PDA

View Full Version : Paladin, code, etc.



Doomsy
2008-10-15, 03:50 PM
I am honestly kind of curious about this. I've noticed that the paladin threads to go on and on, especially when you bring up the code crap.

Technically, clerics and paladins are supposed to share the same kind of responsibilities to their deity and are expected to act in a moral and ethical manner that reflects their god. But I've never seen anyone try to make a cleric fall, screw themselves over, or otherwise shatter their world.

Does anyone have a good reason why paladins tend to draw fire like that and clerics get a pass?

Who_Da_Halfling
2008-10-15, 03:56 PM
Probably because clerics don't HAVE to be Lawful Good all the time (depends on what God you worship or what domains you chose), and they don't have such a restrictive code of conduct.

Just curious, do Knights (who have a code of conduct as well) suffer the same "let's try and make the Knight fall" thing?

-JM

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-15, 03:58 PM
Clerics don't have a hard-written code. Paladins do. So if a Cleric is doing something morally questionable, it is still possible to state that it's for the greater good or in line with his deity even if it's borderline evil. A Paladin, on the other hand, falls for ever violating his code. At all. That's why, there's no flexibility, no gray area for the player to put their own interpretation down.

afroakuma
2008-10-15, 03:59 PM
I don't ever try to dunk Knights... they have enough troubles.

I'm always out to dunk clerics though. But then, I'm the kind of jerk DM who stashes an artifact in the floor so that the wizard has a percentile chance to disjunction his own powers out.

(Never again. I promise.)

EvilElitest
2008-10-15, 04:28 PM
because the paladin code is absoloute, while the cleric is basically left up to the whim of their god
from
EE

Doomsy
2008-10-15, 08:12 PM
All right then. I thought it might actually be deeper, but I figured that was probably the whole point of making the paladin more like the cleric in 4E. Oh well. Thanks!

AceOfFools
2008-10-15, 08:58 PM
Hm.. I happened to have the PHB right here.

Note on ex-Clerics: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god..."

Paladin Code of Conduct class feature: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and looses all class abilities if she ever willing commits an evil act. Additionally..."

So clerics have to screw up really badly before they fall, a paladin falls the first time they make a bad choice. And that doesn't even include the "Additionally..." cause which requires them to actively uphold "legitimate authority."

Basically, its much, much easier for a paladin to fall.

Rei_Jin
2008-10-15, 09:12 PM
Well, I guess there are several large differences between a Paladin and a Cleric in 3.5

1. Paladins do not need to worship ANYTHING to be a Paladin. Clerics can worship a deity, a pantheon, or an ideal and still get spells. So an intervening deity is a rare thing for a Paladin.

2. Paladins must be Lawful AND Good, not one or the other. Both are held at absolute adherance. And if they do actions that are contrary to this, they lose their mojo. Clerics just have to advance their cause, whatever that may be, and they're expected that they won't go and do the opposite of it.

3. Paladins, on top of being Lawful Good have a code of conduct to which they MUST adhere, or they lose their mojo. Clerics have NO code of conduct.

4. Paladins get played by people who a lot of the time, have no idea how to actually roleplay one properly, and thus they get picked on by the other players and the DM because they're annoying. Clerics are awesome sauce at divine magic and even if they were annoying, people would probably still put up with them.

Hal
2008-10-15, 09:14 PM
Hm.. I happened to have the PHB right here.

Note on ex-Clerics: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god..."

*snip*

Basically, its much, much easier for a paladin to fall.

In core, yes, although you only have paladins for neutral or good deities. Still, it's an abdication of the DM to think that Clerics have no standards set for them. Even a neutral good cleric of Pelor is going to be in hot water for committing an evil act, even if the text doesn't say it as explicitly as it does for the LG Paladin.

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-15, 09:14 PM
Hm.. I happened to have the PHB right here.

Note on ex-Clerics: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god..."

Paladin Code of Conduct class feature: "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and looses all class abilities if she ever willing commits an evil act. Additionally..."

So clerics have to screw up really badly before they fall, a paladin falls the first time they make a bad choice. And that doesn't even include the "Additionally..." cause which requires them to actively uphold "legitimate authority."

Basically, its much, much easier for a paladin to fall.

Actually, Paladin's only fall if the GROSSLY violate their Code of Conduct. That sentence is way too overlooked. That isn't to say that a Paladin can and should violate their Code of Conduct off-handedly, but it does take a sever act, such as murdering your fairly innocent Good ruler because you had paranoid suspicions.

The main difference is that a Paladin's Code is a strict LG code that is actually written out in the Player's Handbook, and is probably what someone thinks of when you think of Paladin. Whereas the Cleric code is not defined, only mentioned off-handedly, and is often forgotten about. If it is defined, it's up to DM decision.

EvilElitest
2008-10-15, 09:17 PM
Actually, Paladin's only fall if the GROSSLY violate their Code of Conduct. That sentence is way too overlooked. That isn't to say that a Paladin can and should violate their Code of Conduct off-handedly, but it does take a sever act, such as murdering your fairly innocent Good ruler because you had paranoid suspicions.

The main difference is that a Paladin's Code is a strict LG code that is actually written out in the Player's Handbook, and is probably what someone thinks of when you think of Paladin. Whereas the Cleric code is not defined, only mentioned off-handedly, and is often forgotten about. If it is defined, it's up to DM decision.

that also means never committing an evil act and ceasing to be lawful.

The paladin code is pretty clear and follows an absolute alignment concept


The cleric's code varies depending on their god, so it is so diverse that it doesn't attract as much attention. A cleric falls if his god doesn't like him, he could fall for being annoying
from
EE

RTGoodman
2008-10-15, 09:19 PM
I'm not touching the Paladin argument with a standard-issue 10-foot pole, but I will point out that with the (PHB2) Knight, violating your Code of Conduct isn't bad at all. You lose one use of your Knight's Challenge ability (or whatever it's called), but since you get quite a few of those per day (and, IIRC, at least one way to gain uses back) it'll never really cripple you.

Also, the Knight's Code isn't as limiting as the Paladin's Code, since it gives specifics as to what you aren't supposed to do (don't attack flat-footed foes, etc.), so it isn't left up to the DM's whim.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-15, 09:24 PM
I'm not touching the Paladin argument with a standard-issue 10-foot pole, but I will point out that with the (PHB2) Knight, violating your Code of Conduct isn't bad at all. You lose one use of your Knight's Challenge ability (or whatever it's called), but since you get quite a few of those per day (and, IIRC, at least one way to gain uses back) it'll never really cripple you.

Also, the Knight's Code isn't as limiting as the Paladin's Code, since it gives specifics as to what you aren't supposed to do (don't attack flat-footed foes, etc.), so it isn't left up to the DM's whim.

Even if you run out of Challenges: you just get a -2 penalty (sucks) but not that bad. And best of all, a Knight can't fall.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 03:46 PM
the knight and the cleric and the paladin are three different roles thus three different classes, and rightfully so
from
EE

Temp.
2008-10-17, 03:54 PM
the knight and the cleric and the paladin are three different roles thus three different classes, and rightfully soMelee Tank, Melee Tank and Melee Tank?

...wait, that's not right...

Badass Normal fighter, Blessed-by-the-Gods fighter, Blessed-by-the-Gods fighter?

...wait...

Knight in shining armor, knight in shining armor and knight in shining armor?

...no...

Mounted Fighter, Potentially-Mounted Fighter and Mounted Fighter?

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 03:55 PM
1) Paragon of the aligniment Lawful good
2) Servant of a god or cause
3) Servant of a mortal cause or ruler/country
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 03:58 PM
How about Faerun paladins who serve deities with extremely diverging views? One who serves LN Kelemvor, one who serves CG Sune? (Sune is exception to the one-step rule)

Temp.
2008-10-17, 03:58 PM
1) Paragon of the aligniment Lawful good
2) Servant of a god or cause I say potato...


The Knight often falls somewhere between Paladin and Fighter fluff. I don't see it so much as a new concept as a new bundle of mechanics.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 04:12 PM
How about Faerun paladins who serve deities with extremely diverging views? One who serves LN Kelemvor, one who serves CG Sune? (Sune is exception to the one-step rule)

they are more like knights templar but even in the books they say they must follow the paladin's code and teh gods code, really tough.

Temp, knights are more like people who serve an earthly cause, hence why they can be of any alignment/belief
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 04:17 PM
Incorrect: all knights must be of Lawful alignment to retain their powers.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 04:19 PM
Incorrect: all knights must be of Lawful alignment to retain their powers.

yeah i know, the whole dedication to a cause thing. They still have to act lawful, they just have to choice of what they dedicate themselves too
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 04:25 PM
The cause of Anarchy would be, perhaps, a little atypical. Though might be interesting to see a men who wants laws overthrown, yet acts in a very Lawful fashion. Some D&D characters also show hints of this dichonomy:

Waterdeep: Sir Gareth, CE ex-paladin who never tells a lie.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 04:29 PM
well like i said in my blog, good and evil don't mean right and wrong

A person could be a lawful anarchist if they did so in a very lawful orginized manner
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 04:34 PM
From what I can tell, D&D does bias Law and Chaos toward Good and Evil. In Pre-1st ed D&D they were virtually synomymous. In 2nd ed Players Handbook. Chaotic Good is portrayed as more self-centred and less interested in helping people than Lawful Good was.

Even in 3rd ed, Books like Vile Darkness say that Stealing, for example, is evil, not just Chaotic. Or Exalted Deeds and its strong focus on being "Just" whatever your alignment of good.

JaxGaret
2008-10-17, 04:54 PM
Even in 3rd ed, Books like Vile Darkness say that Stealing, for example, is evil, not just Chaotic.

Can you give a page reference for that?

Draco Dracul
2008-10-17, 05:18 PM
well like i said in my blog, good and evil don't mean right and wrong

A person could be a lawful anarchist if they did so in a very lawful orginized manner
from
EE

But doesn't that defeat the point of being an anarchist (I'm not saying that it's impossible to be a lawfull anarchist just kind of pointless)? Wouldn't you lose all your anachist class feature, or at least be unable to advance any further in anarchist class?

streakster
2008-10-17, 05:24 PM
The silly thing is that one can just play Fax's paladin and avoid the whole mess...

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 07:38 PM
But doesn't that defeat the point of being an anarchist (I'm not saying that it's impossible to be a lawfull anarchist just kind of pointless)? Wouldn't you lose all your anachist class feature, or at least be unable to advance any further in anarchist class?

wait, no i didn't mean anachist the class, i meant the ideal. Sorry about that

A knight could be dedicated to the cause of anarchy, he would just have to do so in a lawful and dedicated manner
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-17, 07:53 PM
wait, no i didn't mean anachist the class, i meant the ideal. Sorry about that

A knight could be dedicated to the cause of anarchy, he would just have to do so in a lawful and dedicated manner
from
EE

Wait there's actually anarchist class, that was suposed to be a joke.:smallredface:

I do agree that one can be a lawful anarchist, but only if one works alone because an organized anarchist group stops being truely anarchist. However, a bunch of anarchist that are just moving in the same general direction can have lawful (methodical, calculating) people within it, so long as it does not have an established hierarchy.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 07:55 PM
Wait there's actually anarchist class, that was suposed to be a joke.:smallredface:

Oh i thought you were being serous............:smallredface:


I do agree that one can be a lawful anarchist, but only if one works alone because an organized anarchist group stops being truely anarchist. However, a bunch of anarchist that are just moving in the same general direction can have lawful (methodical, calculating) people within it, so long as it does not have an established hierarchy.

Well a knight could act as a loner for an anarchist cause, but it would be kinda hard to pull off, your right a group would best. one that didn't actually like Anarchy but just wanted to cause it would be best
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-17, 08:03 PM
Well a knight could act as a loner for an anarchist cause, but it would be kinda hard to pull off, your right a group would best. one that didn't actually like Anarchy but just wanted to cause it would be best
from
EE

Ah, a pro-anarchy, but not actually anarchist group that could work. Or maybe a loose anarchy affilitation of like minded people. Both of those would avoid the oxymoronical hipocracy of declairing youself an "Anarchist Group"

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 08:07 PM
Ah, a pro-anarchy, but not actually anarchist group that could work. Or maybe a loose anarchy affilitation of like minded people. Both of those would avoid the oxymoronical hipocracy of declairing youself an "Anarchist Group"

Yeah, or alternatively a knight who believes in tearing down the current society to rebuilt a better one....i'm getting ideas for my game now
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-10-18, 08:50 AM
I've seen more clerics fall than paladins.

Obviously, in the farce that is 4e, expecting players to roleplay their characters' decisions and commitments is "unfun" and not allowed by law. Nothing is to stand in the way of characters reaching 40th level as quickly as possible. But then, 4e is clearly designed by exactly the sort of sloppy and lazy DMs that gave clerics a pass in earlier editions while building childish "moral traps" for paladin players.

Come on, I see you hate 4th, but don't let that cloud your judgements. There are more paladims falling than Clerics. Your expereince is definately an outier, not the norm.

Fishy
2008-10-18, 10:33 AM
Obviously, in the farce that is 4e, expecting players to roleplay their characters' decisions and commitments is "unfun" and not allowed by law. Nothing is to stand in the way of characters reaching 40th level as quickly as possible.

Roleplaying the consequences of failure is awesome. But in order for that to even be possible, a character who 'fails', needs to still be fun to play. When a 3.5E Paladin falls, the player just tears up the character sheet and rolls up a new character.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-18, 10:38 AM
Roleplaying the consequences of failure is awesome. But in order for that to even be possible, a character who 'fails', needs to still be fun to play. When a 3.5E Paladin falls, the player just tears up the character sheet and rolls up a new character.

Or they say that they are very sorry and get someone to cast attonment on them. Yeah, thats great roleplaying.:tongue:

JaxGaret
2008-10-18, 10:39 AM
Obviously, in the farce that is 4e, expecting players to roleplay their characters' decisions and commitments is "unfun" and not allowed by law.

That's right, there's no roleplaying allowed in 4e. In fact, you go to jail if you even attempt to roleplay.

Your bias is showing.


Nothing is to stand in the way of characters reaching 40th level as quickly as possible.

Not only is there no 40th level in 4e, but could you explain how exactly 4e is different in this regard from any previous edition? Is it simply that there are no rules for Paladins falling that irks you so?


But then, 4e is clearly designed by exactly the sort of sloppy and lazy DMs that gave clerics a pass in earlier editions while building childish "moral traps" for paladin players.

Clearly.

Bonecrusher Doc
2008-10-18, 01:48 PM
So, has anyone ever played or DM'd a Favored Soul (from Miniatures Handbook)? Did you encounter much controversy like a paladin does?

Heliomance
2008-10-18, 02:22 PM
Favoured Souls got updated in Complete Divine, and I'm pretty sure they don't have a code.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-18, 02:49 PM
So, has anyone ever played or DM'd a Favored Soul (from Miniatures Handbook)? Did you encounter much controversy like a paladin does?

CD or MH, neither has a code. Basically, you don't actually have to know anything about your god to be chosen (don't even have Knowledge Religion).

Gods apparently randomly choose people with same alignment.

Kris Strife
2008-10-18, 05:01 PM
4e focus on combat and everyone wins attitude, along with its move away from roleplaying and using prestiege classes to customize your character, is because it is so strongly based on WoW.

And the reason paladins draw so much flak is because players and DMs tend to forget theyre still human(oid) and subject to the same flaws and short comings as such. to me being LG and following a code of conduct is more about trying than succeeding. doing somethinglike killing an unarmed CG octogenairian, is pure CE.

Roderick_BR
2008-10-18, 06:11 PM
The cause of Anarchy would be, perhaps, a little atypical. Though might be interesting to see a men who wants laws overthrown, yet acts in a very Lawful fashion. Some D&D characters also show hints of this dichonomy:

Waterdeep: Sir Gareth, CE ex-paladin who never tells a lie.
In this case, someone that "fights against the system" should use a different class, like the Holy Liberator (I think it was not updated to 3.5, though).

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 07:06 PM
That's right, there's no roleplaying allowed in 4e. In fact, you go to jail if you even attempt to roleplay.

Your bias is showing.

So are your fallacies





Not only is there no 40th level in 4e, but could you explain how exactly 4e is different in this regard from any previous edition? Is it simply that there are no rules for Paladins falling that irks you so?



Well they aren't defined in any ways. Its pretty much "you fall if you feel like it. The paladin code is worthless as are the god's beliefs which amount to little more than a few sentences. As long as they don't burn down their gods chapel/give him the finger they are good, if they come up with excuses

On topic, the reason why clerics don't get so much flak is because their code varies from god to god. bane would have a harsher code than say, Lathander
from
EE

Vva70
2008-10-18, 07:13 PM
So are your fallacies

What fallacy is this? Please point to the faulty logic (without taking the statement literally, as it is obviously sarcasm).

Draco Dracul
2008-10-18, 07:16 PM
Fax's fix had the right idea in that the higher level the palidin is the more restrictions and the more rewards they have (as more levels in palidin would show greater devotion to the cause of palidinhood), Fax also got it right by defining exactly what a palidin should/should not do rather than the rather vauge falls for an "evil act" which is compounded by the poor implimentation of alignment in general in 3.x. Maybe they should have renamed 4e palidin Champion/Divine Knight/Holy Warrior as they are tied to their god rather than their alignment.

Temp.
2008-10-18, 07:23 PM
What fallacy is this?Enjoying a game that EE doesn't, of course.

Townopolis
2008-10-18, 07:47 PM
Most of the people building "gotcha" traps for paladins have a chip on their shoulder. Usually they have issues with paragons of good being allowed to exist, so they think of creative ways to try and make paladins fall so they can point and declare that Good Must Fall.

The reason you don't see this as often against clerics is (a): the paladin class is represented as being the final word on shining righteousness, even above the religiously partisan cleric, and (b): the highly subjective cleric's code makes it harder for them to declare that "by RAW, you fall."

The trap rarely manifests in an actual game, because people usually don't play paladins when they know their DM has a grudge against good, but it appears often enough on the internet, as people try to find a big hill to gloat upon.

Sometimes someone's just trying to present an interesting and stimulating moral dilemma, where ethics and morality are scrutinized using an example of a paladin having to make a tough call. In these cases, the paladin is used because the fall for "committing an evil act," and so can be used as a medium for showcasing your ideas about what is and is not evil by showing what would and would not cause a paladin to fall. It's basically using D&D terms to conduct a discussion of morality. Again, this doesn't often show up in actual games, because it's mostly a thought exercise. In some games, where the DM and players are more than normally interested in intellectual grit or questions of morality, a DM will challenge a paladin with a moral dilemma, but it won't be a "gotcha" trap.

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 07:49 PM
What fallacy is this? Please point to the faulty logic (without taking the statement literally, as it is obviously sarcasm).

Its the idea behind the statement that is the fallacy. That sort of crude sarcasm has become cliche. One person points out the fact that 4E has very little in terms of RPG content, thanks to its focus on combat, and somebody outs does the ever so witty reply of saying that You get arrested if you Role Play in 4E, or that the game has hidden messages that kill your imagination. Yeah, i know its sarcasism, but its been done for long that hte once subtly mocking joke has been killed and now its just an accusation. And it is a fallacy, nobody is saying that 4E kills you if you role play, people are saying it doesn't focus on it via core


And temp, by that standards, doesn't that mean nobody can disagree with you?
from
EE

Xallace
2008-10-18, 08:00 PM
Its the idea behind the statement that is the fallacy. That sort of crude sarcasm has become cliche. One person points out the fact that 4E has very little in terms of RPG content, thanks to its focus on combat, and somebody outs does the ever so witty reply of saying that You get arrested if you Role Play in 4E, or that the game has hidden messages that kill your imagination. Yeah, i know its sarcasism, but its been done for long that hte once subtly mocking joke has been killed and now its just an accusation. And it is a fallacy, nobody is saying that 4E kills you if you role play, people are saying it doesn't focus on it via core


I'm just not entirely sure that it fits the definition of fallacy, unless the belief is held to actually be true rather than stated sarcastically. Although, I suppose it would fit the definition for fallacy as "obsolete," from your particular viewpoint.



On topic, I would like to say that I am an avid player of paladins and have played them under several DMs. I am inclined to agree with the idea that there are some DMs out there simply believe that "paragons of virtue" must be shown to fall, that good cannot prevail without stepping into evil, etc, etc. However, I've also found that this happens way more often if the party paladin is shoving their virtues in everyone's face.

I've seen paladins that are preachy and practically looking for everyone else's faults so they can toss out their moral superiority; it's these paladins that tend to get hit with no-win situations. I'll admit I've played one or two. It's these kinds of paladins that get hit with "no-win" situations the most.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-18, 08:21 PM
On the other hand, life sometimes you a nice lemony flavored Xantos Gambit, and you gotta take a bite, choosing the lesser of two evils. Now, the important thing is though for the DM, if the player figures out a Third Option, that is sufficiently clever and sensical, even if you didn't think of it, let them use it. If you don't, you are robbing this game of its most compelling feature. We may not have no stinking graphics, but we, can, do, anything. ANYTHING. That is, anything that makes sense, and the rules allow. So don't get dice bag in a knot if your players find away around the trap and outwit your Big Baddy Bad Bad.
That being said, I think Falling is important. For actions to matter, there must also be consequences. Even if your powers come from the faith of the fellow worshipers of your faith, and not from the deity directly, wouldn't breaking that oath make people lose faith? They see you, Champion of Big Dude/ette in the Sky, and your an ass. Not bad ass, an ass. They see you as being an evil, small minded cretin, and they start to ask "How can the Gods let this happen?" They start to lose faith.
And besides, you made a promise, an oath, a pact, a covenant. That should mean something. At least I think so. I don't think the superpowers you get should come for free.

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 08:56 PM
exactly obsolete we should be over this at this point

Anyways, anyways on topic, i think it the idea of being held to a code of great, it makes you really feel responsiblity
from
EE

Temp.
2008-10-18, 09:04 PM
And temp, by that standards, doesn't that mean nobody can disagree with you? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I'll pretend it's something like "But Temp, if it's unreasonable to call somebody's reasoning 'fallacious' just because they disagree with me, does that mean I always have to agree with everybody else?" Correct me if I'm wrong in that interpretation.

If that were your intent, I would point you in the direction of the meaning of "fallacious." I would proceed to tie this misunderstanding back into the topic, perhaps mentioning that--though the 4E rules might not expressly state this policy--a DM might give a Cleric's player a hard time for playing his character poorly.

I would probably go on to say that the 4E rule books describe the roles that each class is designed to represent (and I wouldn't just mean roles like "striker" or "controller"; I would mean the roles of Clerics and Paladins as fervent devotees of their respective causes). Though the 4E rules don't demand perfection as the v3.5 rules do, I might say, players are told to keep the motivations of their characters in line with those of their archetypes. I might even assert that WotC had figured something out when they decided that an inadvertantly evil act* would cause a Paladin to fall.

But those responses might not actually be relevant. It sort of depends what it was you intended with your post.

*You know... the ones sadistic DMs put in their campaigns, just to prove they're pricks--Xanatos gambits that the players have no way of anticipating.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-18, 09:06 PM
exactly obsolete we should be over this at this point

Anyways, anyways on topic, i think it the idea of being held to a code of great, it makes you really feel responsiblity
from
EE
But we are not.
The trouble I think is that these topics, get within a hair of being religious in nature, and religion and politics are something almost no one can agree on.

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 09:09 PM
I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I'll pretend it's something like "But Temp, if it's unreasonable to call somebody's reasoning 'fallacious' just because they disagree with me, does that mean I always have to agree with everybody else?" Correct me if I'm wrong in that interpretation.

NO, i'm saying your calling somebody fallacious because they disagree with you, but the person in question is jsut using sarcasm that basically is a fallacy


If that were your intent, I would point you in the direction of the meaning of "fallacious." I would proceed to tie this misunderstanding back into the topic, perhaps mentioning that--though the 4E rules might not expressly state this policy--a DM might give a Cleric's player a hard time for playing his character poorly.
Define poorly? The book doesn't say anything and the god's description is just a few sentences, no dogma what so ever. So it is basically the clerics interpretation of the vague rules of the gods


I would probably go on to say that the 4E rule books describe the roles that each class is designed to represent (and I wouldn't just mean roles like "striker" or "controller"; I would mean the roles of Clerics and Paladins as fervent devotees of their respective causes). Though the 4E rules don't demand perfection as the v3.5 rules do, I might say, players are told to keep the motivations of their characters in line with those of their archetypes. I might even assert that WotC had figured something out when they decided that an inadvertantly evil act* would cause a Paladin to fall.

1) in 3E, and inadvertant evil act doesn't cause you to fall
2) except 4E doesn't do that at all, the definition of falling and acceptable behavior is barely addressed
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 09:10 PM
But we are not.
The trouble I think is that these topics, get within a hair of being religious in nature, and religion and politics are something almost no one can agree on.

its not about real world morality, it is about the game's morality
from
EE

Ravens_cry
2008-10-18, 09:22 PM
its not about real world morality, it is about the game's morality
from
EE
Granted.
But it is unlikely that a games morality will be based on complete nonsense. Such as, the Eating of Clown Shoes is an Evil act Unto the Dog, and Neutral Good characters Wear Ducks on Their Heads. The morality is going to be based, to a certain degree, on a real world morality. Maybe not a POST-MODERN morality, but a morality none the less.

Vva70
2008-10-18, 09:30 PM
Its the idea behind the statement that is the fallacy.

Okay, let's break this down.


That sort of crude sarcasm has become cliche.

Whether or not this is true, being cliche is not a fallacy.


One person points out the fact that 4E has very little in terms of RPG content, thanks to its focus on combat,

Okay, someone states this opinion.


and somebody outs does the ever so witty reply of saying that You get arrested if you Role Play in 4E, or that the game has hidden messages that kill your imagination. Yeah, i know its sarcasism,

Yes, this is the sarcasm. Still no fallacious arguments.


but its been done for long that hte once subtly mocking joke has been killed and now its just an accusation.

Consider it what you will, it's still not intended to be taken literally.


And it is a fallacy, nobody is saying that 4E kills you if you role play, people are saying it doesn't focus on it via core

It was an exaggerated response to a pretty strong statement. Do you think JaxGaret was really trying to imply that Arogan was saying 4e roleplay puts you in jail? Might I point out that Arogan had said "Obviously, in the farce that is 4e, expecting players to roleplay their characters' decisions and commitments is "unfun" and not allowed by law?" Responding to a strong statement with exaggerated sarcasm may or may not be a useful discussion technique, but it's not fallacious.

I don't see anything that demonstrates fallacious reasoning. Now, you may agree or disagree with Arogan, JaxGaret, or anyone else. Disagreeing with someone does not make what he or she says a fallacy.

Xallace
2008-10-18, 09:43 PM
...Right. Well, is it general consensus that a lot of Paladin falls can be solved by hammering out one's code initially? I mean, that won't stop some particularly vicious DMs, but I think it would help.

Are there any particular Codes that the paladin players here like to use?

Kris Strife
2008-10-18, 10:21 PM
Are there any particular Codes that the paladin players here like to use?

I used one that was probably a bit more lax than others, but part of that was due to a lawful neutral pale master getting placed in charge of all the military forces for the kingdom, including paladins. that my DM was understanding in the trying counts for alignment helped. to sum it up: dont be an ass, do good and help people.
More to it, but I cant type huge paragraphs on a PSP.

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 11:03 PM
Okay, let's break this down.



Whether or not this is true, being cliche is not a fallacy.



Okay, someone states this opinion.



Yes, this is the sarcasm. Still no fallacious arguments.



Consider it what you will, it's still not intended to be taken literally.


But it is making a point, and the point it is making through sarcasism is a fallacy. That response can work as a one time joke, but its been used so many times that it seems to be making a statement, and its exaggeration is in fact a fallacy. Nobody is claiming that 4E is taking anybody to jail for Role playing, saying that it has anti RPG subliminal message, so any sarcastic claim that makes taht implication is a fallacy.



It was an exaggerated response to a pretty strong statement. Do you think JaxGaret was really trying to imply that Arogan was saying 4e roleplay puts you in jail? Might I point out that Arogan had said "Obviously, in the farce that is 4e, expecting players to roleplay their characters' decisions and commitments is "unfun" and not allowed by law?" Responding to a strong statement with exaggerated sarcasm may or may not be a useful discussion technique, but it's not fallacious.

It is when the response isn't addressing the actual claim in question but instead making a mocking claim of the other sides views is a fallacy

For example, if somebody made the claim "4E doesn't dwell upon the details of the aligniment code because that only prohibits role playing"

and i responded with something along the lines of
"4E doesn't use the aligniment system because WoW doesn't use the aligniment system" even when i'm being sarcastic, i'm still making a fallacy



I don't see anything that demonstrates fallacious reasoning. Now, you may agree or disagree with Arogan, JaxGaret, or anyone else. Disagreeing with someone does not make what he or she says a fallacy.
True, but there are proper ways to respond to things. For example, if he said something like "I can't help but notice that you make big claims but don't actually address them. How does 4E fail to uphold the aligniment system" or "I think you misunderstand, 4E is obviously more complex in the way it allows more moral greyness in the system

Raven see my blog article in my sig on aligniment
from
EE

Vva70
2008-10-19, 12:02 AM
But it is making a point, and the point it is making through sarcasism is a fallacy. That response can work as a one time joke, but its been used so many times that it seems to be making a statement, and its exaggeration is in fact a fallacy. Nobody is claiming that 4E is taking anybody to jail for Role playing, saying that it has anti RPG subliminal message, so any sarcastic claim that makes taht implication is a fallacy.

But his response was clearly an exaggeration. If you think that he was implying in any serious manner that Arogan was saying any of those things, then I don't know where you get that impression.


It is when the response isn't addressing the actual claim in question but instead making a mocking claim of the other sides views is a fallacy

For example, if somebody made the claim "4E doesn't dwell upon the details of the aligniment code because that only prohibits role playing"

and i responded with something along the lines of
"4E doesn't use the aligniment system because WoW doesn't use the aligniment system" even when i'm being sarcastic, i'm still making a fallacy

When someone attacks a fictitious position and attempts to make it look like they are debunking a real position, that is a fallacy (a strawman, to be specific).

When someone makes a sarcastic, highly exaggerated response to a position, and doesn't pretend to be attacking a real position, that is simply mockery, not a fallacy. It may not be very useful to a discussion, but it is not fallacious.

Note that the difference here is the intent, specifically the intent to pass off false logic as real logic.


True, but there are proper ways to respond to things. For example, if he said something like "I can't help but notice that you make big claims but don't actually address them. How does 4E fail to uphold the aligniment system" or "I think you misunderstand, 4E is obviously more complex in the way it allows more moral greyness in the system

I didn't claim that his response was particularly useful (I'm not claiming it's not either). I'm just claiming that calling it a fallacy is a misuse of the term. Sarcasm, exaggeration, mockery, you could make a case for any of those. But it's not a fallacy.

Doomsy
2008-10-19, 12:08 AM
...Right. Well, is it general consensus that a lot of Paladin falls can be solved by hammering out one's code initially? I mean, that won't stop some particularly vicious DMs, but I think it would help.

Are there any particular Codes that the paladin players here like to use?

I generally keep my paladins and my clerics to the same general standards of behavior. They are both servants of their deity and I feel using different standards just because one is supposedly more offensive to be the sign of a DM who is not thinking things through or who just has a personal bias they are letting cloud things up. Then again, I like the 4E change to the class.

My feeling has always been any kind of 'code of honor' thing should be between the player and the DM, and if a class requires it- make one up between the DM and the player, not write one down in the rule book so people can rules lawyer it or come up with endless unlikely hypotheticals for thousands of pages. Though from what I can tell from this threads posts that seems to be one of the reasons people liked the old paladin system.

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 12:32 AM
I didn't claim that his response was particularly useful (I'm not claiming it's not either). I'm just claiming that calling it a fallacy is a misuse of the term. Sarcasm, exaggeration, mockery, you could make a case for any of those. But it's not a fallacy.
i don't think so, i admit it is a stress of the definition, but what the sarcasm is responding to basically is a fallacy, IE the idea that everybody thinks 4E arrests you for role playing. That logic he is mocking is a fallacy. So maybe the sarcasm itself isn't a fallacy, but what he is using it in response to most certainly is
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 12:42 AM
..Man, this guy is just absolutely derailing this thread on complete misunderstandings. Why are people paying attention to him?

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 12:44 AM
..Man, this guy is just absolutely derailing this thread on complete misunderstandings. Why are people paying attention to him?

me or JG? If me, well its because i'm bloody brilliant. And also, before you start going on about "ah thread derailing" i wasn't the one who brought up 4E
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 12:46 AM
me or JG? If me, well its because i'm bloody brilliant. And also, before you start going on about "ah thread derailing" i wasn't the one who brought up 4E
from
EE

4e? Who cares? I'm more concerned with your dragging logic and its terms through the ground.

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 12:50 AM
4e? Who cares? I'm more concerned with your dragging logic and its terms through the ground.

and i'm concerned about being right. If your upset fine, but don't lay all the blame on me.
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 12:56 AM
and i'm concerned about being right. If your upset fine, but don't lay all the blame on me.
from
EE

You should try being right then. Wikipedia has a passable course on logic. Go read through it, slowly, and in great depth, and learn from it. It helps immensely.

Everyone else: I suggest, for the sake of discussion, that attempts to educate or deal with him on this count, until he does so, just not bother. It's difficult to teach people on the internet, when they're not listening.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 01:03 AM
The code would be better if it was made of specific do's and don'ts. Maybe they should have made a list of 20-30 "Paladin Oaths" and a given palidin organization would use 4-6 of those oaths. A paladin would have to be Lawful Good and adhear to the "Paladin Oaths" of there paladin organization with which they are affilated. I think this would allow for more variety among paladins and still keep some degree of the paragon of virtue archtype.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 01:06 AM
The code would be better if it was made of specific do's and don'ts. Maybe they should have made a list of 20-30 "Paladin Oaths" and a given palidin organization would use 4-6 of those oaths. A paladin would have to be Lawful Good and adhear to the "Paladin Oaths" of there paladin organization with which they are affilated. I think this would allow for more variety among paladins and still keep some degree of the paragon of virtue archtype.

THat's actually pretty reasonable. Especially since it'd feel less insanely ambiguous, then meant to be read in absolute literalness.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 01:12 AM
THat's actually pretty reasonable. Especially since it'd feel less insanely ambiguous, then meant to be read in absolute literalness.

It's really a quick fix based on Fax_Celstial's far more elaborate fix.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 01:13 AM
It's really a quick fix based on Fax_Celstial's far more elaborate fix.

Where can I find that?

Ravens_cry
2008-10-19, 01:16 AM
The trouble with text is, well, it is so ambiguous. Sure there are are little signs and signals we use, like the various emoticons and acronyms, but they are a rough magic compared to a face to face discussion or even just talking on the phone.
Things like tone of voice and body language are stripped away for pure words.
And this can, and does lead to problems. What may be 'clear' to you, especially if your the author, can be completely mystifying to someone who reads it.
We of the Internet are not mind readers, so please don't write with that expectation. Sarcasms are the worst, because they could be taken literally, and this can create confusion of the persons real position. I know I have done this myself, and I know that it isn't really worth the heartache.
I don't believe being sarcastic is strictly a fallacy ,EvilElitist, but I do agree it is annoying and often troubling.
So please people, for the sake of this discussion, for the sake of all discussion on this vast Internet, please, say what you mean.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 01:21 AM
Where can I find that?

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33551) Also you should check out anything made by Fax his stuff is all very useful and interesting.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-19, 01:25 AM
Oh my, I like that. GIve people something in exchange for following oaths, and give them some choices on what oaths they take. If I ever play 3.5 again, I'm pulling that along.

Shadowtraveler
2008-10-19, 01:42 AM
The code would be better if it was made of specific do's and don'ts. Maybe they should have made a list of 20-30 "Paladin Oaths" and a given palidin organization would use 4-6 of those oaths. A paladin would have to be Lawful Good and adhear to the "Paladin Oaths" of there paladin organization with which they are affilated. I think this would allow for more variety among paladins and still keep some degree of the paragon of virtue archtype.Sounds like something a friend suggested.

Balance-wise, though, I think it's kinda unfair if the paladin's equal to the other characters yet still bound by an oath.

It makes more sense if they used the Crusader's fluff, where they get their power through faith with a smidgen of divine blessing.

Kris Strife
2008-10-19, 03:34 AM
Maybe they should have made a list of 20-30 "Paladin Oaths" and a given palidin organization would use 4-6 of those oaths. A paladin would have to be Lawful Good and adhear to the "Paladin Oaths" of there paladin organization with which they are affilated.

This was done in third party materials, The Complete Paladin for 3e and an update was released for 3.5. though I suspect this post will be swallowed up by the 4e argument.

WychWeird
2008-10-19, 03:58 AM
THat's actually pretty reasonable. Especially since it'd feel less insanely ambiguous, then meant to be read in absolute literalness.
The Kobayashi Maru (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93611&page=4) thread moved into a discussion of the Paladin's Code - it might well be worth considering the points made there.

The code would be better if it was made of specific do's and don'ts. Maybe they should have made a list of 20-30 "Paladin Oaths" and a given palidin organization would use 4-6 of those oaths. A paladin would have to be Lawful Good and adhear to the "Paladin Oaths" of there paladin organization with which they are affilated. I think this would allow for more variety among paladins and still keep some degree of the paragon of virtue archtype.
The prospective Paladin would need to consider any such vows in advance of taking those vows, akin to medieval Knights spending the night in prayer, but that could lead to PCs moving from Organisation to Organisation to find an acceptable code. I don't think in our games we ever RPed how a PC became a Paladin, we just created a backstory and there they were - it might be interesting to RP or at least consider the Code (say for 1st level the Paladin isn't a member of the Order but an aspirant, progression in Paladin levels would be barred until a formal code agreed (taking the vows.))

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 11:31 AM
I don't think that a paladin's code need be anything more than "Apply the tennents of Lawful Good and fight Evil", frankly. Any particular organisation (not just orders of paladins) may have its own rules, but the essentials of being a paladin is in working with others in the active opposition of Evil and being an outstanding example of why a world of Lawful Good people would be a great thing - ie, a recruitment poster.

Playing LG isn't actually very hard and most "moral dilemas" which are used as excuses to make a paladin fall are nothing of the kind. I don't actually believe that a DM can force a paladin to fall, BtB in any edition. They can make the price of not falling, to the player, higher than s/he wants to pay, but that's not the same thing.

LG isn't the problem the problem is that by RAW you lose your powers for comiting any evil act and that Raw fails to properly define what an evil act entails. Taking a few defined ristrictions would cause far less arguments than the one vauge restriction.

Fax_Celstial's Paladin fix takes this idea a step futher and attaches class feature to specific vows so that single violation doesn't take away all of you powers and replaces the Attonment spell with specific actions that the paladin must undertake to regain those features.

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 03:41 PM
You should try being right then. Wikipedia has a passable course on logic. Go read through it, slowly, and in great depth, and learn from it. It helps immensely.

You do realize that you need to do more than claim i am wrong to prove me wrong your realize, because your statement on its own isn't worth squat
[QUOTE]1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
2. a misleading or unsound argument.
3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
5. Obsolete. deception.
Check. How about you read something slowly. Like the arguments that i used to back my points. Like the logic behind my statements i already provided. Like the actual argument at hand.



Everyone else: I suggest, for the sake of discussion, that attempts to educate or deal with him on this count, until he does so, just not bother. It's difficult to teach people on the internet, when they're not listening.
As you prove with your hypocrisy, you just insulting people without backing. Stop holding a double standard, its petty


Put your money where your mouth is an actually back your points with more than petty insults, or stop wasting my time


on topic, i think paladins are good as they are, they just need more description explaining how they work. THe BoED does a pretty good job, along with a few other books, but they really should have covered that in the PHB.
The thing about oaths i think should be reserved for knights or crusadors instead
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 05:33 PM
Does it? Which edition?

Here's the d20 SDR text:


Pretty common sense.


Ah, the old Humakti vows routine, eh? That can be fun.


I don't think that sounds very reasonable; the atonement spell should never allow you to return to paladin status from an evil act, only a chaotic one. Obviously, an evil act breaks a paladin forever; it's a lot like virginity that way.

I thought A paladin who unintenially comitted an evil act could get Atonement if they admitted what they did was wrong and repented.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 05:57 PM
The evil has to be "willful", so that's never an issue. You can't be willful and unintentional at the same time, can you?

I would say that willful in this case means you chose to comit the act, however if you had absoultely no knowledge that the act you choise to do was evil then it would be an unintentionally evil act.

In other words an action that the paladin commits of there own free will, that the paladin beleives is a good action with no information available to the paladin that act is evil, that is in fact an evil act.

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 06:02 PM
if a paladin is charmed and commits and evil act, he gets a free atonement. But if its perfectly accidential, he doesn't fall

For example, lets say a paladin is attacked by a man with a knife. HE kills him, not knowing that the man was being mind controlled
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 06:12 PM
if a paladin is charmed and commits and evil act, he gets a free atonement. But if its perfectly accidential, he doesn't fall

For example, lets say a paladin is attacked by a man with a knife. HE kills him, not knowing that the man was being mind controlled
from
EE

He willfully killed an innocent man, and while I agree with you that a paladin falling for that would be stupid, it does meet the technical requirements for the paladin to fall.

A better, less ambigous, phrasing would be that a paladin falls for knowingly comminting an evil act (of course that opens a whole new can of worms if you have a paladin with an INT and Wis score of 3).

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 06:24 PM
He willfully killed an innocent man, and while I agree with you that a paladin falling for that would be stupid, it does meet the technical requirements for the paladin to fall.

A better, less ambigous, phrasing would be that a paladin falls for knowingly comminting an evil act (of course that opens a whole new can of worms if you have a paladin with an INT and Wis score of 3).

Not quite, he willfully defended himself, to him he wasn't an innocent. It was an accident. Now if the paladin knew he was charmed and killed him anyways, totaly different story
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 06:36 PM
Not quite, he willfully defended himself, to him he wasn't an innocent. It was an accident. Now if the paladin knew he was charmed and killed him anyways, totaly different story
from
EE

That paladin willing, but not knowingly, committed an evil act. It seems to me that Knowingly should either be added to willful or simply replace it.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-19, 06:48 PM
Not quite, he willfully defended himself, to him he wasn't an innocent. It was an accident. Now if the paladin knew he was charmed and killed him anyways, totaly different story
from
EE

A better story. :smallbiggrin:

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 07:02 PM
That paladin willing, but not knowingly, committed an evil act. It seems to me that Knowingly should either be added to willful or simply replace it.

He didn't willfully kill and innocent (key word being willfully) he willfully killed a person who was attacking him. That is ignorance, not deliberate intent. His action was "defending himself" because as far as he knew, he was.

Starbuck, again murder of innocents makes every story better
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 07:35 PM
He didn't willfully kill and innocent (key word being willfully) he willfully killed a person who was attacking him. That is ignorance, not deliberate intent. His action was "defending himself" because as far as he knew, he was.

Starbuck, again murder of innocents makes every story better
from
EE

We have different interpretation of the term "willfull" as used in the code.
I see it as consenting to undertake an action while not in an altered state of mind.
You see it as consenting to undertake an action while knowing the moral implications of your action and not being in an altered state of mind.

EvilElitest
2008-10-19, 08:25 PM
We have different interpretation of the term "willfull" as used in the code.
I see it as consenting to undertake an action while not in an altered state of mind.
You see it as consenting to undertake an action while knowing the moral implications of your action and not being in an altered state of mind.

true, but witch one is supported by the text?
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-19, 08:35 PM
true, but witch one is supported by the text?
from
EE



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

I think either could be supported by the text which is part of the problem with the code as written and what can casues greif between players and DM's who don't work out the kinks before hand.

I read it as any action that is both willfull and evil.
You read it as any action that is willfully evil.

Vexxation
2008-10-19, 08:51 PM
We have different interpretation of the term "willfull" as used in the code.
I see it as consenting to undertake an action while not in an altered state of mind.
You see it as consenting to undertake an action while knowing the moral implications of your action and not being in an altered state of mind.

I think I side with EE on this one. (a shocker, I know...)
Yes, "willful" just means doing it because it's what you decided to do (no magical compulsion or the like). But "willfully committing evil" requires knowledge that it's evil. It requires the act be done with malice, or some other malevolent intention.

While it's possible to commit evil without knowing it, if you don't know it, it's not willful.

It's evil, it's just not deliberate evil, so I don't feel a fall caused by it should be permanent. Still, a fall should happen. That lets the Paladin know that he just did a no-no and needs to fix whatever he just did.

horngeek
2008-10-19, 09:42 PM
Adding in from somone who has little knowledge of D&D.

In the laws of most countries, if you honestly believe that (say) killing somone is saving a life, then it is considered self-defence.
It doesn't matter if that was TRUE or not, it is what you believe.
So I think that the Paladin code should be interpreted this way as well.

hamishspence
2008-10-20, 01:24 PM
Only in 3.0 did committing an evil act while knowing it was an evil act lead to a permanent Fall. Not knowing that act was evil (maybe, not believing the act was evil) still lead to a Fall, but paladins could redeem themselves and get back their powers.

While there is a long explanation on other thread as to how, if you do not know you are doing evil, you don't fall at all, I don't buy it. Because it was based on the text in paladin entry that only specifies immediate fall for willful acts. Which is direct copy of 3.0 text. Which is directly contradicted by the Atonement entry, in Both editions.

Which says, in 3.5: Restore class. If paladin has committed an evil act (Not specified as Willfully, Not specified as Knowingly) he may use spell to atone.

Conclusion based on reading of Atonement spell: Commit any evil act and you Fall, if it is Not Willful, costs caster no XP to use spell on you.

WychWeird
2008-10-20, 01:51 PM
As I understand it, if a Paladin commits an evil act then that Paladin falls - being able to atone depends on whether it was a willful act or unintentional (ie through mind control/misinformation).

Consider Aribeth from Neverwinter Nights (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Aribeth_de_Tylmarande) (3rd ed rules, I believe) - her sense of honour left her open to manipulation and she attempted to extract revenge for the death of her partner. Later in the game series you met with her again and she was able to atone suggesting that although her revenge was willful, the reasons behind that willful act were based on flawed assumptions.

The question is, if you were the DM, would you have let her atone?... :smallconfused:

Starbuck_II
2008-10-20, 02:04 PM
As I understand it, if a Paladin commits an evil act then that Paladin falls - being able to atone depends on whether it was a willful act or unintentional (ie through mind control/misinformation).

Consider Aribeth from Neverwinter Nights (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Aribeth_de_Tylmarande) (3rd ed rules, I believe) - her sense of honour left her open to manipulation and she attempted to extract revenge for the death of her partner. Later in the game series you met with her again and she was able to atone suggesting that although her revenge was willful, the reasons behind that willful act were based on flawed assumptions.

The question is, if you were the DM, would you have let her atone?... :smallconfused:

3.0 rules, but yeah.
And I never redeemed her. Didn't talk enough to get ring. I beat her like a red-headed step child. And all was good.

hamishspence
2008-10-20, 02:38 PM
I've read 2nd ed PHB. For Paladin, Its exactly like 3.0. If you commit evil act, even unknowingly or under someone's control, you fall.

If its willingly and knowingly, you fall, permanently.

Thats why I figured, from way 3.5 Atonement Spell was written, its same only better: both ways you fall, but now, no matter what, spell enables you to Atone.