What are the Silliest Ways You've Seen People Force Paladins to Fall?

[hewhosaysfish]

Also, what does AMF stand for? Sorry, new to this. I'm assuming "anti-magic-forcefield".

You were close: Anti-Magic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm)

[Zeful]

On a sort of side note, did you ever notice that in this topic, none of the DMs warned their paladin players they were moving towards a fall? For some reason, this comment made me assume you would be the you of DM to at least give your players a warning. No idea why, but I prefer that way over the "you inched just vaguely over the line, time to lose your powers". Anyway... Never had a paladin play under me so I don't know how I'd deal with it. I'd like to think that I'd give players warnings, but I'm not certain.


For the Escape Artist spellcaster, I wouldn't suggest the constantly knocking someone unconscious dealie, honestly. Not if I was a paladin. Eventually, that does amount to torture. I guess a non-exalted, chaotic good paladin, or a Grey Guard (I think that's the name of the paladins with a relaxed code) could get away with that just fine, without it pushing them towards falling.
Is only torture if it's unreasonable. Dealing non-leathal damage with a weapon that's freakishly hard to kill someone with is only torture if you don't need to do it. If your a week or more away from the nearest town and all you have is a rope rather than chains and a lock, keeping your opponent unconscious except for mealtimes is safe and humane (compared to breaking his legs, or cutting his Achilles Tendon and dragging him for days).


Anyway, I don't know a great deal about the game. I know even less about what a wizard can do, but I'm getting the impression from this board that it's save to assume they can do everything. So if I was one of the people that had to help keep this wizard under close watch, when it comes to feeding him, I suppose I would use a Charm Person deal. Magic to fight magic. Just something mind-effecting that would keep him compliant while he ate and thus kept him from escaping or attacking.
The 3.5 PHb has over half of one section devoted to the wizard. The Sorcerer class was designed so my last sentence would be untrue. A mid level wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm) who's only job is to make sure that the master is retrieved after capture, will complete his objective 9 times out of 10. And you can't keep your prisoner Dominated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) all the time.


Once that's over, secure him in all reasonable ways possible (blinds over his eyes, cover his mouth, bind his hands as best as possible). Hopefully someone has enough nifty items to keep him in place. It wouldn't be great, and it would need someone constantly watching him, but a paladin will likely be vigilent anyway.

Also, what does AMF stand for? Sorry, new to this. I'm assuming "anti-magic-forcefield".:smallamused: Close, But AMF is AntiMagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm). As for the bindings. If your not keeping a spellcaster unconscious they can Still (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stillSpell) and Silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#silentSpell) their spells to escape or attack the party (which could lead to the former).


Anyway, with all this said, if the group is well aware that it's nigh impossible to keep a hold of this spellcaster, because of all the resources you just mentioned, I honestly wouldn't take him as prisoner. The risk and chance of him escaping would be too high. He wouldn't have made it out of the fair (or probably unfair for the party) fight that lead him to be captured in this hypothetical, uness there was a specific reason otherwise (like a story reason, or the spellcaster could have begged for mercy, but even if someone is Lawful Good, you're certainly not obliged to give it, not the least of which to an overtly evil person).
Risk versus reward, my old nemesis:smallbiggrin:. What if your villians pulls a Kabuto (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html) and surrenders. As a paladin you have to uphold an honest surrender, otherwise you yourself are no better than those you wish to punish.


Why would a paladin not work on helping the others after he/she has set up the groundwork for the other resistance dealie? I know it's not intentional, but you're almost making it sound as though the paladin will just shrug their shoulder and say "Well, I've set up a minor relieve effort. Now I can finally return home" when we both know that's silly. The relieve effort would be the first step in what might very well be an up-hill battle to do exactly what you said: save hundreds if not thousands from a harsh situation. A paladin can't be everywhere at once. Organizing an underground railroad takes a huge amount of effort to keep hidden and working. Besides, this puts more people in harms way, new slaves have to replace the old, so you damn more to is necessary to solve the problem.


A paladin (not even Heironeous), of course, isn't omnipotent and can't be everywhere at once. Also, a chaotic good paladin could easily pull the iron mask idea you're suggesting.
How is a bloodless coup held together by a minor lie worse than stealing the lawful property of others? Organizing an underground railroad requires you steal property and then aid and abed the fugitives. You could also be removing people who are genuinely happy being a slave from their masters for your morality.

Which is more likely to help the most people? Stealing slaves who can be found and killed, or worse yet replaced? Killing the man who created these laws, and replacing him with a truly good man through the laws themselves?
It's Omnipresent, not Omnipotent

[hamishspence]

Drow sleep poison- even BoED allows that. Pity it doesn't come in ingested form.

[Ridureyu]

Hey look! A genuine, reasonable reason for a Paladin falling!


"In 2nd edition one [Paladin falling]was because there was someone playing a jester in the party that was so infuriating that, without any sort of prodding by me, the paladin player passed me a note:
"When it's my turn to watch I'm goin to coup de grace that sonofa*****"

[Raging Gene Ray]

Did the Paladin ever actually kill the Jester? And if they fell after the killing, did they say "TOTALLY worth it."?

[Paramour Pink]

Never had a paladin play under me so I don't know how I'd deal with it. I'd like to think that I'd give players warnings, but I'm not certain.


What type of classes do you tend to enjoy directing, anyway? I've only barely been a player, never once thought of DMing. I'm actually kind of curious to know what type of class a DM enjoys toying with so I can avoid it. :smalltongue: So far I'm playing a healer that...will not be quiet about her vow of peace.



Is only torture if it's unreasonable. Dealing non-leathal damage with a weapon that's freakishly hard to kill someone with is only torture if you don't need to do it. If your a week or more away from the nearest town and all you have is a rope rather than chains and a lock, keeping your opponent unconscious except for mealtimes is safe and humane (compared to breaking his legs, or cutting his Achilles Tendon and dragging him for days).


Mmm, I was thinking more in Book of Exalted Deeds terms here (the book directly brought up your "knock unconcous" answer and said it was torture eventually, hence my answer), but from now on I'll assume a non-exalted paladin. Anyway, if the party set out with intent to capture this magical person, I would have hoped someone brought the right equipment (someone must be funding them if this person is a big priority) to restrain all this magical hijinks.



The 3.5 PHb has over half of one section devoted to the wizard. The Sorcerer class was designed so my last sentence would be untrue. A mid level wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm) who's only job is to make sure that the master is retrieved after capture, will complete his objective 9 times out of 10. And you can't keep your prisoner Dominated (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) all the time.


I would see meal time as the most dangerous, so hopefully the magic spells to keep him in check would only be applied then. But...

:smalleek:

Yup, now I'm almost sure if I was in this position of "evil wizard has lots of resources to get himself free, including a fanbase, and you're incredibly unlikely to getting him where you want to", I'd try to avoid it with a coup de grâce.



:smallamused: Close, But AMF is AntiMagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm). As for the bindings. If your not keeping a spellcaster unconscious they can Still (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stillSpell) and Silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#silentSpell) their spells to escape or attack the party (which could lead to the former).


In this situation, where we can't stop this person otherwise, unconsciousness seems the best option (maybe a sleep spell so as not to continually beat up a restrained person, which might irk a lawful good paladin, even with this escape artist being such a pain). I can't think of any other options off the top of my head.



Risk versus reward, my old nemesis:smallbiggrin:. What if your villians pulls a Kabuto (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html) and surrenders. As a paladin you have to uphold an honest surrender, otherwise you yourself are no better than those you wish to punish.


This is why I'm glad I'm not a paladin while you're not a villain. You would be such a pain to handle. Stupid gods giving me a stupid moral code in exchange for stupid powers. :smallsigh:

'Also, I was a little surprised when Elan took him captive. Not very, but still. He wasn't obligated (I'm sure his chaotic alignment would have covered it, but he would have looked less...I don't know, sweet? in the eyes of the reader).



Organizing an underground railroad takes a huge amount of effort to keep hidden and working. Besides, this puts more people in harms way, new slaves have to replace the old, so you damn more to is necessary to solve the problem.


Of course it would be hard to hide, or even get up and running. That's why I actually agree that the head of the Evil empire/country should be taken down first. But if that's impossible (it can't be that easy to get at the king/queen/etc) then the idea of this underground resistance is a start, as opposed to nothing. Essentially giving whatever relieve can be given, but it clearly won't solve the problem, and so our intrepid, albeit bloodshot-eyed, every persistent pally presses on, knowing the gods will so fire her sorry ass if she ever stops trying. :smallbiggrin:



How is a bloodless coup held together by a minor lie worse than stealing the lawful property of others? Organizing an underground railroad requires you steal property and then aid and abed the fugitives. You could also be removing people who are genuinely happy being a slave from their masters for your morality.


In my opinion, it isn't, and that lie would not be an issue to a Paladin of Freedom that I mentioned earlier (or even a Grey Guard).

But as for our lawful good sort of paladin, if he could do a bloodless coup against an evil dictator, he surely would. At least, if I was controlling a paladin in this sort of situation, I think I would choose that option. If so many people hate this tyrant that there are enough spies and traitors abound that the paladin can take a good shot at the evil ruler, she should. But I can only really imagine a (lawful good) paladin afterwards revealing what happened, and trying to inspire others to fight for their believes. Outside of character, I could see that as being horribly naive or short-sighted (it all depends on how many people support this paladin, and how badly the people want change), but a paladin is meant to inspire the downtrodden, and if cutting down the very symbol of evil that oppresses them won't inspire the people at all with the obvious implication that the rebellion/uprising/underground group is just that powerful or skilful, this is a worst situation than I'm imagining. So bad that you would need another nation helping out to actually succeed.



It's Omnipresent, not Omnipotent

I rebut your nitpick, and submit my own! In that line earlier, I was saying the paladin wasn't all powerful and can't be everywhere at once. If I said "the paladin can't be omnipresent and everywhere at once" that would have been redundant. So phooey on your nitpick.

[Zeful]

What type of classes do you tend to enjoy directing, anyway? I've only barely been a player, never once thought of DMing. I'm actually kind of curious to know what type of class a DM enjoys toying with so I can avoid it. :smalltongue: So far I'm playing a healer that...will not be quiet about her vow of peace.Anything I'm familiar with really, well except wizards. I don't like them to much. So I tend to tell people that I'm not going provide many wizard friendly options (scrolls are very very rare, as a other wizards). Other than that if I have the book (core, ToM, RoE) or are familiar with the content (psionics) I'm cool.


Mmm, I was thinking more in Book of Exalted Deeds terms here (the book directly brought up your "knock unconcous" answer and said it was torture eventually, hence my answer), but from now on I'll assume a non-exalted paladin. Anyway, if the party set out with intent to capture this magical person, I would have hoped someone brought the right equipment (someone must be funding them if this person is a big priority) to restrain all this magical hijinks. It's not nice and the paladin should confess to his superiors and pray to his god for forgiveness. But he wouldn't fall (short of exalted).
Note: I originally developed two scenarios. Rogue with max escape artist, High cha chessmaster with some wizard friends. But hey a wizard(coughsorcerercough)/rogue gestalt works fine to.


I would see meal time as the most dangerous, so hopefully the magic spells to keep him in check would only be applied then. But...

:smalleek:

Yup, now I'm almost sure if I was in this position of "evil wizard has lots of resources to get himself free, including a fanbase, and you're incredibly unlikely to getting him where you want to", I'd try to avoid it with a coup de grâce.Casters are annoying to keep properly restrained, especially high level Omnipotent Batmen:smallfurious:. But that situation is a Subdual Substituted Desintigrate away from being over with.
But if worst comes to worse a CdG by a rogue with a battle axe solves that problem.

In this situation, where we can't stop this person otherwise, unconsciousness seems the best option (maybe a sleep spell so as not to continually beat up a restrained person, which might irk a lawful good paladin, even with this escape artist being such a pain). I can't think of any other options off the top of my head.Sleep works at low levels, but after 5th it's pretty much useless. But a rogue with a sap is pretty much always useful. You can rack up enough subdual damage to keep him unconscious, then cure minor at mealtimes. A good paladin of course would keep the prisoner as healed as possible (full hp). As well as take steps to insure the prisoner's overall comfort. Maybe even hand feeding him, if he proves to dangerous to move his hands at all.:smallbiggrin:


This is why I'm glad I'm not a paladin while you're not a villain. You would be such a pain to handle. Stupid gods giving me a stupid moral code in exchange for stupid powers. :smallsigh:Yeah, because I'd pretty much flirt with you while I'm awake.:smallamused: And as a sorcerer would have a high Cha.:smallwink:
But yeah, for a champion of Law and Good, you have sucky powers compared to every one else. But that's the fault of the wizard who lives by the coast.


Of course it would be hard to hide, or even get up and running. That's why I actually agree that the head of the Evil empire/country should be taken down first. But if that's impossible (it can't be that easy to get at the king/queen/etc) then the idea of this underground resistance is a start, as opposed to nothing. Essentially giving whatever relieve can be given, but it clearly won't solve the problem, and so our intrepid, albeit bloodshot-eyed, every persistent pally presses on, knowing the gods will so fire her sorry ass if she ever stops trying. :smallbiggrin:Which most people here agree with. The paladin can't fall by trying (and failing) the good option, only for choosing the evil one, or failing to act.

In my opinion, it isn't, and that lie would not be an issue to a Paladin of Freedom that I mentioned earlier (or even a Grey Guard).

But as for our lawful good sort of paladin, if he could do a bloodless coup against an evil dictator, he surely would. At least, if I was controlling a paladin in this sort of situation, I think I would choose that option. If so many people hate this tyrant that there are enough spies and traitors abound that the paladin can take a good shot at the evil ruler, she should. But I can only really imagine a (lawful good) paladin afterwards revealing what happened, and trying to inspire others to fight for their believes. Outside of character, I could see that as being horribly naive or short-sighted (it all depends on how many people support this paladin, and how badly the people want change), but a paladin is meant to inspire the downtrodden, and if cutting down the very symbol of evil that oppresses them won't inspire the people at all with the obvious implication that the rebellion/uprising/underground group is just that powerful or skillful, this is a worst situation than I'm imagining. So bad that you would need another nation helping out to actually succeed.Again this would be something that should fall into the confessional deal I mentioned earlier. The paladin should take the path that has the best chance of succeeding, and if that path takes him into areas he's uncomfortable with, make your concerns known, then if no other options are available grin and bear it, then ask for forgiveness for bending the rules, even if for the greater good.


I rebut your nitpick, and submit my own! In that line earlier, I was saying the paladin wasn't all powerful and can't be everywhere at once. If I said "the paladin can't be omnipresent and everywhere at once" that would have been redundant. So phooey on your nitpick.You're fun to debate with.:smallbiggrin:

I'm not doing to good a job for being the Devil's advocate, am I?

[Shadowtraveler]

Out of curiosity, why should the Paladin care about respecting an evil government, mechanics-wise? They're not a legitimate government in their eyes.:smallconfused:

[Waspinator]

You know, Paladins really do get a raw deal in terms of class dictating behavior. No other class is anywhere near as strict or as easy to accidentally break. I mean, Druids are basically in the clear as long as they avoid metal and the undead. Paladins? Being friendly to the wrong person can technically make you fall.

[turkishproverb]

Out of curiosity, why should the Paladin care about respecting an evil government, mechanics-wise? They're not a legitimate government in their eyes.:smallconfused:

PRoblem is that people are arguing over definitions of legitimate.

[Zeful]

You know, Paladins really do get a raw deal in terms of class dictating behavior. No other class is anywhere near as strict or as easy to accidentally break. I mean, Druids are basically in the clear as long as they avoid metal and the undead. Paladins? Being friendly to the wrong person can technically make you fall.

No it can't. Unless you know the person is evil, then your free to be friendly with whomever you want.

[kopout]

No it can't. Unless you know the person is evil, then your free to be friendly with whomever you want.

No if you consort with evil people knowingly or not you falll

[Paramour Pink]

It's nearly one AM sooo....goodnight. :smallsmile:

[Zeful]

No if you consort with evil people knowingly or not you falll

That's what I said.:smallconfused:

[kopout]

No it can't. Unless you know the person is evil, then your free to be friendly with whomever you want.

That right there . People in this thread have fallen for buying a drink from an evil barmaid. God forbid you should be friendly to them !

[Zeful]

That right there . People in this thread have fallen for buying a drink from an evil barmaid. God forbid you should be friendly to them !

Um, the bolded part before the comma, you read that right? The "Unless you know the person to be evil" part. That means: As long as you don't know their alignment.

So: If the paladin knows the person is evil, he can't associate with them. Otherwise he's free to do as he pleases.

[Vorpal Soda]

No if you consort with evil people knowingly or not you falll

Which edition are you referring to? In the 3.5 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) at least, you can associate with people you don't know to be evil, and you could certainly justify a lawful character considering unprovoked use of detect evil to be rude and disrespectful.

Also, the SRD puts the "no association with evil" part outside of the code of conduct, so whilst blatantly ignoring it is bad roleplay, and you would have to sever ties with the evil person, it's not actually part of the code of conduct, and thus it isn't something you can actually fall for.

Although as I understand it, earlier editions were rather draconian, with very limited chance of atonement, if any at all.

[Aquillion]

Although as I understand it, earlier editions were rather draconian, with very limited chance of atonement, if any at all.
It's worth pointing out that in 3.5, all you have to do is be genuinely repentant (which is always the player's choice), pay a very small xp cost (if the fall was due to willing actions), get someone to cast Atonement, and presto, you're restored to grace, with all of your powers again. The caster has the option of setting a quest for you, but obviously if it's another party member they're unlikely to do so; and it is specifically up to them.

Of course, DMs who go out of their way to make you fall are likely to go out of their way to say "No, the atonement fails, regardless of what the rules say." But that's just a DM being a jerk.

[Prak]

You know, Paladins really do get a raw deal in terms of class dictating behavior. No other class is anywhere near as strict or as easy to accidentally break. I mean, Druids are basically in the clear as long as they avoid metal and the undead. Paladins? Being friendly to the wrong person can technically make you fall.

They really don't have to be so careful about undead. They get no (special) ability to slay them, and nothing says they have to avoid the undead. Hell, technically, Undead are perfectly natural, as they don't need the interferance of sentient races to arrise, just negative energy, which is a naturally occuring force.

[Mewtarthio]

And it's not as if Druids fall for consorting with Warforged.

[Prak]

Yeah, Druids are champions of nature, not militant evangelizers.

[Aquillion]

I mean, Druids are basically in the clear as long as they avoid metal and the undead.Metal armor doesn't make a Druid fall or anything (it just keeps them from using their abilities while they're wearing it.) And undead are not even mentioned. You could argue that they're "unnatural" and therefore a druid cannot actively go around creating an undead horde, but remember, the druid restriction with regard to nature is very, very loosely worded: The only way a druid can fall is by teaching their language to the wrong person or by "ceasing to revere nature."

A druid can travel with some zombies and still revere nature. Though he finds it distasteful, he can make a deal with a lich and still revere nature. A druid could even choose to become a lich himself; he probably won't like it, but if (say) it's the only way he can stay around to protect an important forest, it is fine. A druid could even argue that undead are not unnatural; death is a natural part of life, and being infused with negative energy, undead really represent the embodiment of death rather than simply its evasion. (In fact, True Resurrection is in its own way more unnatural than Animate Dead. Animating the dead is just putting their corpses to use; that happens all the time in nature. True Resurrection, though, violates one of the most basic natural laws.)

Remember, for the most part a player gets to decide what their character thinks. As long as their actions are things that someone who reveres nature would plausibly do, they won't get in any trouble. Even occasionally losing their temper or giving in to temptation won't cause any problems as long as their basic outlook remains the same.

[hamishspence]

Give that Exalted Characters are actually Expected to work alongside evil people toward a common goal in some circumstances (but not let them Do evil while this is happening) Consort should mean "Accept as a fellow party member" or some similar- high end definition. Otherwise paladin couldn't talk to known evil people at all- which is contradicted in Road of the Patriarch, with Gareth Dragonsbane having a long talk with Artemis Entreri.

Or in Tymora's Luck where the paladin has to work alongside yugoloths and demons. And doesn't fall.

Champions of Ruin has a powerful evil druid lich.