PDA

View Full Version : Easiest way to make a Paladin Fall



Eloel
2008-11-29, 09:56 AM
Use tripping attack :)

ChaosDefender24
2008-11-29, 10:00 AM
saw it coming, was going to say "grease" if this joke wasn't already made

elliott20
2008-11-29, 10:02 AM
serious answer: a kobayashi maru situation

Tempest Fennac
2008-11-29, 10:04 AM
What is that situation, elliott20?

Vagnarok
2008-11-29, 10:04 AM
Omg you're terrible.

By Kobayashi Maru do you mean the Kirk thing?

Learnedguy
2008-11-29, 10:04 AM
serious answer: a kobayashi maru situation

Nah, I wouldn't make a Paladin Player fall if it's a no-win scenario. As long as he did what the thought best and just, that's all that there is to it.

They are paladins, not Jesus.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 10:11 AM
Kobayashi Maru is a scenario where you cannot win - all the answers are wrong, some just less wrong than the others.

And if a world is idealistic enough to have paladins, then it means that there are no Kobayashi Maru scenarios in it - every scenario has an answer that lets the paladin both do good and keep his powers if he looks hard enough. That's something some DMs forget about.

elliott20
2008-11-29, 10:11 AM
Yeah, it's the Kirk thing.

for those of you who don't get the reference:

kobayashi maru is a space ship in Star Trek that was used as a training exercise for cadets. the cadets are placed in a simulation where they get a distress signal from a stranded ship named the Kobayashi Maru stranded in Klingon (and later Romulan territory). Klingon ships will arrive soon and destroy the ship. If the cadet responds to the call and goes to save them, they break the treaty they have with the klingons and cause an intergalactic war. However, they cannot simply abandon the ship to it's fate. And no, there is no way you can outfight the Klingon ships because of fire power.

It's basically your typical un-winnable situation. And at every turn, the only way one could EVER come out of the kobayashi maru situation on top is to cheat the system.

While I too don't believe that you should punish a paladin for being put in an impossible situation, it never fails me to see how often this situation crops up in discussions. And now *I* have been the one to start that discussion... Dear twelve gods, what have I done?!? *commits seppuku*

Tempest Fennac
2008-11-29, 10:18 AM
Thanks for explaining (I agree that making a Paladin fall in that situation would be unacceptable).

Ramidel
2008-11-29, 10:27 AM
Yeah. I'd make a Paladin go through a measure of atonement for this (if nothing else, Paladins tend to think of themselves like Miko thinks of other people), but not "lose powers until atonement" unless the paladin is tardy in atoning. The deities who have Paladins will be the deities who can accept that there was no good option.

Vorpal Soda
2008-11-29, 10:37 AM
As I understand, a Paladin falls when the source of their power (Either a diety, or the very concept of lawful-goodness itself) decides that they have crossed the line, and now need their power removed as a form of damage control.

Therefore there should be no situations that merely facing would cause a paladin to fall, otherwise your source of divine power is basically declaring "How dare you have enemies that open a portal to hell that can only be sealed by killing a baby? You shall do no more in my name until you see the error in your ways!".

Of course, why a portal to hell requires baby sacrifice to close, and why there's a baby there for you to sacrifice, and how the paladin knows that sacrificing the baby closes the portal instead of increasing it's strength and size as you'd probably expect, isn't something I've ever heard explained, because we all know the real reason why.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-11-29, 10:57 AM
The Paladin would go all Vulcan and say: 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and leave the K/M to the Klingons/Romulans/whoever the bbeg is. Sucks, but it happens.

I recently had K/M type issue in one of my groups. The choice was to sacrifice a loved one to save Faerun. Well, it did not work out too well. Sacrificing oneself does not work in that situation.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 11:08 AM
The Paladin would go all Vulcan and say: 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and leave the K/M to the Klingons/Romulans/whoever the bbeg is. Sucks, but it happens.


http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

That's not a paladinish way of thinking, and the best way to ensure a fall. A real paladin would look for a third option, one where he can save everyone.

averagejoe
2008-11-29, 11:17 AM
Kobayashi Maru is a scenario where you cannot win - all the answers are wrong, some just less wrong than the others.

And if a world is idealistic enough to have paladins, then it means that there are no Kobayashi Maru scenarios in it - every scenario has an answer that lets the paladin both do good and keep his powers if he looks hard enough. That's something some DMs forget about.

:smallconfused: Why does a world have to be idealistic to have paladins?

Neithan
2008-11-29, 11:18 AM
I think it's hard to make a paladin fall. To make something fall-worthy, I think it has to be the paladins deliberate choice to act like he does, even though he wouldn't need to.
Cowardice would make him fall, not doing a suicide attack wouldn't.
Accusing an evil major of false crimes would make him fall, denying to know where the rescued children are hidden would not.
Stabbing a cowering goblin would make him fall, killing a charmed person in self-defense wouldn't.

When a Paladin does fall, it's either because he didn't care, or because he thought it a worthy price to pay.
But I can't think about situation where both acting and not acting would make a paladin fall.

Learnedguy
2008-11-29, 11:20 AM
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

That's not a paladinish way of thinking, and the best way to ensure a fall. A real paladin would look for a third option, one where he can save everyone.

Agreed. As a Paladin you got a legitimate argument why you should pierce through the heaven and break through the unbreakable and fight the power.

The reason is that you're just that awesome.

...

Assuming you play a LG Paladin right that is. Most people don't seem to get it I'm afraid:smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 11:20 AM
:smallconfused: Why does a world have to be idealistic to have paladins?

Because if a world is cynical enough that situations where no matter what happens, a paladin who encounters them falls are common, then this class wouldn't exist there.

Neithan
2008-11-29, 11:23 AM
Ah I see. This is a black and white problem.

Nothing is ever "either-or". Everything's in the middle ground.

averagejoe
2008-11-29, 11:24 AM
Because if a world is cynical enough that situations where no matter what happens, a paladin who encounters them falls are common, then this class wouldn't exist there.

But that's hardly an idealistic world. I would argue that in real life those sorts of situations (don't make me spell it :smalltongue:) don't come up very often anyways.

Hal
2008-11-29, 11:33 AM
All kidding aside, it shouldn't be an easy thing for a Paladin (or any divine caster) to fall. As the DM, unless you've worked out with the player ahead of time that this is a plot device, you shouldn't be throwing situations at the paladin with the intent purpose of making him fall. That's a situation that starts "My DM is a jerk" threads here.

If your player is heading down that road, you need to talk to them about it before you make them fall. Ask them why they're acting like a sociopath if they wanted to play the paragon of LGness.

And as I said, any character who gets their powers from divine sources should be able to fall. A cleric of Pelor who kills babies is going to lose his power, and that druid probably shouldn't be wearing metal gear. Although, it never made sense to me that someone who reveres nature can kill animals and wear their skins, but a mineral which came right out of the earth is itself bad.

Oh well.

Learnedguy
2008-11-29, 11:34 AM
But that's hardly an idealistic world. I would argue that in real life those sorts of situations (don't make me spell it :smalltongue:) don't come up very often anyways.

Real world statistics stops mattering once the DM slides the scale of Cynicisms to Idealism right up into crapsack:smallamused:

MeanJoeSmith75
2008-11-29, 11:43 AM
The only way to truly make a Paladin fall is the conscious choice. Put him in a situation where he knows the BBEG is guilty, but the only way to prove it is to lie/fabricate evidence. Its the classic Superman/Lex Luther situation. Except Superman doesn't lose his powers if HE goes medieval on Lex's legal holdings.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 11:46 AM
"doing evil" (and Breaking Code) is the Kryptonite of paladins- must be expunged from the body before powers come back :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2008-11-29, 11:56 AM
Do we seriously need three Paladin threads going simultaneously?

Vorpal Soda
2008-11-29, 11:58 AM
Opinions may differ on this, and in any game it's the DM's decision, but if I was DMing, I'd rule that fall-or-die and fall-or-fall situations would be fundamentally impossible, since if all possible options are evil, and you therefore had no choice, then you haven't willingly commited an evil act, and therefore do not fall. I'd also rule that unwilling failure isn't grounds for falling either.

So I could run a non-idealistic setting and have Paladins in it just as easily as I could have good aligned clerics in the setting, and I wouldn't have to actually contradict the rules to do so, just take the most merciful interpretation possible.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 12:12 PM
That's not a paladinish way of thinking, and the best way to ensure a fall. A real paladin would look for a third option, one where he can save everyone.
Right, and while he's looking up his own ass for this miraculous solution which will somehow rewrite interstellar politics for his own convenience, everybody aboard the imperilled ship will die.
I'm sorry folks, but the universe is not always going to conform to your neat expectations of no-lose situations.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 12:17 PM
Right, and while he's looking up his own ass for this miraculous solution which will somehow rewrite interstellar politics for his own convenience, everybody aboard the imperilled ship will die.
I'm sorry folks, but the universe is not always going to conform to your neat expectations of no-lose situations.

As I said previously:


And if a world is idealistic enough to have paladins, then it means that there are no Kobayashi Maru scenarios in it - every scenario has an answer that lets the paladin both do good and keep his powers if he looks hard enough. That's something some DMs forget about.

Zeful
2008-11-29, 12:17 PM
Right, and while he's looking up his own ass for this miraculous solution which will somehow rewrite interstellar politics for his own convenience, everybody aboard the imperilled ship will die.
I'm sorry folks, but the universe is not always going to conform to your neat expectations of no-lose situations.

That's not what Tengu meant. The third option is the Good option, not no-lose. Paladins can't fall from failing the good option, but the can fall from not seeing it.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 12:17 PM
there is the "failure to try and save people isn't evil" option of assessing alignment. you have the lives of all the people on your own ship to worry about, plus the lives of all the people who will die if you start a war.

Parallel would be any passenger ship, swept into the territorial waters of a very hostile (but not at war with yours) state. I suspect most warship captains nearby in international waters, hearing radio message from sinking ship, would grit their teeth and bear it (probably after radioing for permission first and getting it denied)

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 12:22 PM
As I said previously:
I know- it's a non-answer. The only world where that will happens is a world where paladins aren't needed in the first place, because lemon gumdrops fall as rain and all sharp corners are padded with candy-floss. It's absurd.

Raroy
2008-11-29, 12:33 PM
You could always get the corrupt with tax evasion. Works every time.

As for this discussion, kill it with fire. The joke is dead, run away!

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 12:36 PM
I know- it's a non-answer. The only world where that will happens is a world where paladins aren't needed in the first place, because lemon gumdrops fall as rain and all sharp corners are padded with candy-floss. It's absurd.

You have never seen any more idealistic and heroic settings, have you?

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 12:37 PM
just how common are Kobyashi Maru situations anyway? Maybe they crop up so rarely in the setting, that Fallen paladins are a small minority. It doesn't have to be uber-idealistic- just a few steps down, without being too dark.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 12:42 PM
just how common are Kobyashi Maru situations anyway? Maybe they crop up so rarely in the setting, that Fallen paladins are a small minority. It doesn't have to be uber-idealistic- just a few steps down, without being too dark.

From my experience... if there is a paladin in the group, they pop up only if the DM wants the paladin to fall, thus either being a jerk or completely missing the point of paladins in the first place. If there's no paladin, or this is a game where they cannot fall, then such situations appear when the DM wants to make the game more dramatic. Or angsty and cynical, if pulled off badly.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 12:47 PM
yes- paladin should be in the same boat as other classes, and moral dilemmas should mostly be between "Right but Hard" and "Wrong but Easy" and it doesn't have to be just the paladin- how about a chaotic good cleric of a freedom loving god- faced with a choice between an act which will lead to extremely authoritarian non-evil state, and an Evil act?

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 12:55 PM
You have never seen any more idealistic and heroic settings, have you?
Oh, I imagine if the DM goes out of his way to cuddle the PCs with a steady gradation of challenging-but-surmountable dilemmas- which is after all, sort of his job during Gamist play- then you won't have a problem. But that has relatively little to do with the plausibility of never running into damned-if-you-can, damned-if-you-can't situations.

Mephit
2008-11-29, 01:01 PM
Why does everyone make such a big deal of paladins falling? There's a 5th level spell called atonement, after all. :smallconfused:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 01:02 PM
Oh, I imagine if the DM goes out of his way to cuddle the PCs with a steady gradation of challenging-but-surmountable dilemmas- which is after all, sort of his job during Gamist play- then you won't have a problem. But that has relatively little to do with the plausibility of never running into damned-if-you-can, damned-if-you-can't situations.

Why, thank you for putting words I never said in my mouth. Show me where I've said that taking the third option is easy, requires no effort and is clearly visible. I'm just saying that when there are characters in the group whose sole concept requires a certain amount of idealism from the world, like paladins, than not including this amount of idealism in the game is the DM either being clueless, or a d*ck if done intentionally.

Also, I'm more Narrativist than Gamist, which you'd know if you kept more attention to my posts in threads that aren't edition wars.

Morty
2008-11-29, 01:08 PM
Why do I get the feeling that this whole narrativist/gamist/whatever else is there sthick exists for sole purpose of adherents to one gameplay style being able to claim superiority over the others?

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:10 PM
which is why I figure DMs who can mix aspects of multiple kinds are good DMs, because versatile.

Mephit
2008-11-29, 01:11 PM
Why do I get the feeling that this whole narrativist/gamist/whatever else is there sthick exists for sole purpose of adherents to one gameplay style being able to claim superiority over the others?

Because Roleplaying>Rollplaying, of course!

...Or was it the other way around? I never pay attention when people say those things... :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 01:14 PM
Why do I get the feeling that this whole narrativist/gamist/whatever else is there sthick exists for sole purpose of adherents to one gameplay style being able to claim superiority over the others?

Actually, it's best to mix them - the best approach is to have a mostly narrativist game, with good gamist elements and just enough simulationism to keep the world consistent, but not much more. Games that focus on simulationism tend to be boring and run by people who give too much attention to small details that don't really matter, and too little on telling an entertaining story.

...

Nevermind. You're right.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:17 PM
the difference is how much of a balance the game has- all groups will have a different balance. It might even vary depending on what players are present, if the mix of players for each game is not always the same (one DM might DM for people who can't all turn up to same day each week)

Morty
2008-11-29, 01:19 PM
Even "Good DM" and "Bad DM" are highly relative terms. You either have fun or you don't. All attempts to classify gameplay styles and put them into neat little boxes are doomed to fail and cause endless bickering.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:27 PM
not entirely- classification in the real world can run into grey areas, but you can still see the zone on either side of the grey blur.

A lesser black backed gull and a herring gull are clearly separate species, but some of the subraces of these two species can interbreed, even though the main subrace of each can't.

Then there is the subjective element- what's good for one group may not be good for another, so, if we make assumption that a DM who has DMed for many very different groups and all were pleased, is a Good DM, then the primary virtue of the Good DM is versatility.

this may not however be a good assumption though- what do you think?

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 01:32 PM
Why, thank you for putting words I never said in my mouth. Show me where I've said that taking the third option is easy, requires no effort and is clearly visible.
I don't recall implying that. In fact, my precise words were "challenging-but-surmountable." Where I feel we differ is in the idea that paladins only fall when the GM goes out of the way to introduce a lose-lose situation. I disagree. Lose-lose situations crop up naturally unless the GM goes out of his way to avoid them. All you need is the classic BBEG holding-innocents-hostage for your very own Kobyashi Maru scenario, and that's the oldest trick in the book. Unscrupulous foes will always find ways to turn your own moral compass against you unless the GM obligingly sanitises things, such as providing a 'Detect Evil' spell that lets you know who to smite.

Also, I'm more Narrativist than Gamist, which you'd know if you kept more attention to my posts in threads that aren't edition wars.
If you say so, but in that case the issue of an uncooperative GM really shouldn't crop up, since the GM should not have sole executive control over story elements.

Why do I get the feeling that this whole narrativist/gamist/whatever else is there sthick exists for sole purpose of adherents to one gameplay style being able to claim superiority over the others?
On the contrary. It exists for the purpose of demonstrating that claims of superiority are pointless, because there are different styles of play, supported by different rule sets, enjoyed by particular players. I will say that Gamist play is not particularly well-suited to exploration of moral dilemma, because that's not it's main focus.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 01:38 PM
All you need is the classic BBEG holding-innocents-hostage for your very own Kobyashi Maru scenario, and that's the oldest trick in the book. Unscrupulous foes will always find ways to turn your own moral compass against you unless the GM obligingly sanitises things, such as providing a 'Detect Evil' spell that lets you know who to smite.


That's not a Kobayashi Maru scenario - just because there is no obvious third option doesn't mean that it's not there. "Do something evil, or do something even more evil, and no, there are no other options no matter how hard you try to find them" is a Kobayashi Maru.



If you say so, but in that case the issue of an uncooperative GM really shouldn't crop up, since the GM should not have sole executive control over story elements.


I'm not sure what are you trying to say here. Narrativist is not the same as "players control the story and NPCs just like the DM".

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:40 PM
yes- three options- all are evil- walking away and looking for a third included- is the K-M DM problem. If DM allows you to delay, or even go get help (from fellow party members, for example), it's a bit less catastrophic.

Morty
2008-11-29, 01:45 PM
this may not however be a good assumption though- what do you think?

I think that while the traits of a "Good DM" vary from one group to another, versatility is universal. So I'd say it's a good assumption.



On the contrary. It exists for the purpose of demonstrating that claims of superiority are pointless, because there are different styles of play, supported by different rule sets, enjoyed by particular players. I will say that Gamist play is not particularly well-suited to exploration of moral dilemma, because that's not it's main focus.

Whatever is the purpose, the effect is that it's mot often used to make claims such as "those silly [instert appropriate], they play the game in a wrong way" or "X sucks and Y is the Right Way".

Lapak
2008-11-29, 01:46 PM
yes- three options- all are evil- walking away and looking for a third included- is the K-M DM problem. If DM allows you to delay, or even go get help (from fellow party members, for example), it's a bit less catastrophic.That misses the point. The K-M problem is not designed so that all options are evil, and a paladin could choose either/any of the choices and successfully defend it as Good enough in intent to avoid a fall. The K-M situation is not no-good, it's no-win. There's an important difference there. It's perfectly in-code for a paladin to charge in to save the people in trouble now, because that's the direct good. He'll die, and they'll die, but it's in-code. Heck, it's archetypal for a paladin to face down impossible odds and die doing it. It's also potentially in-code to leave them - they put themselves in the Neutral Zone and the greater good requires that they suffer the consequences for their illegal actions. He fails to protect them either way, but doesn't necessarily fall in either case. Failure is not a fall, and the K-M was never intended to test the moral quality of captains - just their response to a hopeless situation.

So it's not really a good example of a paladin auto-fail situation. Because rack my brain as I might, I've never been able to think of one. Not having workable options is not a moral failing.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 01:48 PM
That's not a Kobayashi Maru scenario - just because there is no obvious third option doesn't mean that it's not there. "Do something evil, or do something even more evil, and no, there are no other options no matter how hard you try to find them" is a Kobayashi Maru.
Yes, but the 3rd option will only crop up if the GM thoughtfully provides it for you. Which is sort of my point.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say here. Narrativist is not the same as "players control the story and NPCs just like the DM".
Players may not control the NPCs- though GM duties may well be apportioned between players- but in Narrativist play, control over the story does not lie in any one person's hands. The GM forcing a situation that 'breaks' your character is clear use of Force- a false choice that compels the character to go in a particular direction, which breaks the social contract for Narrativist play.

KnightDisciple
2008-11-29, 01:50 PM
The Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0544.html) already (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0545.html) played with (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0546.html) the "no-win" scenario (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html).
Looks like O-Chul didn't fall there. Of course, he's a different "DM" than some here.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:52 PM
the No-Win bit is good point, though remember Engine Malfunction or Storm, could put you in dnager zone without actively trying to do so, if you did it in D&D- with a sinking ship on rocks inside territorial waters.

Mephit
2008-11-29, 01:59 PM
Question about the idealistic-cynical discussion:
Wouldn't the paladins in a cynical world have a much more cynical point of view, and therefore get away with doing slightly less holy actions?
It's a bit of a positive thing about the alignment system in my eyes: It's so vague, LG, CN, etc is quite dependant on the setting.

In an idealistic world where there's always some way to save the day, a paladin should be how he's commonly portrayed: Always find a way to do good, tell your companions to look for a more lawful way of solving a conflict, etc.

But in a world where K-M situations are a standard thing to happen at least once to every adventurer, the gods will be a lot more understanding about a paladin doing something of questionable ethics: No matter what he did, innocents would've died.
In other words: An 'Evil act' is something debatable. Is choosing between two evil options evil if you have absolutely no other choice?
In fact, you could argue that he didn't willfully commit an evil act, since he didn't have a choice.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 02:03 PM
Whatever is the purpose, the effect is that it's mot often used to make claims such as "those silly [instert appropriate], they play the game in a wrong way" or "X sucks and Y is the Right Way".
While no single GNS mode is superior to the others, particular rule sets can certainly be worse than others insofar as they fail to recognise incompatibilities between the different agendas each style requires- ie, A. don't coherently cater to a particular mode or B. try to do so and fail. If your priorities are addressing character and theme, then there are particular rule sets which will help you and others that won't. I'm sorry if I've given a different impression here.

Actually, it's best to mix them - the best approach is to have a mostly narrativist game, with good gamist elements and just enough simulationism to keep the world consistent, but not much more. Games that focus on simulationism tend to be boring and run by people who give too much attention to small details that don't really matter, and too little on telling an entertaining story.
The question here is- boring for whom? Some people love having all the details laid out crisply before them, like watching a model railroad or playing Caesar III. The problem is trying to mix-and-match, which you mistakenly believe to be a good idea, (though you do at least prioritise.)
I will say that mixing in Gamism is not a great idea, because it has a tendency to take over during play. Gamism and narrativism actually have a lot in common in terms of social expectations, but have completely different ideas in terms of payoff.

Deme
2008-11-29, 02:09 PM
As a side note, is anyone reminded of the Grail segments of Arthurian legend when they read about paladins in no-win and other thorny scenarios? Because I kind of remember there being a lot of different tests and things the knights seeking the Grail had to go through to prove moral rightness and so forth... I'm wondering how many of the "correct" solutions presented there would satisfy most DMs (and I'm aware how general a term I'm using. I'm just wondering out-typed.)...

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 02:49 PM
I know- it's a non-answer. The only world where that will happens is a world where paladins aren't needed in the first place, because lemon gumdrops fall as rain and all sharp corners are padded with candy-floss. It's absurd.

you do know that a rain of lemon drops would kill or injure huge numbers of people and candyfloss makes for poor padding. Right?

Also, didnt Kirk find the 'save everyone option in the K-M situation? what was it again?

Samurai Jill
2008-11-29, 02:52 PM
you do know that a rain of lemon drops would kill or injure huge numbers of people and candyfloss makes for poor padding. Right?
My mistake.:smallredface:

Kirk cheated, IIRC. The point wasn't to find a winning solution, the point was to see which option the candidate would pick.

Lapak
2008-11-29, 02:52 PM
you do know that a rain of lemon drops would kill or injure huge numbers of people and candyfloss makes for poor padding. Right?

Also, didnt Kirk find the 'save everyone option in the K-M situation? what was it again?Cheating was the 'solution'. He reprogrammed the test computers to allow him to win.

Riffington
2008-11-29, 02:56 PM
Kirk cheated, IIRC. The point wasn't to find a winning solution, the point was to see which option the candidate would pick.

Exactly right. Kirk was CG, and he happened to be badass enough to get away with it. The point of Kobayashi Maru was to see which you'd pick, and to watch how gracefully a candidate can fail. There's nothing wrong with giving a Paladin crappy choices - just don't make him fall if he makes a good effort.

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 02:57 PM
Cheating was the 'solution'. He reprogrammed the test computers to allow him to win.

no, thats how everyone else (like Picard) won, something Kirk was appalled to learn, iIrc.

Zeful
2008-11-29, 02:59 PM
no, thats how everyone else (like Picard) won, something Kirk was appalled to learn, iIrc.

How did Picard win?

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 03:07 PM
How did Picard win?

He reprgrammed the computer, which had become the point since Kirk proved a daring and ballsy captain could win and no one else understood it. he was appalled to learn about the change as I understand.

Origional topic:
DM: you fall
player: What? why?
DM: A child got hit by a cart on the other side of town while you were asleep and died.

Zeful
2008-11-29, 03:12 PM
He reprgrammed the computer, which had become the point since Kirk proved a daring and ballsy captain could win and no one else understood it. he was appalled to learn about the change as I understand.

Origional topic:
DM: you fall
player: What? why?
DM: A child got hit by a cart on the other side of town while you were asleep and died.

Kirk admits to reprogramming the computer.

Anyway. The only time a paladin falls for not being perfectly omnipresent, is the day that DM loses the right to own D&D books, for the rest of existence.

Captain Six
2008-11-29, 03:13 PM
Question about the idealistic-cynical discussion:
Wouldn't the paladins in a cynical world have a much more cynical point of view, and therefore get away with doing slightly less holy actions?
It's a bit of a positive thing about the alignment system in my eyes: It's so vague, LG, CN, etc is quite dependant on the setting.

That was more or less the point of the Grey Guard in Complete Scoundrel. Any DM who is creating a campaign with a lot of moral grey should work that prestige class into the paladin core progression.

For those that don't know the Grey Guard steadily gets a more flexible code as the gods begin to trust them to do what's best, such as stabbing through armor made of babies to kill the guy about to destroy the world or strike a deal with one force of evil to take out a larger one. Their smite evil becomes Smite Anything in case someone like Miko comes along and you don't want to wait for her to doom everyone before taking her out. Also when they do slip up atonement doesn't have an exp cost for them. All they have to do by the end is maintain Lawful Good in order to keep their abilities.

Riffington
2008-11-29, 03:16 PM
Any DM who is creating a campaign with a lot of moral grey should ban that prestige class

Fixed that for you.:smalltongue:

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 03:19 PM
Kirk admits to reprogramming the computer.

Anyway. The only time a paladin falls for not being perfectly omnipresent, is the day that DM loses the right to own D&D books, for the rest of existence.

I must be mistaken then. My ST knowledge isnt as exstensive as I'd like.
And the thread said easy, not right.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-29, 03:20 PM
Kirk admits to reprogramming the computer.

Anyway. The only time a paladin falls for not being perfectly omnipresent, is the day that DM loses the right to own D&D books, for the rest of existence.
Including all duplicates in parallel universes, and all twins in an infinite universe. This is the worst kind of railroading. Yes, sometimes you don't have any good choices, and I can see how one could be in a situation where the known choices
would make a paladin fall, but a DM who creates such a situation should be open to player creativity in creating third choices. Anything else is ass-tard dickery. On the other hand, the atonement is possible, so if the paladin does fall, it is not he end of the world for that character.

zeruslord
2008-11-29, 03:30 PM
Kirk hacked the Kobayashi Maru simulator before taking the test so that the Klingons would fear him. It works, but the scenario is not supposed to include that level of name recognition for any Starfleet captain

chiasaur11
2008-11-29, 03:52 PM
Kirk hacked the Kobayashi Maru simulator before taking the test so that the Klingons would fear him. It works, but the scenario is not supposed to include that level of name recognition for any Starfleet captain

Hey, he was just making the simulator more accurate.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 03:54 PM
not accurate when he did it though- klingons hadn't even heard of the cadet Kirk.

chiasaur11
2008-11-29, 04:07 PM
not accurate when he did it though- klingons hadn't even heard of the cadet Kirk.

Yeah, but once he had a ship, the klingons would know him, so...

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 04:11 PM
it took Kirk some 5 years to become Just That Awesome. Though it is true that by the second year Klingons had heard much about him, and were rude about him.

"Kirk may be a swaggering, tinpot dictator with delusions of godhood, but he's not soft."

"...garbage scow. Half the quadrant knows it! Thats why they're all learning to speak Klingonese!"

in short- his reputation alone would not cause Klingons to run from him for a while. In fact, in later movies, it was more "go after him and try and beat him"

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 04:16 PM
Isnt beating something up the klingon response to fear?

Captain Six
2008-11-29, 05:20 PM
Fixed that for you.:smalltongue:

:smallconfused: The prestige class was designed so a paladin could exist in a moral grey world, why ban it for such an occasion?

The Glyphstone
2008-11-29, 05:35 PM
not accurate when he did it though- klingons hadn't even heard of the cadet Kirk.

Well, Kirk did love to time travel, so all he did in the KM was convince the imaginary Klingons that he was actually the Future-Kirk.

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 05:45 PM
:smallconfused: The prestige class was designed so a paladin could exist in a moral grey world, why ban it for such an occasion?

Trait 28 was meant only for paladins: not allowed to have fun. /sarcasm

Goldwing
2008-11-30, 03:56 AM
To touch on the no-win scenario thingiemabopper...yeah, that sorta thing really sucks. However, that sorts thing does happen in real life all the time. I agree that a no-win Paladin setup is mean - if it is done for no good reason. I think that if the no-win scenario is used perhaps once by a given DM every few campaigns with a good plot-driven reason for it, it is a good thing that makes the game more real. If it gets used more often than that, the DM may want to rethink the situations that they throw at their players.
There, now that I've gotten me relevancy out of the way...
Really? Kirk took the easy way out? I would have thought he would officially do nothing, but send a crack team incognito to aid the ship...who, if captured, would make statements along the lines of "No, Kirk didn't tell us to go. We disobeyed orders - ninjalike, of course - to aid our fellow Starfleet dudes in a manner which Kirk could not. Kirk had nothing to do with it."

Renx
2008-11-30, 05:22 AM
Exactly right. Kirk was CG, and he happened to be badass enough to get away with it. The point of Kobayashi Maru was to see which you'd pick, and to watch how gracefully a candidate can fail. There's nothing wrong with giving a Paladin crappy choices - just don't make him fall if he makes a good effort.

The funny thing is, the Kobayashi Maru was a mission in Starfleet Academy (or one of the other Star Trek games). You could actually win it by using tractor beams as weapons (it was implied that Kirk/Picard did it this way). Really nasty way of taking out a ship, though.

Serenity
2008-11-30, 09:36 AM
After Kirk reprogrammed the simulator when he took the Kobyashi Maru, it eventually stopped being a challenge of doing the right thing in the face of death, trying to the end, etc., and instead became a programming challenge. Or so I've heard.

And in the novelization of Starfleet Academy, when the protagonist reprograms the simulator to make the Klingons respect him, it has the exact effect of making them all the more eager to blow him to hell.

Deme
2008-11-30, 10:01 AM
ooh! I thought of an easy/silly way to make a paladin fall!

Have him meet an adorable kitten on the side of the road in a dilapidated little crate with the sign "free to a good home." The kitten is sad and hungry looking.

Now, the best way to "win" this as a DM wanting to make a paladin fall is to let the kitten's alignment be random. (we all know that cats are more likely than most other animals to have alignments, particularly CE)
If it is evil, picking up the kitten will make him fall, for he is helping evil beings.
If it is good or neutral, then abandoning it is also evil, and will make him fall.

If he tips over the box, allowing the cat to be both good and evil (and possibly neutral) at once, then....then he falls and does not fall for trapping the kitty in a deathtrap (and killing it while simultaneously not killing it), until the cat is observed again, at which point...he falls. why? because you set up this elaborately-planned trap just to make him fall, you awful person, so you're obviously just going to make him fall.

((FYI...I love paladins. and cats.))

only1doug
2008-11-30, 10:03 AM
ooh! I thought of an easy/silly way to make a paladin fall!

Have him meet an adorable kitten on the side of the road in a dilapidated little crate with the sign "free to a good home." The kitten is sad and hungry looking.

Now, the best way to "win" this as a DM wanting to make a paladin fall is to let the kitten's alignment be random. (we all know that cats are more likely than most other animals to have alignments, particularly CE)
If it is evil, picking up the kitten will make him fall, for he is helping evil beings.
If it is good or neutral, then abandoning it is also evil, and will make him fall.

If he tips over the box, allowing the cat to be both good and evil (and possibly neutral) at once, then....then he falls and does not fall for trapping the kitty in a deathtrap (and killing it while simultaneously not killing it), until the cat is observed again, at which point...he falls. why? because you set up this elaborately-planned trap just to make him fall, you awful person, so you're obviously just going to make him fall.

((FYI...I love paladins. and cats.))

Aha the classic shroedingers paladin trap... foiled only by the paladin's detect evil class abilty.

Deme
2008-11-30, 10:12 AM
Aha the classic shroedingers paladin trap... foiled only by the paladin's detect evil class abilty.

I was sort of assuming this paladin wouldn't think to go around casting "detect evil" on kittens. I think that assumption is pretty flawed, but I have known paladins who wouldn't think to do that. Clearly, though, that assumption (and therefore the trap) only works if the DM in question doesn't have a history of doing things like this...and the paladin's player/paladin doesn't hate cats.

Mephit
2008-11-30, 10:45 AM
But how is a kitten evil? I mean, it's an animal. Unless it's fiendish or something like that, I don't think animals can be classified as 'evil'. :smallconfused:

For instance, a bear kills a cleric of a good deity. Or an innocent child. Does that make the bear evil?
No, of course not. It's a bear.

Vorpal Soda
2008-11-30, 11:09 AM
The obvious answer that is simply to not ever cast detect evil on anything too cute for you to resist(Such as an abandoned kitten). Since you cannot fall for unknowingly associating with evil characters, you'll be fine as long as nothing causes you to discover it's true alignment.

Once you discover your adorable pet's true alignment however, is the point at which your character becomes delusional, believing the cat to be under an effect that causes false positives(Like the crown that Xykon wore). So your character is still not knowingly associating with an evil character.

Once your cat starts murdering commoners, you become even more delusional, coming up with really improbable explanations that your character nonetheless believes. Eventually, your paladin will go completely insane with delusion, but will still not realise that the cat is evil, and thus remains a paladin.

Remember, the paladin code is designed to punish malice, not failure.

EDIT: Actually, having checked the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) again, the part of associates is under a seperate part to the code of conduct, and it doesn't actually say that you can fall for associating with evil characters, just that paladins don't ally with such people knowingly, and can only have LG NPC followers/henchmen/cohorts. So whilst you do have to avoid having evil allies, it isn't punished with falling, and therefore is presumably something that must be roleplayed instead.

Riffington
2008-11-30, 11:56 AM
:smallconfused: The prestige class was designed so a paladin could exist in a moral grey world, why ban it for such an occasion?

A paladin can exist in a morally grey world. Mind you, I like what they were trying to do with grey guards. Something similar would be interesting. But there's just a few too many things they break with the class. The idea of doing something knowing you will need to Atone creates problems. The idea of Atoning knowing you will do it again... dealbreaker for me. The notion that LG by other means is still LG is something I cannot sign onto. A similar class would be great - just not that specific one.



I don't think animals can be classified as 'evil'
True, but cats are an exception.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-30, 04:55 PM
Agreed. As a Paladin you got a legitimate argument why you should pierce through the heaven and break through the unbreakable and fight the power.

The reason is that you're just that awesome.

...

Assuming you play a LG Paladin right that is. Most people don't seem to get it I'm afraid:smalltongue:

Now I want to be a Paladin that fights with a magic drill:
"Who the Hell Do you think I AM"!

The Glyphstone
2008-11-30, 04:58 PM
That's what the wizard would say, not the paladin. He'd also ask if they were retarded or something.



Yes, I did catch the reference.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-30, 06:42 PM
Yes, I did catch the reference.

If the rest of your post is any indication - no, no you didn't.

Roderick_BR
2008-11-30, 09:46 PM
Kobayashi Maru is a scenario where you cannot win - all the answers are wrong, some just less wrong than the others.

And if a world is idealistic enough to have paladins, then it means that there are no Kobayashi Maru scenarios in it - every scenario has an answer that lets the paladin both do good and keep his powers if he looks hard enough. That's something some DMs forget about.
There's always the "making your own option" in lose/lose scenarios.
Typical no-win scenario
A demon is possessing a child. You failed all atempts of exorcism. Your only option is to kill the child, also damning her soul for eternity, or letting it live, and the demon will take over the world.
Thinking outside the box: Convince the demon that he have better survival chances by leaving the child, and possessing a stronger person, like you. Then when he do enters your body.... you kill yourself. Like in one of the Exorcist's movies, if I remember well.
Granted, you die, and you'll probably be the one damned for eternity... but all the torture in the underworld won't wipe out that smile from your face from having fooled the demon. A small victory, but still a victory.
And as Mephisto said in that Spiderman story, people that comdemn themselves to save others suffer a "honored pain", taking all the fun out of it.

Now, the real easiest way to make a paladin fall, is for the DM to say. You did... something. You fall :smalltongue:

elliott20
2008-11-30, 10:10 PM
but but but... there is no way my schmogobooze is anything but neutral-cute! *goes off to cuddle his fluffy kitty*

Narmoth
2008-12-01, 05:30 AM
The Paladin would go all Vulcan and say: 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and leave the K/M to the Klingons/Romulans/whoever the bbeg is. Sucks, but it happens.

Actually, that's the justification of most "evil" entities in the real world, and there's no limits to how many can be tortured and killed for the best of the country, mankind or a system of beliefs. Part of being a paladin is not to fall in that trap.


Opinions may differ on this, and in any game it's the DM's decision, but if I was DMing, I'd rule that fall-or-die and fall-or-fall situations would be fundamentally impossible, since if all possible options are evil, and you therefore had no choice, then you haven't willingly commited an evil act, and therefore do not fall. I'd also rule that unwilling failure isn't grounds for falling either.

Actually, at least in 2nd ed, unwillingly committing an evil act stripped the paladin of his powers until he attoned. But yes, I think you are right about how the rules should work


Right, and while he's looking up his own ass for this miraculous solution which will somehow rewrite interstellar politics for his own convenience, everybody aboard the imperilled ship will die.
I'm sorry folks, but the universe is not always going to conform to your neat expectations of no-lose situations.

The problem is that it is a simulation with a limited asset of options. In the "real world" you could declare that you operate without the government authorization, freeing them from the responsibility of your actions. Or you could try to mask your ships presence to be undetected, and save the crew/passengers of the ship while leaving the ship itself to be blown up by Klingons, satisfying them and so on...


There's always the "making your own option" in lose/lose scenarios.
Typical no-win scenario
A demon is possessing a child. You failed all atempts of exorcism. Your only option is to kill the child, also damning her soul for eternity, or letting it live, and the demon will take over the world.
Thinking outside the box: Convince the demon that he have better survival chances by leaving the child, and possessing a stronger person, like you. Then when he do enters your body.... you kill yourself. Like in one of the Exorcist's movies, if I remember well.
Granted, you die, and you'll probably be the one damned for eternity... but all the torture in the underworld won't wipe out that smile from your face from having fooled the demon. A small victory, but still a victory.
And as Mephisto said in that Spiderman story, people that comdemn themselves to save others suffer a "honored pain", taking all the fun out of it.

Good thinking :smallsmile: Although I would consider the option of killing the kid and then resurrecting him it it was hard to convince the demon

Roderick_BR
2008-12-01, 11:43 AM
Good thinking :smallsmile: Although I would consider the option of killing the kid and then resurrecting him it it was hard to convince the demon
Yeah, this is assuming a DM that will try to avoid the "just ressurrect the victim later" by throwing something like a soul bind to however was possessed, but still a good alternative.

Funny thing: I read about the Kobayashi Maru thing on Wikipedia. Looks like in some more recent stories, the original test is eventually replaced with an "original thinking" theme, since the officials would find out that some captains would find an unseen option to win the scenario, including a video game where you have the option to hack the computer with the test to make it easier (and possible) to win.
It does reminds me of the Starfleet Simulator for SNES, where the final level is a "half-win", instead of no-win (you have the option to rescue one of two ships. If you try to save both, you fail, as that galaxy's sun is about to go nova. The test is to see if you recognise your limitations).

Narmoth
2008-12-01, 12:20 PM
Speaking of paladins falling, this is what happened last game:

My paladin used a orc prisoner to check if a trap was disarmed after the rogue of the group set it of trying to disarm it. Everyone in the group (who I believe have these aligments: LN/LG, CG, CN/NE) thought it was a great idea, especially after the orcs messy death proved it wasn't disarmed.

Now, the question is: is this a reason for my pally to fall?

only1doug
2008-12-01, 02:38 PM
Speaking of paladins falling, this is what happened last game:

My paladin used a orc prisoner to check if a trap was disarmed after the rogue of the group set it of trying to disarm it. Everyone in the group (who I believe have these aligments: LN/LG, CG, CN/NE) thought it was a great idea, especially after the orcs messy death proved it wasn't disarmed.

Now, the question is: is this a reason for my pally to fall?

Yes, Mistreatment of Prisoners is not Honourable. If I were GMing I'd of offered you a warning before implementing the plan, if you still go ahead you fall.

(Warning consists of: "are you sure you want to do that?", that's all the warning you get, a reminder to think about your actions)

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 02:42 PM
well, there is "assist us with fighting baddies, disarming traps, etc- and get our testimony that you deserve leniency, when we return to civilization"

As long as he isn't in any more danger than rest of party, he can be co-opted, but ordering him to spring probably trapped chests, no.

Cadderly Bonaduce used this tactic after Detecting that one of the villain's mooks wasn't Evil.

On the other hand- Cadderly in later books Summons, tortures, and banishes demons, to get info. Perhaps not so much of a paragon of virtue, despite being NG.

Mando Knight
2008-12-01, 02:48 PM
The answer to the question is:

Be a bad DM.
Examples:
Step on a fly that never did anyone any harm? Fall. Not sing praises to your deity every minute of the day? Fall. Help a Chaotic person? Fall. Xanatos Sucker (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosSucker) (i.e. the hero in almost any given piece of fiction)? Fall.

In short, a Paladin should not, in normal circumstances, be forced to fall. Even a Kobayashi Maru has a solution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption) for a Paladin... and a decent DM will see that. Only a Paladin who willingly breaks his code of honor should fall... and there are many things for which that code does not apply.

Narmoth
2008-12-01, 06:18 PM
By the way, I need a way to intimidate equally to torture without actually torture a prisoner (psychical torture included, but promise of pain excluded), as I seem to fall short on the intimidation with my pally

Kris Strife
2008-12-01, 07:23 PM
By the way, I need a way to intimidate equally to torture without actually torture a prisoner (psychical torture included, but promise of pain excluded), as I seem to fall short on the intimidation with my pally

Diplomacy is a Paladin class skill (and a damn useful one at that). Max your ranks out in it and you too can get nobles who hate each other to agree on a peace treaty by rolling a 2.

Lapak
2008-12-01, 10:40 PM
By the way, I need a way to intimidate equally to torture without actually torture a prisoner (psychical torture included, but promise of pain excluded), as I seem to fall short on the intimidation with my pallyMost consistent example of non-torture torture that would fit into the 'gritty paladin' style would be self-torture. A good example comes from The King's Gold, written by Arturo Perez-Reverte. The character in question isn't a D&D-style paladin (it's a historical fiction, not a fantasy), but he finds torture extremely... distasteful.

When he needed to get information out of a man, he first spent a little while talking about the various tortures he had seen inflicted. Then he took a lit candle, held his own arm out in front of the prisoner's face, and scorched his own flesh long enough to form a nasty permanent scar. Long enough that the prisoner could smell the flesh cooking, see the skin peeling and cracking. He did this with utter detachment, as if it didn't bother him at all. And then he said, 'If I can do this to myself, imagine what I would be capable of doing to you.'

He did not, as it happened, have to do anything; the show of resolve broke the prisoner without any further effort. He didn't have to lie to him at any point, and he didn't have to inflict any harm to anyone but himself. I'd certainly give an Intimidate bonus to any character willing to try such a tactic in-game.

XAnansiX
2008-12-02, 02:31 AM
I HATE d&d alignment....good and evil for the most part are in the eye of the beholder (or was that spell like abilities? nyuk nyuk nyuk :p) . They rarely mean the same thing to another person and that leads to issues with paladins. For example the paladin mentioned earlier in this thread who had been tricked into fathering a half demon child and then killed it when he figured it out...was it wrong? Maybe to some but I would argue that if the paladin didn't know the child could be saved/ half demons aren't always evil killing him could be considered neutral.

ashmanonar
2008-12-02, 03:34 PM
As a side note, is anyone reminded of the Grail segments of Arthurian legend when they read about paladins in no-win and other thorny scenarios? Because I kind of remember there being a lot of different tests and things the knights seeking the Grail had to go through to prove moral rightness and so forth... I'm wondering how many of the "correct" solutions presented there would satisfy most DMs (and I'm aware how general a term I'm using. I'm just wondering out-typed.)...

Sir Lancelot: We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Sir Lancelot: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Sir Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Sir Lancelot: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
Sir Lancelot: No. It's unhealthy.
Sir Galahad: I bet you're gay.
Sir Lancelot: Am not.

Kris Strife
2008-12-02, 03:38 PM
rollerskates at the top of a stair case.

hamishspence
2008-12-02, 03:44 PM
to Lapak- Interesting. It depends on if "threatening to torture someone" is evil, just "questionable" (borderline) or not evil at all.

Fiendish Codex lists "Intimidating torture", right at the bottom of the corrupt acts list- comparable to being really humiliating (By humiliating, I'd say that means like the behaviour of the girls toward Carrie in Stephen King movie).

However, it depends what you define it as. Rules say: "Torture that doesn't damage Victim"- would Room 101 fit- showing the victim things they are really phobic about, and bringing them very close? Mental torture, in short?

hamishspence
2008-12-02, 04:11 PM
I was taking the generous route- Humiliating someone is only corrupt if its severe, intentional, vicious. Same with "Intimidating torture"

Akisa
2008-12-02, 04:19 PM
Send her a sending message...

Narmoth
2008-12-02, 05:09 PM
Yes, Mistreatment of Prisoners is not Honourable. If I were GMing I'd of offered you a warning before implementing the plan, if you still go ahead you fall.

(Warning consists of: "are you sure you want to do that?", that's all the warning you get, a reminder to think about your actions)

I know. The thing is that I was hoping for someone to come with other arguments, which I again could use.
I'm not really playing a paladin. I'm playing a blackguard, and the rest of the group don't know.
And obviously aren't catching up either

23minds
2008-12-02, 05:25 PM
I know. The thing is that I was hoping for someone to come with other arguments, which I again could use.
I'm not really playing a paladin. I'm playing a blackguard, and the rest of the group don't know.
And obviously aren't catching up either

...And they think you're a paladin? Lol. Your group's gonna die.:smalltongue:

Narmoth
2008-12-02, 05:43 PM
...And they think you're a paladin? Lol. Your group's gonna die.:smalltongue:

Nah, not really. I've presented the character as a paladin about to fall, and one in the group plays an old friend of the pally that tries to turn him back to the right way.
But the group will survive as long as we don't fight each other, and I'm not really that kind of player. I'd rather just keep it as a secret that gradually dawns on them, playing a very honor bound LE blackguard. For example, he doesn't torture prisoners, and he fights mostly fair (except for using poisons to even out a battle)

only1doug
2008-12-02, 05:46 PM
I know. The thing is that I was hoping for someone to come with other arguments, which I again could use.
I'm not really playing a paladin. I'm playing a blackguard, and the rest of the group don't know.
And obviously aren't catching up either

Heh, so you have been trying to drop little hints that you aren't really a Paladin (like taking actions guaranteed to cause a fall) and they still don't get it?
sounds like they are as perceptive as a bag of rocks.

Future Hints to drop:

tell obvious lies

cheat at cards / dice etc

"borrow" things from them people without asking and only give them back if confronted.

Lapak
2008-12-02, 05:51 PM
to Lapak- Interesting. It depends on if "threatening to torture someone" is evil, just "questionable" (borderline) or not evil at all.Ah, but that's the thing. He didn't ever actually threaten the man. He noted that torturers do torture people; he injured himself; he asked the prisoner to wonder what such a man might be willing to do to a helpless prisoner.

The correct answer, had the man had the wit to realize it, was 'nothing, or you'd already be doing it to me instead of yourself.' I'd say that turning evil against itself - allowing the man's nasty mind to think of what horrible things he would do to his captor were the situation reversed - is borderline at the worst. If the prisoner was an upright man, he'd expect his captor to be upright; if he's a villain, he expects his captor to be a villain. :smallsmile:

Narmoth
2008-12-02, 05:56 PM
Heh, so you have been trying to drop little hints that you aren't really a Paladin (like taking actions guaranteed to cause a fall) and they still don't get it?
sounds like they are as perceptive as a bag of rocks.

Future Hints to drop:

tell obvious lies

cheat at cards / dice etc

"borrow" things from them people without asking and only give them back if confronted.

Our group is currently gathering information to continue a quest for a stolen item. My character has taken up residence in the tavern reputed to have the best hookers in town. He's notoriously drunk, and he beated unconsious a guard hindering him in entering the governors residence.
Now his backstory (known to the group) tells how he was depressed after his family's death by illness, and that he doubts his god (Pelor), but still...

Also, the Dm is the newest of the players. The rest have played for 10 to 6 years before. Now, the Dm might be expected to go nice on the rules, and don't do as the other dms described in this thread, but the group is still kind of blue-eyed

Also, he's going to send the bill for the hookers and the booze to the knightly order he's a part of (Knights of the Mercy of Pelor), as he is rather short on cash :smallcool: