First, a Paladin’s code is twofold. She is both good AND lawful. This means that if any act she commits is evil or against legitimate authority, she has broken her moral code and therefore must atone. Levels of atonement would certainly be considered by her deity and/or order, and should thus be considered by a DM, especially one confused as to whether or not the act demanded atonement in the first place. Stealing an apple, for example, to give to a hungry child would not be equivalent to killing innocents in cold blood. The latter would probably cause a total shift in alignment anyway, and not allow for atonement at all. It is this aspect of atonement that reasons and motivation should be applied to. An evil deed done for a good cause would not require as great or challenging a quest for atonement as an evil deed done for oneself. The same goes for an act against the law.
Motivation does not play a part in determining whether or not a Paladin loses her powers. In the player’s handbook, it says that no matter what the cause, what the reason, what the motivation, evil is evil, and an evil act is an evil act. The same goes for chaotic. Now, this does not mean that as a DM myself I take away a paladin’s powers for slight offenses, such as stealing a piece of fruit. However, I try not to let it get out of hand, and do require prayer to apologize for such an offense. Not quite an atonement, but punishment nonetheless. Most players, if playing a Paladin correctly, will require something of themselves for having broken, ever so slightly, their moral code.
So how does one tell if a Paladin should lose her power? First, ask if the Paladin has committed either an evil act or a chaotic act. Next, look at the severity of the act itself. Was it something minor, as stealing a piece of fruit, or was it severe as killing an innocent? After these two questions, one should know if the paladin should lose her powers. Killing an innocent should require atonement, stealing fruit should not. Next, after you have decided to make the Paladin atone, look at her motivations. Were they good? Were they lawful? Compare her motivations with the severity of the act to determine a difficulty of her atonement quest.
Obviously, this is not a black and white subject. There will still be confusing moments, and that is when the DM must decide what to do. In D&D, however, good and evil are black and white. There is no gray area like in real life. Whether a DM thinks this is correct or wrong is up to them to decide, and so this will not eliminate threads of “Should my Paladin have to atone?” However, I do hope that it will clear up some misconceptions about her code, the nature of good and evil in the D&D world, and make these threads the better for it.
NOTE: I have used the term chaotic here to say "going against legitimate authority"
I.E. lets say that a CN Bard has risen to power in a City. That bard could make/remove certain laws that he deemed too "good" inspired, in the interest of freedom. Maybe he legalized poison use in the city, which results in an open poison shop on the edge of town. Poison is an evil thing to use, so the Paladin goes to the poison shop and intimidates the shopkeep. Maybe he rallies a group together to run the guy out of town. This may be a good thing to do (get rid of the poison users), but certainly not in respect to the law. Instead, he should go through the normal legal means of attempting to change the law.
What do I mean by this? Put simply, a Paladin doesn't have to listen to a tyrannical Lawful Evil king, no matter how legitimate his reign. The Paladin's responsibility is to the Law of his Order, and no other. In fact, a Paladin can legitimately fight against his own king or even his own Order, if he believes they're violating the Code he holds sacred.
What is this Code? Obviously, it depends on the specific Order. It should obviously include the basic tenets of Lawful Goodness: don't murder, don't steal, don't kick puppies, etc. But it may also include more provincial codes. For example, a dwarven Order might believe that ranged weapons are cowardly, and thus forbid its practitioners from using bows. An elven Order, on the other hand, would likely have no such stricture.
Depending on the exigencies of the campaign world in question, these specific Codes can vary widely. To my mind, any DM with a Paladin in the party should sit down and actually write out the Code of that character's Order. Be complete, and be creative. If you feel like it, put in a few slightly odd provisos: forbid the Paladin from eating shellfish, or from touching a member of the opposite sex on Sundays, or whatever. Any unintentional violation of this Code requires penitence, but not necessarily any formal measures. Any intentional violation of that code, though, requires serious atonement (although not necessarily the full-blown spell-drive type). Prayer, self-flagellation, whatever.
The point is that the Paladin has accepted the commandments of his or her Order to be the highest Law, above and beyond the laws of man (and elf, and dwarf, and so on). Not only that, but Paladins see things in black and white: either something's a sin or it's not. If stealing is bad, stealing an apple for a poor kid is a sin, just like murder, and the Paladin must atone. No wishy-washy moral relativism is allowed. Good is good, law is law, and a Paladin can't ignore even the most trivial lapse. A good Paladin should be slightly unnerving to companions; he or she is a zealot, a reactionary, a fundamentalist. You don't make a career out of killing people in the name of your god without a little bit of that old-fashioned zeal.
NOTE: I have used the term chaotic here to say "going against legitimate authority"
And this is the problem. Surely, quite often, it is chaotic to go against laws of society. But, what chaos really is about, is doing things for individuals. A paladin (of order) always attempts to help most people. This includes not hurting others while doing it.
A paladin doing an evil act, no matter how minor, loses his powers. Stealing is not an evil act as long as the stealer benefits more than the one it was stolen from. For example, a beggar stealing from nobleman is not evil. It is chaotic, still. So a paladin shouldn't steal. It doesn't respect legitimate authority, usually. The goal of paladin is to help majority of weak people. Those not weak don't need help, but paladin places needs of most above needs of the few. Paladin acts too chaotically when he gets bogged down in saving every single individual needing or asking for help. Paladins should help those, too, but first and foremost the majority. Save the city before saving a village, if both are in equal risk.
Not only that, but Paladins see things in black and white: either something's a sin or it's not. If stealing is bad, stealing an apple for a poor kid is a sin, just like murder, and the Paladin must atone
mmm remember that paladin is still an human (elf, dwarf...) being. S/He can make mistake, and, maybe, goes a little against is code of conduct.
Only EXALTED paladins put steal an apple and a murder on the same plan.
It's your character! You and your DM should come to a reasonable understanding of what your "faith" entails (not necessarily connected to any deity of course). This should be happening no matter what, during character creation. If you are a paladin in an order those details can be even more well defined (oath and measure ala Solomnia). If you are aligned with a deity the choice becomes even more clear. Does the god want you to do what you are doing?
Also, from a formatting point of view, break you "steps" into bullets. Line by Line-ing things reinforces the "its easy" concept. "Look I can sum this up into a table/three sentences!"
As for the CN bard scenario, I find it highly improbable on several levels. First of all, just because a person is neutral rather than good, it does not follow that they will try to do away with or undermine good. While a chaotic neutral ruler will most likely seek to enhance civil liberties, the right to carry poison isn't likely to be high on the list. Also, remember that neutral, by and large, prefers good to evil. The CN character doesn't have the strict moral code or dedication to good that a LG or even CG character has, but he certainly won't want to make life harder for paladins and easier for assassins, all other things being equal.
As for running the shopkeeper out of town, I find it highly doubtful that that would be a "good" act in any sense of the word. On a pragmatic standpoint, it's likely to get the paladin in trouble with that freedom-loving CN bard, and undoubtedly another poison shop will spring up. But, secondly, committing crimes against a law-abiding citizen engaged in a legal but unpopular business is NOT a good act in all but the most extreme cases, generally is a society where the authorities themselves are corrupt, and thus enemies of the paladin.
The poison shopkeeper, if he does nothing worse than selling a legally available commodity to people permitted to possess it is no worse than neutral, and neither paladins nor nay other good character has the right to make trouble for neutral types on the grounds that they aren't sufficiently good.
This means that if any act she commits is evil or against legitimate authority, she has broken her moral code and therefore must atone.
According to the RAW, as now quoted from the SRD:
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
...emphasis by bold and italics are mine...
The only need for actual atonement is the performance of an evil act.
ADDITIONALLY a Paladin is required, by their code, to act as was then stated.
Swerving from this on occasion, unlike an evil act, is not enough to force an atonement to recover the good graces of whichever investing body grants the Paladin their powers.
The "moral code" is the Good side of the equation, the prescription against evil. Most of the rest of the code revolves around ethical (thus Law v Chaos) considerations.
The Paladial Code DOES need far more emphasis than it is given in most circumstances reported on these boards, but, and the but is vital here, it is NOT a straight jacket by which a DM can FORCE a Player to act in a manner that he or she alone deems appropriate. The DM is only half the equation. The player is the other half and while I too would like to see more attention payed to the lawful side of the Paladial whole, it should never be taken to the extreme that makes the class all but unplayable.
Isshia
Compared to the Monk for multi-class = no comparison. The monk has more special abilities than most demi-gods.
Compared to the Druid for "restrictive" philosophy = no comparison. The druid's code is so easy to live by, it will only occasionally come up with NPC's, and will almost never be in conflict with any adventuring party. The Paladin's code causes constant conflict with both NPC's and PC's (ironic, since she's supposed to be about order and helping people).
Compared to the Paladin and Druid and Monk for power = no comparison. From levels 7 to 20, the other 2 classes leave the Paladin far behind. A pittance of spells with a small spell list (20 total spell levels/points) hardly makes up for the Monk's 50 abilities gained and the Druid's incredible melee prowess as well as full spells.
In fact, the only thing the Paladin has to look forward to is the Paladin's best ability (it's a short list) of Smite Evil, which barely improves every 5 levels.
[The only other ability is additional uses of Remove Disease...which the Paladin herself is already immune to! By the time the Paladin has 3 uses of this, this ability is already inconsequential as it can be duplicated by a cleric spell or with a simple magic item, even a potion.]
There is virtually no reason* to stick with Paladin past 6 (or even past 3, for that matter). And there is absolutely no reason not to take a PrC as soon as it becomes available.
This is easily the worst-written/conceived class in the PHB. In 1st edition, it was a force to be reckoned with, and a serious class in 2nd edition, but in 3rd edition, it is barely even comparable to a plain old fighter.
*If you give RP as a reason, that's fine, but you don't need to be a Paladin to be L/G and use their code of conduct. Even a Rogue could do that...and be better at it.
I.E. lets say that a CN Bard has risen to power in a City. That bard could make/remove certain laws that he deemed too "good" inspired, in the interest of freedom. Maybe he legalized poison use in the city, which results in an open poison shop on the edge of town. Poison is an evil thing to use, so the Paladin goes to the poison shop and intimidates the shopkeep. Maybe he rallies a group together to run the guy out of town. This may be a good thing to do (get rid of the poison users), but certainly not in respect to the law. Instead, he should go through the normal legal means of attempting to change the law.
So what's wrong with a paladin going after the shopkeep?
In my view, the paladin would see the poison shop as being evil, something that is against life. The law supports its existence, so using legal means probably wouldn't easily get the law changed. She goes after the shopkeep.
The shopkeep isn't innocent. He knows what he sells, and will be seen as evil. Technically the shop isn't evil itself; it is a thing. It is however the manifestation of the shopkeep and his ideals. The shopkeep in this case is a legitimate target of the paladin.
So what's wrong with a paladin going after the shopkeep?
Legally wrong: going against shopkeeper with no reason. Wrong in the Evil sense: going after s probably neutral shopkeeper. Assuming going after means killing, this is even worse.
In my view, the paladin would see the poison shop as being evil, something that is against life. The law supports its existence, so using legal means probably wouldn't easily get the law changed. She goes after the shopkeep.
A stupid paladin (most of them) might. Than the paladin uses detect evil. Neutral shopkeeper. Granted, the shopkeeper can be evil, but that isn't because of what the shopkeeper does.
The shopkeep isn't innocent. He knows what he sells, and will be seen as evil. Technically the shop isn't evil itself; it is a thing. It is however the manifestation of the shopkeep and his ideals. The shopkeep in this case is a legitimate target of the paladin.
The shopkeeper knows that he will be seen as a shopkeeper, as evil as the local weaponsmith. Poison isn't evil, how hard can it be to understand?
BUT, while Paladin's DO have to respect "legitimate authority" and laws in any given national or even local setting are legitimate authority, their higher calling is to their adherence to Good.
The weapon CAN be evil in and of itself sometimes in D&D. Negative planar energy might or might not be, depending on how you interpret several (sometimes contradictory) passages from the RAW, but an Unholy Shortsword is ALWAYS evil in and of itself. So too is poison in D&D, if not in fact.
If there is a law in place in a certain locale that any who do not bow down before the icon of Mammon and sacrifice a slave child to it upon entering town, yet the Paladin MUST enter the town, then he is REQUIRED to abrogate his adherence to said law by his over riding deference to Good.
If the Paladin knows that he has little chance to see the law that allows the selling of poison changed, he may still act against said law. He may try to drive the seller out of business through social conventions. He may even try to destroy the stock. He must not assault the seller though simply on the basis that he is selling poison. The seller MIGHT be Neutral morally. He need not be evil to sell something that is evil. It will certainly harm his moral alignment, but THAT can be made up for in other ways. He likely will be Evil, but maybe not too.
The Paladin's moral code may well demand that he do something. What that something is though can NOT be evil in itself.
Isshia
This is easily the worst-written/conceived class in the PHB. In 1st edition, it was a force to be reckoned with, and a serious class in 2nd edition, but in 3rd edition, it is barely even comparable to a plain old fighter.
*If you give RP as a reason, that's fine, but you don't need to be a Paladin to be L/G and use their code of conduct. Even a Rogue could do that...and be better at it.
This is oh so very true. Fortunately, Jaerom Darkwind's Paladin solves every single gripe you have (and I used to have) with the paladin. You can find it in my sig
Poison use, in D&D, unless it is a part of the user (such as the natural poison of the Coatl), IS considered evil as per the way the RAW depicts it. Certain good classes, such as the Paladin are completely refused the ability to use it. Certain evil classes, such as the Assassin PrC have it as a Special Ability. Pretty clearly it IS considered evil as within the Core rules it represents a dichotomy.
BUT, while Paladin's DO have to respect "legitimate authority" and laws in any given national or even local setting are legitimate authority, their higher calling is to their adherence to Good.
The weapon CAN be evil in and of itself sometimes in D&D. Negative planar energy might or might not be, depending on how you interpret several (sometimes contradictory) passages from the RAW, but an Unholy Shortsword is ALWAYS evil in and of itself. So too is poison in D&D, if not in fact.
If there is a law in place in a certain locale that any who do not bow down before the icon of Mammon and sacrifice a slave child to it upon entering town, yet the Paladin MUST enter the town, then he is REQUIRED to abrogate his adherence to said law by his over riding deference to Good.
If the Paladin knows that he has little chance to see the law that allows the selling of poison changed, he may still act against said law. He may try to drive the seller out of business through social conventions. He may even try to destroy the stock. He must not assault the seller though simply on the basis that he is selling poison. The seller MIGHT be Neutral morally. He need not be evil to sell something that is evil. It will certainly harm his moral alignment, but THAT can be made up for in other ways. He likely will be Evil, but maybe not too.
The Paladin's moral code may well demand that he do something. What that something is though can NOT be evil in itself.
Isshia
This post says it all.
Poison use, in D&D, unless it is a part of the user (such as the natural poison of the Coatl), IS considered evil as per the way the RAW depicts it. Certain good classes, such as the Paladin are completely refused the ability to use it. Certain evil classes, such as the Assassin PrC have it as a Special Ability. Pretty clearly it IS considered evil as within the Core rules it represents a dichotomy.
To clear this up, let us check the SRD--
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them.
I think that is sufficient. Poisons are not evil. Evil only favours to use them, more than good, but that doesn't make the poison evil.
Using poison is evil, because?
a) "It is painful." So are fireballs. And acid arrows. And dagger stabs. And sneak attacks. Besides, where does it say that poison is painful?
b) "It can't be cancelled after used. Attacking can be stopped, poisons can't." Which is all well and good unless you note that a grand total of 1 poison in the book has any chance of killing someone. Most have pitiful DCs and don't deal constitution damage.
c) "It kills." It doesn't, usually.
d) "Evil likes to use it, paladins don't." Paladins don't use it because it is dishonourable as far as they are considered. Assassins are evil because of the entry requirements, and a couple os spells, not because they use poisons. Blackguards are, by definition, evil. Using poison has nothing to do with it. Also, couatls and many neutral creatures use poison.
e) "BoED says so." and right after that, it gives affects-only-evil poisons and diseases, which are not evil despite the excruciating pain involved. Right.
f) I don't know which argument this is countering, but the poison spell is not evil. Contagion, for example, is. And I don't know of any who claim that disease is inherently evil.
That said, paladins are first and foremost good. It overrides the lawful part of their alignments. Or at least that is what RaW claims. In that we agree.
One important aspect you haven't mentioned is what happens if the Paladin's code forces him to do something evil like letting someone die when you can save him without hurting anyone, but the code somehow forbids him. Like, he would have to enter a place were entrance is forbidden to him, or break a law imposed by someone he swore allegiance to.
This is another type of thread that greatly annoys me. "My paladin was forced into breaking her code... I had to choose one evil over another." DMs who do this should be shot. With a hammer. Aside from that, yes, it is still breaking the code and if you have to kill one (innocent/helpless/otherwise not just an enemy) to save millions, you still have to atone for that murder.
But again, I put in a lot of my own opinions and policies, so do whatever you want.
In my games it works like this (my interpretation):
A paladin must always do the most good. This is the most paramount issue. A paladin cannot slaughter a wanted man without first having at least some reasonable proof they're deserving. This is the line between LG, LN, and LE.
Secondly, a paladin must, where possible obey the law in upholding their good. This means that if the paladin sees five ways to complete a good task, four daunting and within the law, one simple but outside it, the paladin must with at least some degree of dedication attempt every one of those four difficult paths they are able first, before attempting the final route.
This is not to say a paladin doesn't have choices. Its just that part of the hard life of the paladin is just that: doing the right thing by man and state.
As far as intent, it is only when a character intended when in their right mind to commit an evil act that they are barred from regaining their code. An unlawful act, properly justified, may allow them to atone, or may not even cause a violation if there was simply no other way.
As far as knowledge, as long as a paladin does not take reckless risks, only those actions that cause evil result in the paladin losing their code, and it can still be regained. Stupidity and ignorance is not blameworthy, carelessness is. And yes, in this case, ignorance of the law is an excuse. A paladin should attempt to right the wrong if they find out however. Failure to then do so could result in the loss of a code.
Paladins are the souls of honor. While it may seem harsh, they should act that way at all times.