"I've been killing people, but it was under influence, so I don't think it matters"Thing is, whether a person will feel shame has almost nothing to do with whether or not they've done something they should be considered morally liable for. Some people feel no shame no matter how much evil they do. Other people feel shame for minor failings that have nothing to do with morality (such as burning the roast).

It would be very appropriate in character for a paladin to feel ashamed and troubled by his actions while magically dominated. It would be inappropriate and out of character for him not to feel those things. But that doesn't mean the paladin has willfully committed an Evil act.


we are getting off topic: the point to be made is that, By RAW, a paladin must atone for evil acts committed under compulsions, whereas you're saying a paladin should be completely unaffected.If, as talic says, RAW uses the word "willfully" then that isn't quite the situation involved. Acts committed while under mind control are perforce not willful, because it was not your will that drove you to commit them.


Paladin has always been a touchy class.

Remember it says consistantly. One lie in the presence of a paladin, companion not made to leave. Habitual liar: exactly why would person who is so concerned with honor continue to associate with people who offend againt what he stands for? again lying is not listed in PHB as an evil act, but we are told that paladins simple won't associate with people who consistantly do that.

yes, its a class that doesn't play very well with extremely different people, but thats the way it was written. I suspect it was the same in second ed. Its certainly the same in D&D novels.I just think that a lot of people use the most absolutist possible way of looking at the paladin's code and rules. And then they either conclude that:
1)Paladins can't work because their code means they can't deal with other party members and they're doomed to fall the first time they hit a moral dilemna, or
2)Paladins should play as self-righteous jerks who can boss the party around, or
3) [DMs only] A paladin is somehow a 'challenge' that the DM should be trying to make fall, so that they can carve another notch on their DM screen or whatever.

I don't agree with any of those conclusions becasue I don't agree with the premise. I think the paladin code, being the result of a profound connection to the abstract notions of good and justice, must itself be just. Since I have rather firm ideas about good and justice that do not agree with the (rather popular) idea of paladin code as absolutism, I tend to interpret the wording differently.

[hamishspence]

thing is, in 3rd ed, you could only come back into paladin class if fall was caused by compulsion to commit an evil act: a spell cast by another. If you wilfully commited the act, you fell, and stayed fallen.

In 3.5 wilful acts could be atoned for, but atonement spell still said it was also for acts commited under compulsion.

[hamishspence]

so, if you think 3.5 ed code is a bit stiff, I suspect 3rd ed rules must have not been very popular.

[Citizen Joe]

Citizen Joe,sadly, there will be huge arguments over what constitutes Lawful Good, and what counts as acting appropiately. In a sense, its a nice idea, but not that different from the rules as written, since as it stands, no definition of good and lawful are given, simply the suggestion that paladins should abide by it.

Actually, I completely defined it.
Lawful Good is the name of an organization founded on a certain outer plane. If you have the [lawful good] subtype, you are either a member of that organization or have allied yourself with that organization by way of a pact or similar formal agreement.

[hamishspence]

there a big difference between an organization, and the rules of behaviour expected by memebers of that organization. At the moment I see a label, but not yet the kind of behaviour consistent with it. That still needs to be defined. i.e. What Will lawful good people do, and what Won't lawful good people do.

[Citizen Joe]

there a big difference between an organization, and the rules of behaviour expected by memebers of that organization. At the moment I see a label, but not yet the kind of behaviour consistent with it. That still needs to be defined. i.e. What Will lawful good people do, and what Won't lawful good people do.

No, that IS the point.
1. People aren't actually aligned unless they ACTUALLY ally themselves with a specific organization. People will act according to their own agendas.
2. There is no codified behavior for members of the organization. If your actions benefit the organization, then they like it. If your actions hinder the organization, they don't like it.

Now you will find that some people have agendas towards power, while others are focused on money, and still others are looking for friendship or making the world a better place to live.

So what will a [lawful good] person do? Act in a manner to further the goals and agenda of the [lawful good] organization. Possibly also and in a manner to hinder the [evil] organizations and anyone allied with them.

What WON'T a [lawful good] person do? He won't act in a manner that will hinder the agenda of the [lawful good] organization.

What is the agenda of the [lawful good] organization? You are not authorized for that information, Citizen.

[Kompera]

Even ICly, you can not legitimately claim that something you had no control over, realistically (I should have been stronger? REally? How?) should yield a sense of responsibility. And no, no atonement spell should be needed, unless "Good God" is equal to jerk. /He didn't do anything wrong/

Actually, Rutee, this is a pretty valid claim. Plenty of people who aren't actually responsible, in the strictest sense of the word, feel a deep sense responsibility for things over which they had no real control.

Ex:
Friend commits suicide - "I should have been there for them."
Brakes fail on a rental car, causing a crash which kills someone - "I feel horrible for causing that persons death."

I could go on, but I think that makes the point. If in real life there are all kinds of things for which a person can feel responsible for even if it can be said that the events were not under their complete control, then surely IC this can also be the case. A Paladin who fails a saving throw doesn't IC know that it was just the '1' rolled by the player which allowed him to be controlled and sent on a killing spree. IC all he knows is that he swung a sword and people died. Sure, he also knows that he wasn't in control of himself at that moment, but that shouldn't prevent a sense of responsibility for the consequences. There was a battle of wills, and he lost, and people died. Just as if he was set to guard a home, was overcome and killed, and everyone in the home was killed as a consequence. Later after he is raised from the dead it's quite normal to feel responsibility for having failed to protect those people he was set to protect.

[Frosty]

And this is why I say screw it, and go play with Paladins of Freedom. Much less hassles this way. You do what you gotta do for the cause of good. You don't need no stinkin lawful code to tell you what you can and can't do. Or, be a Gray Guard and simple Atone afterwards.

Gray Guard mechanics should become standard forall paladins, seriously. Embrace the lesser evil to combat greater injustice is their motto, and I approve. Just atone for it afterwards with no exp cost from the cleric.

[hamishspence]

except at very high level, grey guards still lose powers and make atonement, the clerics just do not have to pay the usual costs for the atonemnt spell.

Champions of Valor said

"in many cases a hero wants the atonement spell not because he wants a shortcut, but because he wants or needs some sort of official recognition that his transgression is forgiven. A righteous paladin of Torm who is dominated by a vampire and terrorizes a town for a month wants to make sure that not only does his church believe he is worthy of absolution, but the townsfolk know that the church believes this (and hopefully the paladin has made reparations to the town as part of his atonement"

This was after a paragraph suggesting that atonement spell is for DMs who don't have the time or inclination to require extended roleplaying for a characters penance, but if they do, then option to atone without the spell is there.

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.

[Saph]

Screw RAW! By RAW you fall if your /party members/ break your code and you don't ditch them!

Actually, this isn't true. The three conditions under which a paladin can fall are:


ceases to be lawful good, willfully commits an evil act, or grossly violates the code of conduct.

Associating with people does not cause a paladin to fall. The section on associates is a fluff paragraph; it's designed to give you some guidance on how to play a paladin. It's not part of the Paladin's Code.

- Saph

[hamishspence]

True, but it does express it in the imperative mode, saying a paladin "Will not associate" I suppose it could work the same way as Always Evil for creatures without the evil subtype like chromatic dragons: exceptions exist, but are very, very rare.

[EvilElitest]

Here's how it goes: In the world of DnD as I see it, who really judges the mortals? the gods do. When Moradin sees something he doesn't like in you, he makes you fall. Well, the thing is, deities in DnD aren't perfect. They have finite (albeit HIGH) mental stats. They can and do make mistakes. And hey, if the JUDGES of who is good/evil/chaotic/lawful can get it wrong, who can really say what the criteria for morality is? It's certainly not spelled out in the Player's Handbook in an detail.

Frosty, the gods can only make clerics fall, not paladins and they have no control over good and evil


Ok, let's take a look at the following example of BoED logic.

Take Joe Tiefling. Like some of his kind, he's evil. He cheats at cards, and eats babies. He's really bad. REALLY.

According to the BoED, if someone were to come along and poison him, it would be an evil act. Why? Because it causes unnecessary suffering, even if he needs to be killed. Poison causes pain and suffering, and that's not kosher to do, so it's evil.

However, if someone were to come along and hit him with positoxin, it's a good act. Just as with poison, he's caused suffering. Just as with poison, he's caused ability damage. But now, it's not evil, it's good.


Your forget however, the paladin in question need to offer him a chance to surrender before being killed. Should Joe resist, then beat the crap out of him. Also i think Poison is dishonorable more than evil.


THIS is why the BoED is not qualified to mention good and evil. And it's a book ABOUT good. Go fig. Bear in mind, some sourcebooks aren't given the same amount of testing that the core books are. Thus, even if mechanics are balanced, the ideology and reasoning may not be. The core books had it right when they gave alignment a very light touch, and let people decide for themselves. Because while everyone has common ground, there are a lot of areas that some people consider horrid, and others consider inalienable rights.

one misunderstood inconsistency and you say hte book isn't valid. Screw that, the book is published by WotC and approved by them, and is considered cannon and is made exactly for this sort of topic, ergo good.



OK, I think I see the problem.

You see, I believe that morality is objective. Actions are right or wrong. A person who is doing wrong may be deluded into thinking they are doing right, but this is merely a delusion. They could equally well be deluded into thinking that they are clad in purple when they are naked, or that their heads are made of earthenware. Delusions do not carry moral weight except insofar as they prevent a person from perceiving the basic physical situation they're in.

It isn't delusion it is belief

For example, i am EE, the high priest of Hexor. My god and myself are evil, rightfully because we do evil things. However i believe in Hexor's divine plan of might makes right and the strong dominating the weak. I beleive it is the best way for hte world to wrong. I am fine with being evil because i believe my morals are right. A paladin of Pelor would disagree, but right and wrong are subjective.


Now, to me, that means that any act has a definable 'right/wrong' value. Therefore, I think that we can talk about how objective right/wrong relates to objective Good/Evil. Good and only Good acts are persistently right under virtually all circumstances. Evil and only Evil acts are persistently wrong under virtually all circumstances. An act which may be right or wrong or morally neutral, depending on circumstances, and in which there are many circumstances that can make it any of the three, will be Neutral. Lighting a campfire, for instance, is morally neutral most of the time, occasionally morally right, and occasionally morally wrong. Thus, paladins should not fall for lighting a campfire unless they do it with malice aforethought, because lighting a campfire is a Neutral act.

Every actions has a aligment action associated with it. Lighting a camp fire will be neutral. Should a paladin light a camp fire to save a freezing baby, then it would be a good action (saving the baby). Should a paladin light the fire in order to burn the woods down and killing innocents, it would be evil. Should the paladin accidently light the fire and it burns the woods down, then the action is still neutral'



Yes, but Fascist EE is suffering under a delusion, and not one that prevents him from perceiving the physical parameters of his situation. So he's still in the wrong even if he's convinced he's in the right.

Maybe he should just stick to making trains run on time (which is morally Neutral).
Facist EE disagrees. Dervag says Facist EE is delusional, Fascist EE says that his way of government is best. Fascist EE is evil, but he doesn't think that he is wrong in instigating a fascist government


But is it pragmatically wrong in the sense of 'a stupid thing to do', or morally wrong in the sense of 'an immoral thing to do'?

Royalist EE say both. Pragmatically wrong in that it is a stupid thing to do, and morally wrong in that it goes against the proper order of things


Again, I'm not sure I agree. I think intentions matter enormously. I think that "Killing the druid to save the villagers" may well be Good, while "Killing the druid to save the world-wrecking demon Ralishaz the Eater" is Evil. Even though both acts take the form "killing the druid," the intent is different.
Sure, but the action is good. However torturing the Druid is still evil regardless of intentions


I agree with your conclusion, but not quite for the same reasons you came to this conclusion.

why? The adventures are fighting the illusionary monsters. That is self defense. THey have no way of knowing that they are in fact innocent people. The only person to blame is hte wizard who used hte illusion spell to bring about this tragic event in the first place



That's a pretty big part of my point. I was using this example to show why I think intent matters- because using tricks to cause a person to commit an act X with consequences Y when they intended consequences Z can alter the alignment consequences of the act. A paladin who swings his mace to kill a baby deserves to fall. A paladin who swings his mace to kill a dangerous monster and kills a baby that he thought was a dangerous monster? Harder to say.
No because the action is different. Intent only make a difference with good or neutral actions, however for evil action it is still an evil act. The paladin who swings at hte monster, his action is "attacking the monster". The fact the monster isn't a monster isn't his fault


Can we assume for the sake of argument I do? I mean, it wouldn't be difficult to set up a D&D campaign in which the DM (or even the players) knew that to be true.
No, because that leads to totally arbitrary situations. In no case can you 'know' that something will happen. If situations are arbitrary, then the paladin class is useless



Who said the door was anyone's property? I mean, what if the dungeon is controlled by Xykon, who killed the previous owner Dorukan to get it? Is the door Dorukan's property? Xykon's property?

Maybe the door is the property of Dorukan's heir? But what if Dorukan doesn't have an heir? What if Dorukan lives in a lawless wasteland where "law" doesn't mean anything more or less than "the wishes of a powerful being?"

We, today, live in a society where nation-states that have at least some level of rule of law exist wall to wall, carpeting most of the globe. We take for granted that there are in fact well established laws against things like taking people's stuff.

But many D&D adventures take place in situations where, de facto or de jure, no law exists. There may be a warlord, but his dictates do not carry beyond the reach of his pikemen. Or there may be a disputed region that has no globally recognized authority. In which case do you have any reason to respect the bandit chieftain's word as "law?" Why is his word law, and not yours? And if you break his "law" against taking his property, are you committing an Evil act in the objective "a devil would approve" sense?

Depends. If he is breaking the door of the lich's crypt, then i don't see a problem. A bigger problem arises if the paladin throws an explosive potion at bandits and destorys a farmer's crop. The action of destroying the crop is negated by killing the bandits, but he destroyed the crop recklessly then he would be commiting an evil act.




What rights? Does the guy who has an interest in not letting the door be broken always have a right to not have the door broken?

In the suburbs of a lawful city, every property is owned by a specific person who has unquestionable property rights, ensured by a lawful government. No person can legally abuse their property rights, either, because the lawful government prevents it.

In a region where there is no government, or where the "government" is actually a single person who seeks to cause harm to all, the idea of unquestionable property rights goes out the window. Frazznargth, Warlord of the Barrens, has no "right" to pronounce laws for the Barrens except that if you don't do what he says he will rip your head off and stick it on a spear. If you're too strong for him to decapitate, or strong enough to decapitate him, why are you bound to follow his 'laws'?a

The whole idea of good in D&D is that people have certain innate rights. People have the right not to be murdered, tortured, stolen from, oppressed, or raped. That is the whole principle of the D&D aligment

agree with you on the children thing


Feeding a random guy who walks into your restaurant might be the right thing to do (if he's hungry and you give him a discount because he's down on his luck), or it might be the wrong thing to do (if eating your greasy, greasy food will give him heart disease). Or it might not matter one way or the other. So it's a Neutral act.
no actually, the act would be good, charity. The fact that he happened to have heart sickness isn't your fault. If you knew he had a heart condition however and still gave him greasy food, or if you knew that the food you served had Mad Cow, then you'd be evil



On killing someone by accident = evil. It depends. I don't think I'd ever classify as actually Evil. Not if we take the definition of "accident" to heart, meaning there wasn't any real way to foresee the innocent's death. For the illusion, a Detect Evil should cut through, or at least show that the thing isn't evil (prompting the Paladin to try to deal nonlethal damage instead). If we're talking about innocents dying as collateral damage? Neutral. It's not even really an act. It's a consequence. Therefore the perpetrators aren't responsible for it as long as they tried to minimize the possibility of it happening. To take a modern-day example, it's like shelling a town/village from which your unit is being attacked. Yes, civilians might die. But it happens. It's sad, but when you're taking fire, you don't ignore it because you might hurt innocents. You do everything reasonable to minimize the chances (using precision weaponry, for one), but the simple fact is that we don't have perfect weapons. Though I've never actually heard of a D&D plot killing innocents since they tend to be more on the mano-a-mano scale of conflict.


Here is the thing. If Paladin Joe kills an illusionary demon because he was out of detect evil, then he wouldn't fall. If a paladin threw a fire ball into a band of bandits and accidentally killed their prisoner who he knew wasn't there then he wouldn't fall. However, if he threw a fire ball into a town in order to kill the bandits, knowing it could very likely hurt or kill innocent civilians, then that would be evil.


On the culture thing, if the culture is evil and i just follow its rules, i'm still evil. For example, in one land that promotes human supremency one of the rules is to "enlighten" the "lesser" races by "Blessing them" with human cross bred offspring. By doing so, this culture will often resort to rape of non human slaves in order to breed a new race of cross breeds. They think they are doing it for the good of the other races, but they are still being evil.




Your reality seems to be inextricably tied to twentieth century America, and therefore alien sixth century Oerth or fourteenth century Abeir-Toril. And that's probably a sane thing. But it means that your assumptions about how the world works and should work aren't going to be as applicable to D&D as they might be.
The aligment system D&D is based upon twentieth century western ideals.



You're not putting enough parameters into the decision.


I mean, talking about "theft" is like talking about "throwing a rock." It's an act with a specific definition, but you can't say much about it without context. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock," you cannot tell whether Bob is good or evil. If I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a baby," you can. Likewise if I tell you "Bob threw a rock at a ferocious ogre, endangering his own life to distract it from a baby."

What I'm saying is that if I only tell you "Garrett commits theft," you do not have sufficient information to judge whether or not he is D&D Evil or not. Robbing may be Evil if it is done to one entity in one situation, and not-Evil if it is done to a different entity in a different situation. Just like throwing a rock.

Which is why D&D does not say that theft, or killing people, is "always Evil." Because in D&D there are an infinite number of imaginable circumstances under which it is an entirely right and fitting thing to do.
agreeded, theft is evil depending on the situation, like Lying or killing. Torture, murder, and rape however are always evil

ON the burial thing, i think the paladin might fall from hypocrisy more than now burying him. Personally i wouldn't let him fall, but i'd watch out for more acts of racism. Not burying hte body doesn't effect the half orc's soul in any way.

For a single mistake, and a minor one at that? Hmm.
to be fair, that single mistake shows quite a disinterest in the paladin code

from
EE

[hamishspence]

oddly, Vile darkness has "Stealing" and "Cheating" as considered wrong, or at least very mildly evil. Lying, on the other hand, is made a specific exception, saying it can be OK, but should be considered dangerous.

It's also the first place in which we see the argument that "It's evil" is not a justification for instant execution, saying that its only justified for creatures of "Consummate, Irredeemable evil" Basically, anything with evil subype, or Always evil. Dragons, fiends, undead are the usual grouping, though some other creatures (mostly aberrations) also qualify.

but NOT the Usually evil, and Often Evil creatures. Or the Neutral ones. With those justification should be: Its an animal, I need lunch (Int 2 or less) or It's trying to kill somebody (you, or others)

[Rutee]

Sorry, but no. The PHB might not be Kant´s "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft", but it´s morality is working, if crudely. And yes, it puts the Paladin in a somewhat uncomfortable place. No offense to you, but I put you firmly in the Chaotic camp. Of course you wouldn´t want to be held responsible for things you weren´t directly responsible. However, being lawful means just that, amongst others.
What are you babbling about? In what reality does "Lawful" mean "I take responsibility for actions my body took while under someone else's direction"? The only rational response is that the responsibility lies with the person exerting unnatural mental influence. This victim responsibility mentality is horrendous to me. If a Bard uses their Fascinate Bardic Music ability to enchant a town of commoners into giving him all their gold, you would place responsibility on the commoner? You claim a lawful entity would take responsibility for actions they couldn't help (In this extremely narrow case). Nobody has provided a rational reason for why the paladin shoulders the burden. They've listed IC /irrational/ reasons, but no rational objective reason for why the Paladin shares the blame.

DnD morality, on that note, /falls apart under even the lightest examination/. By RAW, killing Evil aligned creatures is good. How many people will actually say "Busting into an Orc village and killing all Evil-detecting Orcs" is good? How many will say you can bust into people's houses and kill off all evil-detecting Humans or Elves? It doesn't function period.


That simple. You can´t consistently associate with highly chaotic or even slightly evil people if you notice their behaviour since it would make you break your code as well.
And hte code is pretty much idiotically written. Oh. Fragging. Noes. I care that it's broken?


Guilt
Guilt is an emotion. Guilt isn't bound to any form of rationality. I'm not talking the IC response. I'm talking about whether any rational being can hold someone responsible for actions taken while enchanted.


Associating with people does not cause a paladin to fall. The section on associates is a fluff paragraph; it's designed to give you some guidance on how to play a paladin. It's not part of the Paladin's Code.

It's listed in the paladin description that Paladins /do not associate/ with evil or those who break their code.



Actually, Rutee, this is a pretty valid claim. Plenty of people who aren't actually responsible, in the strictest sense of the word, feel a deep sense responsibility for things over which they had no real control.
Guilt is not equivalent to actual responsibility.

[hamishspence]

the reason I gave previously: because otherwise, a wizard who has dominated a paladin could use every power the paladin has, freely, to harm good guys or help evil ones (Holy sword, up to +5 to hit and damage, for example) Basically, it's a failsafe in the paladin.

Not the best argument, but if a paladin is terrorizing villages, under magical influence, would you expect Powers of Law and Good to think "he's not in control, so his powers still function, even in service of evil?"

And from Vile Darkness onward, it has been stressed that paladins aren't in fact allowed to kill evil creatures, without just cause (they are attacking or harming people, for example)

Champions Of Valor gave the Hercules example (first time he was driven mad, it was Oracle, not Hera, who gave the requirement. Second time, it said it was Zeus, his dad, who gave him the atonement (serve as servant of a queen and wear womens clothes and sew for a year. Yes, Greek legends were chauvinist)

also, it gave the sample of atonement spell being a message to the public that this guy is accepted into society. Villagers who have been terrorized by a mind controlled paladin for a month might want to see him make up for it in some way.

[Rutee]

Dude. The original tale has HERA give him the deeds. nobody else would screw with him that hard. I'm /sorry/. Even if the Oracle was the mouthpiece, it was Hera who set the 12 Labors. And you're still using Greek Myth. Greek Myth isn't quite "Just" or "Fair". It's /epic/, but not Just or Fair.

now, I could believe that the powers that be would temporarily take the Pally's powers! But why would you then proceed to force an Atonement quest for this? Or even an Atonement spell? Why would they wait beyond "Out of mind control" to grant him his powers? Honestly, we're talking about Powers that Be that can monitor a paladin so closely that he can suffer instantaneous fall. Why is it that they would take their sweet time to grant powers back?

[EvilElitest]

The only guilt a Pally should feel is for failing his Will Save (I have a character in a much different RP who focused on status defense to prevent this very thing from coming to pass, actually). How can you feel guilt or shame at an act you had /no actual hand in committing/?

I agree a paladin shouldn't fall for something they can't control. They might seek penitence anyways, but that isn't the case.

Odd. RAW disagrees with you. They lose all rights if they ever do something evil. "The Greater Good" is a tool for justification of evil acts. What if the only way to save the world was to stop a ritual, by slaughtering a dozen babies, and fifty kittens, before an altar to Pazuzu? It the paladin justified in that
under the section of the BoED, it is evil. Very evil. You cannot use End jusfies the mean or the "greater good" for a paladin. It is cowardly and disgusting volition of the trust given to him



A good DM would not put that situation before the Paladin. Still, the Paladin would choose to save the world, because to let the world come to an end would be the greater evil. And what paladin would knowingly and willingly choose the greater evil?

Pelor, if he really is the forgiving god he is, will understand that, to the best of the Paladin's knowledge and ability to decide, that the Paladin choose the action that did the least evil. That means, Pelor will send the paladin on a quest of Atonement, and eventually will get his powers back.

To answer your question of is the paladin justified in doing the ritual: I'd say yes. Because if he took the other route, besides the fact that he's probably dead due to the world ending, he would be stripped of his powers perhaps permanently because he chose the greater evil instead of the lesser evil.
1. What Pelor wishes has nothing to do with it, because the gods don't effect the Paladin's abilities. The code comes before the godes
2. Even if he saved the world (supposedly) killing babies is still and evil act
3. He would not fall for the world ending, because he isn't the one ending the world. He is trying to find a non evil solution to the problem, and died for it
4. Killing innocents for the sake of the "Greater Good" is still evil and despicable.




Let me try to provide a counter-point here.

Imagine, if you will, that Menander the Paladin is traveling with a caravan of other paladins, escorting the recently found Staff of Maleficus the Vile, long deceased evil wizard extraordinaire, to someplace where it is to be destroyed, thus ending the threat it poses to all that is right and just merely by existing. Along the way, a wizard appears, as if from nowhere, and attacks the paladins. During the fighting, the knights are defeated, and the wizard escapes with the staff.

Afterwards, Menander, the only survivor (he checks) stabilizes, having been reduced to negative hit points, and takes advantage of the few spells and healing potions he has to bring himself up to reasonable effectiveness. Passing a Knowledge (Ancient History) check, he is certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the wizard is, in fact, Maleficus, the rightful owner of the staff. Nonetheless, battered though he is, he sets off in pursuit, taking advantage of that Tracking ability he picked up for whatever reason.

Menander arrives at a cave, which he enters, finding the foul wizard lurking inside. Menander, uncertain of his ability to slay the wizard in his weakened state, makes an Intimidate check, demanding that the caster surrender the staff or die. Maleficus, having spent many of his spells, is uncertain that he'll be able to defeat the paladin (Maleficus lacks a high Wisdom score), and submits, grudgingly surrendering his staff. Menander, knowing that he needs to destroy the weapon, takes off, making a mental note of the cave's location for later.

In all likelihood, the next day, Maleficus casts a few divination spells, teleports to Menander's location, and kills him, but that's unimportant. What Menander did in this case is undeniably robbery, but is it evil? I don't think so. He did the morally responsible thing to do, which seems, to me, to fit the ideal of good quite well.


Nice situation. My solution (don't make both character's name begin with M next time please)

Menader, after taking the staff, then demands the wizard surrender. He says that he will be assured a fair trial, and if he gives up, Manader will try his best to keep him from being killed. He only needs to surrender until the staff is destroyed.

Anyways, i don't think that would be an evil act, beacuse theft can be counteracted the same way killing can




Most follow the Lord of the Rings model, and that fails whenever enemies aren't clearly defined by race (Orcs and Uruk-hai and trolls = evil. Elves and hobbits = good. Humans and wizards are the only races with a bit of self determination. Everything else is "always good" or "always evil", and the parallel doesn't cross to D&D well

fun fact, Tolkien, a devout Catholic, didn't like the whole racial Good evil theory. Reason why he didn't publish most of his notes while alive was because he couldn't come up with a solution. Also there are plenty of evil elves, and a few nasty hobbits in his books.
"Nothing is born evil, even Sauron was not so"



Wrong. You assume that one good act is justification for an evil one. If a druid is waylaying travellers, that needs to be stopped. If the good he does is also stopped, that's unfortunate. But let's flip the situation. That crazy druid is really a neutral good character, and he's been watching the roads for months, looking for smugglers that have been transporting poisons into the city. He sees a small group, travelling quickly, and alone, and moves out to stop and search them. He summons a bear and advances down the hill (there are 4 of them after all), and promptly gets lit up with a lightning bolt.

Then the Druid was mistaken in using those methods, instead of trying to a least confirm his suspicions. If he killed the party, then he would be committing an evil action.



But that's how war's start. Even in real life. Misunderstandings. Neither side would shift alignment from this, after all, they're trying to do the right thing. But regardless, the party misinterpreted a defensive measure as an attack, and the druid misinterpreted the reason for their reaction. However, the party killed a good druid for trying to protect the roads, and the druid tried to kill the party when it did nothing wrong. Both acts, regardless of what the characters KNEW, were evil in nature. Either side could, at any point in the fight, try to find out more. But no, in this situation, it's almost always "power attack for 7, charge, let's take that lunatic down". Because most people are of the mindset that anything that comes at them in any way other than peacefully is evil. And that carries over to the real world too. "You're against me? Then you're wrong." Either side could have learned what was going on, and the party could have gotten a good quest to track down smugglers. But spring it on a group sometime. See how many times the druid dies. Most times, really.
No, only the druid would be evil (if he had killed somebody that is) because he had hte option of asking them to surrender or investigating more. The party was just acting in self defense.


And if that villager came out and attempted to kill the paladin who did that, would he be evil? What if the villager died as a result? The player's careless rock throwing causes the death of innocents, and yet, because the paladin decided that he'd throw a rock without knowing what he was aiming at, he's protected by the ignorance he chose to have? That's pure fallacy.
1. If the villager didn't give the paladin a chance to explain why he hit him in the head with a rock.
2. Because it was an honest mistake, he didn't see anyone. if a paladin accidentally shoots a passerby while hunting for deer, and it is an honest mistake, the paladin shouldn't fall.


Inaction would cause the Paladin to fall in my games, if he values his Paladin powers and own purity over the good of the world. THAT's selfish. He certainly is justified. He'll just have to do a lot to make up for whatever evil he committed. I'd hate to live in a world with you as a paladin.

and killing innocents is far more evil and selfish. Inaction would be bad, however a paladin attempting to find another solution wouldn't fall (a non evil solution)


By that definition, Frosty, the Paladin shouldn't even have to Atone for committing an 'evil' that truly serves the greater good (The classic example being "Having to kill an infant to save the world"). By definition, he has generated Good for the world. His action /can't/ be Evil, and thus, Fall-worthy.
What are you talking about? Yes a paladin would fall, because he is still committing an evil act, that is waht causes paladins to fall. Killing an infant for the greater good is still evil, and is still using the methods of evil. That goes against what hte paladin stands for.



1) O'chul wouldn't do it because he knows that giving the bad guys information would be a bigger evilthan letting the peasants die.
2) It would not be thieft if the Elderly Lady consents, which she may very well be doing if she WANTs to die. I am a support of euthanasia.
3) Rutee, you're right. The paladin wouldn't fall in my game...as long as he shows pain and remorse for having to do the lesser evil to save the world.
1. O'Chul had no options. He tried lying and he doesn't know any information to give. Even if he did, commiting an evil deed to pervent another one is still an evi deed
2) Under "Greater good" i don't even need to ask the Elderly evil, because i know that her money would be better for chairty. Who needs rights when they interfer with the greater good?
3. So paladins can commit the crimes of their enemies to serve their own ends? This is exactly what Kore and MIko represent (to a larger scale but still). This is not what the paladin repersents, this is "Ends justifies the means". That isn't good, that is very evil. A paladin should find a non evil solution to the matter. Other wise torture is justified.



Some would say Hera=DM in some cases.
I always knew hte DM was a bitch



The original Hercules story has Hera responsible for his rage, and Hera as the arbiter that determines what he has to do for atonement. You're not getting points for attempting to twist this. Seriously, stop trying.
Rutee, shocking as this may seem, but there are quite a few different versions of the story.


Screw RAW! By RAW you fall if your /party members/ break your code and you don't ditch them! RAW is completely irrelevant in discussions on Paladins + Ethics or Morality, IMO
Surprising as this may seem, but RAW is the focus of this discussion. We aren't discussing real world morals or epics, we are discussing paladins. You can't try to talk about the details of the paladin's code without discussing RAW. It is totally relevant because it defines them.
And yes, a paladin would fall if he allows his comrades to commit evil deeds. I'm don't find that at all surprising.
from
EE


from
EE

[hamishspence]

The aforementioned effect of it looking a bit suss, to people who only have churches word for it that it was mind control, for paladin to have zero penalty or restitution after a month or more of havoc wreaked. Maybe its a case of reassuring the people that said paladin is not a bad guy.

[Nebo_]

Surprising as this may seem, but RAW is the focus of this discussion.

Then why are you using flavour text to argue? RAW is rules, not fluff.

[hamishspence]

often the flavour text states things in pretty absolute terms. In that sense, they are rules just as much as stats for various weapons and spells are rules.

[EvilElitest]

Rutee, according to Wikipedia it is the oracle, through i haven't yet checked my books on the subject, which i would trust more.


That simple. You can´t consistently associate with highly chaotic or even slightly evil people if you notice their behaviour since it would make you break your code as well.
actually you can, work with evil people, as long as they don't do evil things



It would be very appropriate in character for a paladin to feel ashamed and troubled by his actions while magically dominated. It would be inappropriate and out of character for him not to feel those things. But that doesn't mean the paladin has willfully committed an Evil act.

true. He might feel obligated to atone, or repent, but he wouldn't lose his powers.




Actually, Rutee, this is a pretty valid claim. Plenty of people who aren't actually responsible, in the strictest sense of the word, feel a deep sense responsibility for things over which they had no real control.

Ex:
Friend commits suicide - "I should have been there for them."
Brakes fail on a rental car, causing a crash which kills someone - "I feel horrible for causing that persons death."

I could go on, but I think that makes the point. If in real life there are all kinds of things for which a person can feel responsible for even if it can be said that the events were not under their complete control, then surely IC this can also be the case. A Paladin who fails a saving throw doesn't IC know that it was just the '1' rolled by the player which allowed him to be controlled and sent on a killing spree. IC all he knows is that he swung a sword and people died. Sure, he also knows that he wasn't in control of himself at that moment, but that shouldn't prevent a sense of responsibility for the consequences. There was a battle of wills, and he lost, and people died. Just as if he was set to guard a home, was overcome and killed, and everyone in the home was killed as a consequence. Later after he is raised from the dead it's quite normal to feel responsibility for having failed to protect those people he was set to protect.
in terms of guilt yes, but in terms of actually failing, not so much. THey don't fall, through they will feel guilty
from
EE

[Nebo_]

. In that sense, they are rules just as much as stats for various weapons and spells are rules.

I disagree. All flavour text is mutable, especially when it's as dumb as the text in the BoED.

[EvilElitest]

And this is why I say screw it, and go play with Paladins of Freedom. Much less hassles this way. You do what you gotta do for the cause of good. You don't need no stinkin lawful code to tell you what you can and can't do. Or, be a Gray Guard and simple Atone afterwards.

Gray Guard mechanics should become standard forall paladins, seriously. Embrace the lesser evil to combat greater injustice is their motto, and I approve. Just atone for it afterwards with no exp cost from the cleric.
1. The paladin of freedom is a bit of an oxymoron
2. THe grey Guard is a disgrace on the nature of a paladin. The idea that you can murder, torture, and commit what ever evil act you can in the name of the greater good makes the paladin no better morally than a zealous thug.


I disagree. All flavour text is mutable, especially when it's as dumb as the text in the BoED.

The BoED makes the nature of a paladin perfectly clear, so it certainly isn't dumb.
from
EE

[hamishspence]

Working with evil people paragraphs in Exalted Deeds applies to exalted people in general, but is not clear if it overrules the non-association clause for paladin in PHB. Dragon magazine's recent articles for each class, giving things like clarifications of rules, included one on paladin, clarifying rules for the class, gave code a little more detail, and stated that, for redeeming villains only, the non-association cause doesn't apply. A prisoner released and given opportunity to make up for his evil deeds, yes. A straight alliance between two groups working toward same goal, not sure.

[Rutee]

The aforementioned effect of it looking a bit suss, to people who only have churches word for it that it was mind control, for paladin to have zero penalty or restitution after a month or more of havoc wreaked. Maybe its a case of reassuring the people that said paladin is not a bad guy.

If we're talking about looking fine in front of the commoners, then make his effects extra flashy for a while, particularly the restoration of powers. Big beam of light, Holy Smite is dazzling, etc. I'm pretty sure that if the Commoners see him slinging around holy beat down on the right people, they'll be more willing to listen to "That finger waggler made me do it"

[EvilElitest]

Working with evil people paragraphs in Exalted Deeds applies to exalted people in general, but is not clear if it overrules the non-association clause for paladin in PHB. Dragon magazine's recent articles for each class, giving things like clarifications of rules, included one on paladin, clarifying rules for the class, gave code a little more detail, and stated that, for redeeming villains only, the non-association cause doesn't apply. A prisoner released and given opportunity to make up for his evil deeds, yes. A straight alliance between two groups working toward same goal, not sure.

in book of exalted deeds is says that all paladins are in fact exalted.
from
EE

[Kompera]

Guilt is not equivalent to actual responsibility.
I would agree, in the context in which you are speaking of guilt. Guilt can mean "the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously", but you weren't speaking about actual responsibility, you were speaking about "a sense of responsibility", as in feeling guilty.

Even ICly, you can not legitimately claim that something you had no control over, realistically (I should have been stronger? REally? How?) should yield a sense of responsibility. And no, no atonement spell should be needed, unless "Good God" is equal to jerk. /He didn't do anything wrong/A "sense of responsibility" is a pretty good definition of guilt. In fact the online MW dictionary defines guilt in part as "feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses." And it's just such a sense of responsibility which causes a great many people to seek out the IRL equivalent of an atonement spell, with the clergy of whatever religion they may follow.

The person who rents a car and is involved in an accident in which someone dies isn't guilty of any crime. They were not responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle. But they can still have a sense of responsibility. A thousand doubts can occur to them, some rational: Was I going too fast? Was I following too close? And and some not so rational: If I hadn't been running late I would have passed through that intersection 20 minutes earlier, and none of this would have happened. If I hadn't gotten lost I wouldn't even have been on that stretch of road.

And for a Paladin, an adherent to a very rigid code of conduct, what might seem to be an irrational doubt to most of us who don't hold to such a strict code, "If I hadn't gotten lost I wouldn't even have been on that stretch of road", might well be perceived as a personal failing which requires atonement.

Here's an example from literature. Gordon R. Dickson wrote several books based in the fictional universe of the Dorsai. One culture in this setting, the Friendlies, were described as being religious fanatics. Most of the other cultures did not understand their belief system or codes of conduct. One story about life among the Friendlies involves a farmers his two sons, and a foster child from a different culture. The eldest son is beaten because a fence rail fell and strangled a goat. The foster son does not understand: The elder boy was a good and hardworking young man. He worked from dawn to dusk helping his father keep the farm going. This was just an accident, it wasn't his fault. The younger son tries to explain: The beating was not in anger or retribution. The beating was so that the elder son would know that his father loved him, by not neglecting the discipline necessary to help him become a strong man once we was an adult.

Beating a child for an accident which was totally out of his control? Fairly shocking concepts by 21st century American/European attitudes, yes? Difficult to conceptualize for those who do not have the same beliefs. But that is because we don't adhere to such a strict lifestyle or code of conduct. To those who do the understanding comes very easily and naturally.

Similarly to this a Paladin who is involved, even in ways in which our value systems would not attach blame, in events which cause harm to innocents can certainly require atonement. Their code of conduct is strict enough that this is no longer an irrational feeling of guilt, but is a real failing for which atonement can be not an option but a requirement.

I've said this before on these forums: A person who wants to play a Paladin has a tough row to hoe. It is probably the toughest role play option amongst any within D&D. The code they follow is so far removed from the typical belief system of today that the player may as well be trying to role play an alien from another galaxy for all they they will be able to relate to the character and their code of conduct and belief system. The typical portrayal of a Paladin as a "goody two-shoes with a stick up" doesn't go half way to fulfilling the obligations of the class.

[Rutee]

Listen to me closely, Kompera. I am not arguing that you can come up with irrational feelings of guilt. I don't care about that in this context; Irrational feelings of guilt aren't what causes the paladin to lose their power. An arbiter of Good and possibly Law is what causes a paladin to lose their power (Except maybe in Eberron, but we don't need to complicate this by adding more settings). If you want to keep attacking a poorly worded statement, have at it, but I for one do not give a damn about whether you can prove a non-absolutely worded statement wrong.

[Kompera]

Listen to me closely, Kompera. I am not arguing that you can come up with irrational feelings of guilt. I don't care about that in this context; Irrational feelings of guilt aren't what causes the paladin to lose their power. An arbiter of Good and possibly Law is what causes a paladin to lose their power (Except maybe in Eberron, but we don't need to complicate this by adding more settings). If you want to keep attacking a poorly worded statement, have at it, but I for one do not give a damn about whether you can prove a non-absolutely worded statement wrong.Listen to me closely, Rutee. I was not attacking your choice of words, I was defending it. Read more carefully, please, the next time you decide to start a post in such an inflammatory fashion.

After defending your choice of words, I went on to explain that what seems irrational to you (or me, or any other person with a fairly standard set of modern morals and beliefs), because you aren't a Paladin and don't need to live up to their code of conduct, may well seem and in fact does seem to be not only rational but absolutely right and good to said Paladin.

Here's the proof in your own words:


And hte code is pretty much idiotically written. Oh. Fragging. Noes. I care that it's broken?

Screw RAW! By RAW you fall if your /party members/ break your code and you don't ditch them! RAW is completely irrelevant in discussions on Paladins + Ethics or Morality, IMO.
You feel that "the code is broken" and that RAW be damned, because it's unfair if the Paladin has to leave comrades who prove that they are not worth associating with. But it's only unfair in your belief system. Not in that of the Paladin.

That's the whole point. Being a Paladin is hard. If you can't even try to suspend your own belief systems and adopt that of the Paladin while playing one, you should play a good and holy Fighter, or a Priest. But playing a Paladin is above your abilities and your character is bound to fall, if you insist on acting as if your own belief system should apply to their actions in game.

[JupiterJazz]

Yep, not gonna read this whole thing, but I'll throw in my two cents. I believe the paladin in didn't break no lawful, or good restrictions, but many sources state RAW that what he done would have broke the case of chivalry. Prejudices and racism might not be against the typical codes of honor in many societies, but the Paladin's code of conduct comes from a higher source, a god, and any god who holds the portfolio of good would more then likely strip such a Paladin of his power if he openly insulted a good aligned character that just made the ultimate sacrifice to save him.

I mean seriously what does that say if the orc just upheld the definition of good to a higher decree then the paladin ever had in his life, and then he shows his respect to such a noble act by disparaging the guys race. Sure a paladin could hold prejudice against orcs, in the sense that 95% of orcs are all evil alignment, but if one shows such courage and chivalry himself a true good doer would in no way act as such.

Particularly brings to mind one of the Dark Elf books, I forget which one it's been a while, but Drizzt runs into an intelligent, and good aligned goblin, one that ends up dieing so he can survive. he forever questions his choice as goblins as a favored enemy, and the prejudices he has laid down upon them in the past, and he isn't even a paladin. I think it was The Spine of the World. Oh and I know that's not technically dark elf series before I get any smartassery over it.

[Rutee]

You feel that "the code is broken" and that RAW be damned, because it's unfair if the Paladin has to leave comrades who prove that they are not worth associating with. But it's only unfair in your belief system. Not in that of the Paladin.

That's the whole point. Being a Paladin is hard. If you can't even try to suspend your own belief systems and adopt that of the Paladin while playing one, you should play a good and holy Fighter, or a Priest. But playing a Paladin is above your abilities and your character is bound to fall, if you insist on acting as if your own belief system should apply to their actions in game.

It's not just that it's unfair. It's stupid on an epic level in a game that focuses on the party at large. The paladin can't be a long term character, if you follow RAW, lest their morality become the focus of the group's actions (Because if they offend it on even an irregular basis, the Paladin leaves; If the Paladin is to be a long term character, you can't keep offending the code. SOMEONE has to give if you want to retain a group dynamic with the characters you have, and the mechanics will punish the paladin. This creates social pressure on the other players to be the ones who give; They won't get godsmacked, but their buddy will, and have to reroll or suck). And that's just the beginning, if you want to defend the Paladin Code on a conceptual level.

And really, what the hell? "Paladins are supposed to be hard"? Why? Why should they have a harder time then a priest? Why would the Gods treat their Sword Arm so much differently then their Mouthpiece? Notwithstanding that Good Gods are supposed to be more understanding to begin with.

[Thane of Fife]

An arbiter of Good and possibly Law is what causes a paladin to lose their power

Says who? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a statement to that effect in the core books (or maybe I'm just not seeing it). But really, there's no reason why the paladin's powers must be tied to some arbiter of good and possibly law. That's the DM's decision. He could equally fairly rule that the paladin's conscience denies him his powers after he commits evil acts.


Why should they have a harder time then a priest? Why would the Gods treat their Sword Arm so much differently then their Mouthpiece?

Putting aside that, as EE has mentioned numerous times (correctly), paladins do not necessarily have any link whatsoever to the gods, the reason that clerics have it easier is that clerics, being more generic than paladins, don't have a code defined in RAW, and therefore people assume that the cleric is less likely to lose his powers than is the paladin (the cleric's rules for losing them are extremely similar to the paladin's, note.)

[EvilElitest]

It's not just that it's unfair. It's stupid on an epic level in a game that focuses on the party at large. The paladin can't be a long term character, if you follow RAW, lest their morality become the focus of the group's actions (Because if they offend it on even an irregular basis, the Paladin leaves; If the Paladin is to be a long term character, you can't keep offending the code. SOMEONE has to give if you want to retain a group dynamic with the characters you have, and the mechanics will punish the paladin. This creates social pressure on the other players to be the ones who give; They won't get godsmacked, but their buddy will, and have to reroll or suck). And that's just the beginning, if you want to defend the Paladin Code on a conceptual level.

And really, what the hell? "Paladins are supposed to be hard"? Why? Why should they have a harder time then a priest? Why would the Gods treat their Sword Arm so much differently then their Mouthpiece? Notwithstanding that Good Gods are supposed to be more understanding to begin with.
1. As i said, paladins can work with evil people as long as they don't do evil things. Which is perfectly resonable
2. Paladins are not clerics rutee, this has been made very clear. They aren't the sword arms of the gods, that is what clerics are actuallly (ergo, the big armor and weapons). Paladins are not clerics nor do they draw their powers from gods
3. A paladins must be really good, that is hte point of paladins. Being a saint isn't easy, it is challenging. Evil is easy, dicatorship is easy, cruelty is easy. BEing good is not. Nothing forces you to be a paladin
from
EE

[Rutee]

Says who? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a statement to that effect in the core books (or maybe I'm just not seeing it). But really, there's no reason why the paladin's powers must be tied to some arbiter of good and possibly law. That's the DM's decision. He could equally fairly rule that the paladin's conscience denies him his powers after he commits evil acts.
Well, I did say screw RAW, so if you wanna take it as the conscience is the part denying powers, sure. It's a different feel though, since if the Paladin can deny themselves access to powers, that would seem to imply that the Paladin grants /themselves/ the power.




Putting aside that, as EE has mentioned numerous times (correctly), paladins do not necessarily have any link whatsoever to the gods, the reason that clerics have it easier is that clerics, being more generic than paladins, don't have a code defined in RAW, and therefore people assume that the cleric is less likely to lose his powers than is the paladin (the cleric's rules for losing them are extremely similar to the paladin's, note.)
If you /really/ wanna try that way, there are Clerics of the planes of Law And Good too. Tell me why they're held to a different standard, by all means. For that matter, tell me why the Planes of Law and Good, as they're not entities, would hold every Paladin to the same Code. If you want to hold the PHB Code up as an example (however bad) of a code, by all means. Why is the PHB Code, as limitting as it is for concepts, the only one?

And it's a different standard, without any serious mention in their Class description. Yes, a Cleric can /technically/ be screwed as easily as a paladin, if a DM wants to play that way, but the possibility of that screwage is much less prominently written in the class description. They also don't characterize clerics as a whole as having a stick up their ass.

[Crow]

If you /really/ wanna try that way, there are Clerics of the planes of Law And Good too. Tell me why they're held to a different standard, by all means. You can sidestep the issue by attempting a technicality, but it remains a sidestep of the issue.

Because they're not Paladins. Clerics can lose their powers too if their alignment drifts too much though.

[EvilElitest]

Well, I did say screw RAW, so if you wanna take it as the conscience is the part denying powers, sure. It's a different feel though, since if the Paladin can deny themselves access to powers, that would seem to imply that the Paladin grants /themselves/ the power.

If you scew RAW, then the rules are different from person to person and everybody has no reason to argue




If you /really/ wanna try that way, there are Clerics of the planes of Law And Good too. Tell me why they're held to a different standard, by all means. You can sidestep the issue by attempting a technicality, but it remains a sidestep of the issue.

1. It isn't a technicality, it is a stated flat out rule. Stop trying to twist things in order to make your point more valid, it is a stated rule
2. Because paladins draw their powers from the positive energy plane directly, from the raw power and the ideal of goodness itself. Not from a god, from the very ideal of good. they take their aligment to an extreme.
from
EE

[Rutee]

Because they're not Paladins. Clerics can lose their powers too if their alignment drifts too much though.

That doesn't explain why there's a rift between Cleric standards and Paladin standards. That just highlights it. Explain, by all means.

[EvilElitest]

That doesn't explain why there's a rift between Cleric standards and Paladin standards. That just highlights it. Explain, by all means.

I just did. They are two separate classes. Paladins are the embodyment of an aligment, while clerics simply draw power from a god. It is like the difference between a druid and a a cleric, or a wizard and a sorcerer
from
EE

[Crow]

That doesn't explain why there's a rift between Cleric standards and Paladin standards. That just highlights it. Explain, by all means.

I'm going with EE on this one. The Paladin devotes himself so completely to an alignment that he can channel "magic" directly. Meanwhile, a cleric must rely upon (and hold the favor of) an intermediary who is capable of channeling "magic" for him. In this case, the gods.

Then there is the shorter answer, which is "Because that is how they wrote the class."

[Rutee]

Clerics can devote themselves to an Alignment. They still don't have a Code in that case. Notwithstanding that your characterization has the God as an Intermediary; Gods are the /source/ of Divine magic, based on RAW (If you worship a God).

If you'd like to go with "There's no reason, they're just different classes", I can respect that, but it's not the same as an actual, concret reason.

[EvilElitest]

Clerics can devote themselves to an Alignment. They still don't have a Code in that case. Notwithstanding that your characterization has the God as an Intermediary; Gods are the /source/ of Divine magic, based on RAW.

clerics embody a cause and draw their power from it, be it a cause or a god. Clerics simply serve a particular code taking their aligment to an extreme

And gods simply are one source of divine magic, see druids who don't need to worship gods. They aren't the source, just one source. Positive energy is a source of divine magic. Also Wu-Gen and shamans
from
EE

[Crow]

Notwithstanding that your characterization has the God as an Intermediary; Gods are the /source/ of Divine magic, based on RAW (If you worship a God).

Intermediary was the wrong choice of word. Gods are a source of Divine magic. There are divine casters that don't get their power from a god.

Horrible speculation and spit-balled ideas to follow: I don't suppose the "code" is what gives Paladins power. More than likely, the code is what needs to be done to tap into whatever power the Paladin uses. You can say, "What if another character follows the code?", but i look at it like exercising. You can exercise (follow the code) for a day, but results still don't happen overnight. Only by dedicating yourself to a regimen do you begin to see concrete results. By then, you've probably taken a level of Paladin.

[Rutee]

It still leaves the question though; A Cleric with no God effectively draws their power from the same source as a Paladin, if you interpret Paladins as drawing power from the plane of Law/Good. Why does the Cleric have a less stringent code (And it's got to be, to not get any real mention). It genuinely seems like the reason is "Because".

[EvilElitest]

It still leaves the question though; A Cleric with no God effectively draws their power from the same source as a Paladin, if you interpret Paladins as drawing power from the plane of Law/Good. Why does the Cleric have a less stringent code (And it's got to be, to not get any real mention). It genuinely seems like the reason is "Because".

As i just said, paladins draw their magic in a different manner than clerics. True you ignoring me, which effectively ruin my attempt to make a point clear
from
EE

[Kompera]

It's not just that it's unfair. It's stupid on an epic level in a game that focuses on the party at large. The paladin can't be a long term character, if you follow RAW, lest their morality become the focus of the group's actions (Because if they offend it on even an irregular basis, the Paladin leaves; If the Paladin is to be a long term character, you can't keep offending the code. SOMEONE has to give if you want to retain a group dynamic with the characters you have, and the mechanics will punish the paladin. This creates social pressure on the other players to be the ones who give; They won't get godsmacked, but their buddy will, and have to reroll or suck). And that's just the beginning, if you want to defend the Paladin Code on a conceptual level.Yes, there are more restrictions on the actions of a group with a Paladin who want to keep the Paladin in their group. But they really aren't that onerous.
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.How hard is that? Not terribly hard. If the other players want to be evil, or neutrals who are "on the edge", then there isn't room in their group for a Paladin to begin with. If they are playing good aligned characters, or neutrals who are socially adjusted or who have a reasonable sense of how to apply the Golden Rule or some approximation of it, then there should be no real problems.
What this really does is illustrate that communication is important. If the GM says to her friends "Hey, I'm starting up a new campaign! Let's meet at my place tomorrow night with characters made and start playing," without any other discussion of the tone of the campaign, the setting, or any discussion amongst the players on what classes and alignments they want to play, then a player bringing a Paladin character into this group is just as likely to find the group unsuitable as IC a Paladin would find any random group of individuals he might be considering for their suitability to undertake quests and other goodly deeds with.


And really, what the hell? "Paladins are supposed to be hard"? Why? Why should they have a harder time then a priest?You misquote me. I said "Being a Paladin is hard", not that is is supposed to be hard. If you're asking why is it harder than being a Priest is, I can't speak to the intent of the game designers. But the fact of the Paladin's code of conduct does make it harder. If as a player that is too difficult to adapt to, then the choice of playing some other class of character would seem to be the logical alternative.

[Rutee]

Why having a Paladin in the group is 'easy'
Even good aligned Neutrals can break the Code enough to offend the Paladin (No lying, no stealing, no committing minor evils..). And that still doesn't speak well of the Paladin; The class by itself shouldn't predicate a given party type. Even Rogues can cheerfully get along with a vehemently anti-thief character, due to the class' structure.



You misquote me. I said "Being a Paladin is hard", not that is is supposed to be hard. If you're asking why is it harder than being a Priest is, I can't speak to the intent of the game designers. But the fact of the Paladin's code of conduct does make it harder. If as a player that is too difficult to adapt to, then the choice of playing some other class of character would seem to be the logical alternative.

The logical choice if you want to play a Holy Warrior without all the baggage the Pally has would be to make it /not hard/. The only thing that makes it 'hard' is the Code. It's not like we're talking the same gulf that makes Wizards strong compared to Fighters (Where even if one may like to put them on the same level, it'd be difficult to do so). It's an easy change, and if there's no convincing reason to keep it as is, then /don't/.

[Dervag]

the reason I gave previously: because otherwise, a wizard who has dominated a paladin could use every power the paladin has, freely, to harm good guys or help evil ones (Holy sword, up to +5 to hit and damage, for example) Basically, it's a failsafe in the paladin.Hmm. That's actually quite clever. I had never thought of the paladin's depower as a failsafe.

However, if that is the case then a paladin's powers should resume after the influence of the mind control is removed. Perhaps one of the reasons for the Atonement is to erase lingering influences of mind control that otherwise affect the paladin with flickers of Evil inclinations?


Champions Of Valor gave the Hercules example (first time he was driven mad, it was Oracle, not Hera, who gave the requirement. Second time, it said it was Zeus, his dad, who gave him the atonement (serve as servant of a queen and wear womens clothes and sew for a year. Yes, Greek legends were chauvinist)In the legend, it may have been Hera who gave him the requirement (as Rutee says). But since CoV could make up completely fictional examples and that would be fine, letting them take a little artistic license with a historical myth should be OK too. So I think it's a good example.

On a side note, the atonement is justified not by the Greeks being chauvinistic (which they totally were), but by Hercules being chauvinistic. By forcing Hercules to perform humiliating and unpleasant tasks for a long period of time, Zeus achieves the multiple facets of penance:
1)Discourage you from doing it again by aversion therapy,
2)Force you to think hard about what you did by constantly reminding you of it, so you will be more able to resist it in future,
and
3)Convince you that you have paid your debt and can now "go forth and sin no more."

EvilElitist
I think EE and I basically agree here below, but he misunderstood some of my remarks to mean things I dodn't mean, and so responded as if I disagreed with him.
For example, i am EE, the high priest of Hexor. My god and myself are evil, rightfully because we do evil things. However i believe in Hexor's divine plan of might makes right and the strong dominating the weak. I beleive it is the best way for hte world to wrong. I am fine with being evil because i believe my morals are right. A paladin of Pelor would disagree, but right and wrong are subjective.The problem here seems to be a disagreement about the meaning of 'subjective.'

You say "different people believe in different definitions of right and wrong, therefore the question of right and wrong is subjective."

I say "no, morality is only subjective if people disagree and no one can be said to have the right answer." The reason I say this is that people disagree all the time, about both subjective and objective questions. If I want, I can probably always find someone who will disagree with me about anything I choose. But it is not the case that all things are subjective because nothing is unanimous. Sometimes, the people holding a given opinion are simply mistaken about some important matter of fact. I would argue that issues where right and wrong are really at stake are one of those times. Thus, the priest of Hextor thinks he is doing the right course of action, but is mistaken, and can be shown to be mistaken objectively. Not just because he disagrees with me, which is largely irrelevant.

"Subjective" does not just mean "people don't all agree about it." It means "peculiar to a particular individual." In questions of logic there's the implication that there is no "objective" way to decide which of two people who disagree about subjective matters is right. For instance, it is not possible to "objectively" decide whether I should wear a blue shirt or a green shirt tomorrow, and thus the decision is subjective. But ethics is an area where many very intelligent people have made good arguments that it is possible to set up objective systems that will tell us who's right. And I believe them, even if I don't agree with many of the systems they use.


Every actions has a aligment action associated with it. Lighting a camp fire will be neutral... Should the paladin accidently light the fire and it burns the woods down, then the action is still neutral'That was kind of my point. Lighting the campfire is neutral (at no time can you say "Bob is because he lights campfires."). However, the intention with which I light the campfire (what you call the "alignment action") [i]does matter. For instance, if Bob's campfire saved the baby but burned out of control and destroyed the forest (though Bob saved the baby), then we have a neutral act committed with good intentions and evil accidental consequences.


Facist EE disagrees. Dervag says Facist EE is delusional, Fascist EE says that his way of government is best. Fascist EE is evil, but he doesn't think that he is wrong in instigating a fascist governmentOf course he would say so. But what I'm saying is that I believe that in this case one of us is in fact objectively right, and one of us is objectively wrong. And that with enough knowledge, intelligence, and honesty, in theory we could deduce the answer to that question.

And I can back this up in a pinch.


No because the action is different. Intent only make a difference with good or neutral actions, however for evil action it is still an evil act. The paladin who swings at hte monster, his action is "attacking the monster". The fact the monster isn't a monster isn't his faultYou're mixing together what I would call "action" and "intention" and calling the two "action." I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I'd like to clarify because I'm not sure we'd disagree if I do.

You see, I'm calling "action" the set of things the person does, physically. Objectives do not come into consideration, nor do circumstances. For example, swinging a sword is an action.

I'm calling "intent" the set of things a person thinks, their motives for doing whatever actions they do. For example, "kill the monster" is an intention.

Then, separate from both actions and intent we have "consequences," the things that happen as a result of the action. And separate from all three we have "circumstances," things that were true about the situation before the person did anything and that (hopefully) influenced his decision making process.

So we can have Bob swing a sword (an action) to kill a monster (his intent), but instead kill a baby (a consequence) because the baby was magically disguised as a monster (a circumstance). The magic disguise fooled his decision making process into carrying out an incorrect action (swinging a sword at a baby). It did this by fooling him into acting out of an inappropriate intention (trying to kill monsters in a place where there were no monsters, but babies instead).

You seem to be combining "swing sword" and "to kill a monster" as a single thing and calling it "action." I would argue that we need to separate those, because one occurs only in the physical universe (we can observe it and measure it), while one occurs only in the mind.


no actually, the act would be good, charity. The fact that he happened to have heart sickness isn't your fault. If you knew he had a heart condition however and still gave him greasy food, or if you knew that the food you served had Mad Cow, then you'd be evilNonono. You see, in this context I was using "wrong thing to do" with "wrong" as a synonym for "incorrect," not for "morally wrong." I didn't make that clear enough. Serving a man with heart disease greasy food that brings on a heart attack is the "wrong" thing to do, in that it is inappropriate and you shouldn't do it. It would be better to serve him vegetables, for instance. But it isn't an evil thing to do, especially if he's hungry. It's just an inappropriate thing to do, and you had no way of knowing it was inappropriate. So, as you say, no blame accrues to you.


Here is the thing. If Paladin Joe kills an illusionary demon because he was out of detect evil, then he wouldn't fall. If a paladin threw a fire ball into a band of bandits and accidentally killed their prisoner who he knew wasn't there then he wouldn't fall. However, if he threw a fire ball into a town in order to kill the bandits, knowing it could very likely hurt or kill innocent civilians, then that would be evil.


On the culture thing, if the culture is evil and i just follow its rules, i'm still evil. For example, in one land that promotes human supremency one of the rules is to "enlighten" the "lesser" races by "Blessing them" with human cross bred offspring. By doing so, this culture will often resort to rape of non human slaves in order to breed a new race of cross breeds. They think they are doing it for the good of the other races, but they are still being evil.


ON the burial thing, i think the paladin might fall from hypocrisy more than now burying him. Personally i wouldn't let him fall, but i'd watch out for more acts of racism. Not burying hte body doesn't effect the half orc's soul in any way.I think we agree.

[DarknessLord]

Hmmm, so a cleric of cause domains Law and Good, has to live up to a less strict code, to draw MORE divine power from the same sources as a Paladin? Why would someone be a paladin then? The reasons seem to be A, in a real world people don’t think in terms of optimization and not every cleric is a zilla so Paladin might be more melee effective in general, and B because they want to be champions of law and good and the powers come as a side effect.
Fine, but that still leaves open the question of multiple interpretations of Law and Good, that can both be equally right, why would all paladins have the exact same code, this magic code that they all seem to have to follow or their just a LG fighter or a fighter W/O bonus feats. Okay, let’s say they need to follow this code to be a paladin, how do they know it, it wasn’t handed down on a stone tablet from on high because paladins “draw their powers from law and good directly, not an entity.”, so does that mean the code was discovered through trial and error? A few people discovered, “Hey, if I act like this, I get cool powers!” which would mean it’s inexact and to some their personal law and good callings would make them want to take a different code rather then have powers. Should that make them any less of a paladin? Is there any in-game reason why they shouldn’t be granted powers as well, when they spend their entire lives dedicated to Law and Good and just decide not to fallow a code that was made by some guy in favor of a Lawful Good code that they find much more appropriate? And for that, I don’t give a crap about the rules because the paladins don’t know them, and the force of Law and Good doesn’t know them.

[EvilElitest]

Even good aligned Neutrals can break the Code enough to offend the Paladin (No lying, no stealing, no committing minor evils..). And that still doesn't speak well of the Paladin; The class by itself shouldn't predicate a given party type. Even Rogues can cheerfully get along with a vehemently anti-thief character, due to the class' structure.

[/QUOTE
Yet again, mis constructed idea of the paladin class.
1. lying, stealing, and minor evils (or the dishonorable evils) can work fine if they are used to a good purpose, in the same way killing does. Also the paladin doesn't require his people to obey the code, just not to do evil things.
2. The paladin can work with evil people if they don't do evil things


because he lights campfires."). However, the intention with which I light the campfire (what you call the "alignment action") does matter. For instance, if Bob's campfire saved the baby but burned out of control and destroyed the forest (though Bob saved the baby), then we have a neutral act committed with good intentions and evil accidental consequences.

I know, i'm agreeing with you



Of course he would say so. But what I'm saying is that I believe that in this case one of us is in fact objectively right, and one of us is objectively wrong. And that with enough knowledge, intelligence, and honesty, in theory we could deduce the answer to that question.
in good and evil yes your are objectively correct. Your person is objectivity good and i'm objectively evil. However that doesn't mean right and wrong. You believe that Fascist EE is evil, as you also (hopefully) that Stalinist EE is Evil, and Social Darwninist EE is evil. From a D&D sense your right. However, weather their line of logic is morally "right or wrong" is subjective. You might believe it so, but the EE's above don't agree.



You're mixing together what I would call "action" and "intention" and calling the two "action." I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I'd like to clarify because I'm not sure we'd disagree if I do.

You see, I'm calling "action" the set of things the person does, physically. Objectives do not come into consideration, nor do circumstances. For example, swinging a sword is an action.

I'm calling "intent" the set of things a person thinks, their motives for doing whatever actions they do. For example, "kill the monster" is an intention.

Then, separate from both actions and intent we have "consequences," the things that happen as a result of the action. And separate from all three we have "circumstances," things that were true about the situation before the person did anything and that (hopefully) influenced his decision making process.



So we can have Bob swing a sword (an action) to kill a monster (his intent), but instead kill a baby (a consequence) because the baby was magically disguised as a monster (a circumstance). The magic disguise fooled his decision making process into carrying out an incorrect action (swinging a sword at a baby). It did this by fooling him into acting out of an inappropriate intention (trying to kill monsters in a place where there were no monsters, but babies instead).

You seem to be combining "swing sword" and "to kill a monster" as a single thing and calling it "action." I would argue that we need to separate those, because one occurs only in the physical universe (we can observe it and measure it), while one occurs only in the mind


No i'm mixing actions with their purpose. For example, swinging a sword is presuming that your swinging the sword at thin air (neutral). However swinging the sword at a monster is a different action than simply swinging sword (wasn't he using a mace earlier). The action is what your attacking. Intent is the reason why your doing it

For example, if Bob attacking monster (action) because he hopes to defend himself (intent).

However, bill attacks monsters (action) because he likes to hurt things (intent)


Nonono. You see, in this context I was using "wrong thing to do" with "wrong" as a synonym for "incorrect," not for "morally wrong." I didn't make that clear enough. Serving a man with heart disease greasy food that brings on a heart attack is the "wrong" thing to do, in that it is inappropriate and you shouldn't do it. It would be better to serve him vegetables, for instance. But it isn't an evil thing to do, especially if he's hungry. It's just an inappropriate thing to do, and you had no way of knowing it was inappropriate. So, as you say, no blame accrues to you.
fair enough
Subjectivity somebody might say it was wrong to feed somebody greasy food regardless on what you know of their health, however one can also say that you can sell whatever you want. And example of subjective right or wrong, your right not morally right or wrong

Also you made some mistakes with your quotes

And Darknesslord, most likely because who become paladins wouldn't do it for the power but for the ideal itself
from
EE

[Kompera]

Even good aligned Neutrals can break the Code enough to offend the Paladin (No lying, no stealing, no committing minor evils..).They can, but they aren't forced to do so. It's a choice, and making the choice to lie, steal, or commit "minor" evils isn't one which a "good aligned Neutral" ever needs to make.


And that still doesn't speak well of the Paladin; The class by itself shouldn't predicate a given party type. Even Rogues can cheerfully get along with a vehemently anti-thief character, due to the class' structure.Yes, the class by itself should, and does, predicate a certain party type. And if that predication is not maintained then either the Paladin falls or leaves the party. That's written into the rules of the game very clearly.


The logical choice if you want to play a Holy Warrior without all the baggage the Pally has would be to make it /not hard/. The only thing that makes it 'hard' is the Code. It's not like we're talking the same gulf that makes Wizards strong compared to Fighters (Where even if one may like to put them on the same level, it'd be difficult to do so). It's an easy change, and if there's no convincing reason to keep it as is, then /don't/.That's not the logical way, but it is the easy way to try to enjoy all of the benefits of the Paladin class while ignoring all of the restrictions placed upon those benefits.
The convincing reason to keep it as it is is that these are the rules of the game. That's the same convincing reason that says that you roll a D20 to see if you hit with your sword, not a D100. It's also the same convincing reason that says that the Paladin class rolls a D10 for Hit Points, and not a D100. Those are easy changes, after all, much more easy than trying to balance Wizards with Fighters. It might be /not hard/ if you got to roll a D100 to hit and for Hit Points, but that isn't a convincing reason to make that change.

House rule all you like if you can find a group that wants to play your variant. But you're not playing a Paladin and you're not playing D&D. More like Rutee&D.

[EvilElitest]

Kompera, wouldn't this be easier if she wasn't ignoring me? We are pretty much saying the same thing at this point
from
EE

[Rutee]

They can, but they aren't forced to do so. It's a choice, and making the choice to lie, steal, or commit "minor" evils isn't one which a "good aligned Neutral" ever needs to make.
And if one does what they have to do? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDidWhatIHadToDo)


Yes, the class by itself should, and does, predicate a certain party type. And if that predication is not maintained then either the Paladin falls or leaves the party. That's written into the rules of the game very clearly.
Have I made it unclear in some fashion that I'm saying the rules of the game suck, in this regard?


That's not the logical way, but it is the easy way to try to enjoy all of the benefits of the Paladin class while ignoring all of the restrictions placed upon those benefits.
Benefits? Class Features are considered benefits now? I hate DnD's programming of 'earning' fictitious power that serves no purpose aside from story and game fulfillment. If Paladins were more powerful, I would understand this line of reasoning, perhaps, but they're not. It's not a /benefit/ if it's /needed to be functional/.


The convincing reason to keep it as it is is that these are the rules of the game. That's the same convincing reason that says that you roll a D20 to see if you hit with your sword, not a D100. It's also the same convincing reason that says that the Paladin class rolls a D10 for Hit Points, and not a D100.
That's not equivalent. You roll a d20 to hit because the core mechanic for task resolution in DnD. You roll d10s for hit points because they're supposed to be as durable as fighters (And you don't switch either/both to d100s because damage is scaled to d10s).

In 3 and a half lines, I have provided a succinct, and in my mind at least, convincing justifications for why you keep those rules. Can you provide me ANY justification for keeping the Paladin's Code? And no, "It's a rule because it's a rule" is only generally acceptable for core mechanics upon which numerous system assumptions in all things operate on (In which case, the real reason for keeping the rule as is, is because you have so many dependencies, in any case) Proving me wrong isn't the same as proving yourself correct, after all.


House rule all you like if you can find a group that wants to play your variant. But you're not playing a Paladin and you're not playing D&D. More like Rutee&D.

So in your reality, a minor alteration to one class makes it a completely different game? Not that this in any sense serves as a convincing argument to keep the Code as is.

[EvilElitest]

And if one does what they have to do? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDidWhatIHadToDo)


Committing evil acts for the "greater good" is still evil


Have I made it unclear in some fashion that I'm saying the rules of the game suck, in this regard?
No, you say the rules suck. That doesn't make it so. If you don't like the paladin code, then don't use it in your game, but you can't claim the paladin is a useless class just because you don't like


Benefits? Class Features are considered benefits now? I hate DnD's programming of 'earning' fictitious power that serves no purpose aside from story and game fulfillment. If Paladins were more powerful, I would understand this line of reasoning, perhaps, but they're not. It's not a /benefit/ if it's /needed to be functional/.

1. The point of a paladin is the cause, not the powers, through those do help
2. Because people don't start out as super special awesome. They use special powers to become so. A wish furfillment game gets old real fast


In 3 and a half lines, I have provided a succinct, and in my mind at least, convincing justifications for why you keep those rules. Can you provide me ANY justification for keeping the Paladin's Code? And no, "It's a rule because it's a rule" is only generally acceptable for core mechanics upon which numerous system assumptions in all things operate on (In which case, the real reason for keeping the rule as is, is because you have so many dependencies, in any case) Proving me wrong isn't the same as proving yourself correct, after all.

Actually we did. However your three and a half lines are
A) full of incorrect assumptions that are blatantly wrong via the rules
B) Aren't backed up, because they boil down to "I don't like them" as every inconsistency has been countered
C) you didn't actually read them. So go figure



So in your reality, a minor alteration to one class makes it a completely different game?
It makes it a totally different class
from
EE

[Crow]

And if one does what they have to do? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDidWhatIHadToDo)

Then, much like real life, you must face up to the consequences of what you had to do. Often, "what you had to do" is just an excuse. And in any case, the Neuremburg (sp?) defense isn't justification for an evil act if you're a Paladin. Any other class, maybe.



Have I made it unclear in some fashion that I'm saying the rules of the game suck, in this regard?

But when you change the rules, you are in effect houseruling, no matter how reasonable the rule is at your table.



Benefits? Class Features are considered benefits now? I hate DnD's programming of 'earning' fictitious power that serves no purpose aside from story and game fulfillment. If Paladins were more powerful, I would understand this line of reasoning, perhaps, but they're not. It's not a /benefit/ if it's /needed to be functional/.

When a person's possible "class" in life can be "commoner" or "warrior", then yes.



In 3 and a half lines, I have provided a succinct, and in my mind at least, convincing justifications for why you keep those rules. Can you provide me ANY justification for keeping the Paladin's Code? And no, "It's a rule because it's a rule" is only generally acceptable for core mechanics upon which numerous system assumptions in all things operate on (In which case, the real reason for keeping the rule as is, is because you have so many dependencies, in any case) Proving me wrong isn't the same as proving yourself correct, after all.

I'm sure lots of people could, but none would match up to your standards. The rules are silent on the issue for the most part, so anything we come up with "fluff-wise" would be considered houseruling as well.




So in your reality, a minor alteration to one class makes it a completely different game?

No, it makes it a houserule. The beautiful thing about D&D is that every group can play the game a different way, and nobody is really doing it wrong. You can change whatever you want, and as long as you're having fun, it's right.

Tangent:I only get to play every once in a long while, but these boards have really made me appreciate my gaming group. We have some minor houserules, like almost all groups, but all wizards needing to be batman, all clerics using dmm persist, and every fighter being an uber-charger doesn't hold true at our table. I would go as far as to say that if I wanted to introduce a true "virgin" to D&D, I would almost avoid these boards entirely.

[Rutee]

Then, much like real life, you must face up to the consequences of what you had to do. Often, "what you had to do" is just an excuse. And in any case, the Neuremburg (sp?) defense isn't justification for an evil act if you're a Paladin. Any other class, maybe.
The trope doesn't have to apply to doing something heinous (And that was a /very/ near Godwin). One of the examples listed at the top of the page is "Trade the MacGuffin for the Hostage", even, which is at least on its face, beneficent.



But when you change the rules, you are in effect houseruling, no matter how reasonable the rule is at your table.
Yeah, it is a houserule. Point?



When a person's possible "class" in life can be "commoner" or "warrior", then yes.
Do you make your players pick "Warrior", "Expert", "Aristocrat" or "Commoner" (Arguably, an Adept is more powerful)? If not, and your players choose from the PC Classes, then Paladin Class Features aren't benefits. They are, theoretically, equalizers. (I could argue paladins are weaker, but I'm not sure they are, and it wouldn't be a particularly useful debate in any case)



I'm sure lots of people could, but none would match up to your standards. The rules are silent on the issue for the most part, so anything we come up with "fluff-wise" would be considered houseruling as well.
...Is there a moratorium on houseruling when discussing how the game 'should' be, that I'm unaware of? I know there's a moratorium on such for discussing hard mechanics, and I can respect that, but these aren't.



Tangent:I only get to play every once in a long while, but these boards have really made me appreciate my gaming group. We have some minor houserules, like almost all groups, but all wizards needing to be batman, all clerics using dmm persist, and every fighter being an uber-charger doesn't hold true at our table. I would go as far as to say that if I wanted to introduce a true "virgin" to D&D, I would almost avoid these boards entirely.

I.. am not sure that they're that common in /actual games/ even among rules posters here, to be frank, but yeah, I would avoid these forums for someone who doesn't know the game too.

[EvilElitest]

The trope doesn't have to apply to doing something heinous (And that was a /very/ near Godwin). One of the examples listed at the top of the page is "Trade the MacGuffin for the Hostage", even, which is at least on its face, beneficent.


1. Godwin's law is only when the subject is generally unrelated. Which his isn't totally in that respect.
2. A paladin couldn't hold his friends responsible for non evil actions


Yeah, it is a houserule. Point?

Then this thread's point is irrelevant




...Is there a moratorium on houseruling when discussing how the game 'should' be, that I'm unaware of? I know there's a moratorium on such for discussing hard mechanics, and I can respect that, but these aren't.


If you rely on house rules, then everything about the game is subjective. We are discussing paladins via the rules, not paladins via Rutee

Does anybody else enjoy watching me repeat my self in countering rutee again and again?
from
EE

[Crow]

Do you make your players pick "Warrior", "Expert", "Aristocrat" or "Commoner" (Arguably, an Adept is more powerful)? If not, and your players choose from the PC Classes, then Paladin Class Features aren't benefits.

I let my players pick from whatever class they want to play. What one person might consider a benefit, could be to another person "meh". The person who wants to play an outdoorsy warrior doesn't really get any benefit to that ends from playing a Cleric. But a person that wants to play a holy warrior might. I can't speak for all groups, so this really only holds water for our group. My players tend to have a good idea what type of character they want to play, and then pick a class that fits. I've had players pick "commoner" before.




...Is there a moratorium on houseruling when discussing how the game 'should' be, that I'm unaware of? I know there's a moratorium on such for discussing hard mechanics, and I can respect that, but these aren't.

No, it's just that you are asking the "Question with no answer". As I said, the rules (and fluff) are mostly silent on the issue, so what are you looking for exactly? Anything I throw out is going to be a "houserule". As such, there isn't really anything I can say that will be up to your snuff.

It could be that I'm just not being clear...it has been a long day. Usually I agree with most of what you say, so I could just be misinterpriting you.

[EvilElitest]

This seems to be getting redundant, could somebody make it clear that i'm actually countering what Rutee is saying
from
EE

[Kompera]

That's not equivalent. You roll a d20 to hit because the core mechanic for task resolution in DnD. You roll d10s for hit points because they're supposed to be as durable as fighters (And you don't switch either/both to d100s because damage is scaled to d10s).

In 3 and a half lines, I have provided a succinct, and in my mind at least, convincing justifications for why you keep those rules. Can you provide me ANY justification for keeping the Paladin's Code? And no, "It's a rule because it's a rule" is only generally acceptable for core mechanics upon which numerous system assumptions in all things operate on (In which case, the real reason for keeping the rule as is, is because you have so many dependencies, in any case) Proving me wrong isn't the same as proving yourself correct, after all.You're a funny gal, Rutee. :smalltongue:

I can provide you the reasons you ask for, but you're not going to like it any better than you have to date.

First thing, proving you wrong on a question of the rules is indeed proving myself correct on that same question. Rules are binary that way.

Second thing, the justification for keeping the Paladin's code is because that is how the game is played by the rules. And yes "It's a rule because it's a rule" is generally acceptable for any rule, because I refuse to accept your qualifier. Play by the rules, or play your home brewed variant. It's a simple choice. Arguing with me about how easy it is to home brew a variant Paladin is just as valid as my suggestion that you that you home brew yourself an easier play experience by rolling a higher die type for Hit Points or to hit. You want an easier game, and those changes will provide that. There is no distinction made in the rules between the Hit Die posted for a Paladin and their Code as far as how "core mechanic" or optional they are. Those are the things which come with the class. Play it as written, or play some other class, or change it because you think it is too hard to play it as written. All freely available options for you and your game group. But if you change it, you're not playing a Paladin and you're not playing D&D.


So in your reality, a minor alteration to one class makes it a completely different game?Not in my reality. In reality. It will play completely different than the game plays under RAW.

Let's play a game of chess. I've altered the rules only slightly. My Queen can move like any piece on the board. That's the sole and very minor change. It makes the game so much easier, for me. Let's play, it'll be a lot of fun! And when you describe this game to your friends, and they say "But, um, that's not how chess is played," I'm sure you'll be quick to point out what a tiny change it was, and how easy it made the game.

[Talic]

But if you change it, you're not playing a Paladin and you're not playing D&D.
Disagree with this one isolated point. D&D uses an arbiter of rules, and specifically allows, in writing, that arbiter to alter the rules as he sees fit. That DM can alter those rules, and it is still D&D, because again, the rules specifically allow him/her to change the rules.



Let's play a game of chess. I've altered the rules only slightly. My Queen can move like any piece on the board. That's the sole and very minor change. It makes the game so much easier, for me. Let's play, it'll be a lot of fun! And when you describe this game to your friends, and they say "But, um, that's not how chess is played," I'm sure you'll be quick to point out what a tiny change it was, and how easy it made the game.
Flaw in this argument is that Chess has no such qualifier.

That said, and saying that homebrew D&D is still D&D, all your other points are valid.

And, as an addition, RAW is the common ground from which everyone starts. Variations can't be well discussed as fact, because they're not, universally. It's perfectly ok to bring up your opinion on paladins and possible fixes. It belongs in the homebrew forum area. I doubt anyone would begrudge those opinions there.

It's called taking the game, and making it your own. That's a good thing, generally. But remember, your game, well, it isn't mine.

[EvilElitest]

Yet again, this is getting relativlly redundant don't you think


from
EE

[Rutee]

I let my players pick from whatever class they want to play. What one person might consider a benefit, could be to another person "meh". The person who wants to play an outdoorsy warrior doesn't really get any benefit to that ends from playing a Cleric. But a person that wants to play a holy warrior might. I can't speak for all groups, so this really only holds water for our group. My players tend to have a good idea what type of character they want to play, and then pick a class that fits. I've had players pick "commoner" before.
Well, compared strictly to a commoner, class features are benefits, yes. But if you don't force the choice of commoner on players, then it's not really a 'benefit'. Like I said in the edit you apparently wrote your post after, it's an equalizer with the other classes, not really a 'benefit'. If Paladins were /stronger/ then normal PC Classes, then yes, they'd pretty concretely be benefits, but they're not.



No, it's just that you are asking the "Question with no answer". As I said, the rules (and fluff) are mostly silent on the issue, so what are you looking for exactly? Anything I throw out is going to be a "houserule". As such, there isn't really anything I can say that will be up to your snuff.
Well.. strictly I said screw RAW, so if you have a non-RAW Solution, just phrase it as such. Someone else posited the Conscience blocking their power even if they're not in any rational sense responsible, which seems like a different feel (maaaaybe.. it could be characterized as simply a miental block, really), but it's certainly self-consistent and logical.



Second thing, the justification for keeping the Paladin's code is because that is how the game is played by the rules.
I'm being unclear, apparently.

Justify this rule. Don't tell me that this rule is the rule. Tell me why this rule exists.


Let's play a game of chess. I've altered the rules only slightly. My Queen can move like any piece on the board. That's the sole and very minor change. It makes the game so much easier, for me. Let's play, it'll be a lot of fun! And when you describe this game to your friends, and they say "But, um, that's not how chess is played," I'm sure you'll be quick to point out what a tiny change it was, and how easy it made the game.
Only your queen moves like that? Unbalanced, and pass. (FYI, that used to be a rule in chess; The Queen used to have the Knight's move in addition. Since Castling explicitly requires your unmoved rook to be at the very end, and have remained without moving, and therefore, the Queen moved in the fashion of all other pieces, rather then all but the Knight. You could, in a fashion, call it chess, albeit old chess, much as one can call DnD 1st ed DnD, albeit old DnD. In point of fact, I could explain your version as Chess, but with a handicap towards you. So you /still/ aren't correct)

[EvilElitest]

Well.. strictly I said screw RAW, so if you have a non-RAW Solution, just phrase it as such. Someone else posited the Conscience blocking their power even if they're not in any rational sense responsible, which seems like a different feel (maaaaybe.. it could be characterized as simply a miental block, really), but it's certainly self-consistent and logical.

Sure, you simply said that you aren't wanting to play the game as played. And as it is a homebrew, then it is totally irrelevant to this discussion
from
EE

[Saihyol]

Just my opinions here.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will) but isn't rule number 1 that the DM is right? Therefore no matter what house rules you apply you're still playing D&D?

Moving on...

Paladin's are meant to be a very specific example of the ultimate incarnation of law and goodness and as such come with very specific rules. I am certain there are other variants in various source books, some of which have been mentioned here. If you want to play a Paladin (pure core) these are the rules you must follow, there is no logical reason for this like much else in a fictitious world, but those are the rules as written.

I agree with several other posters here that deliberately setting up a no win situation for a player kind of takes the fun out of the game for them.

While we're on the subjects of fun and game I should like to mention that while some players and groups (myself included) like to play complex and 'real' games where we act with more thought about our actions, some players want to swing a sword, fire off some spells, kill the dragon and be home in time for tea an medals. This is a fun game for them and they should be free to enjoy it.

Back to Paladin's. These characters, despite their power and abilities are sill fallible so I tend not to punish them for things they didn't consider in great detail but specifically for 'willful' acts.

The example I usually use here is the difference between someone playing football and accidentally smashing a window to someone throwing rocks at said window.

If I want to test the Paladin as a DM (and I do from time to time, otherwise it's just a fighter with bonuses). I make it very clear that this is what is happening.

Example.

Paladin finds powerful weapon in dungeon by the skeleton of a fallen warrior (with a diary listing his exploits) and gets to keep and use it for a while. A young boy (clearly with no training or levels) approaches the Paladin in a bar and is very respectful but explains that the sword is his great grandfathers and an heirloom and that his parents sent him to see it returned and provide a (lower than the cost of the item) reward for the adventurers efforts.

The Paladin is clearly being set a challenge to his beliefs and has the chance to Role play his character's alignment and show the other PC's, who always suggest multiple reasons why he shouldn't give up the sword, what being a Paladin is all about.

The Paladin who refuses falls.

On the case for the 'greater good'. This is not what a Paladin is all about. Kill children to save the world?
"Never! I will find some other way to thwart your evil plans!"
shouts the true Paladin.

Now from an external viewpoint we can argue that the lesser evil is outweighed by the greater good, but the point is the kind if hero a Paladin represents would never accept that this was the only option and literally couldn't do it.

On guilt by association. Some of the most fun I have ever seen in a group has been where the slightly dodgy players are sneaking around behind the Paladin's back trying to get away with things, like Belkar said 'It's a real challenge'. Could you force a wizard or rogue to not fit into a party? Of course you could, simply demand that everyone has to do a share of the watches - no 8 hours rest = wizard dead in the water. Or that everyone has to take their turn at the front of the fighting = rogue dead. Players make exceptions and arrangements to balance out player capabilities, the Paladin is no exception. I tend to play the association rules as 'knowingly', so what the Paladin doesn't know doesn't stop the party.

On Cleric restrictions. While they don't have a chivalric code I expect a cleric to represent their god. Therefore the cleric of a good god who watches another player slitting the throats of captives is about to loose all his powers (and frankly any good player who doesn't at least attempt to intervene is turning neutral). Equally druids and rangers who agree to use cymbal wearing muskrats as trap detection are losing theirs and NPC interactions are going to change as well towards the party.

On a side note as a NG sorcerer I sold out a NE PC who ran into our inn carrying two sacks and was moments later followed by two guardsmen looking for the thief who'd killed and stolen from the local tax collector. When I pointed out our rooms and that the party member was in there the player said 'what are you a Paladin?' and got very upset. Now I knew he'd get upset, but my character would never have stayed silent, but he'd assumed only a Paladin would sell out a party member, which I find ludicrous.

Finally on guilt/responsibility. There is no logical reason (to my mind) for a Paladin to loose their abilities when they are forced into doing something evil. However IC a well played character will most likely feel guilt. In this case (and I've run this in the past) the player and I worked together to decide that the character felt so stained by the actions that they refused to use their powers until they felt they had made amends.

That's about it, as I said at the start this is just my opinion and I'm sure I've fairly liberally used rule 1 and ignored several other rules in the PHB and other texts, but for what it's worth this is how I handle Paladins and some of the other questions raised here.

[Talic]

Justify this rule. Don't tell me that this rule is the rule. Tell me why this rule exists.

Why does it need justification? Seek your own. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't wage war to supplant RAW with homebrew here. Here, we argue what is. Homebrew is where you argue what you want to be.

[Rutee]

Why does it need justification? Seek your own. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't wage war to supplant RAW with homebrew here. Here, we argue what is. Homebrew is where you argue what you want to be.

Respectfully, no. Homebrew is where you go to make new systems, not discuss the game, or discuss the game with a minor alteration. By this logic, all mention of houserules ever, including anecdotal stories, goes in the Homebrew forum, which is counterintuitive.

[Kompera]

Justify this rule. Don't tell me that this rule is the rule. Tell me why this rule exists.

Only your queen moves like that? Unbalanced, and pass.
I don't need to justify any rule, or explain to you why it exists. EST!

Only your class is altered? Pass. Arguing about 'unbalanced' isn't even necessary.

I'll make one last attempt to reach you, and I'll try to stay away from appeals to any specific rule, since you don't care to play by those rules you find to be /too hard/.

D&D is a Role Playing game. The Paladin's Code is a construct which comes with the rest of the class description (I hope that's not coming too close to discussing 'rules'). If you chose to play that role, more power to you. If you don't care to play that roll, play some other role. The other classes also have descriptions, perhaps one of those classes seems like it would be easier for you to Role Play, given that you dislike the Paladin as it is written.

Edit:

FYI, that used to be a rule in chess [...] So you /still/ aren't correctNo, it did not. I said that the queen would move like all pieces. En passant was never a queen move. Nor was one side having different move rules than another ever a rule, to my knowledge. So I /still/ am correct.

[Talic]

Respectfully, no. Homebrew is where you go to make new systems, not discuss the game, or discuss the game with a minor alteration. By this logic, all mention of houserules ever, including anecdotal stories, goes in the Homebrew forum, which is counterintuitive.

Only if you are attempting to argue the homebrew as the standard, and the RAW as the part needing justification.

[Rutee]

Well, I do think the RAW is the part that needs justification. It's awful. But in no way do I consider the homebrew standard. In no way is this really necessary in the homebrew forum, however.

[Talic]

RAW is the commonly accepted practice of D&D. If you are trying to state that it needs change, it's you that needs to provide justification to change the status quo.

After that, taking the discussion to homebrew to work out what that change would be, seems like the next logical step.

[Rutee]

RAW is the commonly accepted practice of D&D. If you are trying to state that it needs change, it's you that needs to provide justification to change the status quo.

After that, taking the discussion to homebrew to work out what that change would be, seems like the next logical step.

Homebrew is for systems and classes. Notwithstanding that I've provided justification to alter the status quo (See: Its inherent limiting of group concepts. See: Its extremely strong ability to exert pressure on the group in an OOC sense. See: The lack of benefit for significantly higher costs then any other class), the change frankly isn't a change to a system. IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin on a mechanical level, such as to give the class the tools it needs to function on more then just an LG Holy Warrior. As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away.

[Saihyol]

Oh and on the original question - no I've never seen a non-deliberate fall quite so quickly. A player did decide to keep a death god's artifact sword once, but he knew what was coming following that decision.

First I probably wouldn't strip the Paladin of his powers for the callous way he handled the Half-Orc situation (though if the other players reacted in a massively disappointed way I might - bringing disrepute). My issue here would be that the player created a sense that burying the bodies was something he considered 'good' and now he is refusing for the most petty of reasons. In honesty it sounds like the player had issues with the other player, never a good thing.

What I would have done is have one of the other Paladins (I seem to remember a comment that there were several saved) approach the character and say something along the lines of:

"Come brother, put aside your feelings and let us honour the valiant fallen."

If that didn't work then I might try a slow fade out of powers. Yes I know 'homebrew variant' but this is how I deal with infractions that don't justify a full stripping but are a definite step in the wrong direction.

[Talic]

Homebrew is for systems and classes. Notwithstanding that I've provided justification to alter the status quo (See: Its inherent limiting of group concepts. See: Its extremely strong ability to exert pressure on the group in an OOC sense. See: The lack of benefit for significantly higher costs then any other class), the change frankly isn't a change to a system. IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin on a mechanical level, such as to give the class the tools it needs to function on more then just an LG Holy Warrior. As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away.

And I counter that the class features of the class are just that. An RP cost can have as great or as little an impact as the players and DM allow it to have. If most good/evil decisions are straightforward, then the cost of the class is minimal. Perhaps the paladin class is a simple way to show that in most cases, good v evil should be reasonably straightforward?

As for exerting pressure on the group, that works both ways. If the rest of group has established that they want to play evil characters, then the paladin isn't being used. That's unfortunate, that, since paladin is a restrictive class, and he won't tolerate evil from his companions, there are some groups that the class is incompatable with.

But it's very intuitive, that a paragon of good would not tolerate any evil, whether it's from the enemy or his compatriots.

EDIT: I agree, Paladins would suffer in an intrigue-based campaign. Just as wizards suffer in a low magic setting. Just as monks suffer when seperated from their many wands.

[Kompera]

Homebrew is for systems and classes. Notwithstanding that I've provided justification to alter the status quo (See: Its inherent limiting of group concepts. See: Its extremely strong ability to exert pressure on the group in an OOC sense. See: The lack of benefit for significantly higher costs then any other class), the change frankly isn't a change to a system. IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin on a mechanical level, such as to give the class the tools it needs to function on more then just an LG Holy Warrior. As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away.What a tangle of self contradiction...

"Homebrew is for systems and classes" - We're discussing the Paladin Class, within the game system defining the classes, and the Code of Conduct which applies to any Paladin character by RAW.

"IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin [...]" - I agree with you. But this statement seems to contradict your positions in prior posts.

"I'm merely [...] advising that one houserules them away." - Why, yes. This is home brew. Hourse rule, home brew. They mean the same thing.

So, due to all the contradictions above, you've got me a bit confused as to a couple of your points.

Are you saying that you want to home brew a new Paladin class without the Code of Conduct? Or are you saying that you want to play the Paladin class, but ignore the Code of Conduct, but that this doesn't count as home brewing?

If the latter, then you are again contradicting yourself. Changing a class is by definition "home brew rules" or "house rules", whatever label you prefer. But it's not playing D&D by the rules.

The problem with much of your discussion is pretty much defined by your last sentence:

"As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away."

One slight edit and it applies to any rule at all:

"As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the <rules that I think are /too hard/>, and advising that one houserules them away."

And that way lies madness.

[Rutee]

I would have to agree; Pressure is exerted both ways in some cases. But does that make it a good thing in any case? Classes that just by mentioning them involve that kind of pressure in either direction have at least some measure of problem. But even so, if we assume that all morality decisions are to be straightforward (Which is itself limiting, though in a different way), it's not a 'cost'. The direct argument of several other posters has in fact, either implicitly or explicitly, stated that the code is intended as a cost of some sort.

And notwithstanding that whether or not something is evil is more subjective then we often like to believe.. the Paladin doesn't just stand by Good. It's their 'way' (Morality) or the high way. This is extremely bad for group dynamics, since there's a guaranteed mechanical consequence if the Paladin bends. The others don't have that on them.


Homebrew
No, I'm saying that not every house rule discussion in any sense needs to be in the Homebrew forum. There's no sign anywhere in the Gaming Forum that says ALL HOUSERULE DISCUSSION GOES IN HOMEBREW. On the contrary; Homebrew forum seems to more be for hard mechanics in some sense, going by the description.

[Crow]

Well, compared strictly to a commoner, class features are benefits, yes. But if you don't force the choice of commoner on players, then it's not really a 'benefit'. Like I said in the edit you apparently wrote your post after, it's an equalizer with the other classes, not really a 'benefit'. If Paladins were /stronger/ then normal PC Classes, then yes, they'd pretty concretely be benefits, but they're not.

Yes, but where does it end? By your logic, any class other than wizard gets no benefit from their class features.

What I am saying is that a class feature can be a "benefit" if it helps the player play the character they want to play.

[Saihyol]

...And notwithstanding that whether or not something is evil is more subjective then we often like to believe.. the Paladin doesn't just stand by Good. It's their 'way' (Morality) or the high way. This is extremely bad for group dynamics, since there's a guaranteed mechanical consequence if the Paladin bends. The others don't have that on them.

I'd argue that all the 'clerical' classes do (though I'd agree it's not clearly outlined in the rules for other classes), but it's never really used.

Clerics should be guided by their gods and find it abhorrent when another player acts in a manner completely against their god's tenants.

Druids/Rangers should have some level of concern for nature, but I've seen Druids who deliberately start a forest fire to 'smoke out' goblins.

[Talic]

First: If the code can be considered a "cost", then the other things that paladins receive are benefits. Full BAB, Free proficiencies, good HD, various Spell like and supernatural abilities... These are features of the class that are beneficial.

Just as a cleric's turning, free feats and spellcasting are.
Just as a wizard's familiar, feats, and spellcasting are.

As for pressure being good or bad? It's neither. Players should be encouraged to work together in character design (I've never seen an instance where they didn't). Certain classes are incompatible with certain playstyles, yes.

But that's like saying that it's unfair that the fighter class can't get access to the Shadowdancer PrC before level 16, while the rogue gets it at 8. Or that it's unfair that you can't get into the Alienist PrC with the Barbarian.

Restrictions aren't necesarily bad. All rules are restrictions. They define what you can and can't do.

[Rutee]

Yes, but where does it end? By your logic, any class other than wizard gets no benefit from their class features.

What I am saying is that a class feature can be a "benefit" if it helps the player play the character they want to play.

Well, yes, in that sense, a class feature would always be a benefit. I'm referring to "Benefit" in the sense that it helps you get a leg up over the other characters. Basically I'm saying that the cost has no commensurate reward :P


I'd argue that all the 'clerical' classes do (though I'd agree it's not clearly outlined in the rules for other classes), but it's never really used.

Clerics should be guided by their gods and find it abhorrent when another player acts in a manner completely against their god's tenants.

Druids/Rangers should have some level of concern for nature, but I've seen Druids who deliberately start a forest fire to 'smoke out' goblins.
Well, if we make the other 'clerical' classes work like the PAladin, we'd have pretty major problems in the first place. What you have when people (Paladin aside) have clashing beliefs now is intra-party conflict that exerts no OOC pressure based on mechanics (IMO, OOC pressure is fine, but it shouldn't come from a fear of mechanical loss, for any involved as a matter of course). At least, under normal conflicts (Yes, asking the Cleric of Pelor to eat a baby is pretty clearly one that can yield mechanical loss, but in seriousness, how often is the party going to see /that/?) anyway. If both sides act on their beliefs, either heads will roll within the party, or the party has their non-association clauses kick in. It's not good for the group actually staying together for any extended period of time.

Mind, ti makes complete IC sense for them to work this way, but it harms the group's social dynamic too much for everyone (Or anyone) to do so.



First: If the code can be considered a "cost", then the other things that paladins receive are benefits. Full BAB, Free proficiencies, good HD, various Spell like and supernatural abilities... These are features of the class that are beneficial.
That works, but then you look at the Fighter. The Paladin has the same mechanical weaknesses as the Fighter (With perhaps Will Saves being less exacerbated somewhat). You then add a cost on top of this. Still not so good, is it?


But that's like saying that it's unfair that the fighter class can't get access to the Shadowdancer PrC before level 16, while the rogue gets it at 8. Or that it's unfair that you can't get into the Alienist PrC with the Barbarian.

It's not quite the same thing. Remember, this RP cost comes /on top/ of the normal costs/Benefits that come with a class (Such as PrC Qualifications). Remember, you don't really prove anything by claiming the Code has an equivalent duplicated in any non-Clerical class. It doesn't (and it's only barely duplicated then)

[Kompera]

Mind, ti makes complete IC sense for them to work this way, but it harms the group's social dynamic too much for everyone (Or anyone) to do so.You continue to insist that it's difficult or impossible for the rest of the party to act in such a manner as neither forces the Paladin to fall or forces the Paladin to leave the group.

That is just not so. That position is not supportable. It doesn't even have to be the case that a single member of the party must modify their behavior just because there is a Paladin present in the party.

It can be the case, but lots of other behavioral issues can also be the case. The party could be jailed and executed because the Rogue steals something and all the "furiners" are rounded up since they were traveling together. The party could all be cannibals and decide to eat each other. All wonderful hypotheticals. But it doesn't make it either difficult nor impossible for a group of players to behave themselves and get about the business of saving the world while having some adventures together.


Remember, this RP cost comes /on top/ of the normal costs/Benefits that come with a class (Such as PrC Qualifications). Remember, you don't really prove anything by claiming the Code has an equivalent duplicated in any non-Clerical class. It doesn't (and it's only barely duplicated then)

How close an approximation it is can be, like anything else in this discussion, argued endlessly. But deny it or not, some other classes do have codes of behavior.


Ex-Monks

A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.

Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.


Ex-Barbarians

A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and uncanny dodge).


Ex-Paladins

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

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

[Rutee]

You continue to insist that it's difficult or impossible for the rest of the party to act in such a manner as neither forces the Paladin to fall or forces the Paladin to leave the group.
Quite the contrary; I haven't argued that it's impossible. I've argued, however, that the paladin's mere presence, as an intended long term character, will exert pressure to behave in such a way that wouldn't be their preferred choice (Alternately, if they act as they please for long enough, well, the Paladin gets to suffer.)


It can be the case, but lots of other behavioral issues can also be the case. The party could be jailed and executed because the Rogue steals something and all the "furiners" are rounded up since they were traveling together. The party could all be cannibals and decide to eat each other. All wonderful hypotheticals. But it doesn't make it either difficult nor impossible for a group of players to behave themselves and get about the business of saving the world while having some adventures together.
Perhaps, but most other classes and hypotheticals won't have been caused by OOC pressure of mechanical loss of all class features.




How close an approximation it is can be, like anything else in this discussion, argued endlessly. But deny it or not, some other classes do have codes of behavior.

Hm, true, there are other classes in core that have that. Though even then, they're less stringent; Maintain one alignment axis. A Monk never loses anything, further. Barbarians do lose their /best/ class feature, but they don't lose /all/ class features.

[Kompera]

Quite the contrary; I haven't argued that it's impossible. I've argued, however, that the paladin's mere presence, as an intended long term character, will exert pressure to behave in such a way that wouldn't be their preferred choice (Alternately, if they act as they please for long enough, well, the Paladin gets to suffer.)
Why do you insist that behavior which complies to what is acceptable to a Paladin from a companion is either "a pressure" or in any way not the "preferred choice" of the rest of the party?

After all, they are all of good or neutral alignment. Neither alignment carries with it any requirement to behave reprehensibly. And for the good aligned characters at least, quite the opposite behavior is an expected part of the alignment.

It's not hard, it's not difficult, it's not an unnatural pressure, it's not disruptive, it doesn't cramp anyone's style, and it certainly doesn't hurt. Just deal with it, act like mature, well adjusted adults (or mature, well adjusted children for that matter) and play on.

[Rutee]

Why do you insist that behavior which complies to what is acceptable to a Paladin from a companion is either "a pressure" or in any way not the "preferred choice" of the rest of the party?
Because even if the player wanted to do it, he has a completely OOC, mechanically-centered motive to do so. Hm, motive isn't the right word, but it's going to be in mind on some level, to say the least. Someone /else's/ mechanics, sure, but someone else's mechanics on the basic level needed to have fun


After all, they are all of good or neutral alignment.
And you say I make assumptions.


it's not an unnatural pressure
I would argue that most mechanical pressures are unnatural, but I'm story-motivated.


it's not disruptive it doesn't cramp anyone's style
Tell that to the Lancer. Or to the Rogue played to type. Basically anyone not an LG Goody Two Shoes, really. Even Neutral people will commit some evil acts. Even Good people commit evil acts. What's with this constant assuming that Neutral, of all things, never commits minor Evils?


Just deal with it, act like mature, well adjusted adults (or mature, well adjusted children for that matter) and play on.
How mature is it to claim or imply that the only possible way to behave in a mature fashion is, of all things, your way?

None of this, incidentally, has served to justify the rule.

[Kompera]

How mature is it to claim or imply that the only possible way to behave in a mature fashion is, of all things, your way?
I never made any such claim. I only asserted that there is no onerous burden of behavior placed upon the other players simply by the fact that they have a paladin for a companion.

I will agree with you that acting in a way which does not offend a Paladin demonstrates a level of social maturity, however.

But what's with your assumption that Neutrals must commit evil acts? That makes no sense at all. It is not a requirement of that alignment at all. As I have said, it comes down to choice. Choose to behave in a mature fashion and there will be no issues between you and the Paladin. It's really quite easy.


And you say I make assumptions.It's no assumption, Rutee. You're read this before in the thread how many times now?

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment [...]All of the Paladins adventuring companions are good or neutral, or there is no party containing a Paladin. Not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.

A refresher course on Alignment, courtesy of the d20srd:

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.
Lawful Good, "Crusader"

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Neutral Good, "Benefactor"

A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good, "Rebel"

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.

Note that none of the above descriptions state any obligation on the part of the player to have their character be occasionally evil, or to perform any evil deeds.

And take special note of the rules concerning the other three alignments:

The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.It is well within the purview of any GM to have a player hand them their character sheet for use as an NPC, should they either present the GM with a character of evil alignment at the start of the campaign, or should their choice of actions force an alignment shift to one of the three evil alignments.

[Talic]

Tell that to the Lancer. Or to the Rogue played to type. Basically anyone not an LG Goody Two Shoes, really. Even Neutral people will commit some evil acts. Even Good people commit evil acts. What's with this constant assuming that Neutral, of all things, never commits minor Evils?

Counterpoint:

Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Good and neutral characters may commit evil acts, occasionally, so long as they do not offend the paladin's moral code consistently. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways.

1) Be mostly good or neutral, with slip ups. Paladins can realize that they are held to a standard that is much higher than the average man has the willpower for.

2) Keep the paladin in the dark. Most sneaky types are, not surprisingly, GOOD at being sneaky. Keeping a paladin in the dark about how you convinced the three guards to abandon the post to the scullery exit for 20 minutes, well, that's manageable.

Bear in mind, the associates code has a LOT of wiggle room there.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd argue that all the 'clerical' classes do (though I'd agree it's not clearly outlined in the rules for other classes), but it's never really used.

Clerics should be guided by their gods and find it abhorrent when another player acts in a manner completely against their god's tenants.

Druids/Rangers should have some level of concern for nature, but I've seen Druids who deliberately start a forest fire to 'smoke out' goblins.

Saihyol did you realize that Rangers can't fall? Yep, they have no Ex-Clause.
So your idea about Rangers seems really off: you might want to rethink it.

Only Druid are nature dudes: And Forest fires? They are natural! It just means he believes in survival of fittest very Druid like.

Kompera:
The Ex-Monk loses nothing.
The Ex-Barbarian just needs to stop being Lawful.
The Ex-Pally, however, must atone

Do you notice the discrepancy? Only one is restricted when breaking code: the others? Can freelt do it. They just need alignment change.

The Monk/Pally Code was created to applease Playtesters. They thought they should have roleplay issues with cotinuing to play them.

[Saihyol]

Forest fires to 'smoke out' goblins are not natural. This is not survival of the fittest being pursued, it is a disruption of the natural order for convenience.

I may be thinking of older Ranger class descriptions. With the statement that Rangers gain their magic as Clerics do, I assume there is some force/deity providing their power and so this power can be blocked/stopped. As stated before I'm of the opinion that any character with clerical like has some external restraints placed on behaviour by nature of their abilities.

Technically a LG Monk who becomes CE doesn't lose any of their spell casting even if the monk is on a killing spree the god they used to serve will continue handing out spells. Not in my games.

Sorcerer: Wakes up knows spells and can cast what they want
Wizard: Wakes up, must spend significant time learning chosen spells (must have spell book)

Discrepancy? Yes. Problem, No.

Different classes have different features restrictions and rules for their abilities. Saying the Paladin has a more restrictive code doesn't mean it's wrong/unjustified.

Something in game that encourages roleplaying? Heaven forbid. To claim this was just done to "appease the playtesters" seems strange.

*substantially edited since original post.

[Saihyol]

Rutee - you position seems to be that you want to play a paragon of Law and Order who doesn't care is evil things are done and laws are broken. I'd suggest that you don't want to play a Paladin and as already stated a LG player of any class who is happy to watch their allies act in a CE way probably isn't LG.

Yes the rules are fairly arbitrary but there is significant wiggle room in as Talic just demonstrated.

Technically a DM could argue that the wizard's restriction that he must get 'a good night’s sleep' could be taken to extreme levels - denying the player virtually all class abilities. Trail sleep is not a good night sleep, you had nightmares, you drank so much in the bar last night that you woke up to be sick several times. This is completely within the rules as stated, but DMs don't do it (okay, I do this from time to time).

At the far end of the DM enforcing this code is a Paladin player falling when someone they're with thinks about doing something evil at the other end is a Paladin who is trying to lead by example and who makes it clear that certain actions offend them, but tries to work with their flawed friends and improve them.

I'd claim that Carrot (from Terry Pratchett) is a Paladin despite not having any associated powers. He associates with Nobby, but always seeks to restrain his less honest tendencies, Nobby in response doesn't do CE things in front of Carrot.

[Citizen Joe]

{Scrubbed}

[Danzaver]

this in no way seemed a deliberate attempt to fall, but was shockingly fast, has anyone seen a non-deliberate faster paladin fall?

Yes, and I was that Paladin.

It was my first Ravenloft game, and it was with a DM notious for chucking tantrums if people didn't play his way. We came across some badits attacking some gypsies, and I didn't fully understand what was going on. I thought the gypsy caravans were the bandit's camp, and the gypsies were their prisoners, so in the process of the fight I set fire to a caravan to drive out the bandits.

Apparently it was filled with gypsy women and children, who did not possess the logic to try to leave the vehicle, either that or it was already soaked in oil. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the whole thing becoming a roaring inferno and me losing my paladinhood - all in one combat round. o.O

Anyway, then the DM pulled out some weird rule that I think he was misinterpreting, and gave me a 'dark gift', some kind of evil magic power. So I tried it out, and I summoned a wolf. He ruled that that was another 'evil act' and gave me a weakness to sunlight and made the sun start to rise. So I summoned 20 more wolves and hid under them while I dug a hole.

Within 10 minutes I had gone from paladin to vampire. Bad DMing 101.

DMs can't be too hard on Paladins. They are meant to aim for the archetypal symbol of goodness, but they are meant to fall short. They shouldn't be smacked down for that.

In your story, I think the God (who was apparently quite a vengeful "one strike you're out" God who can't have many Paladins left at this rate!) could have first tried to make him see the error of his ways, maybe by engineering a situation where he encounters the orc's orphaned children and must atone in some creative way. If he fails the test, then I don't know. Maybe turn HIM into an orc. XD

[Kompera]

Kompera:
The Ex-Monk loses nothing.
The Ex-Barbarian just needs to stop being Lawful.
The Ex-Pally, however, must atone

Do you notice the discrepancy? Only one is restricted when breaking code: the others? Can freelt do it. They just need alignment change.
Not an accurate assessment. The Monk does not "lose nothing", if he "becomes nonlawful [he] cannot gain new levels as a monk", additionally if the Monk ever chooses to multi-class there is never a means to return to leveling the Monk class.

The Barbarian can multi-class freely, but if he "becomes lawful [he] loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian." (Of interest here, the Barbarian can apparently move from Chaotic to Neutral without any class imposed penalty at all)

The Paladin "who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate." Atonement is not always possible, but it is a possibility, and the Paladin suffers from the same multi-classing restrictions as the Monk.

That said, I'm not sure I understand your pointing out "discrepancy"? All classes are not the same, there is naturally discrepancies between them.

[EvilElitest]

Homebrew is for systems and classes. Notwithstanding that I've provided justification to alter the status quo (See: Its inherent limiting of group concepts. See: Its extremely strong ability to exert pressure on the group in an OOC sense. See: The lack of benefit for significantly higher costs then any other class), the change frankly isn't a change to a system. IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin on a mechanical level, such as to give the class the tools it needs to function on more then just an LG Holy Warrior. As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away.

Actually, almost all of your "justifications" have been throughly countered at this point. If you don't like paladins, we have crusader, knight and clerics on hold
from
EE

[Rutee]

But what's with your assumption that Neutrals must commit evil acts? That makes no sense at all. It is not a requirement of that alignment at all. As I have said, it comes down to choice. Choose to behave in a mature fashion and there will be no issues between you and the Paladin. It's really quite easy.
They're Neutral. It seems to me that if they're neutral, they will commit evils... but minor ones. Most people can't help but commit minor Good acts and minor Evil ones (I think most people will leave pennies in the take a penny/leave a penny, and most people will cut off others in traffic if they're running late)


It's no assumption, Rutee. You're read this before in the thread how many times now?

All of the Paladins adventuring companions are good or neutral, or there is no party containing a Paladin. Not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.
But what would they be if there were no Paladin, and could play any class they wanted without a guarantee of either having to change, or screwing the Paladin?



If they always behave in a good way.. are they not /good/?

[quote]And take special note of the rules concerning the other three alignments:
It is well within the purview of any GM to have a player hand them their character sheet for use as an NPC, should they either present the GM with a character of evil alignment at the start of the campaign, or should their choice of actions force an alignment shift to one of the three evil alignments.

That would be a pretty bitch move. If you don't put a no-Evil moratorium on the start, you shouldn't pick up a character sheet if someone is evil. I think you're looking at purple prose and assuming it means "NPCs Only Alignment". It doesn't say that Evil Alignments are for NPCs, it says they're for monsters and villains. Neither is a word that requires an antagonist.

And your post /still/ has not served to justify the Code. Can you please support the Code's existence, rather then attempting to claim it doesn't alter anything? Because even if the Code exerted no pressure ever (It does), it would still not be justified in its presence, merely non-obtrusive (and therefore not worth changing). In point of fact, it's starting to tick me off. And being ticked off because of an internet debate isn't good. If you're going to persist in not addressing the most vital question, I'm just going to go ahead and leave.


Technically a DM could argue that the wizard's restriction that he must get 'a good night’s sleep' could be taken to extreme levels - denying the player virtually all class abilities. Trail sleep is not a good night sleep, you had nightmares, you drank so much in the bar last night that you woke up to be sick several times. This is completely within the rules as stated, but DMs don't do it (okay, I do this from time to time)
Why is it that people keep equating "I /could/ do this, without changing a rule" with "You are supposed to do this" (Other class DM screwery, with Paladins). It's really not the same thing.


Rutee - you position seems to be that you want to play a paragon of Law and Order who doesn't care is evil things are done and laws are broken. I'd suggest that you don't want to play a Paladin and as already stated a LG player of any class who is happy to watch their allies act in a CE way probably isn't LG.
I think it's far more interesting if a Paladin's presence can allow intra-party friction in a more normal, and interesting fashion. As it is, a Paladin's presence exerts unnatural social pressure on the other players in a way that other classes don't under ordinary circumstances, which will either make the friction not happen, or resolve it quickly with brute force (And in an uninteresting fashion; Well, Fred will stop being useful, and therefore, stop having fun, if we don't generally go his way..) Effectively, I think a Paladin should have had the Crusader's way in the first place. Holy Warrior in no way connotes "Paragon of Morality", nor does it require a non-association clause.

Effectively, I think Paladins shouldn't be punished for not gobsmacking other party members and instead trying to handle intraparty conflict the same as everyone else (Including the Druids and Clerics)



Good and neutral characters may commit evil acts, occasionally, so long as they do not offend the paladin's moral code consistently. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways.
Chaotic characters can pretty easily offend the moral code on a regular basis, if they act at all to-type. Paladins have respect for legitimate authority ingrained in there. Even disrespect for legitimate authority constitutes offending the moral code on a regular basis.

[Dervag]

Good and neutral characters may commit evil acts, occasionally, so long as they do not offend the paladin's moral code consistently. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways.OK, that's actually quite a good point.


All wonderful hypotheticals. But it doesn't make it either difficult nor impossible for a group of players to behave themselves and get about the business of saving the world while having some adventures together.However, it does greatly restrict their freedom of action. In other words, the other PCs could come up with some great plan to defeat the lich through a cunning plan of deceit and intrigue, only to hear "Nah. We can't do that; I'm playing a paladin!"

And if the paladin ever goes along with a plan like that, he loses all his powers. If he founds out that you did something like that behind his back, he has to leave. And then it's time to roll up a new character, just as if the paladin had committed seppuku or been crushed by falling rocks.

I think that's the issue Rutee has a legitimate problem with- that according a few details in the rules in question, the very presence of a paladin in the group forces the entire group to behave differently or have that one player character suffer greatly. And, to make matters worse, the behavior change is not purely mechanical (as with not forcing the rogue to fight on the front line). The change is also in roleplaying. My character can't even act like a morally ambiguous spy or something lest the paladin fall.


No, you say the rules suck. That doesn't make it so. If you don't like the paladin code, then don't use it in your game, but you can't claim the paladin is a useless class just because you don't likeActually, I think she has a point. This isn't an unsupported argument. The support goes like this:

Axiom: D&D supposed to be a cooperative roleplaying game.
Fact: In a cooperative roleplaying game, a group of people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion I: D&D is supposed to be designed to let people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion II: Therefore, anything that makes it harder for people to roleplay cooperatively undermines the purpose of the game to some degree.

Fact: The Paladin class as many here interpret it puts very tight restrictions not only on the Paladin himself, but on any other characters in the group.
Conjecture: When one PC stands to lose important class features for associating with other characters in the group, it gets in the way of cooperative roleplaying.
Conclusion III (from Conclusion II):The rule that causes paladins to fall if they associate with PCs dramatically less moral than themselves is a "stupid rule" because it gets in the way of cooperative roleplaying by creating conflict between one player's desire to play a paladin and another player's desire to play a morally ambiguous character.

That seems to be the gist of Rutee's argument.


I know, i'm agreeing with youOK, but you sure had me fooled back there for a while.


in good and evil yes your are objectively correct. Your person is objectivity good and i'm objectively evil. However that doesn't mean right and wrong.What I'm saying is that it is right to be good and wrong to be evil. If someone thinks that it is 'right' (as in appropriate and choiceworthy) to do evil, then they are wrong as a matter of fact. They may well continue to believe this. Depending on circumstances, I might not even try to disabuse them of their ideas. But that does not make them either correct in a factual sense or 'right' in a moral sense, even though they believe themselves to be both.


No i'm mixing actions with their purpose. For example, swinging a sword is presuming that your swinging the sword at thin air (neutral). However swinging the sword at a monster is a different action than simply swinging sword (wasn't he using a mace earlier). The action is what your attacking. Intent is the reason why your doing itI'm not sure I entirely agree, but at this point we're quibbling over definitions.

You define "action" to include both the physical thing done and the intended target of the physical thing done, and use "intent" solely to include the purpose for doing the physical thing to the target.

I reverse this, and use "action" to include only the physical thing done, and "intent" to cover both the target of the action and the purpose of the action.

It's not obvious to me if one of us is using the language better than the other here. I recognize that under your definitions, what you are saying is logical. Do you feel the same way with regard to me (that under my definitions, what I'm saying is logical)?


For example, if Bob attacking monster (action) because he hopes to defend himself (intent).

However, bill attacks monsters (action) because he likes to hurt things (intent)I would say that in both cases, "attack" is the action, and "harm a monster" is part of the intent (as is "defend myself" or "cause sweet sweet pain"). Again, this is solely because of definitions. The reason I do this is because Bob might attempt to do something and fail. For example, he might attack and have his strike bounce harmlessly off the monster.

Logically, when you fail to achieve your goal through no fault of your own, your intention is the same as when you succeed at your goal. And your actions were the same. But because of the circumstances, the consequences were not the same.

For instance, Bob is attempting to defend himself against an orc and an iron golem. First he swings his sword at the orc and chops the orc's head off. Then he swings his sword at the iron golem with equal force, but his sword bounces off the iron golem and he has to drop it because of the harmonics.

In both cases, Bob's intent (preserve his own life from the attacking monster by striking it with a sword) was the same. And his action (swing his sword with some specific amount of force) was the same. But the consequences were not, because one of his targets was made out of iron and the other was made out of meat.[/QUOTE]

[Saihyol]

Why is it that people keep equating "I /could/ do this, without changing a rule" with "You are supposed to do this" (Other class DM screwery, with Paladins). It's really not the same thing.

Wizard must have a good nights sleep to prepare spells
Paladin must avoid association with people who consistently conflict with his/her code.

You're supposed to do both.

I was clarifying that the harshness of interpretation by the DM is a matter of choice

Harshest Interpretation------------------------------
Wizard must have bed and be undisturbed for 8 hours+
Any misdeeds by companions causes Paladin to fall or disassociate

Softest Interpretation-------------------------------
Wizard is assumed to have sufficient rest unless players or DM deliberately interfere
Paladin is assumed to be unaware unless players or DM deliberately call attention to misdeeds

You've stated that you think Paladin should be Crusader. I think this is automatically drawing a line between the two and saying which side you prefer. This doesn't make one option 'wrong'.

From an RP perspective you could play a fighter as a 'holy warrior' or a cleric, but it seems you specifically want the Paladin's abilities without the restrictions, fair enough. I'd like a Sorcerer with a higher hit die. They learn spells by nature of their blood, not study, so there's no reason they should be physically weaker, right?

We can all name class features we don't like, or think are logically inconsistent, but the rules as they stand are the rules. Anything you homebrew is fine, but it doesn't change the rules as written. My opinion is that the problem with Paladins is actually that DMs automatically tend towards the harsher view outlined above, you're welcome to an alternate opinion, but that's all it is.

I think we're pretty much out of things to say here so I'll leave it at this point.

[hewhosaysfish]

In your story, I think the God (who was apparently quite a vengeful "one strike you're out" God who can't have many Paladins left at this rate!) ....

If I ever run a comedy game, I am definitely going to have to include a Lawful Awful deity who can't keep a paladin for more than 5 minutes. Any NPCs that I would normally make Warriors (soliders, city guard, random security guards), I can make half of them fallen paladins instead.

"Yeah, I used to be a paladin. Then I trod on the cracks in the pavement..."

Not so much mileage for a PC though...

[Rutee]

Wizard must have a good nights sleep to prepare spells
Paladin must avoid association with people who consistently conflict with his/her code.

You're supposed to do both.
There's greater emphasis in the description for paladins then there is for other classes. Paladins have multiple paragraphs and a lot of fluff that goes into this.



From an RP perspective you could play a fighter as a 'holy warrior' or a cleric, but it seems you specifically want the Paladin's abilities without the restrictions, fair enough. I'd like a Sorcerer with a higher hit die. They learn spells by nature of their blood, not study, so there's no reason they should be physically weaker, right?

Theoretically, Sorcerers need lower hit die for balance purposes (They're still imba, unfortunately). A Paladins' code, clearly, is not a balance issue in any sense (Because they're not more powerful). Clearly, balance is not the reason.

And I specifically want the Paladin, in this case (Because really I'd rather have the Crusader in any case; More interesting mechanics, same flavor) because it's intuitive. It's the same reason I would legitimately expect monks to beat things up with their hands; The class is /all about/ punching people. Your logic is similar to saying "You wanna be rogue-y? Pft! Just make a Fighter and put points into the Rogue Skills"

THis doesn't address the other point, that the Code in any interpretation impedes on interesting party dynamics. You could of course, practice light enforcement, but that seems to defeat the purpose of the Code in the first place, and if you think the Code needs to be only lightly enforced, why not implement stricter enforcement of a more liberal Code in the first place?

[Kompera]

They're Neutral. It seems to me that if they're neutral, they will commit evils... but minor ones. Most people can't help but commit minor Good acts and minor Evil ones (I think most people will leave pennies in the take a penny/leave a penny, and most people will cut off others in traffic if they're running late)
If you are Good or Neutral there is no requirement, ever, that you occasionally commit an evil act. If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.


Note that none of the [alignment] descriptions state any obligation on the part of the player to have their character be occasionally evil, or to perform any evil deeds.

If they always behave in a good way.. are they not /good/?No. You're misquoting me / misconstruing me, as usual. Read my text above, again. Not behaving in an evil way is not the same as behaving in a good way. Read the Alignment descriptions again. Did you see anything under any of the Good and Neutral alignment descriptions which requires evil actions? Answer that question, please, because you've dodged it to date.
Now, read it yet again. Do you see text which shows a preference towards good, even if that doesn't mean that the character is some kind of a champion for good? You do, here (my bolds for emphasis):

Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones.There is similar text for the other neutral alignments indicating that these people still know how to work and play well with others. That's not the same as "being good", but it's certainly not the same as "being evil", and it also certainly isn't the same as "occasionally performs evil acts".



That [assigning an evil character NPC status] would be a pretty bitch move. If you don't put a no-Evil moratorium on the start, you shouldn't pick up a character sheet if someone is evil. I think you're looking at purple prose and assuming it means "NPCs Only Alignment". It doesn't say that Evil Alignments are for NPCs, it says they're for monsters and villains. Neither is a word that requires an antagonist.You need to read the rules. It's quite clear, and it's been posted before. I'll make it convenient for you (my bolds for emphasis):

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.It's quite clear: goods and neutrals can be player characters. By exclusion and by explicit statement, player characters can not be of evil alignment. Evils can be monsters and villains, and by exclusion and by explicit statement, monsters and villains not be player characters. If your character becomes evil, your character becomes an NPC run by the GM, because it's the GM who runs the monsters and villains. It doesn't require any such "moratorium" as you describe, because it is clearly posted in the rules. If you want to play an evil character, it is incumbent upon you to broach the subject with your GM and ask for an exception.


And your post /still/ has not served to justify the Code. Can you please support the Code's existence, rather then attempting to claim it doesn't alter anything?I've already done so. So has at least one other person in this thread. Repeatedly. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this had occurred.


I think it's far more interesting if a Paladin's presence can allow intra-party friction in a more normal, and interesting fashion.Now who is assuming that their way of playing is the 'normal' way? Intra-party friction does not have to be so extreme as to cause a Paladin to either leave the party or fall. Saying that behavior which does cause one of those two events is 'normal' is only applicable to your own play group.


Chaotic characters can pretty easily offend the moral code on a regular basis, if they act at all to-type.Your statement is not supportable within the rules. Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good characters can associate with Paladins just fine, so long as they do not "consistently offend [the Paladin's] moral code". And there is nothing within the description of any Chaotic alignment which forces a chaotic character to do so in order to play "to-type". If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.

[Talic]

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters.
Then it stands to reason, if these are the standard alignments for PC's, then other alignments are NOT standard alignments for PC's.

The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.
Now, taken in context, this makes more sense!


And I specifically want the Paladin, in this case (Because really I'd rather have the Crusader in any case; More interesting mechanics, same flavor) because it's intuitive. It's the same reason I would legitimately expect monks to beat things up with their hands; The class is /all about/ punching people. Your logic is similar to saying "You wanna be rogue-y? Pft! Just make a Fighter and put points into the Rogue Skills"So monks can't be thematically accurate with spears (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfB2Djimrok), swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPyt8t3J4Yc), sais or staves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StkWzRn5SI8&feature=related), or other weapons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHjyZ3IJGvw)???

This win has been brought to you by Talik.

[Rutee]

If you are Good or Neutral there is no requirement, ever, that you occasionally commit an evil act. If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.
If you are Good or Neutral there is no requirement to never commit an evil act. If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.


No. You're misquoting me / misconstruing me, as usual. Read my text above, again. Not behaving in an evil way is not the same as behaving in a good way. Read the Alignment descriptions again. Did you see anything under any of the Good and Neutral alignment descriptions which requires evil actions? Answer that question, please, because you've dodged it to date.
Now, read it yet again. Do you see text which shows a preference towards good, even if that doesn't mean that the character is some kind of a champion for good? You do, here (my bolds for emphasis):
Oh, you're going to lecture on dodging questions. THat's rich. Very well. Nothing requires evil from Good or Neutral characters. But nothing in the text for Good or Neutral characters requires that they follow the Paldin's code/



There is similar text for the other neutral alignments indicating that these people still know how to work and play well with others. That's not the same as "being good", but it's certainly not the same as "being evil", and it also certainly isn't the same as "occasionally performs evil acts".
I find it difficult to believe that Neutral never acts in either a Good or Evil way.


You need to read the rules. It's quite clear, and it's been posted before. I'll make it convenient for you (my bolds for emphasis):
It's quite clear: goods and neutrals can be player characters. By exclusion and by explicit statement, player characters can not be of evil alignment. Evils can be monsters and villains, and by exclusion and by explicit statement, monsters and villains not be player characters. If your character becomes evil, your character becomes an NPC run by the GM, because it's the GM who runs the monsters and villains. It doesn't require any such "moratorium" as you describe, because it is clearly posted in the rules. If you want to play an evil character, it is incumbent upon you to broach the subject with your GM and ask for an exception.
Sigh. Within your own rules clipping.. (And mind that the PHB doesn't draw this distinction, even ift he SRD does. The PHB is my first go to)


The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.
"Standard" does not mean "Only". It means "Normal". If you'd like to argue that Good and good-leaning Neutrals are most common, I'll agree with that. If you're trying to argue that the rules prohibit all other characters, /you are demonstrably wrong/.


I've already done so. So has at least one other person in this thread. Repeatedly. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this had occurred.
No, you haven't. You have succeeding in tracing it back to a rule. You have not justified this rule. However, I'm fair. If you claim to have done so, who am I to refuse to believe you? Link to me the post where you justify the Code, as a rule.


Now who is assuming that their way of playing is the 'normal' way? Intra-party friction does not have to be so extreme as to cause a Paladin to either leave the party or fall. Saying that behavior which does cause one of those two events is 'normal' is only applicable to your own play group.
No, you're right, it doesn't /have/ to be. But it almost never will be in a group of nice players that contains a Paladin character, because they don't want to screw with the Paladin Player's fun. It's an artificial and rather annoying constraint.


Your statement is not supportable within the rules. Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good characters can associate with Paladins just fine, so long as they do not "consistently offend [the Paladin's] moral code".
The Paladin's moral code includes, unfortunately, a respect for legitimate authority.


And there is nothing within the description of any Chaotic alignment which forces a chaotic character to do so in order to play "to-type". If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.

No, you're correct, you're not /forced/ to play to-type.. but you certainly can. Are you referring to some obscure rule that says CN or CG can never have disrespect for authority, perchance? Heck, LAWFUL characters can disrespect legitimate authority (Generally by challenging their legitimacy, granted).

You can't claim "You never have to act in behavior X" where X is a behavior restricted by the Code, as a defense. The whole point is that you should be /able/ to indulge in behavior X without automatically screwing the Paladin over.



Then it stands to reason, if these are the standard alignments for PC's, then other alignments are NOT standard alignments for PC's.
Not only is that SRD quote NOT in the PHB.. in what reality does "Standard" equate to "Only"?

For that matter, when is "Monster" or "Villain" mutually exclusive with "Player character"?

Actually screw it. Kompera seems intent on never admitting that the rules can ever contradict themselves (Even if they do) or never be badly done (Even if they are). Nothing I say can change such a radical opinion based on circular logic (The Code is correct because it's a rule. And because it's a rule, we know it's correct.) Have fun intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict, and claiming maturity for having done so.

[hamishspence]

Maybe the class was written partly to represent characters in the novels: the game system and the early novels, such as Dragonlance, have evolved together. the theme of paladins Falling goes back to Lord soth, maybe before. Or of course, it could be the other way round.

It might be a good idea to look at system of alignment and as why paladin was written this way. Maybe its an arthurian theme, where only the most perfect knight found the grail, and all the rest failed in some way, even if failure might not be seen as fair to most modern eyes.

It could be paladin is a character based on older literature and morals, which might seem silly to modern eyes, but made perfect sense in that system. Some people want to play this old-style hero, Wizards made it possible.

I wonder if there are equivalents of really old design and development articles, which might explain the reasoning behind the class and the code?

[Rutee]

Except even if you want to play that type of character, there's no need or benefit (Not mechanically, but conceptually) to tie a class that /could/ have far more flavors to one code based on a romanticizing of the chivalric code

Effectively, why not say "Some paladins hold themselves to a code"?

[Talic]

Not only is that SRD quote NOT in the PHB.. in what reality does "Standard" equate to "Only"?

First, the SRD is the primary source of D&D. It receives all DM OGL errata far faster than the pages of a book can, and is more accurate for playing by RAW.

Second, "standard" does not equal "only way possible ever". It DOES equal "only way possible in standard games". If you are playing a campaign with evil PC's, you are using optional rules, which may call for other revisions. It's akin to using critical misses or the Leadership feat. It's widely accepted, but still a variant.

[hamishspence]

Maybe Game design decisions: when class first came out, was very powerful, the code was built to balance it, and to make the class interesting, give it roleplaying hooks the other classes didn't have (whether doing it that way was a good thing is a matter debated hotly)

3rd and 3.5 ed paladin retains the code as a relic of those decisions, even though its actually a little underpowered compared to ther classes.

thats the Mechanical reason given. Others may exist. game design can retain ideas that might seem clunky: sytems evolve, but not every part of system evolves at same rate.

[hamishspence]

There are variants, and there are variants. Some are accepted enough that a DM would be consider very unusual if he or she did not use them, and some WOTC supplements are built assuming these "DM's permission" sidebars are standard. Epic magic and leadership are much more built into the system, with many books being heavily dependant on them, than, say, critical misses.

[Rutee]

First, the SRD is the primary source of D&D. It receives all DM OGL errata far faster than the pages of a book can, and is more accurate for playing by RAW.
Show me the Errata that says that Evil isn't meant for use by PCs. Not the SRD quote; Show me the statement in print where WotC says "The PHB should read.."


Second, "standard" does not equal "only way possible ever". It DOES equal "only way possible in standard games". If you are playing a campaign with evil PC's, you are using optional rules, which may call for other revisions. It's akin to using critical misses or the Leadership feat. It's widely accepted, but still a variant.

Variant rules are printed in bold, with a very clear variant marker. Using Evil isn't the difference you're stating. Even within your quote, note the wording.

"Evil is for villains and monsters"

What line in the PHB prevents PCs from being villains, or behaving like monsters?

[Kompera]

If you are Good or Neutral there is no requirement to never commit an evil act. If you disagree, please refer me to the ruels section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.
Rutee, I've actually agreed with you on several occasions previously in this thread. Good or neutral characters can act in occasionally evil ways.

But that doesn't address the point: This is not required by the rules. And this requirement seems to be what you are stressing makes grouping with a Paladin so impossible for anyone. Trying to turn the argument around is not relevant and proves nothing. So again I ask, answer the question, please:
If you are Good or Neutral there is no requirement, ever, that you occasionally commit an evil act. If you disagree, please refer me to the rules section which supports your opinion. Or agree with me and move on.


Nothing requires evil from Good or Neutral characters.Thank you. Now we can move on.


I find it difficult to believe that Neutral never acts in either a Good or Evil way.Your difficulty in finding it believable does not make for a rule. Again: Point to the rule which requires evil behavior from good or neutrals. If you can do so, you'll have made your point. If you can not do so, you have failed to make your point. Ah, but above you have conceded this point. So please take the above as a hypothetical, since you've already agreed with me, and we'll move on.


You have succeeding in tracing [the Paladin's conde] back to a rule. You have not justified this rule. However, I'm fair. If you claim to have done so, who am I to refuse to believe you? Link to me the post where you justify the Code, as a rule.The fact that it is a rule is it's own justification. No other is required. All games are based on their rules. Please refer me to the portion of the rules for this game which state that rules which you find to be /too hard/ to adhere to as a player are suddenly optional.


No, you're right, doesn't /have/ to be [so extreme as to cause a Paladin to either leave the party or fall.]Hey, we seem to be on a roll here. Several concessions in a single post, that's progress!


The Paladin's moral code includes, unfortunately, a respect for legitimate authority.

No, you're correct, you're not /forced/ to play to-type.. but you certainly can. Are you referring to some obscure rule that says CN or CG can never have disrespect for authority, perchance?

You can't claim "You never [I]have to act in behavior X" where X is a behavior restricted by the Code, as a defense. The whole point is that you should be /able/ to indulge in behavior X without automatically screwing the Paladin over.No, that's not the "whole point." The whole point is that this behavior is not forced on the characters by the rules. Your characterization of behavior contrary to the Paladin's Code as being "to-type" for chaotic characters is not able to be supported by the rules. "To-type" behavior includes that described within the alignment description, which does not at all say that the behavior you describe is typical. Again, plrease refer to the alignment descriptions. Here is a portion of the text describing the chaotic neutral alignment:

A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy.See there? No requirement at all to refuse to work and play well with a Paladin. The CN character can "challenges traditions", but that's not the same as being forced to offend the Paladin's moral code.

[Kompera]

Have fun intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict, and claiming maturity for having done so.

This is the funniest and saddest thing you've said to date in this thread, Rutree. I and my group have a huge amount of fun "intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict", without even making a conscious effort do do so. I feel sorry for you that this seems to be such a foreign concept to you that you even felt the need to post it as an intended jibe.

[Daimbert]

Your difficulty in finding it believable does not make for a rule. Again: Point to the rule which requires evil behavior from good or neutrals. If you can do so, you'll have made your point. If you can not do so, you have failed to make your point. Ah, but above you have conceded this point. So please take the above as a hypothetical, since you've already agreed with me, and we'll move on.

Um, there's a major problem with your logic here, and it's that it basically boils down to this statement:

Nothing stops a character of Neutral alignment from acting in a Lawful Good manner and thus having no problem conforming to the paladin's moral code.

Well, yeah, that's true. But if I wanted to play a Lawful Good character, I'd have created one. I didn't; I created a Neutral character. Why should I be torn so harshly between playing the personality I created for my character and having one of the other players either being forced to remove themselves from the party or lose their class features and become mechanically weaker?


The fact that it is a rule is it's own justification. No other is required. All games are based on their rules. Please refer me to the portion of the rules for this game which state that rules which you find to be /too hard/ to adhere to as a player are suddenly optional.

Rules that defeat the purpose of the game are bad rules. Holding the paladin to too stringent a set of behaviours based on their code means that effectively paladins can only work in parties that are as LG as the paladin is or that ACT as if they are as LG as the paladin. This does not seem to promote good and fun roleplaying in a co-operative manner.

Now, that being said, I think that with some interpretation of the rules paladins aren't as disruptive as it might seem:

1) If the party wants to do something that the paladin does not approve of, the paladin always retains the ability to say "Do what you want, but I will not participate." I don't see why the paladin would be unable to travel with them afterwards if they do it anyway. Remember, they have to CONSISTENTLY violate the paladin's morals; these instances should be few and far between and only arise in more desperate circumstances where acceptable options aren't really available. So there's no chance of them CONSISTENTLY violating the paladin's morals; one instance does not consistent make.

2) Neutral and Good characters can still occasionally do small things that violate the paladin's morals under the "consistently" banner as well. It is unlikely that a Neutral or Good character will ALWAYS commit the action that violates the paladin's morals, and it isn't too onerous a restriction to say that the character should not violate the paladin's morals the majority of the time. So some small evils don't really matter, since most of the time what they do IS acceptable to the paladin, and thus they don't consistently violate his moral code; they simply lapse on occasion.

So I don't see it as as big a problem as others here seem to.

[Rutee]

1) If the party wants to do something that the paladin does not approve of, the paladin always retains the ability to say "Do what you want, but I will not participate." I don't see why the paladin would be unable to travel with them afterwards if they do it anyway. Remember, they have to CONSISTENTLY violate the paladin's morals; these instances should be few and far between and only arise in more desperate circumstances where acceptable options aren't really available. So there's no chance of them CONSISTENTLY violating the paladin's morals; one instance does not consistent make.
This will maintain party cohesion, it's true. Main trouble is that now the Paladin's player is out of the session for the duration of whatever's going on. In a play by post game, this isn't actually a problem. The nature of the game makes handling split parties pretty easy. However, IRC and RL games have to do something with the player (Particularly RL games, since it's liable that hte paladin's player isn't at home, and needs to justify the trip somehow). If it doesn't happen /often/.. you can pretty handily give the Paladin an NPC somehow or other, so that should be fine. If it starts to happen enough that hte Paladin is fazed out..


This is the funniest and saddest thing you've said to date in this thread, Rutree. I and my group have a huge amount of fun "intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict", without even making a conscious effort do do so. I feel sorry for you that this seems to be such a foreign concept to you that you even felt the need to post it as an intended jibe.
You don't get it, do you? An inability to handle intra-PC conflict in a reasonable, and rational, fashion.. is in fact the opposite of mature. By all means, don't fight if that'll be more interesting. But you can't claim it's less mature that the PCs have friction and disagree on methodology while the players are still getting along marvelously. And brute-forcing a lack of friction is almost by definition immature on an OOC level, because it's hamfistedly declaring that only one way gets to be correct for the group.




2) Neutral and Good characters can still occasionally do small things that violate the paladin's morals under the "consistently" banner as well. It is unlikely that a Neutral or Good character will ALWAYS commit the action that violates the paladin's morals, and it isn't too onerous a restriction to say that the character should not violate the paladin's morals the majority of the time. So some small evils don't really matter, since most of the time what they do IS acceptable to the paladin, and thus they don't consistently violate his moral code; they simply lapse on occasion.

I'm not sure why people keep saying a Neutral character can't consistently violate the code. A Neutral.. say Doctor may charge outrageous prices for his services (Arguably, an evil act) because he's the only doctor in town, but still spend time.. oh I don't know taking care of kids in the orphanage. A Neutral thief may consistently steal from people over a certain wealth line, then redistribute some of that wealth to the poor (And keep the rest).

And that's not even getting into the "Respect Legitimate authority" line..

[Eclipse]

While this doesn't fix the issue of paladins having a stringent code, a debate I'm not looking to get into, there is a way to fix most of this very easily. Simply put, have the paladin unwillingly associate with the party in such a way that he is still required to work well with them.

The Paladin player and GM can come up with a compelling reason the paladin must stay with the party. Perhaps he is a member of a good organization that doesn't quite follow the code, even though the paladin himself does. And then he is ordered to accompany the PCs in order to help out those folk who need saving. Or perhaps he is ordered by his god directly to accompany them for some holy task. Just make sure that this hook is continuous for the campaign, so the paladin always has a reason he must associate with the party, even if he finds the necromancer a little distasteful. He's an unwilling associate, so no problem.

Players still need to be mature about it, and it may take a little extra work on the part of the paladin, but it will stop the rest of the party from being shoehorned into playing characters they don't wish to play by having a paladin around.

Also, I'm posting this with the assumption that the GM and the players want to make the campaign work. I know a picky GM could poke holes through my argument, the point was to come up with something reasonably solid to keep the group together that most reasonable people can adhere to.

Personally, I just make paladins follow the one-step rule of clerics and tweak abilities, but that's a fairly significant house rule.

[Daimbert]

This will maintain party cohesion, it's true. Main trouble is that now the Paladin's player is out of the session for the duration of whatever's going on. In a play by post game, this isn't actually a problem. The nature of the game makes handling split parties pretty easy. However, IRC and RL games have to do something with the player (Particularly RL games, since it's liable that hte paladin's player isn't at home, and needs to justify the trip somehow). If it doesn't happen /often/.. you can pretty handily give the Paladin an NPC somehow or other, so that should be fine. If it starts to happen enough that hte Paladin is fazed out..

If it happens often, you either have bad players or a bad DM.

Since the DM should be scaling encounters for the entire party, having the paladin involved in the encounters should be a benefit to the party. So they shouldn't WANT to leave the paladin behind. So this should only come up when there aren't alternative options that don't work out to "mostly suicidal", and so that the option that the paladin won't go along with is really far, far easier and superior to any option that the paladin WILL go along with. If this is happening frequently, the problem is either that the players aren't seeing all the options or the DM isn't providing an option that the paladin WILL go along with, and is basically taunting the paladin into falling. And that, of course, is a bad thing.

Basically, this set-up should rely on things being generally easier with the full party, and so it is in the best interests of the players to take the paladin-approved option than the non-paladin-approved option, for reasons that aren't strictly mechanical (ie we want the paladin to keep his powers) but are based more on "We'd like the paladin to be involved in this; it would make our lives easier". That way, these situations should be few and far between because it would take party members not liking the paladin to chose the options that exclude the paladin EVERY SINGLE TIME.

[Rutee]

Basically, this set-up should rely on things being generally easier with the full party, and so it is in the best interests of the players to take the paladin-approved option than the non-paladin-approved option, for reasons that aren't strictly mechanical (ie we want the paladin to keep his powers) but are based more on "We'd like the paladin to be involved in this; it would make our lives easier". That way, these situations should be few and far between because it would take party members not liking the paladin to chose the options that exclude the paladin EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Actually, most of the situations that come to mind involve the party using deceit, trickery, and whatnot. Taking the Paladin along will likely make your life /harder/. If you don't take him along, you can use whatever dirty trick you please, possibly circumventing the 'encounter' with an unconventional, underhanded move. If you do take him along, you /have/ to handle the encounter normally. None of this necessarily means you have bad players or a bad GM.

[Daimbert]

Actually, most of the situations that come to mind involve the party using deceit, trickery, and whatnot. Taking the Paladin along will likely make your life /harder/. If you don't take him along, you can use whatever dirty trick you please, possibly circumventing the 'encounter' with an unconventional, underhanded move. If you do take him along, you /have/ to handle the encounter normally. None of this necessarily means you have bad players or a bad GM.

And how often will it be the case that a) those options WILL make things easier and b) will make things significantly easier than following normal methods and c) will make things significantly easier in a way that the paladin's Diplomacy and combat skills won't be of greater use?

If those options are that frequently THAT useful, the DM isn't running a good campaign for a paladin to be involved in. And if they aren't, then the other players are simply mindlessly sticking to trickery options without checking to see if, say, honesty isn't the better policy here ...

[Rutee]

And how often will it be the case that a) those options WILL make things easier and b) will make things significantly easier than following normal methods and c) will make things significantly easier in a way that the paladin's Diplomacy and combat skills won't be of greater use?

Pretty Darn, if we're not using Diplomacy as the skill is written, really (Diplomacy has got to be the worst-written skill in the damn PHB.. >.<). As long as we're talking strictly about what would be most effective, anyway, using trickery and keeping out of combat, handling things with deceit, will in general be a more effective method. And a group so inclined to use it, take note, can certainly turn to honesty/force of arms if the situation calls for it. The Paladin automatically closes off the path of deception; In no sense does a predisposition towards deception negate the path of honesty.

That's not to say I've ever observed a group in DnD actually stick to tricksyness, but it seems to me in retrospect that the break from it was done to keep the combat-focused types in on the game.

[Daimbert]

Pretty Darn, if we're not using Diplomacy as the skill is written, really (Diplomacy has got to be the worst-written skill in the damn PHB.. >.<). As long as we're talking strictly about what would be most effective, anyway, using trickery and keeping out of combat, handling things with deceit, will in general be a more effective method. And a group so inclined to use it, take note, can certainly turn to honesty/force of arms if the situation calls for it. The Paladin automatically closes off the path of deception; In no sense does a predisposition towards deception negate the path of honesty.

That's not to say I've ever observed a group in DnD actually stick to tricksyness, but it seems to me in retrospect that the break from it was done to keep the combat-focused types in on the game.

More effective isn't sufficient; it has to be more effective to the point that losing the paladin's abilities and not having a full party is WORTH using the deceptive methods. It doesn't mean that if you had another class or character than the paladin and tried the deceptive method it would work better or at worst would devolve to the same sort of combat as if you hadn't tried deception first. You would go into combat missing a key combat class whose abilities would be very useful; is that a worthwhile trade-off for trying the deceitful method?

If your character would be thinking that things might be easier if only they had a fighter/ranger/cleric/whatever in the group instead of the paladin, that's the right sort of conflict that leads to good roleplaying situations. The situations I'm talking about are limited to cases where it will be easier if we simply don't take the paladin with us on this mission ...

[Frosty]

Seriously. Just talk to the DM about it. Some deities can tolerate a looser code I'm sure. I allow Paladins of all alignments and deities.
They become champions of their deity/alignment instead of always championing lawful stick-up-your-ass.

I mean, Paladins of Olidimarra or Paladins of Sune or Paladins of Sharess? Great fun. This really should be a deity-specific thing. Or, if the Paladin is believing in a cause, then the cause doesn't necessarily require the stick-up-your-ass either. A holy warrior can believe in a cause that's neutral good or even chaotic good instead, and receive power from those beliefs.

The anal-rententive paladin is only ONE of many ways to be a holy wariror devoted to a deity/cause.

[Rutee]

More effective isn't sufficient; it has to be more effective to the point that losing the paladin's abilities and not having a full party is WORTH using the deceptive methods. It doesn't mean that if you had another class or character than the paladin and tried the deceptive method it would work better or at worst would devolve to the same sort of combat as if you hadn't tried deception first. You would go into combat missing a key combat class whose abilities would be very useful; is that a worthwhile trade-off for trying the deceitful method?

Except this problem will never be considered in an IC sense. The paladin is going to be godsmacked if you do it. The player will have significantly less fun. You will refrain from doing the effective thing not due to any IC feelings on the matter, oftentimes, but because you as a person and player respect the paladin's player enough to not destroy his character in a permanent or long term sense. And That is the problem. Motives for a group focused on roleplaying (Which is where the Code actually becomes an issue) shouldn't /have/ to come down to "OOCly, he's going to be screwed". I have full awareness and support of maintaining good OOC relations as well as IC (For instance, and just off the top of my head, you don't bring up rape, in game, with a rape victim who hasn't gotten over it; Period.), but something as basic as "His fun is going to get killed" shouldn't be the result of ham-fisted mechanics.

[Frosty]

One of my players actually switched from a Lawful Neutral character to a Neutral character because he wasn't having any fun in a party containing a CN (although he acts CE, but only towards people that deserve it) biolent bastard.

[Daimbert]

Except this problem will never be considered in an IC sense. The paladin is going to be godsmacked if you do it. The player will have significantly less fun. You will refrain from doing the effective thing not due to any IC feelings on the matter, oftentimes, but because you as a person and player respect the paladin's player enough to not destroy his character in a permanent or long term sense.

You miss the point. Remember, this was in the context of a party deciding in ONE instance to go do something the paladin would not approve of with the paladin then deciding that he wouldn't take part in that action if they go and try to do it. This, I claimed, would not force the paladin to fall or to never travel with the party again. Thus, my comment here was that the party would have the choice of leaving the paladin behind -- and thus, losing all of his abilities and services for that encounter -- or trying another method. So there is no notion of the paladin losing anything permanently or long term in this example.



And That is the problem. Motives for a group focused on roleplaying (Which is where the Code actually becomes an issue) shouldn't /have/ to come down to "OOCly, he's going to be screwed".

I agree, but this is not one of those cases. This is a case where the party is saying to themselves: "If we go with this plan, the paladin has flat-out said that he won't come along. We have an alternative where he WILL come along. Is this plan so much more effective that it's worth leaving the paladin behind to try it, especially since his abilities might be useful during it and certainly useful if it goes wrong? Is the alternative that bad?"

That's all IC discussion and in no way talks about the paladin losing anything permanently. If it is that effective, then he has to sit it out for a bit; if it isn't, they go with the other options. And if that sort of option is ALWAYS that much more effective than the alternatives, then the DM is doing something wrong and not leaving options that the paladin can approve of.

[Saph]

Rutee, I have to ask, how many D&D sessions with paladins have you actually played?

Because I've played lots, and I just don't find the majority of the issues you're having here to be a problem in practice. I've played as a paladin in two games, played alongside paladins in several more, and GMed one year-long campaign where the longest-running character was a paladin. In none of the games did the paladin's code cause any particular issues.

In my experience, the biggest sources of party conflict are characters who are played as Chaotic Stupid ("I'm gonna do whatever I want, whenever I want!") or Stupid Evil ("Killing grannies as they cross the road is fun!"). Lawful Good, not so much.

- Saph

[Rutee]

Weird, I recall you mentioning that the effective method has to be effective enough to compensate for losing the Paladin permanently. But it's much easier to write off one person's combat ability if you can negate the need for combat, and it's just for this one case.

But in an IC sense, it's extremely easy to justify losing the Paladin. Why bring him along if it's just going to make everything harder? It's the OOC sense where you feel any particular compunction towards keeping him.


Rutee, I have to ask, how many D&D sessions with paladins have you actually played?

I've only played a few games where someone was willing to put up with the BS.


Chaotic Stupid, Evil Stupid..
...And then there's Lawful Stupid, AKA Miko. Bringing up the worst examples possible isn't helping the Paladin's case, so I'm sticking to moderates.

[Saph]

I've only played a few games where someone was willing to put up with the BS.

Don't follow. Could you give more specifics as to how the Paladin's code was a problem?

- Saph

[Rutee]

Which part, the absolute ban on pretty much all forms of deceit, the parts that each highlight just the one out of nine alignments, the absolute lack of extenuating circumstances within the code, or the clause under "Associates" where it says a Paladin can't willingly (Because Daimbert is correct in pointing out that if you set it up /unwillingly/, ICly, there's no problem) associate with people who break the code on a regular basis?

Or perhaps the part where the Paladin is the only person who is guaranteed a mechanical godsmack if things don't go their way with some amount of consistency, which places undue pressure on the other players to go in a way close to his?

[Saph]

So is this based on actual experience of play, and would you mind giving the details if it is?

- Saph

[Rutee]

Haven't played with a Paladin in a long term campaign because of the long list of irritations. I said "Not many people were willing to go through the BS", you asked me which part was the problem, I went over them.

Are you going to comment on the actual problems, or would you like to insinuate that because nobody I know was willing to expose themselves to them, they can't possibly have happened had we attempted to include a Paladin, and play them by RAW?

[Saph]

Are you going to comment on the actual problems, or would you like to insinuate that because nobody I know was willing to expose themselves to them, they can't possibly have happened had we attempted to include a Paladin, and play them by RAW?

So none of you actually tried it?

What I'm trying to establish is whether this is based on actual experience - "We've tried playing a paladin, and it's just impossible, we've tried doing it X Y Z way and it just doesn't work" or whether it's just what you expect would happen. As I said, I've seen plenty of paladins in different campaigns, and in no case did it spoil the game nor require a vast amount of effort on the part of the GM to sort out. I think your judgement may be a bit off in this matter.

- Saph

[Eclipse]

Which part, the absolute ban on pretty much all forms of deceit, the parts that each highlight just the one out of nine alignments, the absolute lack of extenuating circumstances within the code, or the clause under "Associates" where it says a Paladin can't willingly (Because Daimbert is correct in pointing out that if you set it up /unwillingly/, ICly, there's no problem) associate with people who break the code on a regular basis?

Or perhaps the part where the Paladin is the only person who is guaranteed a mechanical godsmack if things don't go their way with some amount of consistency, which places undue pressure on the other players to go in a way close to his?

This is why I said, in not as many words, it's up to the DM and the paladin player to set up an acceptable method of having him join without forcing his views on the party before the game starts. This can be through house rules, a looser interpretation of the code, or a backstory that works the paladin into the party by being an unwilling associate. I'm sure there are other ways of making it work, but even having these choices is more than enough if the DM and player of the paladin both want to play a cooperative game of D&D. If the paladin's class features are at stake, it's up to him to find a way to make it work, not the other players. With a little creativity, it's not too hard to figure out, as the suggestion I made was just off the top of my head. Many players are far more clever than I am, and will likely come up with far better reasons than I ever could to be a paladin and stay with a "questionable" party without falling.

The code is in some ways subjective, others objective, and it will be up to each group to decide what it entails exactly, and how much violation of the code is enough to fall. Besides, this is exactly what we have a DM for in the first place; to be the final arbiter and interpreter of the rules.

[Rutee]

How many had intra-party friction that involved the Paladin? How many followed strict interpretation and enforcement of the Code and the non-association bit? How many were long term?

[Saph]

How many had intra-party friction that involved the Paladin?

My games? None. At least, there was no more friction caused by the Paladin than by anybody else. Everyone just took a minimum of care not to do blatantly evil things in front of the paladin.

- Saph

[EvilElitest]

Seriously. Just talk to the DM about it. Some deities can tolerate a looser code I'm sure. I allow Paladins of all alignments and deities.
They become champions of their deity/alignment instead of always championing lawful stick-up-your-ass.

I mean, Paladins of Olidimarra or Paladins of Sune or Paladins of Sharess? Great fun. This really should be a deity-specific thing. Or, if the Paladin is believing in a cause, then the cause doesn't necessarily require the stick-up-your-ass either. A holy warrior can believe in a cause that's neutral good or even chaotic good instead, and receive power from those beliefs.

The anal-rententive paladin is only ONE of many ways to be a holy wariror devoted to a deity/cause.
Frosty, Clerics and paladins are different, the former have codes' specific to gods, the latter have nothing to do with gods





It's quite clear: goods and neutrals can be player characters. By exclusion and by explicit statement, player characters can not be of evil alignment. Evils can be monsters and villains, and by exclusion and by explicit statement, monsters and villains not be player characters. If your character becomes evil, your character becomes an NPC run by the GM, because it's the GM who runs the monsters and villains. It doesn't require any such "moratorium" as you describe, because it is clearly posted in the rules. If you want to play an evil character, it is incumbent upon you to broach the subject with your GM and ask for an exception.

Actually that rule has been edited, so that isn't true really. Evil PCs aren't recommended, but you can be an evil PC


Respectfully, no. Homebrew is where you go to make new systems, not discuss the game, or discuss the game with a minor alteration. By this logic, all mention of houserules ever, including anecdotal stories, goes in the Homebrew forum, which is counterintuitive.

then start a new thread on taht topic, if you want to "prove" taht paladins are not a viable class. not fill up this one

your whole beef with the paladins class isn't based upon the infomation given but mis understandings.



Homebrew is for systems and classes. Notwithstanding that I've provided justification to alter the status quo (See: Its inherent limiting of group concepts. See: Its extremely strong ability to exert pressure on the group in an OOC sense. See: The lack of benefit for significantly higher costs then any other class), the change frankly isn't a change to a system. IT'd belong in Homebrew if I were going to try to alter the paladin on a mechanical level, such as to give the class the tools it needs to function on more then just an LG Holy Warrior. As is, I'm merely pointing out the problems with the code, and advising that one houserules them away.

Rutee, i've you'd actually bother to read the opposition's posts, you'd note that i've long sense countered all of those claims about their incompetence.
1) Group concepts. Unless your group is bent on being activity evil, then no problem, see above
2) countered your OOC part
3) The mechanical thing is same for other classes, that is a general balence issue, not a concept issue. Same can be said for fighter
4) Except all of your "Problems with the codes" are ether misconceptions, confusions, or even flat out lies.



No, I'm saying that not every house rule discussion in any sense needs to be in the Homebrew forum. There's no sign anywhere in the Gaming Forum that says ALL HOUSERULE DISCUSSION GOES IN HOMEBREW. On the contrary; Homebrew forum seems to more be for hard mechanics in some sense, going by the description
Then start your own thread then. Don't clutter up this one


Well, yes, in that sense, a class feature would always be a benefit. I'm referring to "Benefit" in the sense that it helps you get a leg up over the other characters. Basically I'm saying that the cost has no commensurate reward :P
True good doesn't need a reward (other than paladin powers of course)


That works, but then you look at the Fighter. The Paladin has the same mechanical weaknesses as the Fighter (With perhaps Will Saves being less exacerbated somewhat). You then add a cost on top of this. Still not so good, is it?
look at monk, witch is worst than both (also Paladins are slightly better than fighters actually). balance is a separate issue and isn't the fault of the code

Also Druids have a code as well people




Quite the contrary; I haven't argued that it's impossible. I've argued, however, that the paladin's mere presence, as an intended long term character, will exert pressure to behave in such a way that wouldn't be their preferred choice (Alternately, if they act as they please for long enough, well, the Paladin gets to suffer.)
If it is the type of group that couldn't work with a paladin (IE, commiting evil acts a lot) then they wouldn't be traveling with a paladin. Ergo, the problem shouldn't be coming about in the first place



All of the Paladins adventuring companions are good or neutral, or there is no party containing a Paladin. Not an assumption, but a logical conclusion.
For the record, paladins can travel with evil people who don't do evil things i'd like to point out


Tell that to the Lancer. Or to the Rogue played to type. Basically anyone not an LG Goody Two Shoes, really. Even Neutral people will commit some evil acts. Even Good people commit evil acts. What's with this constant assuming that Neutral, of all things, never commits minor Evils?
you don't need to be a goody two shoes. Also
1) LG doesn't mean you have to be a good person. Remember, apperently i'm LG
2) Minor evil acts can be excused, major evils acts shouldn't be excused. If the party is willing to torture, rape, murder or brutalize people to achieve their ends, then the paladin should act as the moral force preventing them from committing such evil acts.



this in no way seemed a deliberate attempt to fall, but was shockingly fast, has anyone seen a non-deliberate faster paladin fall?

Many many times. Ether through

1) Zealotry
2) Immaturity/stupidity
3) Jaded out look on life



They're Neutral. It seems to me that if they're neutral, they will commit evils... but minor ones. Most people can't help but commit minor Good acts and minor Evil ones (I think most people will leave pennies in the take a penny/leave a penny, and most people will cut off others in traffic if they're running late)
Minor evils can ether be justified by them being used for a good cause, or so minor that it shouldn't bother them too much to stop. Does the paladin saying "Hey don't pickpocket random people" really hurt yoyu that much

Cutting off other people in traffic isn't evil.



And your post /still/ has not served to justify the Code. Can you please support the Code's existence, rather then attempting to claim it doesn't alter anything? Because even if the Code exerted no pressure ever (It does), it would still not be justified in its presence, merely non-obtrusive (and therefore not worth changing). In point of fact, it's starting to tick me off. And being ticked off because of an internet debate isn't good. If you're going to persist in not addressing the most vital question, I'm just going to go ahead and leave.

The code has been justified. You have been ignoring it, or refusing to acknowledged it, but it has been justified again and again

The code is the the embodiment of the Lawful Good aligment. It takes the LG aligment to the extremes. It tries to magnify the ideals of good to a saint like level. paladins attempt to be the best people they can be, and they try to be the paragons of goodness
Your being ticked off most likely stems from your misunderstanding of the material




I think it's far more interesting if a Paladin's presence can allow intra-party friction in a more normal, and interesting fashion. As it is, a Paladin's presence exerts unnatural social pressure on the other players in a way that other classes don't under ordinary circumstances, which will either make the friction not happen, or resolve it quickly with brute force (And in an uninteresting fashion; Well, Fred will stop being useful, and therefore, stop having fun, if we don't generally go his way..) Effectively, I think a Paladin should have had the Crusader's way in the first place. Holy Warrior in no way connotes "Paragon of Morality", nor does it require a non-association clause.
1. Could you actually back up your statements, because i really don't see how the paladin acts in teh way your claim, other than your saying it
2. The crusader and the paladins are two different classes. One fights for a cause (any cause) , while the other upholds the ideal of the LG morality. Don't play a paladin if you don't like, but you can't say the class is wrong



Effectively, I think Paladins shouldn't be punished for not gobsmacking other party members and instead trying to handle intraparty conflict the same as everyone else (Including the Druids and Clerics)
Except that is what makes paladins unique. That they are upholders of a specific good ideal. They will only bully other party members if they are being activity evil





Chaotic characters can pretty easily offend the moral code on a regular basis, if they act at all to-type. Paladins have respect for legitimate authority ingrained in there. Even disrespect for legitimate authority constitutes offending the moral code on a regular basis.
BoED to the recuse. A paladin really would have a problem with somebody if they are committing evil acts. Chaotic might bother them but wouldn't make them fall



However, it does greatly restrict their freedom of action. In other words, the other PCs could come up with some great plan to defeat the lich through a cunning plan of deceit and intrigue, only to hear "Nah. We can't do that; I'm playing a paladin!"

And if the paladin ever goes along with a plan like that, he loses all his powers. If he founds out that you did something like that behind his back, he has to leave. And then it's time to roll up a new character, just as if the paladin had committed seppuku or been crushed by falling rocks.

if the plan is so bad that it makes the paladin unable to do it, then the plan is going to be rather evil, and so the players (who are presumable good) shouldn't be doing it anyways.



I think that's the issue Rutee has a legitimate problem with- that according a few details in the rules in question, the very presence of a paladin in the group forces the entire group to behave differently or have that one player character suffer greatly. And, to make matters worse, the behavior change is not purely mechanical (as with not forcing the rogue to fight on the front line). The change is also in roleplaying. My character can't even act like a morally ambiguous spy or something lest the paladin fall.

The paladin's presence makes the players act in a good manner. It doesn't strike me as that hard of a deal.

You character can act morally ambiguous, you just can't be evil.


Axiom: D&D supposed to be a cooperative roleplaying game.
Fact: In a cooperative roleplaying game, a group of people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion I: D&D is supposed to be designed to let people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion II: Therefore, anything that makes it harder for people to roleplay cooperatively undermines the purpose of the game to some degree.



However, it does greatly restrict their freedom of action. In other words, the other PCs could come up with some great plan to defeat the lich through a cunning plan of deceit and intrigue, only to hear "Nah. We can't do that; I'm playing a paladin!"

And if the paladin ever goes along with a plan like that, he loses all his powers. If he founds out that you did something like that behind his back, he has to leave. And then it's time to roll up a new character, just as if the paladin had committed seppuku or been crushed by falling rocks.

I think that's the issue Rutee has a legitimate problem with- that according a few details in the rules in question, the very presence of a paladin in the group forces the entire group to behave differently or have that one player character suffer greatly. And, to make matters worse, the behavior change is not purely mechanical (as with not forcing the rogue to fight on the front line). The change is also in roleplaying. My character can't even act like a morally ambiguous spy or something lest the paladin fall.



Actually, I think she has a point. This isn't an unsupported argument. The support goes like this:

Axiom: D&D supposed to be a cooperative roleplaying game.
Fact: In a cooperative roleplaying game, a group of people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion I: D&D is supposed to be designed to let people roleplay cooperatively.
Conclusion II: Therefore, anything that makes it harder for people to roleplay cooperatively undermines the purpose of the game to some degree.

Fact: The Paladin class as many here interpret it puts very tight restrictions not only on the Paladin himself, but on any other characters in the group.
Conjecture: When one PC stands to lose important class features for associating with other characters in the group, it gets in the way of cooperative roleplaying.
Conclusion III (from Conclusion II):The rule that causes paladins to fall if they associate with PCs dramatically less moral than themselves is a "stupid rule" because it gets in the way of cooperative roleplaying by creating conflict between one player's desire to play a paladin and another player's desire to play a morally ambiguous character.

That seems to be the gist of Rutee's argument.


I say BS to that. The only groups that will be hindered by the presence of a paladin will be groups that are acting evil in the first place. An evil group shouldn't have a paladin in their party in the first place.


What I'm saying is that it is right to be good and wrong to be evil. If someone thinks that it is 'right' (as in appropriate and choiceworthy) to do evil, then they are wrong as a matter of fact. They may well continue to believe this. Depending on circumstances, I might not even try to disabuse them of their ideas. But that does not make them either correct in a factual sense or 'right' in a moral sense, even though they believe themselves to be both.

That is subjective. In D&D, Good and evil are objective, but right and wrong are. Being good is not necessarily "right" and being evil isn't necessarily "wrong". people might think it so.

under D&D rules, a religious fanatical terrorist would be evil. However they wouldn't think themselve wrong. That is subjective. I personally think they are wrong, but that doesn't make them so. right and wrong are not inherent with good and evil





It's not obvious to me if one of us is using the language better than the other here. I recognize that under your definitions, what you are saying is logical. Do you feel the same way with regard to me (that under my definitions, what I'm saying is logical)?
I would, except i find your definition of actions to simplistic.



I would say that in both cases, "attack" is the action, and "harm a monster" is part of the intent (as is "defend myself" or "cause sweet sweet pain"). Again, this is solely because of definitions. The reason I do this is because Bob might attempt to do something and fail. For example, he might attack and have his strike bounce harmlessly off the monster.

Harming the monster is part of the action. If i swing a mace at a gnome, then my action is "Swinging a mace at a gnome". Weather i miss or not is irrelevant, because i have no control over that. What my action itself is what matters. My action is "Hit gnome with mace" or "Attempt to hit gnome with mace" My intent is the reason why i did it, which could vary form "self defense" to " he had a bug on his nose"



There's greater emphasis in the description for paladins then there is for other classes. Paladins have multiple paragraphs and a lot of fluff that goes into this.
'
So? It is still a class feature that is inherent in its nature and limitations.


And I specifically want the Paladin, in this case (Because really I'd rather have the Crusader in any case; More interesting mechanics, same flavor) because it's intuitive. It's the same reason I would legitimately expect monks to beat things up with their hands; The class is /all about/ punching people. Your logic is similar to saying "You wanna be rogue-y? Pft! Just make a Fighter and put points into the Rogue Skills"
except you claimed that the Crusader is what hte paladin should be. I say no, the cursader is its own thing and the paladins is its own thing.


I find it difficult to believe that Neutral never acts in either a Good or Evil way
That depends on the netural person in question. If they are traveling with a paladin?



Actually screw it. Kompera seems intent on never admitting that the rules can ever contradict themselves (Even if they do) or never be badly done (Even if they are). Nothing I say can change such a radical opinion based on circular logic (The Code is correct because it's a rule. And because it's a rule, we know it's correct.) Have fun intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict, and claiming maturity for having done so.
Dear gods, the double standard is just absurd

You seem intent on "proving" that the paladin code and class ideal is worthless and a totally and utterly horrible idea. You've made claims that it is limiting and isn't needed when you haven't backed it ups.
Also you entire argument about the code isn't backed up and you still haven't realized it because you are ignoring me
Yo uare just as stubborn as every person you condemn for stubbornness.
1. Prove to me that the code intentionally supports a lack of PC conflict. It doesn't, it actually tends to cause more than it creates
2. prove that the code is inherently wrong




No. You're misquoting me / misconstruing me, as usual.

Soon she will be ignoring you i'm willing to bet sadly. Is anyone going to cut and paste my comments for me


Effectively, why not say "Some paladins hold themselves to a code"?
Because the code is an inherent part of the class itself. It is one of the classes' ideals. If you want a class that doesn't have a specific class, cleric, knight, and crusader are right their


This is the funniest and saddest thing you've said to date in this thread, Rutree. I and my group have a huge amount of fun "intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict", without even making a conscious effort do do so. I feel sorry for you that this seems to be such a foreign concept to you that you even felt the need to post it as an intended jibe
you'll get use to it

from
EE

[EvilElitest]

How many had intra-party friction that involved the Paladin? How many followed strict interpretation and enforcement of the Code and the non-association bit? How many were long term?

Every group i've seen has had major party conflict. Most of it stem from the paladin trying to keep the rest of teh group from committing evil deeds. Remember, the paladin doesn't fall if the group does evil things, only if he tolerates it.
from
EE

[Rutee]

My games? None. At least, there was no more friction caused by the Paladin than by anybody else. Everyone just took a minimum of care not to do blatantly evil things in front of the paladin.

- Saph
Wait, now this is a key point. No /more/ friction? Mind that my objection is that a paladin will /kill/ it in any situation they'll be involved with, not that Paladins /cause/ it. I have no problems with the idea of the clerical classes' beliefs having the potential for friction; That's a very nice side effect of a character having strong beliefs on a particular topic. It's just not usually followed up with long term or permanent mechanical gobsmacking that can't be avoided. Further, the Paladin class doesn't just require a /strong/ belief, but an /extreme/ one, as an /entry requisite/. So specifically, my objection is on the social pressure a Paladin places on the /players/, more then anything. The congruency of those beliefs is less then helpful as well.

Edit: Paladin Class doesn't just require.. not "Cleric class doesn't just require..".

[Frosty]

Frosty, Clerics and paladins are different, the former have codes' specific to gods, the latter have nothing to do with gods

No no, I'm saying that Paladins *should* go set to the same standards as clerics, in my opinion. It makes a lot more sense and makes things a lot easier.

I'm just saying in my experience of how I've done Paladins, it has worked very well that way. Or, hold them to the same standard as a Crusader.

[EvilElitest]

Wait, now this is a key point. No /more/ friction? Mind that my objection is that a paladin will /kill/ it in any realistic sense, not that Paladins /cause/ it. I have no problems with the idea of the clerical classes' beliefs having the potential for friction; That's a very nice side effect of a character having strong beliefs on a particular topic. It's just not usually followed up with long term or permanent mechanical gobsmacking that can't be avoided. Further, the Cleric class doesn't just require a /strong/ belief, but an /extreme/ one, as an /entry requisite/. So specifically, my objection is on the social pressure a Paladin places on the /players/, more then anything. The congruency of those beliefs is less then helpful as well.

Actually

1. The cleric class does have mechanical problems, a cleric of pelor shouldn't travel with a cleric of Hexor for long the same way a paladin and an evil person shouldn't travel together
2. Why will the paladin kill it? Acting as the voice of morality isn't killing inter party conflict. Paladins try to keep their friends from doing evil things
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

No no, I'm saying that Paladins *should* go set to the same standards as clerics, in my opinion. It makes a lot more sense and makes things a lot easier.

I'm just saying in my experience of how I've done Paladins, it has worked very well that way. Or, hold them to the same standard as a Crusader.

here is the thing however, i like that the paladin's embody an aligment/code. A code which isn't that unreasonable i'd be willing to argue. I paladin should not have the same standards as a cleric or a crusader, because taht is why we have different classes. If i want to play the representative of my god, i play a cleric, if i want to play champion for any cause, i'll play a crusader. If i want to play a paragon of the LG morality, i play a paladin
from
EE

[Frosty]

here is the thing however, i like that the paladin's embody an aligment/code. A code which isn't that unreasonable i'd be willing to argue. I paladin should not have the same standards as a cleric or a crusader, because taht is why we have different classes. If i want to play the representative of my god, i play a cleric, if i want to play champion for any cause, i'll play a crusader. If i want to play a paragon of the LG morality, i play a paladin
from
EE

I think Paladins *should* be the champions of a cause, because the role of a paragon of the LG morality is best left to outsiders with the "Always Lawful Good" description. Mortals can't possibly be perfect.

I guess we just have two different views of what Paladins should be.

[EvilElitest]

I think Paladins *should* be the champions of a cause, because the role of a paragon of the LG morality is best left to outsiders with the "Always Lawful Good" description. Mortals can't possibly be perfect.

I guess we just have two different views of what Paladins should be.

I disagree. I think that Crusader/Knight should be champion of any old cause.

The point of paladins are that they aren't perfect. They are still morals. However, they have one thing that always LG creatures don't have. They have the choice to be evil. Not being LG is a viable and far easier option for them. However, they choose instead to commit them selves to the LG ideal. That is a tremendous act of self sacrifice. They are willingly giving up much of their life to act as best they can in a saint like manner.

from
EE

[Saph]

Wait, now this is a key point. No /more/ friction? Mind that my objection is that a paladin will /kill/ it in any situation they'll be involved with, not that Paladins /cause/ it. I have no problems with the idea of the clerical classes' beliefs having the potential for friction; That's a very nice side effect of a character having strong beliefs on a particular topic. It's just not usually followed up with long term or permanent mechanical gobsmacking that can't be avoided. Further, the Paladin class doesn't just require a /strong/ belief, but an /extreme/ one, as an /entry requisite/. So specifically, my objection is on the social pressure a Paladin places on the /players/, more then anything. The congruency of those beliefs is less then helpful as well.

I can't really understand what you're getting at here. This was why I was asking you for specifics. If you tell me a particular situation where your party's Paladin had a problem, I can reply to it. But these long vague paragraphs generalising about things which I've never seen happen in the first place, I can't help with.

PCs in our games routinely disagree about how to do things, or how to act. This includes Paladins. The PCs disagree, possibly they argue, the argument gets resolved, everyone forgets about it. It's not a big deal, and it's frequently a big part of the fun. The Paladin does NOT fall every time she gets into an argument, nor does it immediately bring the game crashing to a halt. The players deal with it, and move on.

- Saph

[Rutee]

PCs in our games routinely disagree about how to do things, or how to act. This includes Paladins. The PCs disagree, possibly they argue, the argument gets resolved, everyone forgets about it. It's not a big deal, and it's frequently a big part of the fun. The Paladin does NOT fall every time she gets into an argument, nor does it immediately bring the game crashing to a halt. The players deal with it, and move on.

Sigh. You've never seen an argument on methods to handle a problem, among players? You've never seen players bring up sneaky, deceitful methods of handling a situation that were poo-poo'd by the resident pally?

[Frosty]

Sigh. You've never seen an argument on methods to handle a problem, among players? You've never seen players bring up sneaky, deceitful methods of handling a situation that were poo-poo'd by the resident pally?

For me, it was kinda the other way around. The resident chaotic destructive PC of doom was a superior officer to one of the Lawful PC. Like I said before, that Lawful PC retured that character after 4 or 5 sessions because he couldn't really have fun and rp his character because he kept getting overruled by the Chaotic character. Now granted, I know that there wer a lot of things the Lawful PC's player could've done to rp, but he wasn't very good at it and not everyone is a master at rp, and conflict was created.

[Rutee]

Eh. A Superior position is work-pastable (Though I'm generally against it as the basic setup of the party) but no, that's not any better.

[Frosty]

Eh. A Superior position is work-pastable (Though I'm generally against it as the basic setup of the party) but no, that's not any better.

Agreed. It is work-pastable. My players couldn't do it though, unfortunately.

[Talic]

Yes, and yes. And I'm going to say this:

Party conflict can be excellent RP opportunity.

The group doesn't need to exist in complete harmony. There can be conflicting agendas.

As for sneaky deceitful methods? If they're in any way, shape, or form, sneaky enough, the players will find ways to do it so that the paladin is in the dark. Of the skills used to detect such things, Spot, Listen, and Sense motive, two are cross class for the paladin, and one is in an area that's a secondary stat (wisdom, with few mechanical reasons to go above Wis 14). Conversely, Hide, Move Silent, and Bluff are nearly always on the class skill list of the sneaky ones.

[MeklorIlavator]

I've played games like that as the paladin, and its no fun. You're pretty much a NPC that everyone else runs circles around, and whats worse, if you do "catch" the party, it can mean that the champaign has to break up, so it will end up as you vs the party, and then things get really un-fun(I had a party member try and attack me from behind in a guarded encampment, and when I went into full combat mode, he got the guards to believe it was my fault for and almost got me killed).

[Saph]

Sigh. You've never seen an argument on methods to handle a problem, among players?

. . . What? I just said that players in our games argue about methods to handle a problem.


You've never seen players bring up sneaky, deceitful methods of handling a situation that were poo-poo'd by the resident pally?

Who cares? So the PCs have different preferred approaches to handling problems. So what?

Okay, the paladin dislikes the sneaky, deceitful plan that the ranger and the rogue have come up with. The PCs argue for sixty seconds, everyone gets some good RP in, and then they either come up with a different plan, compromise, or ignore the paladin's grousing and go ahead with the plan anyway. Is this supposed to be some sort of catastophe?

- Saph

[Rutee]

Okay, the paladin dislikes the sneaky, deceitful plan that the ranger and the rogue have come up with. The PCs argue for sixty seconds, everyone gets some good RP in, and then they either come up with a different plan, compromise, or ignore the paladin's grousing and go ahead with the plan anyway. Is this supposed to be some sort of catastophe?

And if the party keeps doing things the sneaky way, out goes the Paladin. Go non-association clause. I don't care that people have different preferred ways. I care that constantly following the Rogue's screws the Paladin by default.

[Frosty]

What Rutee is saying is that with non-paladin classes, even other Lawful-Goods, ome can function in a mixed party that has conflict. They can even have a lot of fun. Paladins just get screwed over due to losing of powers, etc.

[EvilElitest]

Sigh. You've never seen an argument on methods to handle a problem, among players? You've never seen players bring up sneaky, deceitful methods of handling a situation that were poo-poo'd by the resident pally?

I"ve seen people misunderstand paladins. Which is pretty much what you are doing. A paladin does not need to be lawful stupid. They can't do evil, and they personally can't be dishonorable. They can however act in a smart and logical way. The problem isn't paladins, it is how you use them



And if the party keeps doing things the sneaky way, out goes the Paladin. Go non-association clause. I don't care that people have different preferred ways. I care that constantly following the Rogue's screws the Paladin by default.
Where in the paladin code does it say you can't sneak up and scout out the area? Or use the back stab ability. Or detect/disarm traps.
A rouge can't murder, torture, or poison people, but if he is good, taht should already be the case


What Rutee is saying is that with non-paladin classes, even other Lawful-Goods, ome can function in a mixed party that has conflict. They can even have a lot of fun. Paladins just get screwed over due to losing of powers, etc.
except rutee ether doesn't understand or has never used the paladin code/class. You can do it with paladins and it can work.
from
EE

[Dervag]

Minor evils can ether be justified by them being used for a good cause, or so minor that it shouldn't bother them too much to stop. Does the paladin saying "Hey don't pickpocket random people" really hurt yoyu that muchThing is, if you don't stop the paladin will have to leave. Which sucks for the group of players.


You character can act morally ambiguous, you just can't be evil.A character who never does anything of ambiguous moral status isn't morally ambiguous. And it's darn near impossible to commit ambiguous moral acts without violating a paladin's principles and (eventually) forcing him to leave.


I say BS to that. The only groups that will be hindered by the presence of a paladin will be groups that are acting evil in the first place. An evil group shouldn't have a paladin in their party in the first place.What about a group who has a habitual cat burglar? Or an anarchist who constantly tries to undermine law? Both offend against the paladin's code, even if neither of them is evil-aligned.


Harming the monster is part of the action. If i swing a mace at a gnome, then my action is "Swinging a mace at a gnome". Weather i miss or not is irrelevant, because i have no control over that. What my action itself is what matters. My action is "Hit gnome with mace" or "Attempt to hit gnome with mace" My intent is the reason why i did it, which could vary form "self defense" to " he had a bug on his nose"Again, we're just disagreeing over what counts as "action" and what counts as "intent." Repeating your definition won't help, and repeating my definition won't help. Do you think that, allowing for our different definitions, both our opinions are reasonable? To review, I think intent counts because I consider the desired target of an action part of the intent. Thus, I might intend to swing a mace at a stirge and hit a gnome instead. By your standard, the action is "swing a mace at a gnome;" by mine the action is "swing a mace," the intent is "hit the stirge with a mace for [reason]," and the consequence is "gnome gets hit in the head with a mace."


Dear gods, the double standard is just absurdSeriously, I think she has a point. She's sticking to her guns. Kompera was sticking to his guns. But Kompera's argument is "It's a rule so stuff it," while Rutee's argument is "There's something wrong with the rule." "It's a rule so stuff it" is a very circular argument. "There's something wrong with the rule," less so.


I"ve seen people misunderstand paladins. Which is pretty much what you are doing. A paladin does not need to be lawful stupid. They can't do evil, and they personally can't be dishonorable. They can however act in a smart and logical way. The problem isn't paladins, it is how you use themBut the problem is that they can't travel with people who are consistently dishonorable, or who consistently break their ideals in any way. A "noble thief" qualifies. Robin Hood may have been good-aligned, but paladins can't travel with him because he robs people so often.

[Crow]

I"ve seen people misunderstand paladins. Which is pretty much what you are doing. A paladin does not need to be lawful stupid. They can't do evil, and they personally can't be dishonorable. They can however act in a smart and logical way. The problem isn't paladins, it is how you use them

Most of the "bad" Paladins I've seen have been the ones who pretty much say "I live by this code, so you have to as well." That is just not how you play a Paladin in a group setting, unless your whole team is fine with it. I much prefer "I live my life by this code, and you do not. Your ways are your ways, but do not ask me to perform a deed which would violate my code, becasue that I cannot break."

Then there is that instance where one of the other players' characters does something evil, but not terribly so, like stealing from a merchant, and the Paladin basically says "Well, now I have to kill you." or "Now you have to go to jail." I prefer "I am displeased with your actions, but you are my friend. I urge you to return to the merchant and make amends. Next time you require an item which you cannot afford (whether the character in question could or not, you're giving him the benefit of the doubt), please ask me, and I will help you to purchase it. After all, we are in this adventure together." If the thief refuses to return the item, the Paladin can easily (usually) offer to pay the merchant for the stolen loot to resolve the situation, and attempt to gently teach the thief to change his thieving ways in the future. If the thief stole money to turn around and donate it to an orphanage, the Paladin would see the good intent in this act, but try to pursuade (not by sword point) the thief to do such acts of charity in a more lawful manner, and also try to rectify the situation with the persons who the money was stolen from. The paladin can recognize good when it happens.

Travelling with a thief may be acceptable so long as the thief is not outright evil. The Paladin can attempt to reform a habitual thief (which doesn't happen over night), just as well as he can smite a devil.

If the "thief" does something truely evil, well enough is enough. Similarly if the thief is not stealing for any "good" purpose, and the Paladin has given the thief every opportunity to change his ways. In that case, I would say you don't have a paladin problem, but a player problem (with the thief's player), unless you are playing in a thievery-oriented campaign.


Where in the paladin code does it say you can't sneak up and scout out the area? Or use the back stab ability. Or detect/disarm traps.

It doesn't say anything about not using those tactics. Honorable does not equal Stupid. The Paladin is a fighting man, well-versed in the ways of warfare. The Paladin takes every advantage the enemy leaves him, so long as it doesn't violate his code.

[Rutee]

It doesn't say anything about not using those tactics. Honorable does not equal Stupid. The Paladin is a fighting man, well-versed in the ways of warfare. The Paladin takes every advantage the enemy leaves him, so long as it doesn't violate his code.
Mmm... I think while honor is not mutually exclusive with intelligence, some tactics are pretty dishonorable. A sneak attack in the classic sense of the word, for instance. A strike at night without a previous Declaration of War, for instance, would probably be out. Outmaneuvering the enemy and striking an unprotected flank had damn well better be fine. A Thief's Sneak Attack should be fine, if it's characterized in a more.. proper fashion, such as striking at vitals, or an extremely preternatural ability to coordinate with your ally (Since really, this is a paladin. It's pretty much never going to see use outside of a flank.. :P)

Acting with honor is preeetty ambiguous and common-sense based. Unfortunately, a lot of the things one may want to do in a fight or a war that are 'just part of war' are probably dishonorable (One effective tactic that is a gray area, to say the least; Torching the food stores of a city during a siege. It's extremely effective.. but what about the townsfolk?)

[Crow]

A strike at night without a previous Declaration of War, for instance, would probably be out.

But striking an enemy camp at night so as to catch the enemy by surprise wouldn't.

[Rutee]

That's pretty debatable, if there's a standing DoW. It'd probably be dishonorable in a medieval-type setting if the rules of war were similar to the real world. (You did not attack at night, you did not attack at Christmas or Easter, you didn't attack on the Sabbath...) It very well could depend on target (Perhaps the Goblin Bandits in the area don't abide by any Rules of War, so no quarter is given to them, but the /Hobgoblins/ pretty much abide by most of them, so similar respect is given). I don't think a blanket statement can be made that a night strike is usually one or the other.

[Crow]

That's pretty debatable, if there's a standing DoW. It'd probably be dishonorable in a medieval-type setting if the rules of war were similar to the real world. (You did not attack at night, you did not attack at Christmas or Easter, you didn't attack on the Sabbath...) It very well could depend on target (Perhaps the Goblin Bandits in the area don't abide by any Rules of War, so no quarter is given to them, but the /Hobgoblins/ pretty much abide by most of them, so similar respect is given). I don't think a blanket statement can be made that a night strike is usually one or the other.

I can't speak for Christmas, Easter, and the Sabbath, but I think (and could be wrong) not attacking at night wasn't an honor thing, but more of a "We can't see the signals that we use to coordinate our own army, at night" thing.

edit: I'm trying to find some sort of reference, but I can't find anything pertaining to the rules of war or anything like that in medieval periods. Maybe you could point me in the right direction?

[Rutee]

I can't speak for Christmas, Easter, and the Sabbath, but I think (and could be wrong) not attacking at night wasn't an honor thing, but more of a "We can't see the signals that we use to coordinate our own army, at night" thing.

edit: I'm trying to find some sort of reference, but I can't find anything pertaining to the rules of war or anything like that in medieval periods. Maybe you could point me in the right direction?

My history notes? If I recall correctly, intra-army communication was carried out by sound signals. Here's the deal though; You didn't just not attack at night. You attacked at preset hours. We were talking about a time period where getting dressed for battle took hours. If people could attack whenever they wanted, they would oftentimes be fighting people who were completely defenseless (Because they'd have no armor whatsoever).

Either way, specifics aside, would it not be dishonorable to break the rules of war?

[Shademan]

ehem. how about staying on topic, lads?

[Daimbert]

Weird, I recall you mentioning that the effective method has to be effective enough to compensate for losing the Paladin permanently. But it's much easier to write off one person's combat ability if you can negate the need for combat, and it's just for this one case.

I consistently talked about it being for one encounter, and then said in one post "losing the paladin's abilities". You added the "permanently", though I never used that term myself


But in an IC sense, it's extremely easy to justify losing the Paladin. Why bring him along if it's just going to make everything harder? It's the OOC sense where you feel any particular compunction towards keeping him.

If you mean "Never have one travel in the party", then this depends on the players. If you mean "Always leave him behind in all encounters", then again that's bad playing or bad DM'ing. You don't want to leave behind a good combat character with high Charisma and some healing when your encounter may result in combat, which is likely to happen if your trickery or deception goes wrong?

If these tactics work all the time, the DM is not providing any incentive to be honest, even by having NPCs with high Sense Motives ...

BTW, I don't feel like digging through the posts to get the points, but I don't see why a party member who has one particular problematic thing that they try to do: steal things, pick pocket, etc, etc has to "consistently offend the paladin's code" if that is their one weakness. Why can't a paladin think: "Good in general; has a bit of a problem understanding the concept of personal property" [grin]

[Kompera]

Um, there's a major problem with your logic here, and it's that it basically boils down to this statement:

Nothing stops a character of Neutral alignment from acting in a Lawful Good manner and thus having no problem conforming to the paladin's moral code.

Well, yeah, that's true. But if I wanted to play a Lawful Good character, I'd have created one. I didn't; I created a Neutral character. Why should I be torn so harshly between playing the personality I created for my character and having one of the other players either being forced to remove themselves from the party or lose their class features and become mechanically weaker?
No. No. A thousand times, no. I have in no place suggested that a N character must act as a LG character in order to conform to the behavior necessary for a Paladin to consider the N character and associate.
Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

The logical fallacy of your argument is that you are assuming that the Neutral character you've created is in some way forced to make a choice: act LG or become a disruptive member of the party, forcing the Paladin to either leave or fall. This is not at all a requirement of the N alignment. You can play a character of N alignment this way, but you can't say I've created a N character, so "the personality I created for my character" forces me to act in such a way as to become a disruptive member of the party. It is your choice but it has nothing to do with the N alignment and how a character of N alignment must be played. Your character does not have to act LG at all to conform to both the description of the N alignment and to be a N character which a Paladin is allowed to adventure with. That is made very clear in both the Paladin's Code and in the description of the N alignment.


Rules that defeat the purpose of the game are bad rules. Holding the paladin to too stringent a set of behaviours based on their code means that effectively paladins can only work in parties that are as LG as the paladin is or that ACT as if they are as LG as the paladin. This does not seem to promote good and fun roleplaying in a co-operative manner.No. Paladins are, as cited by the rules many many times now in this thread, not at all required to only associate with other LG persons, or those who ACT LG.
If you disagree, please point to the rules which support your position.

Again, there is absolutely noting in the rules regarding the Paladin's Code or the descriptions of the Good and Neutral alignments which forces any such rigid choice. Players can play their N and G alignments freely and manage quite easily to not offend their Paladin associate while still operating within the freedoms offered by their N and G alignments. All 6 of the player character alignments are capable of operating within a set of behavior which does not offend the Paladin's Code.

[Kompera]

My history notes? If I recall correctly, intra-army communication was carried out by sound signals. Here's the deal though; You didn't just not attack at night. You attacked at preset hours. We were talking about a time period where getting dressed for battle took hours.

Please don't use the word "history" and then cite your enormous misconceptions. Some people may mistakenly give your words credence which they are not due.

Or provide references to any set of personal armor and weapons of war, in any era of your chosing, which required hours to dress. Or was that a simple exaggeration, trying to make a point with hyperbole?

[Talic]

Let's look at this "consistently offends the paladin's code" aspect, shall we?

What does it mean? Well, for starters, we can assume any act which would cause a paladin to lose powers would do so, right?

So evil acts, flagrant and gross disregard of legitimate authority and gross violations of not acting with honor. That's a good start.

Now, things that a paladin may find distasteful, but wouldn't in and of themselves strip a paladin of powers? Well, that doesn't have to qualify.

What does this mean? A paladin could conceivably adventure with someone who bluffs and tricks merchants to get a better deal, when the items are genuinely needed (especially if that is for a good cause). Why? Because while that may not be honorable, it's not a gross offense. Especially if not done often.

He could conceivably adventure with someone who accepted no quarter from evil foes who had done heinous crimes. The paladin must accept surrenders, true, but again, is that a gross violation? No.

As for evil acts, any evil act is no-class land for a paladin. So that means the players should definately avoid consistently doing evil acts, with a paladin in the party.

[Kompera]

This is the funniest and saddest thing you've said to date in this thread, Rutree. I and my group have a huge amount of fun "intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict", without even making a conscious effort do do so. I feel sorry for you that this seems to be such a foreign concept to you that you even felt the need to post it as an intended jibe.

You don't get it, do you? An inability to handle intra-PC conflict in a reasonable, and rational, fashion.. is in fact the opposite of mature. By all means, don't fight if that'll be more interesting. But you can't claim it's less mature that the PCs have friction and disagree on methodology while the players are still getting along marvelously. And brute-forcing a lack of friction is almost by definition immature on an OOC level, because it's hamfistedly declaring that only one way gets to be correct for the group.

I get it just fine. You, on the other hand, consistently misquote or misconstrue other's words in order to try to make your unsupportable points.

I say: "I and my group have a huge amount of fun "intentionally supporting a lack of PC conflict", without even making a conscious effort do do so."

But in Rutee-land, this somehow becomes twisted into: "brute-forcing a lack of friction", "hamfistedly", and "immature".

In Rutee-land, "without even making a conscious effort do do so" becomes "brute force"... It's the classic definition of a straw man. You can't argue the facts, so you'll throw something out there that tries to make my position appear to be horrible for some reason. In this case, it's "brute force". But as with all straw man arguments, you're saying it is to doesn't make it so. It doesn't change what I said and it doesn't change the fact that you are completely incapable of arguing your point effectively without resorting to such tactics.

[Eurus]

ok well I lost a whole pally during the second session of our level 2 He fell 150 ft...........he died..............stupid masterwork fullplate

[Daimbert]

No. No. A thousand times, no. I have in no place suggested that a N character must act as a LG character in order to conform to the behavior necessary for a Paladin to consider the N character and associate.

It's the implication of your argument. See, the rules state flat-out that a paladin cannot associate with people who consistently violate their moral code. The paladin's moral code -- notwithstanding whether or not that maps directly to "Paladin's Code" or not; moral code generally includes decisions based on alignment, to me anyway -- is Lawful Good. If a paladin cannot associate with someone who breaks the paladin's "moral code" even once when the paladin is aware of it, then it means that people in the party cannot act against the paladin's moral code if there's even a possibility that the paladin might find out about it. But the paladin's moral code IS Lawful Good. How do you ensure that you aren't acting against the paladin's moral code if you aren't taking Lawful Good actions?

Now, as I said in the post you replied to I don't think that things are supposed to be that stringent. "Consistently" implies that it means that they ALWAYS violate the paladin's moral code, and not just in one specific instance or type of instance, and Neutral and Good characters should, in general, be able to conform to those standards. So I don't think it's that big a problem. But your argument really does come down to "Don't do what the paladin wouldn't do, then, since Good and Neutral characters can easily do that." Well, sure, but paladins won't do anything that isn't Lawful Good; Neutral and Good characters would probably like to not have to act LG any time the paladin might be listening to avoid causing the paladin to fall.


The logical fallacy of your argument is that you are assuming that the Neutral character you've created is in some way forced to make a choice: act LG or become a disruptive member of the party, forcing the Paladin to either leave or fall.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said "disruptive member of the party"? I was strictly talking about violating the moral code of the paladin, which is what would force the paladin to leave or fall. Where did you get that line from?



No. Paladins are, as cited by the rules many many times now in this thread, not at all required to only associate with other LG persons, or those who ACT LG.
If you disagree, please point to the rules which support your position.

You were the one who provided it; or what did you think "cannot associate with those who consistently violate their moral code" meant?

Following strictly from that, a VERY strict interpretation of consistent -- ie meaning "once" -- leads precisely to the issue that Rutee raised and to the consequences of your argument that I pointed out above: since the paladin is LG, other party members must ALWAYS act LG whenever the paladin MIGHT find out about their actions, because as soon as the paladin DOES find out the paladin must leave the party or lose their powers. I don't think "consistently" should be interpreted that strongly, so I don't see it as a problem, but your argument and the rules you cited mean what they mean.


Again, there is absolutely noting in the rules regarding the Paladin's Code or the descriptions of the Good and Neutral alignments which forces any such rigid choice. Players can play their N and G alignments freely and manage quite easily to not offend their Paladin associate while still operating within the freedoms offered by their N and G alignments. All 6 of the player character alignments are capable of operating within a set of behavior which does not offend the Paladin's Code.

True, but that just proves my point: they can all act LG, at least when the paladin might find out about it. That means they act LG far more often than they'd like to ...

[Kompera]

It's the implication of your argument.No, it is not.


True, but that just proves my point: they can all act LG, at least when the paladin might find out about it. That means they act LG far more often than they'd like to ...

It proves nothing. Any character can act within any of the Good or Neutral alignments and not be a person who "consistently offends [the Paladin's] moral code". This is supported by the rules for the Paladin's Code and for the Good and Neutral alignments.

Nothing in the rules suggests that Chaotic Good behavior, or Neutral Good behavior, or Lawful Neutral behavior, &c is offensive to the Paladin's Code. Quite the contrary, the Paladin is explicitly allowed to call persons of these alignments associates and go on adventures with them.
Nothing in the rules suggests that to act in such a manner forces a change to a LG alignment. Nothing in the rules suggests that to act in such a manner is an unnatural or artificial restriction upon the freedoms of any of the other Good or Neutral alignments.

If you chose to believe that this is so, or you chose to have your characters act as if this is so, that is your choice. But don't try to argue that your choices are forced upon you by the rules, because they are not.

[Rutee]

Please don't use the word "history" and then cite your enormous misconceptions. Some people may mistakenly give your words credence which they are not due.

Or provide references to any set of personal armor and weapons of war, in any era of your chosing, which required hours to dress. Or was that a simple exaggeration, trying to make a point with hyperbole?

I find it to be extremely hypocritical to claim someone else a liar, then demand that /they/ produce reference when they have already referred to their sources as being from a lecture. Shouldn't you produce some references /before/ calling someone a liar?



BTW, I don't feel like digging through the posts to get the points, but I don't see why a party member who has one particular problematic thing that they try to do: steal things, pick pocket, etc, etc has to "consistently offend the paladin's code" if that is their one weakness. Why can't a paladin think: "Good in general; has a bit of a problem understanding the concept of personal property" [grin]
Because the character in question is /breaking their code/. I don't know how you can take thievery as anything but a blatant breaking of the code, when it explicitly says no thievery. There's not even one bit of a disconnect. Another example Dervag mentioned was an anarchist working to undermine legal governments, which offends the "Respects Legitimate Authority" aspect.


If you mean "Never have one travel in the party", then this depends on the players. If you mean "Always leave him behind in all encounters", then again that's bad playing or bad DM'ing. You don't want to leave behind a good combat character with high Charisma and some healing when your encounter may result in combat, which is likely to happen if your trickery or deception goes wrong?
I can't legitimately call that bad playing or DMing though. If you're playing totally ICly (Not something I support in the least), it's probably the only way to be a /good/ player, and if you're DM and following the same rules as the PCs... well Sense Motive is just legitimately harder to tweak then Bluff.

[Daimbert]

No, it is not.

Since I spent a paragraph showing how it was, it is disingenuous of you to simply reply with that one line retort without addressing or even quoting my reasons for saying that it was.


It proves nothing. Any character can act within any of the Good or Neutral alignments and not be a person who "consistently offends [the Paladin's] moral code". This is supported by the rules for the Paladin's Code and for the Good and Neutral alignments.

Nothing in the rules suggests that Chaotic Good behavior, or Neutral Good behavior, or Lawful Neutral behavior, &c is offensive to the Paladin's Code.

Note the shift from "moral code" to "Paladin's Code" here. Where is your evidence that the two can be used interchangeably? Does the Paladin's Code cover every single instance where the paladin might have to make a decision? And if it happens to, then how is the Paladin's Code not ITSELF inherently LG?

CG, NG, and LN behaviours ARE offensive to the Paladin's Code because they are not LG behaviours, and the Paladin's Code and the moral code of the paladin both insist that the paladin act in an LG manner. The fact -- which I don't think anyone is arguing -- that paladin's CAN associate with CG, NG, and LN characters is not in and of itself proof or even an indication that those sorts of behaviours don't offend the paladin's moral code. Which is why I suggested that the emphasis be on "consistently". CG, NG, and LN characters in general will not CONSISTENTLY violate the paladin's moral code, since they will do either good or lawful actions (or both) on a consistent basis, and that one single action or even tendency of theirs is insufficient to force the paladin to not associate with them by the "consistently" qualification.


Quite the contrary, the Paladin is explicitly allowed to call persons of these alignments associates and go on adventures with them.
Nothing in the rules suggests that to act in such a manner forces a change to a LG alignment.

Which I never suggested. Can you say "Strawman"?


Nothing in the rules suggests that to act in such a manner is an unnatural or artificial restriction upon the freedoms of any of the other Good or Neutral alignments.

Which I also never actually suggested. Yes, all of those types can indeed act in an LG manner if they wish to.


If you chose to believe that this is so, or you chose to have your characters act as if this is so, that is your choice. But don't try to argue that your choices are forced upon you by the rules, because they are not.

Which I, again, never argued. I simply argued that the combination of traits made that to be EFFECTIVELY the case IF the association rules were treated in too stringent a manner.

[Daimbert]

Because the character in question is /breaking their code/. I don't know how you can take thievery as anything but a blatant breaking of the code, when it explicitly says no thievery. There's not even one bit of a disconnect. Another example Dervag mentioned was an anarchist working to undermine legal governments, which offends the "Respects Legitimate Authority" aspect.

But are they "consistently" breaking the code?

Take this example: Character A is a good person, pets puppies and kittens, defends the weak, gives to charity constantly ... and happens to be a kleptomaniac. Why can't the paladin use the reasoning I suggested in the quote you made: Overall, this is a good person. They have a problem with thievery; I'll have to work with them on that?

Looking at the anarchist: This is a good person who legitimately believes that it would be better for the world if there was no authority. They're deluded and completely wrong about that, but their motives are good and they conform to my moral code IN ALL OTHER WAYS. I will try to make them see the error of their ways.

Since both of these characters would, in general, conform to the moral code of the paladin except for one problem area, I fail to see how they consistently violate the paladin's moral code. Thus, the paladin can associate with them.



I can't legitimately call that bad playing or DMing though. If you're playing totally ICly (Not something I support in the least), it's probably the only way to be a /good/ player, and if you're DM and following the same rules as the PCs... well Sense Motive is just legitimately harder to tweak then Bluff.

I don't really see how it follows. Let me use an example:

Character A: "I can spin this guy a lovely story and he'll let us into the dungeon."

Paladin: "I will not go along with that action. I suggest we simply ask and pay the appropriate fee".

Character A: "Why can't you go along with the story idea?"

Paladin: "Because I will not be party to lying, because lying is wrong."

Character A: "Aw, come on, loosen up."

Paladin: "No. If you do this, I will not come along to the dungeon."

Character A (thinking): "I could get us in without paying the fee by lying, but the paladin won't go along with it. But the paladin would be useful in the dungeon, and the fee isn't high enough to risk dying just to avoid paying it."

Character A: "Fine, we'll do it your way."

What of this is NOT completely IC?

[hamishspence]

Only one possibly neutral class is effectively required to commit evil acts: the dread necromancer from Heroes of Horror. Since many of his important spells have evil descriptor.

However balancing evil acts with good deeds and good intentions is not the only way to play Neutral.

[Rutee]

But are they "consistently" breaking the code?
Yes. Yes they are. They are consistently breaking part of the code. It's not breaking every section of the code, but it is consistently breaking the code, in the same sense that when you break /a/ law, one can colloquially say that you are breaking /the/ law.


Since both of these characters would, in general, conform to the moral code of the paladin except for one problem area, I fail to see how they consistently violate the paladin's moral code. Thus, the paladin can associate with them.
Here's the trick you can use to figure out whether they are or aren't. "If a Paladin did it, would it be a violation of the code?" You're treating consistently as a valid reading, of course, but I don't think it's the intended one (That is, you're viewing it as 'Can be expected to break most of the code', but I think it was intended as 'Can be expected to break part of the Code on a regular basis.' Both are entirely valid readings, and I'll admit your way is certainly less disruptive, but it's entirely counterintuitive, even if it is gramatically correct), and it still seems to force you to try to make them repent, as it were.


Character A: "I can spin this guy a lovely story and he'll let us into the dungeon."

Paladin: "I will not go along with that action. I suggest we simply ask and pay the appropriate fee".

Character A: "Why can't you go along with the story idea?"

Paladin: "Because I will not be party to lying, because lying is wrong."

Character A: "Aw, come on, loosen up."

Paladin: "No. If you do this, I will not come along to the dungeon."

Character A (thinking): "I could get us in without paying the fee by lying, but the paladin won't go along with it. But the paladin would be useful in the dungeon, and the fee isn't high enough to risk dying just to avoid paying it."

Character A: "Fine, we'll do it your way."

What of this is NOT completely IC?
It was meta by default, because these aren't characters, actually. You provide IC reasonings for the meta, but it is still effectively OOC motivated. Which is fine, really. Like I said, I don't particularly support true total IC playing because that just causes OOC friction in most groups. But true, and complete, IC playing is equally likely (Or arguably, more likely, because the character and player have no reason to concede on the grounds of respect for the Paladin's player) to yield "Screw that guy. Why should we pay just because he's a schmuck. C'mon, let's go find someone who's less concerned with their high horse


Only one possibly neutral class is effectively required to commit evil acts: the dread necromancer from Heroes of Horror. Since many of his important spells have evil descriptor.

Why do people keep acting like because the alignments don't force you to be Evil, you A: Can't commit it, and B: Predominantly act in a good way. If you predominantly acted in a good way (Which is pretty much the only way to stick to the Code. And then there's Lawful..) You would /be/ Good. And even Good Characters can shoot the dog.

[Kompera]

I find it to be extremely hypocritical to claim someone else a liar, then demand that /they/ produce reference when they have already referred to their sources as being from a lecture. Shouldn't you produce some references /before/ calling someone a liar?
Rutee, it's not hypocritical, it's how things are done in debate.

It's impossible to prove that a thing does not exist by citing a reference. I could provide any number of references to citations of people putting on armor in, for example, 5 minutes, and you could sit back and say "Nope, that's not the one I saw where it takes hours. Try again." I don't have access to your lecture, I can't possibly check your reference. And if it's not a source that is able to be referenced by any other individual for purposes of verifying your claims, then you could have mis-remembered it, misquoted the speaker, mistyped hours when you meant to type minutes, forgotten, or made it up out of whole cloth.

So I'll ask again, what is the source for your historical fact regarding it taking hours to put on armor? I've never heard such a time frame, I'd like to see the source for that claim.



Which I never suggested. Can you say "Strawman"?
Responding to:

Quite the contrary, the Paladin is explicitly allowed to call persons of these alignments associates and go on adventures with them.
Nothing in the rules suggests that to act in such a manner forces a change to a LG alignment.

Here's where you suggested it:


I have in no place suggested that a N character must act as a LG character in order to conform to the behavior necessary for a Paladin to consider the N character and associate.

It's the implication of your argument.
And here:

[...]since the paladin is LG, other party members must ALWAYS act LG[...]

Ok, you didn't use the words "change to LG". You said that I was implying that a N character or all of the party with the Paladin must act as a LG character would. And doesn't a character of any alignment who always acts as another alignment change alignment?

You're enforcing the Paladin's Code a bit extremely when you say:

CG, NG, and LN behaviours ARE offensive to the Paladin's Code because they are not LG behaviours[...]
It doesn't need to be so rigid. It isn't so rigid. It can be logically proven that there is no such restriction on the actions of the Paladin's party, just by looking at the rule regarding association:

Associates

While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

A Paladin can not continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.
A Paladin may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment.
People of any good or neutral alignment which is not LG act according to the guidelines of that alignment, and not the LG alignment. Or they would be LG.
Therefore, characters of any good or neutral alignment are not forced to act LG in order to avoid consistently offending the Paladin's moral code.

It's just that simple. Suggesting otherwise is not a supportable position, under the rules.

[Dervag]

ok well I lost a whole pally during the second session of our level 2 He fell 150 ft...........he died..............stupid masterwork fullplateI thank God for you. It was getting stuffy in here.


I find it to be extremely hypocritical to claim someone else a liar, then demand that /they/ produce reference when they have already referred to their sources as being from a lecture. Shouldn't you produce some references /before/ calling someone a liar?Rutee, I have to ask:

Does it really matter whether or not Kompera is being hypocritical? Does it in any way aid you, or harm him, to bring this up?


But are they "consistently" breaking the code?

...Since both of these characters would, in general, conform to the moral code of the paladin except for one problem area, I fail to see how they consistently violate the paladin's moral code. Thus, the paladin can associate with them.I wouldn't force the paladin to leave, but that's because I'm not being a rules Nazi about the association clause. However, if we take a strong interpretation of the association clause, their behavior is consistent (not something that happens just once), and that's a pretty big deal.

A single instance isn't "consistent" behavior- if the guy steals something once it doesn't force the paladin to leave his company. But if it becomes a pattern ("Oh, yeah. This guy subverts lawful authority whenever he gets the chance"), the paladin has to leave. Which is a problem.


Character A: "I can spin this guy a lovely story and he'll let us into the dungeon."

Paladin: "I will not go along with that action. I suggest we simply ask and pay the appropriate fee".

Character A: "Why can't you go along with the story idea?"

Paladin: "Because I will not be party to lying, because lying is wrong."

Character A: "Aw, come on, loosen up."

Paladin: "No. If you do this, I will not come along to the dungeon."

Character A (thinking): "I could get us in without paying the fee by lying, but the paladin won't go along with it. But the paladin would be useful in the dungeon, and the fee isn't high enough to risk dying just to avoid paying it."

Character A: "Fine, we'll do it your way."

What of this is NOT completely IC?The problem is that the character A is constantly being coerced to do everything on the straight and narrow by the paladin's presence. It's almost as if the paladin were a political commissar for his own ideology- anyone who works with him has to act as he would act or he can't help them achieve any task. Even if that task is absolutely critical and they both know it.

[hamishspence]

Quintessenial Paladin II (which is a 3rd party Mongoose Publishing source, so take it with a pinch of salt) had this to say:

Mercy and Forgiveness
One aspect of mercy is simple tolerance: nothing is more annoying than the paladin who does not play well with others. While the character should not turn a blind eye to crimes and misdemeanors committed by the other player characters, the player usually should. For example, do not arrest the party thief for petty theft or report the wizad for dabbling in the dark arts unless you, the Games Master, or the other players have a solid idea on how to keep the chracters working together, A little friction and moralising in-game is fun, and the paladin lecturing the party thief on morals is a well-established tradition, but do not let it interfere with the fun of the other players.

[Starbuck_II]

Let's look at this "consistently offends the paladin's code" aspect, shall we?

What does it mean? Well, for starters, we can assume any act which would cause a paladin to lose powers would do so, right?

So evil acts, flagrant and gross disregard of legitimate authority and gross violations of not acting with honor. That's a good start.

Now, things that a paladin may find distasteful, but wouldn't in and of themselves strip a paladin of powers? Well, that doesn't have to qualify.

What does this mean? A paladin could conceivably adventure with someone who bluffs and tricks merchants to get a better deal, when the items are genuinely needed (especially if that is for a good cause). Why? Because while that may not be honorable, it's not a gross offense. Especially if not done often.

IS Gross is a form of measurement: 12 dozen or 144.
Thus he can do 144 acts of violations before he has issues.

What defination of gross do you mean?


He could conceivably adventure with someone who accepted no quarter from evil foes who had done heinous crimes. The paladin must accept surrenders, true, but again, is that a gross violation? No.

As for evil acts, any evil act is no-class land for a paladin. So that means the players should definately avoid consistently doing evil acts, with a paladin in the party.

Paladins do not care have to about mercy for evil. They can Coup De Grace like everyone else.

[Daimbert]

Yes. Yes they are. They are consistently breaking part of the code. It's not breaking every section of the code, but it is consistently breaking the code, in the same sense that when you break /a/ law, one can colloquially say that you are breaking /the/ law.

But if, say, someone always parks on the street in front of their house without a permit and yet always meticulously follows the law in all other instances, we would not say that they consistently break the law. We would say that they consistently park in front of their house without a permit. The former statement would imply that they break the law in general, which they clearly do not.



Here's the trick you can use to figure out whether they are or aren't. "If a Paladin did it, would it be a violation of the code?" You're treating consistently as a valid reading, of course, but I don't think it's the intended one (That is, you're viewing it as 'Can be expected to break most of the code', but I think it was intended as 'Can be expected to break part of the Code on a regular basis', and it still seems to force you to try to make them repent, as it were.

Well, "consistently" is in the quote of the rules, and there is debate over which version should be used. That being said, your interpretation seems to -- as you yourself has pointed out -- contradict the idea that they can indeed associate with good and neutral alignments, since anything other than LG will almost certainly disagree with and therefore break at least one of the restrictions of the Code on a regular basis. My interpretation makes that work; it's overall actions that count, not simply one area.

And that's why I think that that's what's meant. If you have someone who is a paragon of virtue but has ONE vice that the paladin doesn't accept, why couldn't the paladin travel with them? The paladin couldn't commit that vice themselves -- that stays the same -- and indeed it would seem that for RP purposes would have to try to get them to repent or reform, but surely the association rules aren't meant to force those the paladin associates with to act precisely as the paladin would, no?


It was meta by default, because these aren't characters, actually.

Please explain how. I didn't have the time to roll up and fill out a full char sheet, you know [grin].


You provide IC reasonings for the meta, but it is still effectively OOC motivated.

No. The paladin class has OOC and IC implications. My example followed strictly from the IC implications, which are that a paladin WILL NOT violate their Code, which precludes lying.

You seem to be arguing that it's OOC only because the paladin could lose his powers by doing it. However, the IC implication is that that is the paladin losing the favour of his god and/or betraying his oaths and causes; that's more than sufficient to have this conversation occur.

In short, yes, the paladin class mechanics DO have an implication IC. If you don't want to deal with that IC implication and limit on your character, then don't play a paladin.

Personally, I think MORE classes should have such overarching implications, not less.


But true, and complete, IC playing is equally likely (Or arguably, more likely, because the character and player have no reason to concede on the grounds of respect for the Paladin's player) to yield "Screw that guy. Why should we pay just because he's a schmuck. C'mon, let's go find someone who's less concerned with their high horse

Which means that the party has absolutely no reason for that character to be in the party, and they don't actually care about having that character along with them. This does not seem to be something that a good story should allow, especially since everyone should know about paladins IC and so wouldn't have allowed the paladin to join in the first place. Since they did, there is a reason why they are all travelling in the same party, which a few gold pieces shouldn't outweigh.

Some example reasons:

- Paladin is the long time friend and ally of a party member or members.
- Paladin is the leader of the party, and hired/recruited the team for the quest.
- Paladin knows something that no one else knows that is critical for the quest to succeed.
- In order to succeed, they need everyone they can get ... even a stuffy paladin.

And so on and so forth.

All of your objections seem to be predicated on it being the case that the players are distanced from the world itself, and thus aren't roleplaying the game. Either the DM hasn't provided reasons for them to care for the paladin's presence at all, or the players are ignoring them. And again, this strikes me as either a bad DM or bad players. If the quest really would be that dramatically easier without the paladin, why did the paladin join the party in the first place?

[Crow]

Why can't the Paladin let the other characters spin the story as they want, and then just pay his own way in? The Paladin is bound by the code, but that doesn't mean everybody he travels with has to be. Spinning a little yarn to skip a fee isn't exactly evil.

[Rutee]

Rutee, it's not hypocritical, it's how things are done in debate.


In debate, both sides are held to the same standard of proof. Begin with the most basic premise before attempting to go any further. Notwithstanding that this still dodges the critical point of my post, which I didn't expect you to respond to (Because you weren't participating in that side debate). Namely, whether a paladin can justify underhanded methods as being 'part of war' when both sides proscribe to rules of war, and the opposing side hasn't shown bad faith in honoring self same rules.


Does it really matter whether or not Kompera is being hypocritical? Does it in any way aid you, or harm him, to bring this up?
It aids me /slightly/, insofar as it publicly absolves me from any 'responsibility' to go dig through notes of a class I took semesters ago just to meet an unfairly higher burden of proof on what was merely presented as a historical example of the situation in question actually occurring.


But if, say, someone always parks on the street in front of their house without a permit and yet always meticulously follows the law in all other instances, we would not say that they consistently break the law. We would say that they consistently park in front of their house without a permit. The former statement would imply that they break the law in general, which they clearly do not.
We would say, with complete (colloquial) accuracy, that they consistently break the law. Probably with a snarky grin because we know it's just a misdemeanor offense that they constantly break, but it'd be completely accurate. Of course, let's take it with another misdemeanor, possession of controlled substances like pot. You (The generic you, not you specifically) would say, sans the snarky grin, "They constantly break the law" because they constantly break that one misdemeanor. And in the eyes of the law, it's (Generally) about as serious as the misparked car (Arguably, the misparked car is more serious. I don't think possession dings your driving record, whereas a non-moving violation still can)



Well, "consistently" is in the quote of the rules, and there is debate over which version should be used. That being said, your interpretation seems to -- as you yourself has pointed out -- contradict the idea that they can indeed associate with good and neutral alignments, since anything other than LG will almost certainly disagree with and therefore break at least one of the restrictions of the Code on a regular basis. My interpretation makes that work; it's overall actions that count, not simply one area.
Your reading works grammatically.. but it's completely counterintuitive. Even /you/ did not consider it until you attempted to justify the code as a mechanic that functions under stringent inspection, without alteration. There are less ambiguous and more clear methods of phrasing oneself in that fashion. For instance, "A paladin may not associate with someone whom violates most of the tenets of the paladin's code".


Please explain how. I didn't have the time to roll up and fill out a full char sheet, you know [grin].
Easily. You're deliberately constructing the situation and more importantly, the character reactions in such a way as to make it so that the character can justify bringing the Paladin along. It's nowhere near the same thing as playing completely IC, where the only thing considered is the character's reactions. And again, that's not really a bad thing, but it doesn't serve your point.


No. The paladin class has OOC and IC implications. My example followed strictly from the IC implications, which are that a paladin WILL NOT violate their Code, which precludes lying.
Character A isn't a Paladin. Character A has no inherent reason to care about the Paladin's wellbeing or their travelling along. Character A can find a replacement. The paladin is frankly behaving in an unsettling and demanding fashion, which isn't the most convincing of methods in addition. Character A is still bending to the Paladin's demands.



You seem to be arguing that it's OOC only because the paladin could lose his powers by doing it. However, the IC implication is that that is the paladin losing the favour of his god and/or betraying his oaths and causes; that's more than sufficient to have this conversation occur.
I was unclear about which part was meta, wasn't I?


In short, yes, the paladin class mechanics DO have an implication IC. If you don't want to deal with that IC implication and limit on your character, then don't play a paladin.
The IC Implication is taken too far for an entry requisite. Again; I /love/ strong beliefs in a character. They're shortcuts for plot hooks and conflict of a wide variety of types. But the Paladin's IC Implications are far too stringent and become limitting, not just on the paladin, but on the other players. It /might/ almost be acceptable if it was just on the Paladin, but it's not.



Which means that the party has absolutely no reason for that character to be in the party, and they don't actually care about having that character along with them. This does not seem to be something that a good story should allow, especially since everyone should know about paladins IC and so wouldn't have allowed the paladin to join in the first place. Since they did, there is a reason why they are all travelling in the same party, which a few gold pieces shouldn't outweigh.
Tsk tsk. I'm refering to playing completely IC, as if your character were completely divorced from you. I don't /like/ it at all, but it's a perfectly valid way to play, not as if you were out to tell a story. And it's entirely reasonable for characters, particularly neophytes, to not know just how badly a Paladin plays with others.


All of your objections seem to be predicated on it being the case that the players are distanced from the world itself, and thus aren't roleplaying the game. Either the DM hasn't provided reasons for them to care for the paladin's presence at all, or the players are ignoring them. And again, this strikes me as either a bad DM or bad players. If the quest really would be that dramatically easier without the paladin, why did the paladin join the party in the first place?
Um, no. I'm giving the arguably more realistic and /selfish/ reasons why a party isn't going to give a damn about the paladin's desires, ICly. The reason those realistic and selfish reasons /don't/ actually pop up in play is because, guess what, most players /do/ divorce themselves from the world, to make sure that everyone at the table has a good time.

[hamishspence]

again, not in exalted deeds. Surrender, is given, must be accepted. However in the cases where the paladin really is the judge and punisher, a surrendered victim might still be slain, after a hearing, if crime warrants it and extenuated circumstances are not enough to justify mercy.

[Kioran]

The problem is that the character A is constantly being coerced to do everything on the straight and narrow by the paladin's presence. It's almost as if the paladin were a political commissar for his own ideology- anyone who works with him has to act as he would act or he can't help them achieve any task. Even if that task is absolutely critical and they both know it.

Hmmm - not quite. People can also force the Paladin´s hand. Indeed, it´s easier forcing a lawful person´s hand, be it by creating irreversible facts. For example my LG Warmage, Keri Thalean (Shackled City spoilers):

...who, in the first adventure, was confronted by the leader of the Hobgoblins, who wanted to negotiate after our first attack (sudden widened, maximized hail of stones) slaughtered their first line of defense, hands down. Unfortunately, she and several others were temporarily deafened, and instead of accepting their offer, which was releasing 6 of the prisoners in exchange for us leaving them alone, or maybe sending the messenger away, our CN Druid elected to beat the Hobgoblin up and put him on the elevator.
Keri was appaled, but, since we were now pressed for time, went through with the groups plan, since not doing so would only result in more innocents suffering - which they did anyway, only 4 survivors in the end...........

One can force a Paladins hand. Had Keri been a Paladin (and not our Half-Celestial Nazidin, who thought half celestials were fall-proof), she would have gone through nonetheless. That act wasn´t evil, even though it was certainly a violation of the Paladin´s code (breaking the conventions of war). Unless that happened regularly, a Paladin can smile and suck it up . and should, for group peace.
However, any more than the occasional brush with the Paladins sentiments might not work out. Still at that point, it wouldn´t really work out with most other LG characters as well. I don´t think it´s fair to rail against Paladins holding the group hostage when, in fact, pseudo-Belkars do so as well - they essentially make it impossible to play innocent, principled or even squeamish characters in their vicinity. How is this less restrictive?

[hamishspence]

Act with honor, is hard to find more detail definations without unusual sources (Dragon Magazine, Unearthed Arcana, 3rd party sources like Quintessennial Paladin II. In the third party book, the answer was no, must must abide by the following, unless the other side breaches these rules:

Present himself to the enemy
Challenge them openly on the field of battle
Engage them in direct combat
Allow injured and dead to be retrieved from battlefield
Not attack downed or helpless foes, or non-combatants.

However, shadowbane inquisitor, a paladin prestige class, is allowed to make sneak attacks, Exalted Deeds says even Lawful Good exalted rogues may make sneak attacks.

[Rutee]

However, any more than the occasional brush with the Paladins sentiments might not work out. Still at that point, it wouldn´t really work out with most other LG characters as well. I don´t think it´s fair to rail against Paladins holding the group hostage when, in fact, pseudo-Belkars do so as well - they essentially make it impossible to play innocent, principled or even squeamish characters in their vicinity. How is this less restrictive?

Because the pseudo-Belkar doesn't lose class features. Nor do most LG characters. You can force Pseudo-Belkar to behave in ways that Chaotic Stupid doesn't like, and he's pretty much never going to have to suck up a mechanical penalty (Unless it's a cleric of Erythnul) You can easily justify to a GM retaining alignment while doing non-alignment things, because compromise isn't foreign to the concept of alignment. Compromise /is/ foreign to the Code, which prohibits violations. Period.

[Kioran]

Because the pseudo-Belkar doesn't lose class features. Nor do most LG characters. You can force Pseudo-Belkar to behave in ways that Chaotic Stupid doesn't like, and he's pretty much never going to have to suck up a mechanical penalty (Unless it's a cleric of Erythnul) You can easily justify to a GM retaining alignment while doing non-alignment things, because compromise isn't foreign to the concept of alignment. Compromise /is/ foreign to the Code, which prohibits violations. Period.

First of all: the association paragraph is a guideline anyway, no hard-and-fast rule. It´s not explicitly mentioned as causing the Paladin to fall. The only thing it does mention is that a Paladin will only use LG henchmen, followers and cohorts.

And: The mechanical penalties accrue at the 95% mark anyway - no Paladin, who is by definition a Paragon of good and justice would venture along with someone who consistently offends his/her code anyway. I for one, as a Paladin, wouldn´t risk my integrity or life for Haley/Belkar.
If it´s some Haley-like character (CN, not riddled by bad intentions but certainly too chaotic and not too principled), I´d turn andd leave. In case of Belkar - well, let´s say Keri always had a scroll of Fireball/sudden maximized lesser orb of fire, just in case......

Some groups don´t work out. That the Paladin explicitly states this does, in my view, not present a problem as of such, the association paragraph not stating penalties for ignoring it aside.

[Rutee]

First of all: the association paragraph is a guideline anyway, no hard-and-fast rule. It´s not explicitly mentioned as causing the Paladin to fall. The only thing it does mention is that a Paladin will only use LG henchmen, followers and cohorts.
It's not explicitly mentioned that a Paladin /won't/ fall for association, unfortunately for this argument. Even without the non-association clause, the PAladin still is forced into non-participation. Which, while it has no /mechanical/ penalties, has /fun/ penalties on the player. It is legitimately bad design for a class in a game ostensibly about group roleplay to force characters into non-participation on grounds of suck.


And: The mechanical penalties accrue at the 95% mark anyway - no Paladin, who is by definition a Paragon of good and justice would venture along with someone who consistently offends his/her code anyway. I for one, as a Paladin, wouldn´t risk my integrity or life for Haley/Belkar.
Paladins being held as paragons is /pretty much/ the genesis of the problem, tbh. When you create a class that is mechanically incapable of compromise, you are hurting party dynamics on an extreme level. And I'm not saying all characters should be compromise-capable, but not all characters of a given class should have the option stripped from them.


Some groups don´t work out. That the Paladin explicitly states this does, in my view, not present a problem as of such, the association paragraph not stating penalties for ignoring it aside.

No group works out /well/ unless the Paladin gets the leader role by default (Which is still problematic..)

[EvilElitest]

ok well I lost a whole pally during the second session of our level 2 He fell 150 ft...........he died..............stupid masterwork fullplate

So he fell

(Drum noise)
yeah, i'll let that pun rest


Thing is, if you don't stop the paladin will have to leave. Which sucks for the group of players.

If the group is acting so bad that the paladin is going to have to leave, or attempt to stop them, then they must be engaging in very evil acts, like torture, murder, rape, slaughter, ect. Would


A character who never does anything of ambiguous moral status isn't morally ambiguous. And it's darn near impossible to commit ambiguous moral acts without violating a paladin's principles and (eventually) forcing him to leave.

No it isn't. I work with the paladin because i'm interested in the money.
Somebody who is religiously zealous. PLenty of lesser evils or netural actions can defined as ambiguous. They just can commit really evil acts (like torture)


What about a group who has a habitual cat burglar? Or an anarchist who constantly tries to undermine law? Both offend against the paladin's code, even if neither of them is evil-aligned.

1. Not the extend the paladin would ahve to leave. They would have to be activity doing evil acts.
2. The former is stealing for self profit or to help others? It depends if he is stealing and hurting others. The latter's actions are fine as long as the law that he hopes to undermine is harming the people. If he hurts people because of his action, the paladin is obligated to stop him


Again, we're just disagreeing over what counts as "action" and what counts as "intent." Repeating your definition won't help, and repeating my definition won't help. Do you think that, allowing for our different definitions, both our opinions are reasonable? To review, I think intent counts because I consider the desired target of an action part of the intent. Thus, I might intend to swing a mace at a stirge and hit a gnome instead. By your standard, the action is "swing a mace at a gnome;" by mine the action is "swing a mace," the intent is "hit the stirge with a mace for [reason]," and the consequence is "gnome gets hit in the head with a mace."
Wait, you say to agree to disagree, then don't even define my standard right. By my standard, the action is "Swing mace at Stirge" That is the action the paladin is taking. However the action failed, but the action is Swing at stirge. Please, at least deliver my point correctly


Seriously, I think she has a point. She's sticking to her guns. Kompera was sticking to his guns. But Kompera's argument is "It's a rule so stuff it," while Rutee's argument is "There's something wrong with the rule." "It's a rule so stuff it" is a very circular argument. "There's something wrong with the rule," less so.
1. you can't say she is sticking to her guns when she won't counter the arguments
2. She accused Kompera for arrogance, stubbornness, and thicknesses, as well as not listening to reason/logic, simply because he uses the same methods she does. It is frankly absurd
3. And Rutee's justification for what is wrong with the rule isn't based upon fact but long lengthy claims of fact
4. and all of her logic is defeated if you actually consult the rules in question. She is claiming that paladins are an ineffective class, not proving it.


But the problem is that they can't travel with people who are consistently dishonorable, or who consistently break their ideals in any way. A "noble thief" qualifies. Robin Hood may have been good-aligned, but paladins can't travel with him because he robs people so often.
1. Paladins can travel with Robin Hood (at least the romanatic ideal of Robin hood) because he is only stealing from the corrupt and giving to the needy. He isn't raping, murdering his victims, nor harming innocents

As I said, a party that can't travel with a paladin would have to be evil enough that they shouldn't be working with him anyways



Most of the "bad" Paladins I've seen have been the ones who pretty much say "I live by this code, so you have to as well." That is just not how you play a Paladin in a group setting, unless your whole team is fine with it. I much prefer "I live my life by this code, and you do not. Your ways are your ways, but do not ask me to perform a deed which would violate my code, becasue that I cannot break."
Accept the actions a paladin can't do are evil ones. Which a group traveling with one wouldn't be doing anyways.


It doesn't say anything about not using those tactics. Honorable does not equal Stupid. The Paladin is a fighting man, well-versed in the ways of warfare. The Paladin takes every advantage the enemy leaves him, so long as it doesn't violate his code.
exactly, so people can't claim that the thieft is "Totally useless" with a paladin around, because the paladin can act in a smart manner. He does need to accept surrenders for example.


Mmm... I think while honor is not mutually exclusive with intelligence, some tactics are pretty dishonorable. A sneak attack in the classic sense of the word, for instance. A strike at night without a previous Declaration of War, for instance, would probably be out. Outmaneuvering the enemy and striking an unprotected flank had damn well better be fine. A Thief's Sneak Attack should be fine, if it's characterized in a more.. proper fashion, such as striking at vitals, or an extremely preternatural ability to coordinate with your ally (Since really, this is a paladin. It's pretty much never going to see use outside of a flank.. :P)
Back stabbing, sneaking, and flanking are forbidden to paladins. They can act in such a manner NP. That is called being smart

A paladin can't however hold a hostage


That's pretty debatable, if there's a standing DoW. It'd probably be dishonorable in a medieval-type setting if the rules of war were similar to the real world. (You did not attack at night, you did not attack at Christmas or Easter, you didn't attack on the Sabbath...) It very well could depend on target (Perhaps the Goblin Bandits in the area don't abide by any Rules of War, so no quarter is given to them, but the /Hobgoblins/ pretty much abide by most of them, so similar respect is given). I don't think a blanket statement can be made that a night strike is usually one or the other.
The local rules of war make no difference to a paladin's code. Where in the paladin's code does it say "can't attack foes at night"

A paladin might personally not want to do so, but so might a wizard or a cleric, but it isn't inherent in the code



Either way, specifics aside, would it not be dishonorable to break the rules of war?
Has nothing to do with paladins in particular. Knights maybe, but not paladins, because their code is universal and not dependent upon individual war rules (That would vary from kingdom to kingdom)


ehem. how about staying on topic, lads?
what topic


But in an IC sense, it's extremely easy to justify losing the Paladin. Why bring him along if it's just going to make everything harder? It's the OOC sense where you feel any particular compunction towards keeping him.
Only if they are planning on doing evil things. A paladin would be able to work with any non evil group reasonable well. Evil groups don't work with paladins



What does this mean? A paladin could conceivably adventure with someone who bluffs and tricks merchants to get a better deal, when the items are genuinely needed (especially if that is for a good cause). Why? Because while that may not be honorable, it's not a gross offense. Especially if not done often.
I don't even think that is dishonorable, it is business actually


I get it just fine. You, on the other hand, consistently misquote or misconstrue other's words in order to try to make your unsupportable points.
oh dear


It's the implication of your argument. See, the rules state flat-out that a paladin cannot associate with people who consistently violate their moral code. The paladin's moral code -- notwithstanding whether or not that maps directly to "Paladin's Code" or not; moral code generally includes decisions based on alignment, to me anyway -- is Lawful Good. If a paladin cannot associate with someone who breaks the paladin's "moral code" even once when the paladin is aware of it, then it means that people in the party cannot act against the paladin's moral code if there's even a possibility that the paladin might find out about it. But the paladin's moral code IS Lawful Good. How do you ensure that you aren't acting against the paladin's moral code if you aren't taking Lawful Good actions?

1. Actually, it was referring to the paladin code, not the paladins personal moral code
2. When it comes to personal moral code, that is the same with any class/person with moral high standard
3. People have to violate the Paladin code for him to get pissed, he can make do if they only offend his personal morals


I find it to be extremely hypocritical to claim someone else a liar, then demand that /they/ produce reference when they have already referred to their sources as being from a lecture. Shouldn't you produce some references /before/ calling someone a liar
out of curiosity, what lector? I mean a college proffers in history, or a high school teacher, a book author, an expert? What?


Because the character in question is /breaking their code/. I don't know how you can take thievery as anything but a blatant breaking of the code, when it explicitly says no thievery. There's not even one bit of a disconnect. Another example Dervag mentioned was an anarchist working to undermine legal governments, which offends the "Respects Legitimate Authority" aspect.
1. Thievery is evil if the thief is stealing for personal beneifit. IE, the thief is being a selfish greedy bastard
2. Who says the authority is legitimate (IE good). If the aqnarchist is undermining authority that isn't opressing people and causing harm to innocents, then i can understand the paladin getting upset.


Note the shift from "moral code" to "Paladin's Code" here. Where is your evidence that the two can be used interchangeably?
um, the fact that the paragraph in question is referring directly to the paladin code, which is a moral code. Don't use a hyperhole to prove your point


CG, NG, and LN behaviours ARE offensive to the Paladin's Code because they are not LG behaviours, and the Paladin's Code and the moral code of the paladin both insist that the paladin act in an LG manner. The fact -- which I don't think anyone is arguing -- that paladin's CAN associate with CG, NG, and LN characters is not in and of itself proof or even an indication that those sorts of behaviours don't offend the paladin's moral code. Which is why I suggested that the emphasis be on "consistently". CG, NG, and LN characters in general will not CONSISTENTLY violate the paladin's moral code, since they will do either good or lawful actions (or both) on a consistent basis, and that one single action or even tendency of theirs is insufficient to force the paladin to not associate with them by the "consistently" qualification.
They are offensive to the paladin code, they are just difference. LE, NE, and CE are offensive.

And BoED, paladins can work with evil people, if they don't do evil things

p.10,Relationships, paladins can work with neutrual people

So I'll ask again, what is the source for your historical fact regarding it taking hours to put on armor? I've never heard such a time frame, I'd like to see the source for that claim
Um, i have a children's book on jousting that says it takes hours. Does that count




Character A: "I can spin this guy a lovely story and he'll let us into the dungeon."

Paladin: "I will not go along with that action. I suggest we simply ask and pay the appropriate fee".

Character A: "Why can't you go along with the story idea?"

Paladin: "Because I will not be party to lying, because lying is wrong."

Character A: "Aw, come on, loosen up."

Paladin: "No. If you do this, I will not come along to the dungeon."

Character A (thinking): "I could get us in without paying the fee by lying, but the paladin won't go along with it. But the paladin would be useful in the dungeon, and the fee isn't high enough to risk dying just to avoid paying it."

Character A: "Fine, we'll do it your way."

What of this is NOT completely IC?

where in the paladin code does it say this can't happen. A paladin mgiht not like this, and might pay his personal fee, but nothing keeps him from simply allowing others to do so (for a good cause of course)
from
EE

[Starbuck_II]

First of all: the association paragraph is a guideline anyway, no hard-and-fast rule. It´s not explicitly mentioned as causing the Paladin to fall. The only thing it does mention is that a Paladin will only use LG henchmen, followers and cohorts.

Than why is included beside Ex-Paladin? If they wanted it just to be roleplay/advice: why not put it beside the beginning section called a. Other classes b. Role.
Really, it would have been the obvious place to discuss advice. The way it is put now it implies that it is part of Code requirement

A. The other way they should have ordered it would than be:
a. Code
b. Ex-Paladin
c. Then Associates.

B. But the current order is
a. Code
b. associates
c. Ex-Paladin.

A implies that it is not part of code just extra info.
While B implies part of code.

This is why there is a debate. The creators of the book can't be that stupid to not see the implications.

This isn't Schrodinger's Cat. We can tell whether they are alive and dead.


And: The mechanical penalties accrue at the 95% mark anyway - no Paladin, who is by definition a Paragon of good and justice would venture along with someone who consistently offends his/her code anyway. I for one, as a Paladin, wouldn´t risk my integrity or life for Haley/Belkar.
If it´s some Haley-like character (CN, not riddled by bad intentions but certainly too chaotic and not too principled), I´d turn andd leave. In case of Belkar - well, let´s say Keri always had a scroll of Fireball/sudden maximized lesser orb of fire, just in case......

Some groups don´t work out. That the Paladin explicitly states this does, in my view, not present a problem as of such, the association paragraph not stating penalties for ignoring it aside.

But there is no reason to mention it if it is that obvious. Unless it is a rule!

[EvilElitest]

I don't think you can use the ordering of the paragraphs as evidence to prove a point, when there are other sources that beg to differ
from
EE

[Starbuck_II]

Primary Source beats secondary source unless secondary can be shown as errata. That is D&D's first rule of Equivalent Exchange Sources.

[Kioran]

Than why is included beside Ex-Paladin? If they wanted it just to be roleplay/advice: why not put it beside the beginning section called a. Other classes b. Role.
Really, it would have been the obvious place to discuss advice. The way it is put now it implies that it is part of Code requirement

A. The other way they should have ordered it would than be:
a. Code
b. Ex-Paladin
c. Then Associates.

B. But the current order is
a. Code
b. associates
c. Ex-Paladin.

A implies that it is not part of code just extra info.
While B implies part of code.

This is why there is a debate. The creators of the book can't be that stupid to not see the implications.

The implication being that the Ex-Paladin paragraph is the next-to-last, before the mount paragraph, meaning that it´s a separate paragraph detailing something other than a Paladin class Feature


But there is no reason to mention it if it is that obvious. Unless it is a rule!

It is a rule. One that states that Paladins can only have LG cohorts, followers and henchmen. Nothing else explicitly stated.


Paladins being held as paragons is /pretty much/ the genesis of the problem, tbh. When you create a class that is mechanically incapable of compromise, you are hurting party dynamics on an extreme level. And I'm not saying all characters should be compromise-capable, but not all characters of a given class should have the option stripped from them.

However, that´s the trope the Paladin is based on. I´m not even disagreeing with you about the Paladin being a crappy base class - but so are druids, Monks, Samurai etc. Base classes shouldn´t have alignment restrictions. base classes shouldn´t have a strong archetype either. That´s what PrCs could be used for. But the archetype of the Paladin demands such a more inflexible approach. If you have a problem with that, than it´s a problem with the archetype, or too archetype-bound Base classes anyway.


No group works out /well/ unless the Paladin gets the leader role by default (Which is still problematic..)

That is correct. But there´s a slew of concepts out there which do not work unless the group specifically accepts them and caters to them. Paladin isn´t the only one. However, and there you might be right, Paladins and Druids are both base classes which cannot be played out of the box in any group - see archetype bonding.

[Rutee]

Is he trying to bludgeon a puppy with the BoED again? When he still doesn't even have it on him?

[AKA_Bait]

It's not explicitly mentioned that a Paladin /won't/ fall for association, unfortunately for this argument. Even without the non-association clause, the PAladin still is forced into non-participation. Which, while it has no /mechanical/ penalties, has /fun/ penalties on the player. It is legitimately bad design for a class in a game ostensibly about group roleplay to force characters into non-participation on grounds of suck.


I think this is an overstatement. A paladin can be played, with fun, even in circumstances where they are forced into 'non-particupation'. It's just that the participation takes on a more within the group of PC's dynamic than a with the NPC's.

A Paladin tell can the rogue to leave him the hell out of whatever whopper he is telling to avoid some fee and stand there with a disapproving look as the rogue tells it and then pay 4 times the amount to the guard when they go through the gate and make it known to the rogue that he did so.


No group works out /well/ unless the Paladin gets the leader role by default (Which is still problematic..)

I've found this not to be the case but I guess it depends upon the group. I guess it depends upon if there is a group 'leader' or a group 'face'.


Than why is included beside Ex-Paladin?

Why is the code itself next to remove disease? Placement in separate subsections indicates that they are different features of the class. One feature is 'Remove Disease' another is 'Code of Conduct' and another is 'Associates'. Ex-Paladins is an entirely different section rather than an adjacent subsection.


If they wanted it just to be roleplay/advice: why not put it beside the beginning section called a. Other classes b. Role.


But there is no reason to mention it unless its a rule!

It is a rule due to the fact that a Paladin can only have LG henchmen or cohorts (i.e. people who he is morally responsible for because they follow his orders) there is a mechanical effect. Hence, why it is also a subsection of the class features section.


A implies that it is not part of code just extra info.
While B implies part of code.

Neither implies anything since they are different sections of the text. Does the crimial law merge with the civil law because they are adjacent within the general US Code?

[EvilElitest]

Is he trying to bludgeon a puppy with the BoED again? When he still doesn't even have it on him?

Who says i don't have it, i have it right here, i've already referenced already. out right lying to prove your point, apart from being cowardly and offensive, is hardly effective. Want a page number? Why wouldn't i have it, because i've certainly used more evidence than yourself



Primary Source beats secondary source unless secondary can be shown as errata. That is D&D's first rule of Equivalent Exchange Sources

not when the subject matter is the nature of the paladin's code, as it currently is. And it is certainly more valid than you idea of the order of the paragraph.

Remeber, D&D first rule of Exchange sources is "Buy more books to solve your problems"
from
EE

[Rutee]

If you have a problem with that, than it´s a problem with the archetype, or too archetype-bound Base classes anyway.
I suspect it's the manner in which the archetype is handled. Wizard, Fighter, and Rogue are pretty archetype-bound on their face, but the archetype is more... visual. It doesn't have a strong connotation of personality, that is to say. Cleric doesn't either, I suppose. But the Paladin /does/ have one. And a belief system. And they're hardwired into the class, with no variation.



That is correct. But there´s a slew of concepts out there which do not work unless the group specifically accepts them and caters to them. Paladin isn´t the only one. However, and there you might be right, Paladins and Druids are both base classes which cannot be played out of the box in any group - see archetype bonding.

Hm... have you seen a lot of trouble with Druids? They fall for desecrating Nature, no? I can't imagine that comes up as often as "Not satisfying the Paladin's Code)


Neither implies anything since they are different sections of the text. Does the crimial law merge with the civil law because they are adjacent within the general US Code?
No. Are you trying to say the PHB is written to legal standards? 'cause I could drive a semi through the holes, if I knew how to drive a semi.


I think this is an overstatement. A paladin can be played, with fun, even in circumstances where they are forced into 'non-particupation'. It's just that the participation takes on a more within the group of PC's dynamic than a with the NPC's.

Something about the syntax of this was completely incomprehensible to me. Can you maybe try and word it a different way? I dun get it, sorry..

[AKA_Bait]

No. Are you trying to say the PHB is written to legal standards?

Of course not. It is, however, written following general english formatting concepts. Among those, is the idea that separate subsections of a section of a document are not directly linked unless they explicitally refer to eachother. Also, that subsections of one section of a document are not linked to entirely different sections of that document unless it is explicitally stated that they do.


Something about the syntax of this was completely incomprehensible to me. Can you maybe try and word it a different way? I dun get it, sorry..

I'll give it a shot. Sorry for the confusion. It seemed to me that you were saying a Paladin, because of the code, either forces the group to do everything according to their code or is forced not to take part in what is going on themselves. I felt that was too strong a position.

I was arguing that although the paladin cannot do what the rest of the party is doing, they can still take part in game and have fun. Such as by refusing to be part of the rogues lie and paying for the party after they have passed through.

[EvilElitest]

I suspect it's the manner in which the archetype is handled. Wizard, Fighter, and Rogue are pretty archetype-bound on their face, but the archetype is more... visual. It doesn't have a strong connotation of personality, that is to say. Cleric doesn't either, I suppose. But the Paladin /does/ have one. And a belief system. And they're hardwired into the class, with no variation.

But nothing forces you to play the paladin. You don't want to dedicate your self to being a very good person, don't play a paladin. Don't want to dedicate yourself to nature, don't become a druid.




Hm... have you seen a lot of trouble with Druids? They fall for desecrating Nature, no? I can't imagine that comes up as often as "Not satisfying the Paladin's Code)

However that isn't the issue, both codes are equally unique with the same group standards, the only difference is that people like to pick at the paladin one more

from
EE

[Frosty]

But nothing forces you to play the paladin. You don't want to dedicate your self to being a very good person, don't play a paladin.

But some may want the mechanics of a Paladin (dunno why, but it's possible) and not the fluff and code.

[EvilElitest]

But some may want the mechanics of a Paladin (dunno why, but it's possible) and not the fluff and code.

And some people might want the mechanics of the Druid but not the fluff. However you can ether

A) homebrew
B) If you like the mechanics taht much, then the code (and the archtype itself) should go along with it as well

If upholding such a cause is too much, well knight, crusader and clerics are still open
from
EE

[Frosty]

However you can ether

A) homebrew
B) If you like the mechanics taht much, then the code (and the archtype itself) should go along with it as well

I guess I can homebrew something and call it an Ordained Champion or something like that. Yeah...that sounds like a cool name for the champion of a deity/cause.