Paladin code help

[KozanShoku]

if a Paladin unknowingly touched a cursed item that housed a demon and said demon possessed him and used his body to go on a killing spree and the paladin had no way to fight the demons control would the Paladin loose his powers or not?

[Kid Jake]

I'd say no. What your body does without your guidance is its own business, so long as you would've stopped it if you could've.

[VoxRationis]

The paladin is not beholden to the moral effects of something they had no capacity to stop. In AD&D, which was a little stricter (and thus played more to older codes of conduct than to our conceptions of justice), such a paladin would have had to do a quest of atonement after such a thing but would otherwise be fine afterward.
I would argue, however, that the demon would be unable to use the paladin's powers whilst in the paladin's body. The latter's abilities stem from his personal spiritual connection to Good and Law, connections that the demon could not have.

[Slipperychicken]

if a Paladin unknowingly touched a cursed item that housed a demon and said demon possessed him and used his body to go on a killing spree and the paladin had no way to fight the demons control would the Paladin loose his powers or not?

Nope. Paladins only fall for acts they willingly commit.

[Rhynn]

Nope. Paladins only fall for acts they willingly commit.

That, plus actual outright possession pretty much means you're not even unwillingly committing the act - it's not you doing anything to begin with, it's just your body. If possession is possible to begin with, we have a pretty clear case that your body and your soul/will/ego/consciousness are essentially separate, so what someone else does with your body without your consent or compliance is even less your action than something someone magically compels you to do (which already doesn't cause a paladin to fall).

[Thrudd]

In other words, the DM or a bad roll of the dice can't force the paladin to fall. Only the player's choices can do that.
If the player knowingly chose to accept demonic possession or an item which they knew would change their alignment, that's different.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would say that the paladin would fall for that as much as he would fall for having his arm being ripped off and used to bludgeon an innocent bystander. Probably not his fault, and a bit odd to penalize him for it. Might even make you wonder about the god adding insult to injury.

[Bit Fiend]

Why does everyone only look at the mechanical aspect? Is it really important whether the Paladin loses his class features? He couldn't stop it from happening, true, but he most likely will still feel he has a lot of innocent blood on his hands. It's not heads or tails, as if he'd just go "well, they didn't strip me of my powers so it's alright I guess" or "dang, my powers are gone... think that means it was bad". A Paladin would still go on a quest of atonement regardless, it shouldn't really matter if you impose a mechanical penalty on him for not doing so before or after the decision.

[jaybird]

A Paladin would still go on a quest of atonement regardless, it shouldn't really matter if you impose a mechanical penalty on him for not doing so before or after the decision.

Would he? We talk about metaphorical moral compasses, but Paladins have a literal moral compass, and it's called their code. If their code says what they did doesn't require atonement, then it doesn't require atonement. Remember, Paladins aren't just Good, they're also Lawful.

[Rhynn]

Why does everyone only look at the mechanical aspect? Is it really important whether the Paladin loses his class features?

Gee, I wonder!

would the Paladin loose his powers or not?

... well, that makes sense: it's what the OP asked about.

[Driderman]

I'd say it depends on what makes for the best story. If a subplot about the Paladin having to do an atonement quest would be a good thing then yes, he lost his powers and will have to atone for them to return. If not, then no.

[Bit Fiend]

Would he? We talk about metaphorical moral compasses, but Paladins have a literal moral compass, and it's called their code. If their code says what they did doesn't require atonement, then it doesn't require atonement. Remember, Paladins aren't just Good, they're also Lawful.

Still, I feel that if a paladin just shrugs the event off without, say, making efforts to make restitution to the victims since he didn't fall for it, THIS is the moment he falls.

However this is just my opinion of a "perfect" Paladin. A battle grizzled Paladin who doesn't let things that won't make him fall get at him to avoid burning out sure makes for an interesting character...

EDIT:

Gee, I wonder!



... well, that makes sense: it's what the OP asked about.

Would you be less sarcastic if I prefaced my post with "IMHO he wouldn't, however..."?

[Sartharina]

The paladin that gets possessed by a demon and goes on a rampage has no need to go on a 'quest for atonement'. However, that doesn't stop him from going on a quest of righteous vengeance against the demon because he's witnessed a demon go on a rampage, or a quest to assist those in need since he's found a number of people who have been victims of a demonic assault. But he's not compelled to do so out of any need to redeem himself.

[imaloony]

No. The code is only broken if the Paladin WILLINGLY does an evil act or allows an evil act to happen. If he's possessed then there's nothing he can do.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why does everyone only look at the mechanical aspect? Is it really important whether the Paladin loses his class features? He couldn't stop it from happening, true, but he most likely will still feel he has a lot of innocent blood on his hands. It's not heads or tails, as if he'd just go "well, they didn't strip me of my powers so it's alright I guess" or "dang, my powers are gone... think that means it was bad". A Paladin would still go on a quest of atonement regardless, it shouldn't really matter if you impose a mechanical penalty on him for not doing so before or after the decision.

I would think that the paladin feeling guilty would be more up to the player then the DM. A good idea for roleplaying, but perhaps a bit out of the DM's hands.

[hamishspence]

I would think that the paladin feeling guilty would be more up to the player then the DM. A good idea for roleplaying, but perhaps a bit out of the DM's hands.

In 3.0, the Atonement spell mentioned that a paladin could Fall (temporarily) for Evil acts committed "under some form of magical compulsion" - and for willing Evil acts, the Fall was permanent.

I think same applied in 2e and 1e.

3.5 was the first to move away from that.

[Sartharina]

I wouldn't consider Possession to be magical compulsion, but Dominate Person would for those circumstances.

[Dorian Gray]

My honest opinion (and feel free to ignore any part of this that seems overly snippy, because I'm an ass about this sort of stuff):
No. God no. If you penalize the player at all for this, you are a Bad DM. In fact, taking away a player's ability to control his character is a bad move in and of itself, because then he isn't playing a game, but rather watching you play a game. But if the player is OK with you possessing his paladin, you're in the clear for that.
All that being said, the paladin should never suffer any ill affects from stuff you do. Think about it- "Yeah, when I took over your character I killed a bunch of people with him, so now you can't use him."
That's never, ever, ever going to end with a happy player- losing class features because of stuff beyond their control is one of the biggest reasons people don't play paladins. Furthermore, the player shouldn't have to do anything extraordinary- no special quests, no atonement, nothing. DM's using the paladin code to force players into doing things is probably the second biggest reason people don't play paladins.

[Slipperychicken]

No. God no. If you penalize the player at all for this, you are a Bad DM. In fact, taking away a player's ability to control his character is a bad move in and of itself, because then he isn't playing a game, but rather watching you play a game. But if the player is OK with you possessing his paladin, you're in the clear for that.
All that being said, the paladin should never suffer any ill affects from stuff you do. Think about it- "Yeah, when I took over your character I killed a bunch of people with him, so now you can't use him."
That's never, ever, ever going to end with a happy player- losing class features because of stuff beyond their control is one of the biggest reasons people don't play paladins. Furthermore, the player shouldn't have to do anything extraordinary- no special quests, no atonement, nothing. DM's using the paladin code to force players into doing things is probably the second biggest reason people don't play paladins.

I agree with every word in this post.

[veti]

There's a social dimension that no-one has considered yet:

Unless the rampage was so thorough as to kill all witnesses, the paladin has definitely lost a metric buttload of credibility and trust from the people after this episode. So it's not going to be consequence-free, even if there's no actual recoil from the rules.

[Slipperychicken]

There's a social dimension that no-one has considered yet:

Unless the rampage was so thorough as to kill all witnesses, the paladin has definitely lost a metric buttload of credibility and trust from the people after this episode. So it's not going to be consequence-free, even if there's no actual recoil from the rules.

Well, I figure that the pally (and his organization, where applicable) could use their power to explain the situation, and maybe send in the pally himself to do some quests for the town (in addition to more humble charitable work like providing food to the sick and homeless), thereby mending their reputation.

He could probably get most of the way there by showing the local clergy what happened, and have them disseminate that information to the regular folk.

They could even make an event of it, where the Paladin might go into towns to beg forgiveness from the survivors, or do something like dedicate himself to defending the people his body unwittingly wronged.

[veti]

Well, I figure that the pally (and his organization, where applicable) could use their power to explain the situation, and maybe send in the pally himself to do some quests for the town (in addition to more humble charitable work like providing food to the sick and homeless), thereby mending their reputation.

He could probably get most of the way there by showing the local clergy what happened, and have them disseminate that information to the regular folk.

They could even make an event of it, where the Paladin might go into towns to beg forgiveness from the survivors, or do something like dedicate himself to defending the people his body unwittingly wronged.

Which sounds, functionally, very much like an 'Atonement' exercise...

Sometimes you don't need metaphysics to explain how these things come about - plain ol' regular physics (and related sciences) will get you there just the same. The pally may not need to atone in order to get his powers back, but he does have a lot of spadework to put in if people are ever going to view him as a paladin again.

[Slipperychicken]

Which sounds, functionally, very much like an 'Atonement' exercise...

Sometimes you don't need metaphysics to explain how these things come about - plain ol' regular physics (and related sciences) will get you there just the same. The pally may not need to atone in order to get his powers back, but he does have a lot of spadework to put in if people are ever going to view him as a paladin again.

Honestly, the Pally probably wouldn't need to do much to prove he's still on good's side: Just show off his powers and his huge shining aura of good.


Also, in the D&D universe, where mind-control is accessible to a sizable portion of the population (plus a large number of monsters), simply explaining he was possessed and having high-ranking clergy back him up should be entirely sufficient to convince a reasonable person. Mind control would happen with some regularity (for example, imagine the sheer number of spellcasters trying to get lucky by casting Charm Person, or spiking drinks with Elixirs of Love).

[Coidzor]

Why does everyone only look at the mechanical aspect? Is it really important whether the Paladin loses his class features? He couldn't stop it from happening, true, but he most likely will still feel he has a lot of innocent blood on his hands. It's not heads or tails, as if he'd just go "well, they didn't strip me of my powers so it's alright I guess" or "dang, my powers are gone... think that means it was bad". A Paladin would still go on a quest of atonement regardless, it shouldn't really matter if you impose a mechanical penalty on him for not doing so before or after the decision.

Atonement quests as a Fighter without bonus feats are the pits. They require a degree of masochism beyond most Paladin players to enjoy, and ask it of the entire group.

[Dorian Gray]

Atonement quests as a Fighter without bonus feats are the pits. They require a degree of masochism beyond most Paladin players to enjoy, and ask it of the entire group.

Which is reason number one that if a DM ever makes my pally fall for a not-good reason (as in, I didn't see it coming), I just take blackguard levels. I once was in a situation where I could either kill an innocent girl (and prevent the BBEG from taking over the world) or I could stand by as some demon lord (I think it was Orcus) used her to come into this world. I killed her, lost my class features, and immediately swore allegiance to Asmodean so I could go after Orcus in hell. The DM wasn't amused, and I left the campaign shortly after.

[veti]

Also, in the D&D universe, where mind-control is accessible to a sizable portion of the population (plus a large number of monsters), simply explaining he was possessed and having high-ranking clergy back him up should be entirely sufficient to convince a reasonable person.

Sure, because people whose children and spouses have been killed in a murderous rampage are just so "reasonable"...

Seriously, I don't think it's that unreasonable for the injured parties in this case to demand that the perpetrator, in body if not in spirit, do some industrial-grade grovelling. I'd certainly want to see some visible evidence that the paladin at least felt bad enough about what happened to want to put it right, even if he couldn't actually reverse any of the damage.

[Coidzor]

Sure, because people whose children and spouses have been killed in a murderous rampage are just so "reasonable"...

Seriously, I don't think it's that unreasonable for the injured parties in this case to demand that the perpetrator, in body if not in spirit, do some industrial-grade grovelling. I'd certainly want to see some visible evidence that the paladin at least felt bad enough about what happened to want to put it right, even if he couldn't actually reverse any of the damage.

There's dealing with the situation and then there's dropping everything to go on an Atonement Quest(tm), in my book. I much prefer dealing with the fallout of the situation rather than running off to get their knickers untwisted.

[neonchameleon]

Rule 1 of DMing Paladins: If it isn't a very clear cut case that they should fall then they shouldn't. (Non-hypothetical fallen Paladin: Asked a greater demon for a Holy Avenger. The demon came back with the hand of the previous wielder still attached and dripping blood). If it's even slightly questionable then don't do it. It generally makes the game less fun and pivots the plot round the Paladin - both bad things.

[Rhynn]

Honestly, the Pally probably wouldn't need to do much to prove he's still on good's side: Just show off his powers and his huge shining aura of good.

Everyone knows that casting light proves you're a paladin.

[Talar]

I would say the paladin would not fall. It was against his will, and out of his control. And I second the idea that if it is ever questionable then the answer is no because a paladin falling is a huge pain to the player who is running the paladin and in general makes the game less fun.