*Archtypical Paladin Quandry* The 'Are you a Paladin?' Question.

[Numion]

Suppose the Paladin rides up the front gate on his white horse and he says, "I'm a Paladin."

Mr. Low Level Grunt is going say, "Let me tell the Sarge that you are here."

Sarge says to Mr. Low Level Grunt, "I'll go get the Lieutenant."

Lt. say to Sarge, "I'll inform the Captain."

Captain says to Lt., "The evil warlord must know a Paladin has come!"

Evil Warlord comes out to the front gate. Paladin smites Evil Warlord.

Paladin accomplishes his quest, and he didn't even have to slay any non-evil minions who were just defending their homes.

Sometimes telling the truth is the best policy.

man what


Why would the BBEG act like a moron just because a Paladin shows up?

 

[FireLance]

Why would the BBEG act like a moron just because a Paladin shows up?

Because of DM fiat.

 

[Vocenoctum]

A gross violation would be lying for a bad reason. Simply lying is not a gross violation, and lying in the cause of right and good, when the alternative is complete and utter stupidity, is barely an infraction.

That's just wrong. A paladin loses his powers for failures to uphold his code of conduct. If he does what is demanded of his code of conduct, how can he lose his powers for it? There may be penalties for following the cause of good, but losing paladin abilities for following the cause of good is nonsensical.

You can't break the code to keep the code.
I'm not in favor of forcing paladin dillema's, but there is also a big divide between "cannot live up to the paladins high standards" and "blackguard". Why put "no lying" in the code if it's not really an important thing?

If the code is meaningless, and only LG behavior is the measure of the paladin, then the code if meaningless and should be removed from the class. Otherwise what's the point of it? A LG character believes lies are bad, but would lie if needed in order to do good.

A Paladin Won't. It's the entire purpose of the Code.

 

[Endur]

man what


Why would the BBEG act like a moron just because a Paladin shows up?

I'm sorry, you are so right. When the Joker finds out that Batman is at the front door, the Joker runs out the back door.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, no-one would ask that question, because no-one thinks of themselves others as a collection of class-levels. (No NPCs anyway. PCs can think whatever they like.)

-- N

 

[Montague68]

Guard: "Do you swear to obey the law of Bigcampaigncity at all times?"

Barbarian: "Sure"

DM: "Woops! You just became lawful, no more rage for you!"

How come we never see threads like that?

 

[FireLance]

Guard: "Do you swear to obey the law of Bigcampaigncity at all times?"

Barbarian: "Sure"

DM: "Woops! You just became lawful, no more rage for you!"

How come we never see threads like that?

Well, the technical reason is that it usually takes more than a single act to change alignment, so a barbarian swearing to obey the law of a city wouldn't experience an alignment change to Lawful (besides, he might change his mind five minutes later). However, if the barbarian consistently and repeatedly acted in a lawful manner, his alignment might shift, and then he would lose the ability to rage.

On the other hand, a single evil act or a single gross violation of his code of conduct is enough to make a paladin lose his powers. I think we would have fewer such threads if a paladin just had to maintain his lawful good alignment and hence was allowed the occasional questionable act, as long as he didn't make a habit of them, with the extremely strict "one strike and you're out" rule as an option for mature players and DMs.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Guard: "Do you swear to obey the law of Bigcampaigncity at all times?"

Barbarian: "Sure"

DM: "Woops! You just became lawful, no more rage for you!"

How come we never see threads like that?

Chaos embodies all possibilities, including Law, so a Chaotic person can act lawful whenever they want.

Besides, a barbarian CAN lie, so he doesn't have to mean it!

 

[Destil]

This question is moot in my mind.

Any paladin player IMC will have worked out his specific, exact code of conduct before the game starts. The PH 'rules' I only use as a suggested statring point.

Exactily what his code is defines how much 'wiggle room' he has for something like this. And the player will know that. So it will have been their choice. Really I feel like it's entrapment of the player if there's no agreement before the game on where the line is. Using the moral code as a plot device is fine. Using it to summeraly strip a player of their powers because you feel like it this time isn't fair, or fun.

If he says yes then hopefully he can take the guards. Or the party can work out some way to spring him from prison. Otherwise it's just like putting a 1st level party against a 9th level wizard.