Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Darkabyss29 Dec 04, 2014 18:42:04	Alright so in 3.5e Paladins may never knowingly or willfully commit an evil act or they'll lose their paladin abilities/spells until they atone. My question is: If they learn that they commited an evil act AFTER they commited it, Do they automatically lose their paladin abilities/spells? Or no? Or is it just up to DM discretion?
#2 Dyndrilliac Dec 04, 2014 19:04:11	Paladins don't work like they did in 3.5. A paladin can be good, evil, or neutral. Furthermore, a good Paladin can commit an evil act if he has a good reason and his deity won't so much as bat an eyelash.
#3 Darkabyss29 Dec 04, 2014 19:29:11	that doesn't really answer my question...
#4 OoftaMeg Dec 04, 2014 19:58:13	Up to the DM. If a paladin violates their oath, I've ruled that they pretty much know right away when their deity takes away their power.
(Reply to #3) Coredump00	Darkabyss29 wrote:
#6 DungeonKrusher Dec 04, 2014 20:43:58	How can you learn that an act is evil after the fact?   Unintentional consequences do not constitute an evil act, if that's what you mean. When you're talking about a good or evil act, you really need to account for intent.
#7 Novacat Dec 04, 2014 21:15:44	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#8 Psikerlord Dec 04, 2014 21:40:09	Yeah I like the classic paladin and ancients paladin, but do not allow the vengeance paladin as a PC. I've wrapped that into the blackguard NPC paladin. If they break their vow too often, bad things start to happen.   I consider the vows are a bit of a balancing mechanism, and the vengeance vows.... well, they arent really much of a code that matters in any meaninful way. They have to attack their enemies, and not show mercy. Um, yeah, ok.
#9 Undrhil Dec 04, 2014 21:35:10	Paladins in 5e do not get their power from a deity; they get them from their oath.  In the DMG there is an "Oathbreaker" option for a Paladin who has broken his/her oath, but other than that, it's up to the DM what happens when a Paladin goes against their chosen oath's tenats.
#10 Gnarl Dec 04, 2014 22:17:30	Darkabyss29 wrote:
(Reply to #8) Macv12	Psikerlord wrote:
#12 Psikerlord Dec 05, 2014 2:04:14	Macv12 wrote:
#13 OoftaMeg Dec 05, 2014 6:07:47	First, there is an option (it may depend on the type of paladin) where if a paladin breaks their oath, they lose their abilities.   Second, I don't buy "you can't commit an evil act unknowingly".  For example, in a previous campaign the group came across a group of people tied to stakes with sacks covering their heads.  They cut the bonds of the first person and pulled the sack off the prisoner's head only to find a peasant that was transforming into a troll.  After a tough fight, they killed the troll.   The paladin then looked at the rest of the prisoners without removing the sacks from their heads and said "Kill them.  Kill them all."  What she didn't know when she uttered the words was that the people were innocent peasants being transformed into trolls by injections of troll blood and that several of them could have been saved.  I had  rolled randomly to decide whether the first prisoner could be saved and had rolled high (bad).   Was it an evil act to kill innocents?  I believed so, and so did the player.  I ruled that she lost her paladin-hood temporarily as soon as the party killed the innocents.  Immediately after the act was done, she realized what she had done.  It became a fun and memorable story because the occasional failure is more fun than always succeeding.   To the OP, while the type of oath is going to vary by paladin, I would rule that if they violate their oath they pretty much know right away.  It's a supernatural bond, not just a personal oath so I would rule that their paladin abilities are removed almost immediately.  If it makes a better story, it could also be a vision sent to the player later that night in a dream or by a supernatural messenger.
#14 Noctaem Dec 05, 2014 6:28:06	Frankly I've never understood why a DM would ever want to enforce the whole "you're a paladin, so you must be lawful stupid" thing.  Previous editions were wrong to have rules to limit what the players could do via harsh alignment punishment toward certain classes.  It's much better now that those no longer exist and players are free to play the character as they see fit without a leash that the DM can arbitrarily yank.  Big step forward in this regard.
(Reply to #14) OoftaMeg	Noctaem wrote:
#16 BRJN Dec 05, 2014 8:18:57	When bringing a Paladin to a table, talk over a few things with your DM (and your friends) first.  Your personal philosophy of life / existence is going to affect your character. - How can man know Good and Evil? - Is there such a thing as an inherently evil act?  An inherently good act? - Can you agree before play that some acts will automatically cause a Fall? - How does a disgraced Paladin atone? - Is your DM the type to try to trick you into Falling, constantly?  (You expect it when a Devil contract is up for grabs, but not when you rescue a cat out of a tree) - Will powers get cut off all at once, or an escalating series of incidents, before your sponsoring deity punishes you? - Do you both recognize the differences between LG, NG, CG, LN, SG (Stupid Good), and LS (Lawful Stupid)? - What do the other players think of a Paladin?  Dysfunctional players might react as if a "self-appointed conscience of the game" will automatically destroy their fun. - What other alignments are in the group?  Is there any background or alignment or personality clash clearly visible beforehand? - Are you playing a Paladin because that the mechanic that best enacts your character concept?   I've noticed some people bring a chip on their shoulder to Paladin/alignment arguments: Nobody can tell me I'm a bad person because of what my character does.  Nobody can tell me I'm not a good person no matter what my character does.  If you have one / more such in your group, a Paladin may not be the character to play with them.
#17 Novacat Dec 05, 2014 9:06:22	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #17) OoftaMeg	Novacat wrote:
(Reply to #3) Bloodscythe	Darkabyss29 wrote:
(Reply to #18) Macv12	OoftaMeg wrote:
#21 Novacat Dec 05, 2014 10:40:28	OoftaMeg wrote:
#22 Rottle Dec 05, 2014 10:48:37	Psikerlord wrote:
#23 Illithidbix Dec 05, 2014 18:12:33	Another vote for "The DM determines what an evil act is, and whether the Gods/the Oath/the Cosmos judges based action or intent."   Stripping all the powers and making them a sub-par fighter made *some* sense in 1E and 2E where Paladins were just outright better than Fighters in pretty much every way.(unless you used the weapon specialisation optional rules.) Paladins did require more XP to level and required 17 Charisma, but they did mostly seem mechanically balanced by roleplay restrictions which were quite widely interpreted.   In 3.5E I found it kinda weird that they were considered balanced (or even subpar) level/level vs Fighters et al but they also were still “balanced” by IC actions. Oddly clerics don't have the same burden of behaviour, despite being even more divine.   I very much liked 5E's take on the Oath being the feature of a Paladin, and it encourages the Paladin to think about the specifics of the Oath.  I also like the take that the Oath is more defining for the Paladin than their deity and the source of their power, helps seperate the concept from the Cleric. Although it's likely the Oath will be tied in with the tenets of their Patron faith.   Personally, I think just depowering a player's character is just dull, and smacks of the “you're playing your character wrong, *slap*” attitude to alignment that I despise. The player decides what is right for their character, and playing a paladin who fails to meet their standard might well be the most in-character and most enjoyable way to play that character. The Arthurian legends had a full cast of characters based around this concept!   Instead I give my Paladins horrific visions and dreams tied into the consequences of their actions, stigmata from the wounds they inflicted on the innocent, have soothsayers yell at them in the street and should they be super naughty then NPC's (often paladins themselves) who receive divine visions about the fallen champion and are sworn to bring them to task or even Angels sent after them. Personally I think this is far more enjoyable and satisfying for both the DM and the player.
(Reply to #13) DungeonKrusher	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #14) DungeonKrusher	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #21) OoftaMeg	Novacat wrote:
(Reply to #20) DungeonKrusher	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #26) DungeonKrusher	OoftaMeg wrote:
#29 OoftaMeg Dec 05, 2014 11:48:24	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#30 Nachturnus Dec 05, 2014 11:56:20	This may just be my interpretation of the graph, but I think we're misconstruing how the alignment system works.  It's not a line, it's a graph with two axies. DMs often draw this line where alignments go from LG -> CE becoming progressively more reckless and evil in the transition, but it's got two axies, with two things being measured: Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic- A character's adherance to a code, creed, or Ideal that they use to help them make decisions about their actions, or living their life in chaos, doing what occurs to them at-random, be it beneficial or harmful to them.   Good/Neutral/Evil- The general moral quality of those actions, being measured either against in-setting morals, or modern morals.  That means you can't really define Evil by intent. A Chaotic or Neutral creature doesn't have intent in the same way that humans do. A devout Zealot of Cyric isn't going to be Chaotic Evil if they try to dogmatically follow his ramblings and deeds as a code of moral standing, they're going to be lawful evil, as they're trying to live their lives in strict code that rigorously defines their actions, from which they will not deviate. An actual chaotic character would deviate from their expected actions all the time.  This is why Zombies are neutral evil. They don't have a code they live by, but they live by very specific beneficial behaviors, and thus are neither lawful nor chaotic, and they kill and cannibalize people, making them neither neutral or good.  Devils, by contrast, are lawful evil. Even if they act chaotic and sew discord and distrust amongst humankind, they obey a strict heirarchy in the nine hells, and are always pursuing a single goal which they may acheive by specific means.  Demons, to contrast the conrast, are chaotic evil. They are destruction incarnate, and are as likely to attack their peers as they are the party, just as the Demon Princes constantly war amongst themselves. They may have an overriding drive (Orcus' love for undeath.) but they still behave partially at-random, attacking one another not because it's advantageous, but because they suddenly decide it's a good idea at that exact moment, and strike.  Basically: A deed can be evil regardless of the intent. You can be considered not-responsible for the deed because you A) had no control over the event (DM gotchas) or B) misunderstoof the context (unknowingly committing an evil deed,) but the deed is still evil. Murdering a man and spreading his blood around for a ritual is Evil, even if you're lied to by a necromancer who tells you it's going to lift a blight from a farming town that's resulting in thousands of deaths. It might even be the lesser of two evils, but it's still evil.
(Reply to #29) DungeonKrusher	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #30) DungeonKrusher	Nachturnus wrote:
(Reply to #32) Nachturnus	DungeonKrusher wrote:
#34 Psikerlord Dec 05, 2014 14:23:08	Rottle wrote:
#35 Rottle Dec 06, 2014 13:35:07	Psikerlord wrote: