Too good to be true: on losing powers by being too good

[Particle_Man]

I have heard far too many tales of paladins losing their powers due to evil actions. I have heard of a few rising from evil to become paladins (or become them again). Darth Vader comes to mind as a model for this.

But I have never heard of a Hexblade losing their powers after becoming good or (say) a LN incarnate losing their powers after becoming LG.

It may be a matter of it being easier to be too evil than to be too good, but has there been a case of this or even the risk of this (“uh oh, I have been too kind and merciful lately, I better snub that beggar and coldly walk past those needy orphans, just to be on the safe side)”?

The closest I can think of is a “redeemed fallen Paladin” but that is more regaining powers than becoming Joe Commoner.

[Crake]

It's probably because losing powers in such situations would take intentional work and intent from the player, wheras falling is much more often a "whoopsie" or a "gotcha!" moment.

[icefractal]

I'd say in most people's opinions, good and evil acts are not symmetrical.

Someone is a good person most of the time but every so often abuses someone and coerces them into silence about it - not really a good person.

Someone is an evil bastard most of the time but every so often donates toys to orphans, or rescues kittens from trees - still evil.

So it's a lot easier to "fall" from good than to "rise" from evil.

[sleepyphoenixx]

In my experience most players don't have to try to be evil, they just have to follow their instincts.

[Darg]

In my experience most players don't have to try to be evil, they just have to follow their instincts.

That and it's entirely DM fiat whether or not an action ends up being evil. It's not just the intent, but also the result has to be good too. The fact that there are paladins at all in the world of D&D with how strict acts of good have to be is mind blowing. It's one of those paradoxical things that just doesn't make sense because it's literally impossible not to fall if you take BoVD/ED as the standard.

[Gnaeus]

Remember that the Paladin also falls if he becomes NG or LN. Being average isn’t ok. The hexblade just has to not be good and he can always kick a beggar if he is worried about it.

There are also one stop alignment change From good or fall actions. The paladin is screwed if he sells one child into slavery. The Hexblade can endow that orphanage (because he was an orphan or to improve his reputation). It is pretty hard to contrive a situation in which a hexblade is forced to do so many good acts or such a huge act that his alignment shifts.

Consider the recent thread on mercy killing trapped innocents who are about to be enslaved, tortured, sacrificed or made into spawn. Without getting into the merits of that, I have difficulty imagining a corresponding trap in which a hexblade is forced to do something so good that it overcomes his nongood motives and makes him rise. Even your typical CE death cultist can become CN or NE without repercussions

[tyckspoon]

I have heard far too many tales of paladins losing their powers due to evil actions. I have heard of a few rising from evil to become paladins (or become them again). Darth Vader comes to mind as a model for this.

But I have never heard of a Hexblade losing their powers after becoming good or (say) a LN incarnate losing their powers after becoming LG.

Putting aside that there's no real strong reason for the Hexblade's alignment restriction to begin with..

The difference is that Paladins can lose their powers for a single action. Any Evil act -> no Paladin mojo. The Paladin can still be Good after, and most likely still is. (This is why most 'Does Paladin Fall?' hypotheticals are stressful situations that are built such that they offer no good or Good way out - they seek to force the Paladin to choose the lesser of evils, but not being able to see a Good choice doesn't make the Paladin Evil. It just means he needs to go find an Atonement spell to apologize for being made to do Evil.) Other alignment restrictions require actually completely changing alignment, which is a much, much more difficult thing to do, and is almost never something that will happen accidentally or as the result of a single act - it requires committing to a new pattern of behavior and habits, or performing something so egregiously out of tune with your previous alignment as to effectively announce that you are resigning your 'citizenship' with your old alignment.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I had a LE psion character who actually had empathy for children, animals, and those he was close (or occasionally attracted) to, but he was very aggressive and had an ego and sadistic streak a mile wide. He got a rush from tormenting beings who got on his nerves overmuch, and he had a rather skewed sense of what counted as "proportionate retribution." This tended to come out during fights, where he'd use battlefield control to prevent enemies from harming him or fleeing, then using lower level yet painful damage over time effects and laugh as they struggled to escape.

He was a bit of a curmudgeon, too, although you might never know it from some of his interactions with the local orphanage-slash-daycare, or due to the rather significant portion of the spoils he donated to the zoo he patronized (which also helped fund the orphanage).

He had a really crappy childhood due to the adults in his life tormenting him and his friends and siblings (and their beloved pets/guard animals), and so he tended to keep adults at arm's length. He wasn't entirely without empathy for adults, though, as showed by his softening towards the PCs and his dalliances with a few of the stablemen at the inn the party frequented. It just took awhile for adults to gain his trust, after which he was a stalwart and loyal friend (disturbing as he could be). Harm children or animals around him or betray his trust, though, and you would likely live quite a long time, regretting every minute of it.

So, yeah, his sadism and ego pushed him into LE territory; that didn't mean he couldn't be nice when it suited him.

If a paladin had his attitude, said paladin would fall in short order, no matter how nice to animals, children, friends, and lovers he might be.

[liquidformat]

I have heard far too many tales of paladins losing their powers due to evil actions. I have heard of a few rising from evil to become paladins (or become them again). Darth Vader comes to mind as a model for this.

But I have never heard of a Hexblade losing their powers after becoming good or (say) a LN incarnate losing their powers after becoming LG.

It may be a matter of it being easier to be too evil than to be too good, but has there been a case of this or even the risk of this (“uh oh, I have been too kind and merciful lately, I better snub that beggar and coldly walk past those needy orphans, just to be on the safe side)”?

The closest I can think of is a “redeemed fallen Paladin” but that is more regaining powers than becoming Joe Commoner.

A big difference is that the paladins have a code they must follow where as Hexblades and incarnates just of an alignment they like to stick to. Having a code in and of itself makes things much trickier.

I actually prefer to scrap the alignment requirement and switch paladins into religious fanatics that must have a god and stay within the alignments and doctrine of said god. That also makes the Blackguard and Gray Guard work a little better. Blackguard are now simply paladins that have fallen and no longer believe in their gods and Gray Guards are changed into more of the churches 'wet works' soldiers who are being given a religious 'pass' to perform needed tasks...

I'd say in most people's opinions, good and evil acts are not symmetrical.

Someone is a good person most of the time but every so often abuses someone and coerces them into silence about it - not really a good person.

Someone is an evil bastard most of the time but every so often donates toys to orphans, or rescues kittens from trees - still evil.

So it's a lot easier to "fall" from good than to "rise" from evil.

I think it is good to look at King Pin or other mobsters in literature, they have a public persona of a good guy philanthropist that gives money to charity, builds orphanages, and so on and so forth but it is all just a front to whitewash their evil empire of crime. All those 'good' acts do nothing to change their true alignment especially since those good acts are done for nefarious reasons.

[Quertus]

Shrug. That's why I write "evil" on my character sheet: so I can ignore alignment, and get back to role-playing my character's personality.

Most GMs don't bother having you "fall to grace", no matter how nice you act, or how often your morals put the party Paladin to shame.

[denthor]

I had a LE psion character who actually had empathy for children, animals, and those he was close (or occasionally attracted) to, but he was very aggressive and had an ego and sadistic streak a mile wide. He got a rush from tormenting beings who got on his nerves overmuch, and he had a rather skewed sense of what counted as "proportionate retribution." This tended to come out during fights, where he'd use battlefield control to prevent enemies from harming him or fleeing, then using lower level yet painful damage over time effects and laugh as they struggled to escape.

He was a bit of a curmudgeon, too, although you might never know it from some of his interactions with the local orphanage-slash-daycare, or due to the rather significant portion of the spoils he donated to the zoo he patronized (which also helped fund the orphanage).

He had a really crappy childhood due to the adults in his life tormenting him and his friends and siblings (and their beloved pets/guard animals), and so he tended to keep adults at arm's length. He wasn't entirely without empathy for adults, though, as showed by his softening towards the PCs and his dalliances with a few of the stablemen at the inn the party frequented. It just took awhile for adults to gain his trust, after which he was a stalwart and loyal friend (disturbing as he could be). Harm children or animals around him or betray his trust, though, and you would likely live quite a long time, regretting every minute of it.

So, yeah, his sadism and ego pushed him into LE territory; that didn't mean he couldn't be nice when it suited him.

If a paladin had his attitude, said paladin would fall in short order, no matter how nice to animals, children, friends, and lovers he might be.

I have a question here. If my mage would target an animal or child with a sleep spell do I get the wrath?

If I targeted an animal with animate rope say a pet wolf of an enemy. This ties and binds the target for a round per level but does not one hit point of damage. Am I now subject to retribution?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I have a question here. If my mage would target an animal or child with a sleep spell do I get the wrath?

If I targeted an animal with animate rope say a pet wolf of an enemy. This ties and binds the target for a round per level but does not one hit point of damage. Am I now subject to retribution?

Depends entirely on context. He wasn't entirely unreasonable. He might've jumped to conclusions, depending on how much info he was privy to, and he'd begrudgingly apologize and make amends if it turns out he read the situation wrong and you weren't doing anything bad.

He wasn't stupid, and he wasn't insane, either. He was a highly intelligent, borderline-sociopath with whole subscriptions' worth of issues that took pleasure in taking his frustrations and rage out on what he considered to be acceptable targets. If you casting sleep on some kids would lead to them being harmed (such as so you could capture them for slavery purposes, say), or you were going out into the wilds and using animate rope to torment animals for kicks (even if you didn't cause them any physical damage), then yeah, you'd be in for it for hitting his berserk buttons. But using sleep to put a baby down for a nap who was being exceptionally fussy, or tying a pack of wolves up so you could get away, or to relocate them to someplace safer, wouldn't particularly bother him.