Paladin Behavior?

[Jeff Wilder]

Having a code to follow and being quite "holy" and spotless is all about the difference between being a Paladin and any other LG fighting man. "Well, I am in fact using this evil object to promote the cause of good, and I promise I won't overuse it, so technically I am still acting by the words of my code" doesn't sound like a pally speaking to me

That's an excellent guideline, BTW. Any time a paladin's player -- or, as proxy, his DM -- uses the word "technically" (or any words to that effect) in a discussion of paladin codes or alignment, the paladin is busted.


Jeff

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Li Shenron]

Well at this point I wouldn't strip his paladinhood either. As many pointed out, selling the sword was a very silly decision, but probably not an evil act itself. However, the consequences of this mistake are that evil has been set loose, therefore I'd have the paladin be "informed" by his deity that now he must make up for his mistake.
Perhaps the deity may even make this new quest purposefully more difficult for the paladin, and maybe even temporarily withdraw a couple of powers from him (the divine mount for example, which means he has to go on foot), or otherwise give him some other penalties ("you won't sleep a single wink before you mend your own mistake!").

 

[Joker[ZW]]

Bah. I agree with Lord Pendragon that the Paladin shouldn't have been using the sword the first time. Having a code to follow and being quite "holy" and spotless is all about the difference between being a Paladin and any other LG fighting man. "Well, I am in fact using this evil object to promote the cause of good, and I promise I won't overuse it, so technically I am still acting by the words of my code" doesn't sound like a pally speaking to me IMO, after using the sword ONCE, he should have started facing some troubles, not necessarily dire (I wouldn't strip him of his paladinhood directly...). However...

The problem with this is, that by your interpretation a paladin who punishes an evil prisoner by letting him do charity work is commiting an evil act.
I wouldn't give the paladin any trouble for using the sword, but thats just my interpretation, YMMV

Aargh! says "Evil is in deeds", and I absolutely agree, but on the other hands what is the point of making a sword evil?

So that it can have discussions with the paladin about his actions while he is using it against its will? So that it can be mad at him and taunt him? It's fun!
In D&D I would treat an evil sword as I would treat a sword of negative energy, force, etc..
It just "infused" with the corresponding kind of energy and as soon as intelligence enters the fray, it is of the corresponding alilgnment/philosophy.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem with this is, that by your interpretation a paladin who punishes an evil prisoner by letting him do charity work is commiting an evil act.

That would be an attempt at redeeming the subject, and it is very different!

In D&D there's always also unredeemable evil, in the form of outsiders, blackguards and evil clerics for example. It's not obvious where would an evil object be, if with the redeemable or with the unredeemable, it may depend, but I admit that I tend to always think of an intelligent item very differently from a normal creature, and here I didn't consider the chance of turning the sword good, like it was a supernatural evil at the end.

IMHO a typical paladin's behaviour is probably to redeem if possible, and to render harmless otherwise - which usually ends up meaning to destroy.

 

[Bigwilly]

Reminds me of a time....

The anger of angels should make it clear to him that selling it was a bad idea, and that he shouldn't touch monies paid to put an evil weapon into evil hands.

I once had a party that was in possession of a ring that could be used to summon demons. Despite hints about the shady cultists who seemed overly eager to buy it, they sold it anyway. Needless to say, when their patron found out they spent the next few sessions tracking it down to get it back.

Bigwilly

 

[Steverooo]

There are Sins of Commission, and there are Sins of Omission. Both are sins. If God tells you to go, do, and you go but don't do, or don't go, it is still a sin.

Now when the paladin used the sword, he was attempting to destroy it. Fine. I have no problem with that, so far.

If he knew that it had an evil personality, and that he would be involved in an Ego battle, though, then he risked allowing himself to be possessed. That is at least foolish. If he used it, again, after the first time, then he did it with full knowledge.

He DID know that he was returning the evil sword to the BBEG, though, and did it for filthy lucre! This, at BEST, is a neutral act (and also very foolish). He is also more worried about his own worldly gain than what the BBEG is up to with the FantaNazis and the sword.

I would have the angel appear to him while he slept, unable to answer. I would have him sternly explain all this to the paladin, then point his finger at him, and pronounce:

"You have acted very foolishly. Therefore; let the punishment be of your own making!" Then he disappears.

After a restless night's sleep, when the paladin arises and prays for spells, I would have the angel's voice answer him:

"Not this time, Charley. You act as a fool, you now ARE one!"

He suddenly finds his WIS has been reduced to 9 (-1 on all Will saves), he has no spells (and couldn't cast an Orison if he had one), and remains thus until he has recovered the sword, destroyed it, and had a Cleric-in-Good-Standing cast an Atonement on him.

All his other paladin powers and abilities still work just fine, unless based upon WIS.

That's how I would handle it. You can do what you want.

 

[billd91]

If the sword is intelligent, the paladin should give it at least something similar to the same thought he'd give any other sentient evil "prisoner." Is a paladin really going to return an evil prisoner to someone who'll make good use of that prisoner to commit more evil? All for money?

I don't think so.

I'm in the minority, it seems, but IMO selling the sword at all is an evil act, and not one the paladin would do or allow. We're not talking about a simple tool or mundane -- or even just magical -- weapon. We're talking about an evil, sentient being; one whose entire existence is predicated on committing evil acts. In the absence of destroying it, which is apparently currently beyond the group's abilities, the paladin must maintain custody of it.

I'm willing to give the paladin a pass on using the sword for good because it's a facinating test of will that would be fun to play even if a touch questionable. I'd give the paladin the benefit of the doubt on it because it makes for a better game story.
But I absolutely agree that the worst the paladin has done so far is being involved in the selling of the sword to the minions of the BBEG. That's not merely monumental stupidity, that's actively arming evil with evil weaponry. I would strip that paladin's powers in a heartbeat and only allow him to get them back by donating ALL of the dirty money AND getting the sword back.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter that the minions are not evil as long as they are taking the sword back to the BBEG, the paladin has KNOWINGLY allowed a VERY bad thing to happen.
Suppose Frodo had a paladin friend who let Frodo sell the Ring to some not-so evil representatives of Sauron. Just stupid? Or evil?

 

[Voadam]

And, I still have to see how he deals with the till-robbers (new characters to the party as of that session). If he ignores the robbery, I call that a non-lawful act, and paladin powers go bye-bye until he deals with those characters and atones.


RC

Unless you have house ruled that as a paladin requirement, unlawful acts have no effect on the paladin unless they are sufficient to turn him non-lawful.

Paladins lose their powers if they do an evil act, or if they GROSSLY violated their code of conduct. Paladins must be LG alignment. Those are the only rules restrictions that have game mechanical effects on them.

Non-lawful acts are not otherwise prohibited.

 

[Voadam]

Why is it all about what stops Paladin abilities? I mean, I understand that the powers act as a sort of barometer of deity approval, but there has to be a measure of the character of the Paladin in his or her OWN eyes, as well.

Superman (whom I tend to consider a Paladin of sorts) would and has fought on, even reduced to just plain old Clark Kent. It's the MAN, not the "super".

Because that is a DM rules issue. Otherwise it would not matter that the character is a paladin. A LG cleric or fighter can be in the same situation without a DM having to adjudicate whether the player loses his powers. The DM could just let the situation play out and let the character develop to his moral detriment or betterment. But with paladins there can be immediate mechanical game effects under the RAW.