Not another gotcha paladin situation

[Conradine]

I was thinking...

A level 35 maximized spellcaster casts Dominate Person on a level 1 paladin and makes him kill an innocent. The paladin falls.

A level 30 Fire Giant with uber strenght grab a paladin for the wrist and uses the armored paladin hand to kill an innocent. The paladin do not fall.


Why?
In both situations the paladin had zero chances of opposing the action. Why the first is considered an evil - albeit minor evil - action and the second is not?

[Buufreak]

See, the title says specifically its not, and yet here we are.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

See, the title says specifically its not, and yet here we are.

This is what someone says when they facepalm.

"Not another one!"

[Gruftzwerg]

I was thinking...

A level 35 maximized spellcaster casts Dominate Person on a level 1 paladin and makes him kill an innocent. The paladin falls.

A level 30 Fire Giant with uber strenght grab a paladin for the wrist and uses the armored paladin hand to kill an innocent. The paladin do not fall.


Why?
In both situations the paladin had zero chances of opposing the action. Why the first is considered an evil - albeit minor evil - action and the second is not?

Because in the first scenario the paladin did spend an action to do the evil act, while in the 2nd example it was the Fire Giant's action. that simple. 3.5 alignment system doesn't ask if you have done it voluntary/ free willing/ knowing the consequences. It just ask if you have done "it" or someone else. And in the first scenario the Paladin did "it".

[Darg]

Why would the first option make the paladin fall? Because the order is "obviously self destructive" and if it wasn't the paladin was actually an ex-paladin.

Because in the first scenario the paladin did spend an action to do the evil act, while in the 2nd example it was the Fire Giant's action. that simple. 3.5 alignment system doesn't ask if you have done it voluntary/ free willing/ knowing the consequences. It just ask if you have done "it" or someone else. And in the first scenario the Paladin did "it".

A Paladin's CoC requires it to be a willful act for the paladin to violate it. It isn't a willful act if the paladin didn't choose to do it.

[tyckspoon]

Why would the first option make the paladin fall? Because the order is "obviously self destructive" and if it wasn't the paladin was actually an ex-paladin.

I tend to take a narrow interpretation of things like 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature', because if you allow them too broadly then Dominate basically just doesn't do anything ever for anybody, so I disagree with this. (The example order would be against the Paladin's nature, but I assume the extreme disparity between the Paladin and the Evil Wizard that is trying to make the Paladin fall for his own amusement is there to make it extremely unlikely that the Paladin can succeed the second save.)

A Paladin's CoC requires it to be a willful act for the paladin to violate it. It isn't a willful act if the paladin didn't choose to do it.

This, however, is true. The Paladin does not fall in either of these cases, because he is not the one responsible for the evil act in either case. Being physically or magically compelled into the action absolves the Paladin - it's why most of these attempts to force a Paladin into falling leave the hapless Paladin with their free will and try to present a lesser-of-two-evils choice with no obvious Third Option escape.

[Darg]

I tend to take a narrow interpretation of things like 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature', because if you allow them too broadly then Dominate basically just doesn't do anything ever for anybody, so I disagree with this. (The example order would be against the Paladin's nature, but I assume the extreme disparity between the Paladin and the Evil Wizard that is trying to make the Paladin fall for his own amusement is there to make it extremely unlikely that the Paladin can succeed the second save.)

The point I was making is that if the action would make the paladin fall it would fall under the "obviously self destructive" clause. Losing class features and the favor of your God is worse than cutting off your own hand to paladins. I would think that the higher expected level of conduct central to ones way of life would present a much higher difficulty in the ability to control.

This, however, is true. The Paladin does not fall in either of these cases, because he is not the one responsible for the evil act in either case. Being physically or magically compelled into the action absolves the Paladin - it's why most of these attempts to force a Paladin into falling leave the hapless Paladin with their free will and try to present a lesser-of-two-evils choice with no obvious Third Option escape.

How would this work? Dominate only provides for compulsion and orders. Ordering them to make a choice is still compulsion. They do have some protection. If their CoC compels them to make a choice that leaves another impossible, then by virtue of that choice they do not willfully not make the other choice as they had to follow their CoC. If at any time it's obvious the order directly leads you into a self destructive situation then it triggers the clause.

[137beth]

I'm away from my books, but assuming d20srd.org is accurate, the Paladin Code says

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

(Emphasis mine).
Being dominated is not willing, so I'd say the paladin doesn't fall in either case in the OP.


And, personally, I house-rule that a paladin falls if and only if the paladin's player wants them to fall. And since the existence of players is meta-knowledge that in-game characters don't have, any "make the paladin fall" gotchas that rely on the paladin having meta-knowledge of this rule don't work.

[Bovine Colonel]

I find it telling that OP posts scenarios about paladins falling without actually reading the rules about paladins falling.

[vasilidor]

I find it telling that OP posts scenarios about paladins falling without actually reading the rules about paladins falling.

generally, I see these after the DM they play under did the thing to their paladin.
wondering if that is the case now.

[SangoProduction]

That's not how paladin falls work.

But Heracles does present mythological precedent for arduous atonement for magically-induced madness.

[Segev]

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

[hamishspence]

In 3.0 and earlier, it was fall permanently for a willing evil act, fall temporarily (assuming the paladin does atone) for an unwilling or unwitting one.

3.5 made it possible to atone for willing evil acts.

But the phrasing of the ex-paladins section in the paladin's code, was the same.

It was the atonement spell that was phrased differently.

3.0 ex-paladins: page 43:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities, including the service of the paladin's warhorse. She regains her abilities if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 176), as appropriate.

3.0 Atonement: page 176:

Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to unwillingly or unwittingly committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell. Note: A paladin who willingly and deliberately commits an evil act may never regain her paladinhood.

3.5 ex-paladins: page 44-45:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all special abilities, (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She regains her abilities if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate.

3.5 Atonement: page 201-202:

Restore Class: A paladin who has lost her class features due to committing an evil act may have her paladinhood restored to her by this spell.


So - in both 3.0 and 3.5, the Paladin section of the rulebook only specified "willfully" - you needed to look up the atonement spell, to discover that you could fall for unwilling evil acts.

[Conradine]

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

This is, by far, the best and most logical answer I ever got.

[hamishspence]

I said something along those lines a long time back:

Sample reason for powers being lost if compelled to do evil: because if they weren't lost, we'd have an example of powers of good being used to further the cause of evil.

Or:

A paladin is a weapon with a safeguard: when used against those he serves, his powers cease to function.

[Batcathat]

The idea of a paladin losing their powers as a safety measure makes sense but, to me at least, having to atone in order to restore them doesn't. If the paladin fell for reasons beyond their control (such as being dominated) why would they have to jump through hoops in order to turn the power back on? I guess some deities could feel something along the lines of "if you lost the car keys you have to work before I give you a new car" but hardly all of them.

[hamishspence]

Makes more sense in the context of the spell than of actions.

Because there's no XP cost to the caster if the actions were committed under compulsion, the caster has no reason to make you jump through hoops to justify them expending XP on you - because, they aren't having to expend XP.

Basically the caster is "reopening the link through which power is gained" which was originally closed.

[Saint-Just]

I concur. If you buy a "safeguard" explanation and make paladin lose powers for unwilling or unwitting evil acts, then using atonement to restore the link makes sense. If powers are lost and not suspended then god is unlikely to have easy access to the paladin's state. Fuses need to be replaced or at least manually turned in once they have activated. Because it doesn't cost XP anyone sympathetic to the paladin's cause is unlikely to demand significant concessions.

[Darg]

But Heracles does present mythological precedent for arduous atonement for magically-induced madness.

You have to understand their mindset at the time. They believed that the mind (soul) and body were one and the same. You can't have one without the other. Therefore if one does something then the other is also culpable.

Well, at least we know how a paladin king can exist in D&D: 24/7 Atonement service. Using the relative evil variant makes it much more of a possibility.

I concur. If you buy a "safeguard" explanation and make paladin lose powers for unwilling or unwitting evil acts, then using atonement to restore the link makes sense. If powers are lost and not suspended then god is unlikely to have easy access to the paladin's state. Fuses need to be replaced or at least manually turned in once they have activated. Because it doesn't cost XP anyone sympathetic to the paladin's cause is unlikely to demand significant concessions.

I think it's pretty hamfisted to require a specific spell for a class that could lose their power at a drop of a hat. It makes much more sense for it to be a lot tougher for a paladin to fall than what people make it out to be. Even the BoVD accepts the fact of reality that there are grey areas that can't simply be termed good or evil. BoED Makes it so that it's impossible for a paladin to function without losing access to their abilities simply walking around a corner. It never even defines a situation in which a "lesser of two evils" exists that a choice had to be made. Take for example walking into the room with 2 buttons. The BBEG on loud speaker says that each button destroys one city and kills all the inhabitants. Do nothing and both cities are doomed. The evil act was already committed. Mitigating losses is not an evil act, but a paladin wouldn't believe the words of evil that could lie and move on. If the BBEG's words rang true then the paladin never committed an evil act.

[Saint-Just]

I think it's pretty hamfisted to require a specific spell for a class that could lose their power at a drop of a hat. It makes much more sense for it to be a lot tougher for a paladin to fall than what people make it out to be. Even the BoVD accepts the fact of reality that there are grey areas that can't simply be termed good or evil. BoED Makes it so that it's impossible for a paladin to function without losing access to their abilities simply walking around a corner. It never even defines a situation in which a "lesser of two evils" exists that a choice had to be made. Take for example walking into the room with 2 buttons. The BBEG on loud speaker says that each button destroys one city and kills all the inhabitants. Do nothing and both cities are doomed. The evil act was already committed. Mitigating losses is not an evil act, but a paladin wouldn't believe the words of evil that could lie and move on. If the BBEG's words rang true then the paladin never committed an evil act.

I said "If you buy the "safeguard" explanation". I am entirely not sure that a paladin is supposed to fail for unwilling evil (or, rather I am almost 100% sure that examples from the different books (and possibly different parts from the same book, like with PHB's CoC and Atonement spell) contradict each other and DM have no choice but to ignore at least some of them).

I am not sure where you go with your two buttons\trolley dilemma example. It seems to me that D&D morality in general and Exalted and Paladin morality specifically has always been presented as deontological (rule-based) and not utilitarian, so yes, you are supposed to let both cities perish. It's not like people IRL have not seriously and arduously argued for inaction in trolley problems.

[Conradine]

The Joker created a textbook example of gotcha-paladin situation with those two boats rigged with explosives.

[D+1]

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.

Nope. 1E states, for example, that a paladin falls if they "knowingly perform a chaotic act" they lose their powers but may atone, and if they "knowingly and willingly do evil" then they fall and can't get back up. However, because 1E in particular has some contradictory bits of advice, rules, and examples (including the suggestion under rules regarding lycanthropy that becoming a werewolf - even if not desired in any way by the paladin - is grounds for them to lose their status), then it is possible for a DM to attempt to be a jerk and claim otherwise. This, then, has been happening in contradiction to the class description in the PH as well as contradicting good sense and fair play, ever since. 3.5 says that, "A paladin who ceases to be LG, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct" loses their powers but may atone. So, any circumstance which removes the paladin's free will and magically forces them to do things they would otherwise NEVER choose to do, cannot be considered in any way a willful or knowing act that the character themselves INTENDED to do, and can't reasonably cause them to fall.

It's never been a thing that paladins can accidentally and/or UNwillingly do wrong and thus fall. This has only been inferred from rules that didn't directly deal with alignment or paladins but that deal with OTHER aspects of the game (and which were simply a result of failure of proper editing to correct the contradictions they introduce), or were instituted whole-cloth by DM's who insisted on FORCING paladins to fall whenever wanted to. (See also "Orc Babies").

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

Nope. This sort of nonsense with paladins has ALWAYS been a matter of A) bad rules editing in the case of 1E in particular, B) a matter of DM's being obnoxious jerks, and to some extent C) writers of supplement rules books who took it upon themselves to redefine the paladin class and the rules that govern their conduct.

[lylsyly]

The Joker created a textbook example of gotcha-paladin situation with those two boats rigged with explosives.

Neither of which Batman (the Paladin) was in a position to save!!! If you hate paladins so much then don't play them/allow them in your game.

[Clementx]

Back to the OP, a paladin doesn't fall for either because neither are willing. But if the paladin willingly chooses to ignore what happened, because they got off on the letter on the Code, then they would fall. They have a responsibility to oppose evil. The second the spell wears off, they need to make amends, attempt to bring the caster to justice, or make some other RP effort to acknowledge that their weakness (failing the save) made the world worse.

So this situation is the start of a paladin's training/depression montage, not a fall from grace unless the player willingly chooses to ignore the events.

[Batcathat]

I concur. If you buy a "safeguard" explanation and make paladin lose powers for unwilling or unwitting evil acts, then using atonement to restore the link makes sense. If powers are lost and not suspended then god is unlikely to have easy access to the paladin's state. Fuses need to be replaced or at least manually turned in once they have activated. Because it doesn't cost XP anyone sympathetic to the paladin's cause is unlikely to demand significant concessions.

I guess. Though I still think it's weird that a paladin who only lost their power as a safety measure — rather than because something they did — would need outside help (which may or may not be readily available) to restore it. Wouldn't something like having to pray/meditate for a while make more sense in the situation? Is there anything supporting a "technical" reason like the god not having access to turn the paladin's powers back on? To me, a paladin falling to stop their powers being used against their god's wishes reads more like "flipping an off switch" than "burning out a fuse".

[Morty]

This is, by far, the best and most logical answer I ever got.

Do you plan to address the fact that the paladin wouldn't fall in either of those scenarios?

[Conradine]

Do you plan to address the fact that the paladin wouldn't fall in either of those scenarios?

Paladins always fall in my scenarios.

[liquidformat]

Why would the first option make the paladin fall? Because the order is "obviously self destructive" and if it wasn't the paladin was actually an ex-paladin.

I tend to take a narrow interpretation of things like 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature', because if you allow them too broadly then Dominate basically just doesn't do anything ever for anybody, so I disagree with this. (The example order would be against the Paladin's nature, but I assume the extreme disparity between the Paladin and the Evil Wizard that is trying to make the Paladin fall for his own amusement is there to make it extremely unlikely that the Paladin can succeed the second save.)

I think you two are confusing charm with dominate, charm causes the victim to view the caster as a trusted ally holding your words and actions in the most favorable way but not be controlled like an automaton, it does have language about 'obviously self destructive' or 'against the victims' nature'. On the other hand Dominate has no such language and the person is pretty much just a meat puppet that does exactly as you command as long as you share a common language even if you don't it does 'roughly' as you command the only caveat being it still performs basic functions like eating sleeping and going to the bathroom.

Interestingly for the broader conversation I agree that a dominated paladin shouldn't be subjected to falling on the other hand a paladin that has been charmed by a level 35 maximized spellcaster who also is setup to be able to convince the paladin to follow his orders would fall as he did 'willingly' follow said orders...

[gijoemike]

To the OP

Neither scenario is a fall scenario as no choice of the paladin was involved.

In General:

A paladin is a warrior that CHOOSES to uphold good and righteousness above all else. As long as the player chooses a good path they are fine.

Take the classic trolley car problem. You, and you alone are on a Trolley/Train/Tracked vehicle, and there is a fork in the track. Down one path is a single person tied up and down the current and only other path there are 2 or more people ( I normally see 5). You have the ability to do nothing and kill 5 people saving 1. Or diverting the trolley and saving 5 people but killing 1 by your action.

Many people consider this a paladin falls scenario. They are all wrong. The paladin is choosing to save someone no matter which choice is made. Sure people die. But at least one person is also saved. If there was a choice to derail the trolley then the pally needs to take that choice. But that is never given as a choice.

To the Joker and 2 boats full of people scenario...

Not in any way a pally falls scenario. The paladin cannot affect the outcome, thus there is no choice. It is a tense situation and then the paladin beats the living snot out of the Joker. Heck, if said paladin tries to rush to a boat and lets the Joker get away while both boats blow up, they are fine as they chose to try and save somebody.

Paladins and their falling hinges on the choice the paladin makes. If the paladin's hand is forced it isn't the choice of said paladin. A paladin falls when they lack the will to uphold the cause of good and right. The do not fall when they try but still fail. They are only mortal. This has been the way since 1e. 5e has strict code of conduct rules that actually muddy the waters.

[gijoemike]

In at least earlier editions - and I think 3.5, but I could be mistaken - it specifies that a paladin falls if he performs an evil act, even unwittingly. But doing it unwittingly allows for atonement.

It's possible that this is actually a safety measure: imagine the poor dominated paladin watching his holy powers being used to wreak havoc. He'd WANT his powers shut down to minimize the harm he could do! Because he had no desire to do it and was forced into it, he can seek out atonement and regain his powers once he's got his body and mind under his own control once more.

It is not a safety measure as almost all the powers of a paladin (depending on version of the game) only affect non-good persons. in 3.5 smite evil only worked on beings that were evil, which a paladin cannot adventure with anyway. Also, the ability to overcome the spell effect is saving throws which are bolstered by said powers. Having your powers fail at this moment is the worst thing. That is the concept of good and righteousness failing not the paladin. Failing a saving throw like that (doesn't change alignment) shouldn't strip you of your powers when they are needed the most.