A Suggestion to Throw Paladin's a Bone [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Suggestion to Throw Paladin's a Bone [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Malcaor
06-30-07, 10:56 PM I have seen all over the boards cases where people are debating whether a paladin's actions were rigth or wrong, and whether they should be turned into a high level commoner until they can have atonement cast.

To me this seems a bit rules lawyer-ish. Just because it says that the Paladin must follow his Code, it doesn't say that every action the Paladin takes must be picked apart for any infringement.

The way this should work, is that if the Paladin is doing what he considers to be the right course of action, he is doing the proper thing. This just makes the game funner for Paladins.

Without having to slow down the game every few minutes for the Paladin to double check his actions, he can act the 'holy zealot' and have a blast like everyone else.

The only time when a Paladin should fall is when there are no doubts what-so-ever what he did was wrong.

For example: The Paladin sneaks into the armory and steals the Guard Captain's magic sword (though probably after the game to keep thigns flowing). This is definetly evil, and the Paladin should fall, becuase it is being done for selfesh reasons, and doesn't help anyone.

This time, same scenario, except instead of stealing the sword from the Guard Captain for his own needs, the Paladin steals it becuase it is a Demon Weapon possessing the Captain. Now there is doubt on whether this is evil or not. The Paladin, in This case, is trying to help the Captain, and anyone he might accidently hurt.

Now another problem that often occurs, is the bait & fall technique. Using the same scenario as above, the Paladin takes the weapon to attempt to break the Demon's possession of the Guard Captain. However this was just bait, to make the Paladin fall. It isn;t really a Demon Weapon, it's a normal sword and the Paladin has been duped. This is just as bad as TPKing the party in their sleep. The Paladin did not do anything intentionally wrong. He was serving his code as best he could.

This is still room for the Paladin to commit wrong in this scenario. What if he decides to keep the non-demon sword for himself now that he already has it. That is now being seflish, and should result in him falling. What he does to make sure he is not commitng an evil deed is up to the player. The most obvious route is returning the sword and explaining why he stole it.

As a DM you should always talk to your Paladins about why they chose to do what they did. Even if ti appeared chaotic stupid in your eyes, they probably though they were being lawful good, just in a abstract way. This shoudl be okay, becuase in everyday life our actions don't always perfectly resemble our 'alignment' to those around us. That's how misundertsandings happen. In real life, misunderstandings are forgiven with little complication. Why should it be such a big deal in D&D?

*Note that the stealing the sword example is a chaoticly aligned acion, but I do not consider it against the Paladin code becuase of the way I use the alignment system, which is more lax then most DMs.

If anyone finds it necessary to understand my point, I will write a new example where the Paladin is being much more lawful.
Board_Rider
06-30-07, 11:47 PM Paladins are one of my favorite classes and, unlike almost any other class, should begin play with a conversation with the Player and DM taking place beforehand.

I have gamed was some extremely flexible DMs, others, not so much.

When I DM it comes down to intent and plot progression. I rarely, if ever, bait players on a fools errand unless it furthers he overall story arc. Secondly, when I do introduce morale situations for Paladin roleplaying purposes there is a reason behind it.

It simply all comes down to communication and intent.
Kouk
07-01-07, 12:24 AM The majority of the time I think most people do factor in intent even when they perhaps "shouldn't" by default. It just makes it smoother and with less arguments.

The problem is, you can rationalize or justify anything with enough effort. Part of the simplification of good vs. evil is that some things, no matter what, are just either good or evil. If killing a normal human baby is the only way to prevent the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world - you still have to Atone for killing the baby because that is "universally" evil despite your intent.

Many DMs don't play with "universal" good vs. evil, and that is fine. They probably don't really have problems with Paladins falling if all that is considered is intent.

Keep in mind, that a fallen Paladin is not a "high level commoner" but is exactly the same as a "Warrior", which is still technically just one CR below what he would be worth to fight as a Paladin (not quite equal, but that's the CR). Atonement for an involuntarily evil act costs no XP or anything, it is just an inconvenience to find a cleric to cast it for you. You might also have to pay I suppose, if your clergymen are being a**holes.
Dragonsblood
07-01-07, 01:00 AM Minor point of contention; theft, especially from someone reasonably wealthy like a guard captain, is not evil. It's chaotic, and it is wrong, but definitely not evil.

Hypothetical example aside, I agree with your main point. It's better to give the paladin the benefit of the doubt because we're playing a game and it's more fun to play a paladin instead of a fighter without the bonus feats. Sadly though, the type of DMs who need this advice probably aren't going to read your post.
Malcaor
07-01-07, 01:01 AM The problem is, you can rationalize or justify anything with enough effort. Part of the simplification of good vs. evil is that some things, no matter what, are just either good or evil. If killing a normal human baby is the only way to prevent the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world - you still have to Atone for killing the baby because that is "universally" evil despite your intent.

My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless!

The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good!
Malcaor
07-01-07, 01:03 AM Minor point of contention; theft, especially from someone reasonably wealthy like a guard captain, is not evil. It's chaotic, and it is wrong, but definitely not evil.

Again this is a matter of intent. Stealing the Guard Captains sword becuase you don't like him, or for a mean spirited joke is chaotic becuase you are breakign laws. Stealing the sword for personal gains is being selfish and is how I defien evil. This is a complicated situation and could easily be chaotic, or evil, or both.
Prince_of_Parkness
07-01-07, 01:02 PM My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless!

The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good!

And heres were it gets complicated: If the child is inocent, but needed in a sacrifice: what does the paladfin do? Which is the selfish and selfless act?
1st point: If he kills the baby, he was saving himself at the price an innocent life. He's selfish.
2nd: If he doesnt kill the child, hes trusting his own powers to stop the power of evil and is risking others lives just because hes scared to break his code. Hes selfish.

2nd point: If he kills the baby, he has gona against his code, saving many and not caruing about the consequences he will face because of it. Hes selfless.
If he leaves the baby alieve, hes proved he wont let an innocent die and will face evil risking his life, not take the easy way out. Hes selfless.

Ultimatly, when your a paladin, all you can do is pray u hav a decent DM.
Stormbrand
07-01-07, 01:07 PM In my experience, DMs will either want paladins to be feasible or will want them to be failures who lose their powers due to no-win situations.

Morally ambiguous events should be used to generate more interesting roleplaying, not a way to cost a character his class abilities.

Or there are those who have their own personal concept of a moral exemplar and decide that a paladin must conform to every single aspect of that, regardless of the fact that these concepts are usually arbitrary and nothing to do with morals.

Common danger zones are mistaking 'respect legitimate authority' with 'slavishly obey all authority even when committing atrocities.' Another is to forbid almost all killing if there is anything sympathetic about the attacker.

Generally, a well-played paladin does not need to be policed by his DM to try and correct mistakes. Falling should almost never be an issue. Although that is at an ideal gaming table.
Paladin_Hiroshi
07-01-07, 07:15 PM My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless!

The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good!

WHAT!??

I'm a paladin player, and I'm afriad killing a baby isn't selfless, it's selfish!

Can't you deal with it a better way? A paladin should be there to throw back the daemon horde with his party! Or to sacrifice himself to save the child! A paladin is lawful and good, he is the opposite of the phrase 'the end justifies the means'. For the paladin the means is very very important!
aelryinth
07-01-07, 08:19 PM Damien was never innocent, and was always Evil. Killing him would of course be a Good thing...they even have the Unholy Spawn template for things that are simply Born Evil, and a Paladin would of neccessity have to kill them if he discovered them.

As for the sword...stealing a magic sword from an enemy is denying the enemy resources, no different then torching his supply train, freeing his slaves, letting his horses out, or likewise. It's a bit unorthodox for the Paladin to be undertaking such actions, because that's not where his skills lie, but it's certainly possible. the difference between him and the rogue is the Paladin, if caught, will cheerfully admit he stole or is stealing it, throwing off stealth to fight the good fight. the rogue will cheerfully lie, cover it up, or run...probably with the sword the paladin handed off to him to make sure it was kept out of the hands of the enemy while he delays them.

===Aelryinth
Amon_WinterfallIV
07-01-07, 09:32 PM A friend of mine had this great idea about paladins:

Paladins represent the Force of Good.
The Force of Good is forgiveness, mercy, altruism and charity.

The Force of Good should not drop Paladins if they remain LG and determined to uphold their code. Also, the force of good would be understanding in a ridiculous situation--if there is no way for a Solar Daeva not to cause some harm (Ie, kill the baby and lose the town examples), the Paladin will not fall either.

THe Force of Good has only two reasons to drop a paladin:
1. Alignment changes
2. Deliberate and Avoidable Acts of Evil.

IF there is a gray area, the Force of Good would err on the side of mercy, not the side of cruelty. So, Paladin falls should be deliberate and they should be rare. Note also that gods might try talking or sending a messenger before they pull out his powers.

Also, consider that if the Paladin falls, he has a lot to gain and very little to lose by becoming a Blackguard. The Force of Good can not want this either...
Vharuck
07-01-07, 09:56 PM I have two things to say:

If you give an example situation or are responding to an example situation, be aware that D&D's advantage over video games is the freedom of choice you have. Do not make up or even bother responding to situations where you "have to kill a baby to stop the evil, nothing else can do it." I can write stupid situations too, and frankly you have problems bigger than the paladin's code with that game. There you need to find a new DM.

Second, sometimes the most practical choice isn't the moral choice. Imagine that: being good all the time is hard.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Malcaor 06-30-07, 10:56 PM	I have seen all over the boards cases where people are debating whether a paladin's actions were rigth or wrong, and whether they should be turned into a high level commoner until they can have atonement cast. To me this seems a bit rules lawyer-ish. Just because it says that the Paladin must follow his Code, it doesn't say that every action the Paladin takes must be picked apart for any infringement. The way this should work, is that if the Paladin is doing what he considers to be the right course of action, he is doing the proper thing. This just makes the game funner for Paladins. Without having to slow down the game every few minutes for the Paladin to double check his actions, he can act the 'holy zealot' and have a blast like everyone else. The only time when a Paladin should fall is when there are no doubts what-so-ever what he did was wrong. For example: The Paladin sneaks into the armory and steals the Guard Captain's magic sword (though probably after the game to keep thigns flowing). This is definetly evil, and the Paladin should fall, becuase it is being done for selfesh reasons, and doesn't help anyone. This time, same scenario, except instead of stealing the sword from the Guard Captain for his own needs, the Paladin steals it becuase it is a Demon Weapon possessing the Captain. Now there is doubt on whether this is evil or not. The Paladin, in This case, is trying to help the Captain, and anyone he might accidently hurt. Now another problem that often occurs, is the bait & fall technique. Using the same scenario as above, the Paladin takes the weapon to attempt to break the Demon's possession of the Guard Captain. However this was just bait, to make the Paladin fall. It isn;t really a Demon Weapon, it's a normal sword and the Paladin has been duped. This is just as bad as TPKing the party in their sleep. The Paladin did not do anything intentionally wrong. He was serving his code as best he could. This is still room for the Paladin to commit wrong in this scenario. What if he decides to keep the non-demon sword for himself now that he already has it. That is now being seflish, and should result in him falling. What he does to make sure he is not commitng an evil deed is up to the player. The most obvious route is returning the sword and explaining why he stole it. As a DM you should always talk to your Paladins about why they chose to do what they did. Even if ti appeared chaotic stupid in your eyes, they probably though they were being lawful good, just in a abstract way. This shoudl be okay, becuase in everyday life our actions don't always perfectly resemble our 'alignment' to those around us. That's how misundertsandings happen. In real life, misunderstandings are forgiven with little complication. Why should it be such a big deal in D&D? *Note that the stealing the sword example is a chaoticly aligned acion, but I do not consider it against the Paladin code becuase of the way I use the alignment system, which is more lax then most DMs. If anyone finds it necessary to understand my point, I will write a new example where the Paladin is being much more lawful.
Board_Rider 06-30-07, 11:47 PM	Paladins are one of my favorite classes and, unlike almost any other class, should begin play with a conversation with the Player and DM taking place beforehand. I have gamed was some extremely flexible DMs, others, not so much. When I DM it comes down to intent and plot progression. I rarely, if ever, bait players on a fools errand unless it furthers he overall story arc. Secondly, when I do introduce morale situations for Paladin roleplaying purposes there is a reason behind it. It simply all comes down to communication and intent.
Kouk 07-01-07, 12:24 AM	The majority of the time I think most people do factor in intent even when they perhaps "shouldn't" by default. It just makes it smoother and with less arguments. The problem is, you can rationalize or justify anything with enough effort. Part of the simplification of good vs. evil is that some things, no matter what, are just either good or evil. If killing a normal human baby is the only way to prevent the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world - you still have to Atone for killing the baby because that is "universally" evil despite your intent. Many DMs don't play with "universal" good vs. evil, and that is fine. They probably don't really have problems with Paladins falling if all that is considered is intent. Keep in mind, that a fallen Paladin is not a "high level commoner" but is exactly the same as a "Warrior", which is still technically just one CR below what he would be worth to fight as a Paladin (not quite equal, but that's the CR). Atonement for an involuntarily evil act costs no XP or anything, it is just an inconvenience to find a cleric to cast it for you. You might also have to pay I suppose, if your clergymen are being a**holes.
Dragonsblood 07-01-07, 01:00 AM	Minor point of contention; theft, especially from someone reasonably wealthy like a guard captain, is not evil. It's chaotic, and it is wrong, but definitely not evil. Hypothetical example aside, I agree with your main point. It's better to give the paladin the benefit of the doubt because we're playing a game and it's more fun to play a paladin instead of a fighter without the bonus feats. Sadly though, the type of DMs who need this advice probably aren't going to read your post.
Malcaor 07-01-07, 01:01 AM	The problem is, you can rationalize or justify anything with enough effort. Part of the simplification of good vs. evil is that some things, no matter what, are just either good or evil. If killing a normal human baby is the only way to prevent the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world - you still have to Atone for killing the baby because that is "universally" evil despite your intent. My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless! The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good!
Malcaor 07-01-07, 01:03 AM	Minor point of contention; theft, especially from someone reasonably wealthy like a guard captain, is not evil. It's chaotic, and it is wrong, but definitely not evil. Again this is a matter of intent. Stealing the Guard Captains sword becuase you don't like him, or for a mean spirited joke is chaotic becuase you are breakign laws. Stealing the sword for personal gains is being selfish and is how I defien evil. This is a complicated situation and could easily be chaotic, or evil, or both.
Prince_of_Parkness 07-01-07, 01:02 PM	My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless! The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good! And heres were it gets complicated: If the child is inocent, but needed in a sacrifice: what does the paladfin do? Which is the selfish and selfless act? 1st point: If he kills the baby, he was saving himself at the price an innocent life. He's selfish. 2nd: If he doesnt kill the child, hes trusting his own powers to stop the power of evil and is risking others lives just because hes scared to break his code. Hes selfish. 2nd point: If he kills the baby, he has gona against his code, saving many and not caruing about the consequences he will face because of it. Hes selfless. If he leaves the baby alieve, hes proved he wont let an innocent die and will face evil risking his life, not take the easy way out. Hes selfless. Ultimatly, when your a paladin, all you can do is pray u hav a decent DM.
Stormbrand 07-01-07, 01:07 PM	In my experience, DMs will either want paladins to be feasible or will want them to be failures who lose their powers due to no-win situations. Morally ambiguous events should be used to generate more interesting roleplaying, not a way to cost a character his class abilities. Or there are those who have their own personal concept of a moral exemplar and decide that a paladin must conform to every single aspect of that, regardless of the fact that these concepts are usually arbitrary and nothing to do with morals. Common danger zones are mistaking 'respect legitimate authority' with 'slavishly obey all authority even when committing atrocities.' Another is to forbid almost all killing if there is anything sympathetic about the attacker. Generally, a well-played paladin does not need to be policed by his DM to try and correct mistakes. Falling should almost never be an issue. Although that is at an ideal gaming table.
Paladin_Hiroshi 07-01-07, 07:15 PM	My argument is that, how does preventing the ultimate evil from being unleashed on the world violate the code? One of the main differences between good and evil is the difference between selfless and selfish. Killing a baby to stop the ultimate evil is definetly selfless! The thing is, that a universal evil is only universal if the variables do not change. Killing a baby = evil, killing damien = good! WHAT!?? I'm a paladin player, and I'm afriad killing a baby isn't selfless, it's selfish! Can't you deal with it a better way? A paladin should be there to throw back the daemon horde with his party! Or to sacrifice himself to save the child! A paladin is lawful and good, he is the opposite of the phrase 'the end justifies the means'. For the paladin the means is very very important!
aelryinth 07-01-07, 08:19 PM	Damien was never innocent, and was always Evil. Killing him would of course be a Good thing...they even have the Unholy Spawn template for things that are simply Born Evil, and a Paladin would of neccessity have to kill them if he discovered them. As for the sword...stealing a magic sword from an enemy is denying the enemy resources, no different then torching his supply train, freeing his slaves, letting his horses out, or likewise. It's a bit unorthodox for the Paladin to be undertaking such actions, because that's not where his skills lie, but it's certainly possible. the difference between him and the rogue is the Paladin, if caught, will cheerfully admit he stole or is stealing it, throwing off stealth to fight the good fight. the rogue will cheerfully lie, cover it up, or run...probably with the sword the paladin handed off to him to make sure it was kept out of the hands of the enemy while he delays them. ===Aelryinth
Amon_WinterfallIV 07-01-07, 09:32 PM	A friend of mine had this great idea about paladins: Paladins represent the Force of Good. The Force of Good is forgiveness, mercy, altruism and charity. The Force of Good should not drop Paladins if they remain LG and determined to uphold their code. Also, the force of good would be understanding in a ridiculous situation--if there is no way for a Solar Daeva not to cause some harm (Ie, kill the baby and lose the town examples), the Paladin will not fall either. THe Force of Good has only two reasons to drop a paladin: 1. Alignment changes 2. Deliberate and Avoidable Acts of Evil. IF there is a gray area, the Force of Good would err on the side of mercy, not the side of cruelty. So, Paladin falls should be deliberate and they should be rare. Note also that gods might try talking or sending a messenger before they pull out his powers. Also, consider that if the Paladin falls, he has a lot to gain and very little to lose by becoming a Blackguard. The Force of Good can not want this either...
Vharuck 07-01-07, 09:56 PM	I have two things to say: If you give an example situation or are responding to an example situation, be aware that D&D's advantage over video games is the freedom of choice you have. Do not make up or even bother responding to situations where you "have to kill a baby to stop the evil, nothing else can do it." I can write stupid situations too, and frankly you have problems bigger than the paladin's code with that game. There you need to find a new DM. Second, sometimes the most practical choice isn't the moral choice. Imagine that: being good all the time is hard.