Situations, to cause Paladin to lose his powers?

[HoboKnight]

Heyya, guys,

I have a player in my campaign, playing a paladin. This means a lot of boons, but also occasional test that enables him to keep his powers. Now, let me make a very clear exclaimer: I DO NOT WANT HIM TO FALL. No lose-lose scenarios, devilish trickery, nothing like that.

I'd just like to toss in an event or three here and there, where paladins LN nature comes forth. But... these events need to be challenging. I'd like for Pally to sacrifice something each time.

I'd just like to keep him special - on occasions putting him in situations, where he must follow his code in order to keep on being all paladin-ish.

Got any ideas for me?

thanks

[MrSandman]

Run it by your player, make sure you both are on the same page regarding the story you want to play and ask your players what sorts of moral dilemmas they'd like to be involved in.

[HoboKnight]

Run it by your player, make sure you both are on the same page regarding the story you want to play and ask your players what sorts of moral dilemmas they'd like to be involved in.

Well, this IS an answer, I guess ... But in my case not applicable. Hopefully some good ideas come up. :)

[Mutazoia]

Well, since LN folks are all about the rules and stuff....

Have some LE jackass using the letter of the law (RAW) to commit some heinous crimes. What they are doing is pure evil, but the letter of the law, or perhaps a combination of laws allows him to argue that what he does is perfectly legal. Does your Pally go against the law to stop Evil (and thus violate his alignment), or does he obey the letter of the law and allow the Evil to continue?
rur
Getting tricky situations for Pally's not on the Good end of the spectrum is going to be hard, and will almost require some kind of rules/letter of the law situations... i.e. slavery is legal, our hero comes across a child slave being whipped to death for some minor infraction. Technically, what is happening is within the scope of the law for how slaves can be treated, but who wants to stand buy and watch a child get whipped to death?

[HoboKnight]

Well, since LN folks are all about the rules and stuff....

Have some LE jackass using the letter of the law (RAW) to commit some heinous crimes. What they are doing is pure evil, but the letter of the law, or perhaps a combination of laws allows him to argue that what he does is perfectly legal. Does your Pally go against the law to stop Evil (and thus violate his alignment), or does he obey the letter of the law and allow the Evil to continue?
rur
Getting tricky situations for Pally's not on the Good end of the spectrum is going to be hard, and will almost require some kind of rules/letter of the law situations... i.e. slavery is legal, our hero comes across a child slave being whipped to death for some minor infraction. Technically, what is happening is within the scope of the law for how slaves can be treated, but who wants to stand buy and watch a child get whipped to death?

Perfect. This is something I can work with. I often expand and build upon such ideas. Much appreciated.

[Pleh]

Perfect. This is something I can work with. I often expand and build upon such ideas. Much appreciated.

I mean, the alignment chart tells you which ways to push the character. Lawful Evil NPCs will make him question how far the letter of the law can go. Likewise, Chaotic Good NPCs may strike him as admirable, if what they do is good and right, if not actually legal. Some Star Wars style Rebels or Robin Hood style thieves can test a LN paladin.

"Are you gonna report these political terrorist thieves who are currently the primary financial support for the orphans who have no legal representation? That's what the law says you must do, because their stealing hurts the profits of the guilds that comprise the basis of the economy."

Stepping away from the alignment chart, give them a quest where they have to settle a contractual dispute. Person A wants Person B to do X, but any sane person would rule the contract unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. How much does the paladin feel obligated to enforce rules they find distasteful, as opposed to taking authority to arbitrate rules by fiat? And how far does that authority stretch?

Maybe have them do an adventure in a lawless town run by bandits. Do they really have to kill everyone? How do you behave lawfully in a state of anarchy?

[denthor]

The Tomb. An old paladin has died over a century ago. His tomb has been found an earthquake uncovered the entrance. Everyone that has entered has died.

Tests can be done in any order. All three must be completed all are completed in a square loop. At no time is a rest to regain anything permitted after entering (magic mouth spell)


Test 1 death by fire.

After you turn a corner 15 feet in a ring of fire appears. A voice says(magic mouth spell). A paladin does not retreat but faces death. They jump through ring of fire. Lose 1/4 of hit points. Any who go past. 100-25 =75

2nd ring of fire when they go through they lose 1/2 of their hit points(even if healed 100-50=50)

3rd ring voice says bravery is real a ring of fire appears. Move forward all that pass through are reduced to 1 hit point. Does not matter what the hit points start at. 100 becomes 1. 2 hit points become 1 hit point.

A final ring of fire appears (magic mouth death before dishonor) anyone jumping through is full healed.

If at anytime anyone turns back they are attacked by ghosts every 20 feet until dead or escape. On any test.

Test 2 a paladin is not greedy and does not steal(magic mouth take nothing you must open all doors and enter)

Inside each door is a treasure door 1 silver door two 2 gold door 3 gems door 4 magic weapons. All doors must be opened room stepped into and walk out take nothing. If anyone in the party attempts to steal ghost attacks until dead or escape is made.

Test 3 a paladin follows directions of supervisors.

Proceed down hallway on the wall in front of you are two crossed swords both +5 holy avenger. magic mouth says take the sword on the right. If they only take the sword on the right nothing happens If they take left or both(ghost attack). Move forward. A scene opens before your eyes a young man is cornered by wolves. Magic mouth take the sword you have received from here and toss it to the boy. When they do the boy picks up the sword the scene closes magic mouth balance has been restored you may pass.

After all 3 test are completed they find a way out. If they do as they are told there are no encounters within the tomb, but death is assured if they do not. These are not hard just gut wrenching.

[tomandtish]

Well, since LN folks are all about the rules and stuff....

Have some LE jackass using the letter of the law (RAW) to commit some heinous crimes. What they are doing is pure evil, but the letter of the law, or perhaps a combination of laws allows him to argue that what he does is perfectly legal. Does your Pally go against the law to stop Evil (and thus violate his alignment), or does he obey the letter of the law and allow the Evil to continue?
rur
Getting tricky situations for Pally's not on the Good end of the spectrum is going to be hard, and will almost require some kind of rules/letter of the law situations... i.e. slavery is legal, our hero comes across a child slave being whipped to death for some minor infraction. Technically, what is happening is within the scope of the law for how slaves can be treated, but who wants to stand buy and watch a child get whipped to death?

But note that a well-played paladin isn't just about the law of the land. yes, they'll follow local laws when appropriate. But if the laws themselves are unjust (or have been corrupted that way) then a paladin is NOT going to violate his alignment by not following them.

This highlights the biggest problem with paladins. Make sure you AND your player are on the same page on what their particular code actually means before you start playing. You get serious problems if the player thinks they ARE following their code and the DM doesn't.

[Anymage]

What edition? In 5e, the paladin's oath gives much clearer guidance for what they want to focus on than just the class. If something in the 3e lineage, it still helps to have the player give some idea what sort of code they want to follow instead of just sticking to the short blurb in the PHB.

Also, sacrifice isn't really a good thing to aim for, because that usually translates to losing stuff and losing your stuff in D&D is annoying. Instead, let the player showcase their virtue through going through extra hardship (they'll have to spend a couple more rounds in the burning building in order to save the orphan) or opportunity cost (the saint's tomb is filled with treasure, but grave robbing such an esteemed person would be scandalous). Small opportunities to Dudley Do-Right it up should arise naturally through play.

[King of Nowhere]

our paladin ended up accidentally stranded on the plane of air for 24 hours. while there, a powerful entity offered him protection in exchange for service. basically "you owe me and i can ask you one quest and you cannot refuse".
the paladin decided that he already served pelor and it would be against his belief to take accept another master, even if only temporarily, so he refused. he managed to survive the allotted 24 hours, though he lost a magic item in the process

[MoiMagnus]

This means a lot of boons, but also occasional test that enables him to keep his powers. [...] I'd like for Pally to sacrifice something each time.

I know a lot of peoples already commented on this, but be attentive to how the player reacts. Not every players enjoy this kind of countercost, especially since depending on the edition you're using, paladin's boon are not higher than other classes boons, so giving them higher countercost might feel particularly unfair.

I'd just like to toss in an event or three here and there, where paladins LN nature comes forth.

Note that a test of alignment is different from a test of faith. A LN god encompass a vision of the LN alignment, and a specific deviation to LN behavior will not be treated the same by every LN god.

For example, a martial LN god will probably value authority and respect to hierarchy more than common laws, and a LN god of justice will obviously value the respect of procedure and laws above personal loyalty. The typical example is "your direct chief is staging a coup, and order you to execute the local governor, do you do it?". Both answers are fully LN behaviors, but two different gods will have a net preference over one or another.

I find it much more relevant when doing test of faith to make a test about the actual values and interest of the god, rather than a standard dilemma for the alignment. [Moreover, you will find it much easier to explain to your player what the god expect from them, than having to argue the meaning of alignments]

[Kaptin Keen]

I'm just going to come out and say: I think you shouldn't.

Maybe do something that feels like a test - maybe even hint that the wrong decision here might be at the cost of his powers. But ultimately, to me, the player get's to define the code and how to follow it, not the GM. In other words, no matter what course he choses - whether he decides to back the LE jerk who abuses the letter of the law to do crime, or decides to confront him, you as the GM nod sagely, say 'ohhh - interesting' ... and then move on like nothing happened. Like it was the correct answer, no matter which way he chose.

Do not require your player to engage in some mind reading minigame where he has to guess which answer you feel is the right one.

[HoboKnight]

I'm just going to come out and say: I think you shouldn't.

Maybe do something that feels like a test - maybe even hint that the wrong decision here might be at the cost of his powers. But ultimately, to me, the player get's to define the code and how to follow it, not the GM. In other words, no matter what course he choses - whether he decides to back the LE jerk who abuses the letter of the law to do crime, or decides to confront him, you as the GM nod sagely, say 'ohhh - interesting' ... and then move on like nothing happened. Like it was the correct answer, no matter which way he chose.

Do not require your player to engage in some mind reading minigame where he has to guess which answer you feel is the right one.

I'd never do that. What do you do, when player does not pick the code :D When he says's I'm running paladin, but my principles and views of the word are ... not known even to me. :D I have one nondedicated player on my hands - fluff wise.

[Shinizak]

Your paladin is LAWFUL NEUTRAL, right? Focus on the meaning of that.

Give him/her SEEMINGLY clear cut good verse evil moral dilemmas, but have the answer be "the secret middle path"

For instance, the paladin comes across a chest of gold that fell off a travelling banker's cart. Rules state that it should be taken to the local law maker's office and held for 30 days. BUT he finds a doctor and a thief arguing over the goods. The Doctor says he needs the gold to pay for making medicine for a local plague (a good, selfless act). The thief, on the other hand, offers to split the goods 50/50 if you help him shank the doctor (an evil, selfish act)

Does your paladin of Law help the good doctor (a good, but incorrect action)? Take the money and kill the Doctor (an evil, and incorrect action)? Or does he correctly take the chest to the law maker's office?

(Note, if he does something selfish and chaotic like stealing the chest for himself than that should be an instant fall on the spot.)

[Kaptin Keen]

I'd never do that. What do you do, when player does not pick the code :D When he says's I'm running paladin, but my principles and views of the word are ... not known even to me. :D I have one nondedicated player on my hands - fluff wise.

Hm.

I have the opposite: A paladin player who's so bent out of shape over his Code, he basically insists all other characters need to abide by his morals too. Kill All Evil-doers - that sort of thing. Which is complicated, when my own character is a very morally flexible CN bard. So we get along splendidly =D

But what would I do, if the roles were reversed? I'd explain: This is the paladin. He's bound to uphold the Law, and do Good. How to interpret that, I leave to you - but you should know that the worst thing that can possibly happen to a paladin is that he turns from white, to grey, or black. The grey paladins are shunned by the white, and by good people everywhere. They are seen as failures, outcasts, weak and fallible creatures who could not hold their oath. The black ... well, let's not even get started on the black. A truly fallen paladin is shunned by everyone, and is only really safe among monsters. If that can be considered 'safe'.

In other words: I'd never strip a paladin of his powers (or her for that matter). Instead, I'd rebrand them - change Smite Evil to Smite Good, and so on. And have their armor turn grey. And their Holy Steed to grow horns (or whatever flavor suits and seems cool).

[NichG]

Being tormented by their code, tested by their deity, or driven to make symbolic sacrifices aren't the things that makes Paladins special. Rather, think of the Paladin as a symbol or leader who demonstrates a way of life to those around them on behalf of their cause or deity. If you want to play up the character being special, create situations where their decisions cause the moral codes and behaviors of the NPCs around them to shift into alignment with their own because of something they have the chance to do which is just awesome or hardcore enough that people can't help but be swayed by them.

Trolley problems and ethical dilemmas are, IMO, more of a cleric thing - they're the academics of the faith. Paladins are manifest agents of the deity's will. They might fall because they deny or act to thwart that will, but (IMO) they should never fall because of trickery, honest mistakes, etc. Their role isn't to be tested, it's to lead by example and get stuff done. To put it another way, they might be publically seen to be tested because that could be very inspiring, but it doesn't serve the deity's interests to not slip them a cheat sheet about what they are supposed to do when things are murky.

Eventually, that may even turn into trust, where the deity will allow for the paladin's view 'on the ground' to determine what was the right choice when things were honestly murky. And at the epic range of things this could even become the right of the paladin to criticize their own deity for losing the path or making a bad decision - and being one of the few entities the deity might listen to.

[HoboKnight]

>Rather, think of the Paladin as a symbol or leader who demonstrates a way of life to those around them on behalf of their cause or deity.
So I just strip my PC of all his powers IMMEDIATELY? :D Kidding, but guy is really piggybacking on "I did some relevant stuff in the past".

[icefractal]

Well, this IS an answer, I guess ... But in my case not applicable. Hopefully some good ideas come up. :)

I'm going to have to ask - why is this not applicable? If it's because the player isn't really interested in having Paladin code conflicts, then don't do that.

Really, what is the benefit of spending time and energy on a sub-plot that the target player won't enjoy? You have all of the other characters and the entire world to work with instead - run something that both you and the players involved are enthusiastic about.

Because here's the thing - Paladins don't inherently need to have falling/sacrifices/dilemmas be a plot point, any more than a Fighter needs "is violence really the answer?" or a Bard needs "at what price fame?"

Those are all conflicts that can be interesting, but they're all optional and not what everybody is looking for. And as for "boons"? If you're referring to extra stuff you've added that's one thing, but the class features of a Paladin are just class feature, no stronger than what other classes get in anything from 3e forward.

[Babaji]

Put him in situations where the legal authorities are morally gray. Paladins have a much harder time when things aren't black and white.

NPCs like Marcone from the Dresden files make great allies/villains for Paladins. An NPC crime boss that controls his territory ruthlessly but keeps people safe can be great. If the Paladin takes him out there will be someone far worse that takes over. If he doesn't he's letting a villain continue to prey on society. Sometimes there are no good choices.

[denthor]

Hoboknight I take it you did not like my test. What was it you disliked?

[Mystral]

What "boons" do you get for being a paladin in your game outside of the class features?

[kyoryu]

Well, what's his code? What are the things that you think would make him fall?

One idea that comes to mind, just based on "Lawful Neutral" is to have Some Bad Thing (what does the character care about?) about to happen. This can be stopped, but you need a MacGuffin. Somebody lawfully and rightfully owns the MacGuffin and refuses to part with it for any price - or at least demands a price that is odious to the character. The NPC's security sucks, and stealing the MacGuffin is easy.

So does the player:

A) Steal the MacGuffin, stopping the Bad Thing, and avoiding the odious cost?
B) Pay the odious cost (servitude for some period of time? Sacrifice of ridiculous amounts of goods?), and prevent the Bad Thing?
C) Allow the Bad Thing to happen?

These aren't really lose lose scenarios if done right, to my mind. They're scenarios where the Paladin can't have everything, and must choose which things they value most. (Unless you define "lose lose" as a scenario where a character can't completely win and bypass all negative things).

[patchyman]

I'm going to have to ask - why is this not applicable? If it's because the player isn't really interested in having Paladin code conflicts, then don't do that.

Really, what is the benefit of spending time and energy on a sub-plot that the target player won't enjoy? You have all of the other characters and the entire world to work with instead - run something that both you and the players involved are enthusiastic about.

I wanted to second this point. You have limited time to play the game (once a week, once a month) may as well focus on the stuff people are interested in.

Also, if the player isn’t inspired by the tenets, the PHB provides that the player and the DM can come up with alternative tenets that the player will find more inspiring.

[prabe]

My feeling, if I want to present a difficult choice, is to put character/s in a position where they have to choose between competing goods. (In this case, with a LN character, maybe take "goods" broadly, here.) Choosing between which virtue they're going to exemplify, for instance, or which quest they're going to accept (in both instances, with it being clear that whatever they don't choose will be exemplified/pursued/verbed by another). Someone above mentioned avoiding lose-lose propositions, which do kinda suck, because they make the players feel a though they're choosing how they're going to lose (which bad thing will you allow to happen?); choosing between competing goods can (I'd say should) feel as though they're choosing how to win.

[kyoryu]

because they make the players feel a though they're choosing how they're going to lose (which bad thing will you allow to happen?); choosing between competing goods can (I'd say should) feel as though they're choosing how to win.

When possible I try to make it more framed like "how important is this to you, really?"

[prabe]

When possible I try to make it more framed like "how important is this to you, really?"

Oh, the literal framing of it may not be "How do you want to win?" but it's reasonable for the player (and/or the character) to feel that's the decision. "Which good outcome is more important to you?" is probably the generic form of the type of question I'm thinking of, anyway.

[HoboKnight]

Hoboknight I take it you did not like my test. What was it you disliked?

I like it, it's a novel idea. :)

As for ideas of not actually challenging my player this way - I understand your precautions, but catering to my players is really below me. Moreover, they really enjoy the game of challenges - on all levels. {Scrubbed}

[kyoryu]

Oh, the literal framing of it may not be "How do you want to win?" but it's reasonable for the player (and/or the character) to feel that's the decision. "Which good outcome is more important to you?" is probably the generic form of the type of question I'm thinking of, anyway.

Fair.

I'm also okay with "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?"

Your version is a subset of this (where the sacrificed thing is a "good outcome" that hasn't happened yet). But I think that it's also fine to have players sacrifice actual things they already have or take negative consequences to achieve something that they want. Obviously that has to be handled with a little more delicacy, though!

[prabe]

Fair.

I'm also okay with "what are you willing to sacrifice for this?"

Your version is a subset of this (where the sacrificed thing is a "good outcome" that hasn't happened yet). But I think that it's also fine to have players sacrifice actual things they already have or take negative consequences to achieve something that they want. Obviously that has to be handled with a little more delicacy, though!

Yeah, I think we're mostly agreeing, here. I'm fine with the PCs choosing to sacrifice something, or suffer a negative consequence, as something like a shortcut or a way to make a necessary victory more certain; I don't like it as much if it's a requirement. (Remembering my concern about interpreting a lesser-evil decision as "how do you want to lose?") Obviously tables and tastes differ.

[Jakinbandw]

Heyya, guys,

I have a player in my campaign, playing a paladin. This means a lot of boons, but also occasional test that enables him to keep his powers. Now, let me make a very clear exclaimer: I DO NOT WANT HIM TO FALL. No lose-lose scenarios, devilish trickery, nothing like that.

I'd like for Pally to sacrifice something each time.

Why? Why would you want to make it so that one character of the group is weaker than all the others? You might as well just tell the player not to play a paladin. Do you dislike the player? It's just easier to kick him from the game then to go out of your way to destroy their fun.