Anyone had a paladin Fall and then dropped the PC?

[Kae'Yoss]

Is that really THAT hard a scenario? Destroy the undead and move the hapless peasants to better lands. If they try to stop the destruction of their undead, destroy the infidels too -- fewer mouths to feed in that case.

Sounds reasonable. Desecrating someone's mortal remains and refusing to grant him his eternal rest is an act of evil.

Plus, why didn't they leave long ago? Why did they settle there to begin with? Did they like the view?

 

[Jack Simth]

Is that really THAT hard a scenario? Destroy the undead and move the hapless peasants to better lands. If they try to stop the destruction of their undead, destroy the infidels too -- fewer mouths to feed in that case.

They don't want to leave for one reason or another. Forced Relocation -> Evil -> Paladin falls.

They're doing what they can to keep themselves and their neighbors alive, and you're threatening their survival by attacking their workers. They're defending themselves, and are neutrally aligned. Killing them (in that instance) -> Evil -> Paladin falls.

I mentioned "annoying DM interpretations" right?

Sounds reasonable. Desecrating someone's mortal remains and refusing to grant him his eternal rest is an act of evil.

They're neutral - killing them by means of cutting off their food supply is evil -> Paladin falls.

Plus, why didn't they leave long ago? Why did they settle there to begin with? Did they like the view?

Doesn't matter ovely much, so long as it's set up so that there's no solution to getting them out of there; perhaps they are of an ethnicity that would be slain on sight just about anywhere else, and this was the only place they could live in peace. Perhaps them living there is a quirk in a treaty that, if broken by their relocation, will spark a war that will embroil the entire countryside in chaos. Perhaps there is a quirk of their physiology that requires a certain plant that will grow nowhere else. The why is relatively immaterial.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

They don't want to leave for one reason or another.

Their choice, their consequences.

Forced Relocation -> Evil -> Paladin falls.

They're not forced. It's their choice: Stay here and die or go live somewhere more reasonable. The Paladin merely ends this violation of life and nature.

In fact, he's quite lenient: He offers to help them move, instead of bringing them to justice for this crime, which was commited out of convenience.

They're doing what they can to keep themselves and their neighbors alive

...except for moving to somewhere where they can live without dishonouring someone's corpse.

They're defending themselves, and are neutrally aligned.

They've been using undead for base motives (being too lazy or stubborn to find a proper living place is no noble cause) and are neutral? Their selfishness is astounding, I've played evil characters who would call those guys bastards with admiration.

Killing them (in that instance) -> Evil -> Paladin falls.

Who talks about killing them?

They're neutral - killing them by means of cutting off their food supply is evil -> Paladin falls.

It's not evil. He's not cutting off their food supply. He's not keeping them to move to a place with more workable land. In fact, he wants to help them.

Doesn't matter ovely much, so long as it's set up so that there's no solution to getting them out of there; perhaps they are of an ethnicity that would be slain on sight just about anywhere else, and this was the only place they could live in peace. Perhaps them living there is a quirk in a treaty that, if broken by their relocation, will spark a war that will embroil the entire countryside in chaos. Perhaps there is a quirk of their physiology that requires a certain plant that will grow nowhere else. The why is relatively immaterial.

It's very important. Unless there is a real reason for them to stay here, and not just excuses, they can't expect to get away with necromancy.

An ethnicity that would be slain everywhere else? They probably deserve it. If not, there's more pressing matters for that paladin than to stay in some backwater, out-of-the-way village for weeks - all the nations in the world are evil, he's got to do something about it.

Treaties that force people to starve to death or do evil deeds? Somewhing as convoluted as that should be an easy thing for the law-savvy paladin to pick apart.

What's it about that plant that it requires unfertile soil. Not "doesn't mind unfertile soil", it requires it. Otherwise they'd plant them in their new homeland besides all the other stuff they can plant now. Anyway, a philosophy that requires the use of the Undead is per definition evil, and adhering to it makes those people evil.


In conclusion: There's no way the DM can make this one work without it being an obvious set-up.

 

[WayneLigon]

I would drop the character regardless, because unless I was purposefully looking at eventually falling then one of two things has happened: (1) I have not sufficiently understood the GM's world and how he intends for a paladin in his world to be played, or (2) my GM is an idiot. Realizing #2 will cause me to also leave the game. #1, though, I've encountered in other games regarding other classes. One guy's game, he had such a bizarre understanding of what a cleric was and was suppossed to do that no-one ever played clerics in his games. He had to provide an NPC for the class to have any presence.

 

[Jack Simth]

Their choice, their consequences.



They're not forced. It's their choice: Stay here and die or go live somewhere more reasonable.

Kidnappers sometimes do similar things. "Get in the car or die. Your choice."

In both cases, there is a choice: do as told, or die.

In both cases, the one offering the "choice" has arranged the fatal consequences that necessitate moving from a non-fatal preexisting situation.

I'm not sure what definition of force you use, but that qualifies in my book.

The Paladin merely ends this violation of life and nature.

Here's an exercise in futility for you to try:

1) Find in the 3.5 core rulebooks (Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual) where it says casting an [Evil] spell is an evil act. Likewise, how evil.
2) Find in the 3.5 core rulebooks where it defines what level of pattern of actions is required for a person to be considered "good" or "evil". Is animating a skeleton once every 10 years going to sway a farmer who gives away a bushel of wheat, no strings attached, twice a week when someone mentions they can't cover the bill for it, from Neutral to Evil?

They're not specified, so they're DM interpretation in both cases. Annoying DM interpretations is one of the things I listed as required to force a Paladin to fall.

In fact, he's quite lenient: He offers to help them move, instead of bringing them to justice for this crime, which was commited out of convenience.

Crime implies a violation of law. If this is occurring on societal level for farming, it is most likely legally sanctioned to some degree.

Try picturing a member of a religious order where breaking the soil is a horrible crime (the ground is sacred) watching a farmer drag a plow behind a horse in medieval europe. Is it a good or lawful for the order member to break the farmer's plow and say he'll show "a better way" for the farmer to feed his family (it just requires they leave house and home, travel some unspecified distance, and completely trust the member of the order with their lives.... someone they've never seen before, who just broke something very valuable of theirs without their permission)?

How's the Paladin in a different situation than the order member?

...except for moving to somewhere where they can live without dishonouring someone's corpse.

Gets back to what constitutes an evil action - see above. I've actually seen people argue - with a straight face, mind - that skeletons and zombies shouldn't be evil-aligned (as they are incapable of moral thought, being mindless creatures), and that Animate Dead shouldn't have the [Evil] descriptor at all (hard to injure someone who's already dead - plus, there's a few supplements that include religious orders for which it doesn't).

They've been using undead for base motives (being too lazy or stubborn to find a proper living place is no noble cause) and are neutral? Their selfishness is astounding, I've played evil characters who would call those guys bastards with admiration.

Likewise, choice of DM interpretation.

Who talks about killing them?

haakon1 - who I quoted before making the statement you're referring to, mind; I did not include a quote of your text between haakon1's statement and the line of mine you just quoted - said "If they try to stop the destruction of their undead, destroy the infidels too -- fewer mouths to feed in that case"

It's pretty clear he's talking about killing them when they attempt to halt the destruction of their livelyhood.

It's not evil. He's not cutting off their food supply. He's not keeping them to move to a place with more workable land. In fact, he wants to help them.

So he claims. How's a farmer supposed to react when an extreme ecological activist blows up all his chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleum-driven equipment and then tells the farmer "I'm going to show you a better way; I'm trying to help you! You were killing Mother Earth!"

How's the Paladin who destroys the farming undead and says "I'll show you to better lands, where you need not dishonor the dead to live" different?

As I said - requires annoying DM interpretations, but can be done.

It's very important. Unless there is a real reason for them to stay here, and not just excuses, they can't expect to get away with necromancy.

Right, because, you know, the Paladin is of course the perfect judge of what is right and wrong, and individual Paladins are universally recognized as perfect moral authorities. And all of them are totally trusted.

Consider a blackguard who starts out doing something similar (undead are evil, you shouldn't use them, yadda yadda). Then, after getting them to agree to relocate, leads them out to the middle of a large desert, laughs at their foolishness, and teleports away by way of Helm of Teleportation with all the remaining supplies, condemning them to death by dehydration, sunstroke, and so on.

How are these farmers to know which you are in advance?

An ethnicity that would be slain everywhere else? They probably deserve it. If not, there's more pressing matters for that paladin than to stay in some backwater, out-of-the-way village for weeks - all the nations in the world are evil, he's got to do something about it.

An intelligent creature can be of any alignment. Kobolds, for example, are listed as "usually Lawful Evil". A group of neutral kobolds will very likely be persecuted - to death, mind - in any area where there are standard evil kobolds running around causing death and destruction. Simple example. The ethnicity as a whole may very well deserve it. This particular township? Not so much. The only crime everyone else is guilty of is not being overly discriminating.

Treaties that force people to starve to death or do evil deeds? Somewhing as convoluted as that should be an easy thing for the law-savvy paladin to pick apart.

Because, of course, all Paladins have a high Int, the Paladin will of course have access to the exact terms of the treaty, and so on.

What's it about that plant that it requires unfertile soil. Not "doesn't mind unfertile soil", it requires it. Otherwise they'd plant them in their new homeland besides all the other stuff they can plant now.

It requires a sulfur content in the soil sufficient to severely stunts the growth of other plants. Catch being that nobody really knows enough about it to reproduce the required conditions in an isolated manner with any reliability. That particular volcano over their does the job in an uncontrolled manner over hundreds of miles.

Anyway, a philosophy that requires the use of the Undead is per definition evil, and adhering to it makes those people evil.

Try the exercise in futility. It is not per definition evil - that's merely a very common assumption.

Or perhaps they're geographically isolated - a volcanically heated valley in what's otherwise a uninhabitable frozen wasteland for hundreds of miles. They've bred a bit more than they ought, to the point where the only way they can feed everyone is to cut calories to the point where actually working fields will lead to starvation due to the calorie cost of the activity. Fortunately, the dead don't eat, and can work tirelessly anyway.

The why doesn't matter, provided it's an effectively unsolvable why.

In conclusion: There's no way the DM can make this one work without it being an obvious set-up.

No contest. It is an obvious set-up. That is not the point. The point is that the DM can, while yet being strictly within the rules.

 

[bowbe]

I voted the last, not for myself but because I had a player whose fighter was attempting to become a paladin. His purpose for "becoming a paladin?" to gain greater powers from an enchanted high ego sword that preferred paladins to accomplish its quest against evil.

Mind you he was greedy, self centered, and never seemed to be able to sacrifice himself or accept the sacrifice of any of his treasured magic items for the greater good. He got PO'ed when a nightwalker crushed his +4 flying tower shield in a battle and walked. Not very "paladin like" behavior in my opinion, but maybe that was it. It was my opinion, and "take" on the paladin class vs. his.

His Take: Paladins can do whatever they want and be gross sick wealthy. Paladins get to pistol whip evil on a whim and thats what makes them paladins.

My Take: Paladins need to be willing to sacrifice themselves, take one for the team on occassion, and not be so tied to earthly possessions. Sort of a zen approach.

His Take: I crushed his shield to punish him for having a character built with a 40 armor class. I was being mean because I didn't just handwaive his conversion to paladinhood and expected him to work through a level towards his goal.

My Take: While playing the nightwalker, I could have easily killed his character, but instead chose to destroy a magic item. If he could defeat the walker without some gear, he had stood up to a true evil and "earned his spurs" so to speak.

On the whole, an unfortunate turn of events. Not exactly a "fall equals quitting" but more of a "falling short of achievement equals quitting."

Case

 

[hopeless]

Reg This

I must be doing something wrong because every time i ran a paladin they never fell, died... yes a lot in fact and one inparticular was slain purely because the dm wanted to reduce the party and thanks to the rest of the players not bothering to back me up got away with something idiotic to say the least!

And this same dm ran a paladin who should have fallen within 2 adventures, lets not count deliberately endangering an innocent's life, defying legal authority so he could take an evil cleric captured by the rest of the party back to greyhawk, aided by the dm to strip another player's character of a magical item his barbarian wanted to sell even though I was the only one who remembered he had the wand of animate dead and not for the first time the dm allowed him to get away using knowledge he didn't have.

He also condoned torture, cold bloodedly murdered a helpless captive over the objections of the the rest of the party (minus 2 half orc barbarians a bard whose players stopped coming to the game sessions by this time) and when this matter was raised to his attention by me quite pointedly roleplaying that he was falling quite hard when my character had to be rescued by the others when helping another character he stood by and did nothing save to comment that maybe I shouldn't berate his faith!

I can't help wondering if thats why my character was then assassinated in his campaign although I suppose he didn't understand gievn his liking for ravenloft that murdering a cleric in a church during a quest to chase down an army of devils by an assassin posing as the first cleric of helm seen outside of waterdeep since the last shrine of helm was wiped out by a pair of black dragons in the mere of dead men because he decided they would be dumb and evil rather than cunning as they're suppsoed to be...

Sorry went a little too far, but there is a case where they should fall but don't and that should be duly noted in addition to your comments.

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

Yeah, you just gotta love players that view paladins as infallible fighters with all the neat trimnmings, yet no restrictions.
I was running a classic dungeon crawl that I had written for a bunch of people, including my regular group, and a 2ed group that we were teaching 3.5 to. The group had captured and restrained a blackscale lizardman that was stalking the group, and the Paladin (one of the 2ed guys) decided that since the lizardman was not giving them the answers fast enough, it deserved to have its throat cut, and immediately obliged. I usually give the players a chance to consider their actions if it is something that is so completely stupid and detrimental, and did so that night.
I asked said Paladin if he really wanted to do so. My normal group was so completely dumbfounded that they couldn't speak. The 2ed group were experienced with only this guys group (he was the DM) that they didn't know any better. He made the statement that the *expletive* thing needed to die, and that he was going to kill it. NOTHING at all about it being evil. Just that it needed to die. I gave the ever popular, "Weeelll, if, you're ceeertaaaain..." He never wavered, so I had everyone roll initiative to give the party a chance to stop him. The paladin rolled the highest initiative, and the lizzy was ka-put.
I, of course, having run Paladins most of my gaming career was so appalled that I immediately initiated Divine Retribution. The player was so severely pissed that his character lost all abilities that he grabbed his dice, his players, and stormed out the door never to be heard from again.
I did, however, hear from one of his players (a friend of mine) that I had no business being a DM as I knew absolutely nothing about paladins.