Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 1571496" data-attributes="member: 18280"><p>Assuming, of course, that being possessed by a demon does not make either of those options fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable.</p><p></p><p>2) Clearly, the tavern owner is an obvious person to assume as an accomplice, as the girl is tied up in his tavern. Take it from there.</p><p></p><p>3) I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial. If the miscreant's relatives do not accept the paladin's word, and seek him harm, the paladin cannot slay them out of hand, but he can attempt to show them that he is honorable (through word and deed) and convince them of the truth.</p><p></p><p>That said, suppose that the rapist <em>was</em> possessed by a demon. In this case, the paladin has made one of SirEuain's "unwilling breaches" and <em>should</em> find his paladin powers temporarily revoked until he atones. In fact, the revocation of paladinhood in this case should only occur if it is intended as a clue that the paladin, though speaking the truth <em>as he understands it</em> is nonetheless <em>not speaking the truth</em>. </p><p></p><p>I would accept this as a perfectly valid reason for the DM to remove paladin powers. After all, any magical measure of "absolute truth" or "absolute proof" (as I was arguing) cuts both ways! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>4) Perhaps, but you still haven't convinced me that <strong>your </strong> idea of "lawful" is <strong>the</strong> idea of "lawful". Certainly, in your own campaign world, you can define terms however you like. In the case of "Law vs. Chaos" I would especially encourage this. You may also have special rules regarding paladins. However, barring that, and barring said rules being made available to players, the players have a reasonable assumption that the definitions given in the core rulebooks can be followed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, but the initial question is, effectively, "Does this amount to a case for stripping the paladin of his powers?" The question is not, "Was this the <strong><em>best</em></strong> solution?" but rather, "Should this have been an <em><strong>acceptable</strong></em> solution?" </p><p></p><p>Yes, the paladin should have taken the DM's (effective) "Are you sure you want to do that?" to mean "I may revoke your paladinhood if you do that" -- <em><strong>I would</strong></em>! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> And yes, he should have asked for clarification as to his role, and what was expected of him under the circumstances. </p><p></p><p>Even so, no one comes up with the best solution in all possible cases. Paladinhood should only be revoked when the violation is clear, although I grant that <em><strong>what is clear to the DM may not be clear to the play</strong></em>ers, as in the possession example above. (In this case, though, the ghost of the wronged man would visit the paladin in his dreams so the paladin understood his fault, were I running the game.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>RC</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 1571496, member: 18280"] Assuming, of course, that being possessed by a demon does not make either of those options fail. 1) It has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people that having to assume possession, compulsion, or illusion in all cases (and certainly in clear-cut cases such as this) would be unreasonable. 2) Clearly, the tavern owner is an obvious person to assume as an accomplice, as the girl is tied up in his tavern. Take it from there. 3) I have pointed out, and you have accepted, that "The simple fact that the paladin acted, and remains a paladin proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he is speaking the truth," thus allowing for proof superior to that of an open trial. If the miscreant's relatives do not accept the paladin's word, and seek him harm, the paladin cannot slay them out of hand, but he can attempt to show them that he is honorable (through word and deed) and convince them of the truth. That said, suppose that the rapist [I]was[/I] possessed by a demon. In this case, the paladin has made one of SirEuain's "unwilling breaches" and [I]should[/I] find his paladin powers temporarily revoked until he atones. In fact, the revocation of paladinhood in this case should only occur if it is intended as a clue that the paladin, though speaking the truth [I]as he understands it[/I] is nonetheless [I]not speaking the truth[/I]. I would accept this as a perfectly valid reason for the DM to remove paladin powers. After all, any magical measure of "absolute truth" or "absolute proof" (as I was arguing) cuts both ways! :) 4) Perhaps, but you still haven't convinced me that [B]your [/B] idea of "lawful" is [B]the[/B] idea of "lawful". Certainly, in your own campaign world, you can define terms however you like. In the case of "Law vs. Chaos" I would especially encourage this. You may also have special rules regarding paladins. However, barring that, and barring said rules being made available to players, the players have a reasonable assumption that the definitions given in the core rulebooks can be followed. Ah, but the initial question is, effectively, "Does this amount to a case for stripping the paladin of his powers?" The question is not, "Was this the [B][I]best[/I][/B] solution?" but rather, "Should this have been an [I][B]acceptable[/B][/I] solution?" Yes, the paladin should have taken the DM's (effective) "Are you sure you want to do that?" to mean "I may revoke your paladinhood if you do that" -- [I][B]I would[/B][/I]! :uhoh: And yes, he should have asked for clarification as to his role, and what was expected of him under the circumstances. Even so, no one comes up with the best solution in all possible cases. Paladinhood should only be revoked when the violation is clear, although I grant that [I][B]what is clear to the DM may not be clear to the play[/B][/I]ers, as in the possession example above. (In this case, though, the ghost of the wronged man would visit the paladin in his dreams so the paladin understood his fault, were I running the game.) RC [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Archive-threads
My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!)
Top