Paladin: Tricked Into Killing the Wrong Target

[ThirdWizard]

And the god punishing the paladin would just play into the hands of evil.

I see it as evil playing into the hands of the good.

 

[Numion]

Any paladin should EXPECT to lose his powers at some point.

It's not if, it's when. When the forces of evil and wickedness are arrayed against you specifically, it is nearly impossible to not have to atone for going overboard. Paladins are perfection, and if they fall short of that perfection, they should be FORCED (not just persuaded) to atone for it. Because the Paladin's path isn't for the expedient, easy and "well, you did your best!". It's for the wise and true. It's for those who have the forethought to second-guess their second-guesses. It's for those who know the value of divination and true seeing. It's for those who know to use their detect evil on the guy who was innocent until just a minute ago to find out if he drastically changed.

Don't you think this is something the PHB would mention if it really was the way Paladins were supposed to be played? I think that picture PHB paints is of men of direct action who fight evil without mercy. The gods don't provide them abilities to support second-guessing second-guesses as much as they support with abilities to smite evil.

Of course a Paladin should take greater care when using lethal force if he knows he's fighting an evil illusionist. But he shouldn't second guess striking a monster attacking villagers in the town square because it might be a villager under illusion, if there's nothing to suggest that.

I'm interpreting Paladin under reasonable requirements, that someone can with fulfill with reasonable forethought. You're making unreasonable requirements on them, since they cannot be filled once contact with evil ensues. The Paladins are to serve the will of their god. For a Paladin to think that he's so special that the god would make effort to set him up specifically for a fall is hubris.

 

[Sejs]

I think some folks are making an Atonement out to be a lot more of a character destroying burden than it actually needs to be. The quest is optional the XP component is dependant on the fall and most people here are suggesting that the paladin seek out atonement and rp the issue before any mechanical penalties are applied.

Part of the issue also lies in the fact that you have to have ready access to a cleric or druid of 9th level or higher in order to Atone. And depending on the DM and game world, that can be a pretty tall order to fill if there's not a PC that can step up to the plate.

In other words, being able to Atone is on par with being able to bring a friend back from the dead. In general, popping down to the corner store it ain't.

Any paladin should EXPECT to lose his powers at some point.
- - - - -
Being forced to atone isn't a punishment. It is a blessing. It's not saying "suffer, for you did a bad thing!" It's saying "you did a bad thing, and you have the opportunity to make it right."

Suffice it to say there are those that disagree with you there. Maybe in the past when greater power carried with it greater responsibility, but that is no longer the case. Nowadays saying any paladin should expect to lose their powers simply as a point of course is like saying any fighter should expect to lose their feats or any wizard should expect to have all their spellbooks destroyed.

Could you tell the player of a wizard to buck up - having to rebuild your spell library isn't a punishment, it's a blessing. I mean you get to discover all that arcane knowledge all over again!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Any paladin should EXPECT to lose his powers at some point.

You make a compelling argument, and the tenor of your paladin conceptualization is pleasing to me.

But I tend to see it differently. Paladin is not a vocation that ordinary men choose to pursue. It isn't the same as a man who tries to be the Perfect Knight. Someone put forth in another thread that "paladins are made, not born." I believe the opposite. Paladins are born, not made. As such, I do not believe that a paladin should expect to Fall. His soul was created to be an example to other men. His nature is to act as the Code describes. The Code is not a constraint upon a paladin's actions, but rather an uncanny listing of how paladins will choose to act because of who and what they are. Yes, some paladin's Fall. They fall victim to mortal weakness, and lose their footing on that lofty perch. Some birds will fall from the sky. But it isn't their nature to do so. Not all are destined to do so. And those that do not are no less great, because they never succumbed to gravity themselves.

I guess what it comes down to is that I view Falling as something momentous and difficult to reverse. Lucifer Fell.

As far as Arthur is concerned, I never considered Arthur a paladin. It was Galahad, I believe, that assumed that role in the Arthurian legends.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Part of the issue also lies in the fact that you have to have ready access to a cleric or druid of 9th level or higher in order to Atone. And depending on the DM and game world, that can be a pretty tall order to fill if there's not a PC that can step up to the plate.

In other words, being able to Atone is on par with being able to bring a friend back from the dead. In general, popping down to the corner store it ain't.

I've already discussed how I would handle that, and it seems to me that pretty much everyone in favor of having the paladin atone (either by spell or RP) for mistakes is also in favor of making atonement very easy in those circumstances. So if you look at the whole of people's suggestions, I don't think its as big an issue as you are making out. If you fear one part of the suggestion being taken out of context by a adversarial DM, I suppose I understand the worry, but if you play a paladin under an adversarial DM you're screwed no matter what....

Suffice it to say there are those that disagree with you there. Maybe in the past when greater power carried with it greater responsibility, but that is no longer the case. Nowadays saying any paladin should expect to lose their powers simply as a point of course is like saying any fighter should expect to lose their feats or any wizard should expect to have all their spellbooks destroyed.

The paladin, great power or not, comes with a very strict code. You can use it to screw the paladin, you can wink and nod at all but the grossest abuses to avoid inconvinencing the player, or you can hold the paladin strictly to the code but make atonement for stumbling less of a big deal. I would tend to choose the last option.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My interpretation of the RAW is that "willingly" means that a Paladin is only prohibited form commiting acts that he knows or should know are evil (while not under a magical compulsion).

If you allow tricks to break the Paladin vow, then theorectically a Paladin could lose his status forever for being tricked into drinking a Protection from Good potion.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I, too, like Kamikaze Midget's characterization of the Paladin concept.

Unfortunately the Paladin class as written in the PHB is not a reasonable mechanical expression of such a character IMNSHO.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

or willingly in the context of a magical game world means not under magical compulsion, and poor judgement, whether aided by active trickery or not, does count. Oh look, a choice of interpretation!

You've chosen your interpretation and defended it well, why make yourself look bad by playing a spoiled "My way is the only way" game? It doesn't work on anyone who doesn't already agree with you anyway.

Because my way is in the dictionary, and yours is not - the word has a definition, so why make yourself look silly by changing it?

There is a reason that the word is willingly. You are changing a definition to fit your argument.

The Auld Grump

 

[I'm A Banana]

Don't you think this is something the PHB would mention if it really was the way Paladins were supposed to be played? I think that picture PHB paints is of men of direct action who fight evil without mercy. The gods don't provide them abilities to support second-guessing second-guesses as much as they support with abilities to smite evil.

In part, that's becaue clerics are to serve as the Paladin's concience and the Paladin's eyes into the Unseen World. Paladins are the sword and Clerics are the arm that aims it. A Paladin trying to take on evil without a priestly buddy to get his back is only half the message, and is even MORE likely to fall and fall hard because of his inability to discern the Truth of Things like a cleric can.

I'm interpreting Paladin under reasonable requirements, that someone can with fulfill with reasonable forethought. You're making unreasonable requirements on them, since they cannot be filled once contact with evil ensues. The Paladins are to serve the will of their god. For a Paladin to think that he's so special that the god would make effort to set him up specifically for a fall is hubris.

For a paladin to think he is somehow better than his fellow Man (or Dwarf) is a greater hubris. Every mortal being is Fallen. The Paladin distinguishes himself by his efforts to not be, and gains power from his efforts to not be.

My interpretation says the Paladin is in a very difficult catch-22, and that this is entirely intentional. The fact is, every Good person does bad things. And every Lawful person breaks order. The Paladin, in this respect, is no different from any other sentient being: there are some situations where the ideal cannot be upheld, because the world is real and the ideal is not. There will be times when the Paladin cannot think first, there will be times when the Paladin is decieved, there will be times when the Paladin has no control, there will be times when the Paladin kills orc babies or refuses to offer a demon redemption. In short, there will be times where the Paladin CANNOT adhere to his own high criteria. And at those times, he must show the wisdom to let the Code fall, to sacrifice his own power, to do the Right Thing. Because the Code and the Right Thing are in no way complimentary and may, in fact, be exclusive of each other in certain scenarios.

The Gods aren't idiots. They realize that the Code will be broken. Codes were *made* to be broken. Those who adhere to the Code are, in effect, not obeying the Code. Putting the ideal, putting the Code above life and expedient action is a grave sin -- saving your own power at the expense of time and inaction.

Nowadays saying any paladin should expect to lose their powers simply as a point of course is like saying any fighter should expect to lose their feats or any wizard should expect to have all their spellbooks destroyed.

Not entirely. Because a feat or a spellbook doesn't represent any real moral or ethical conquest for a Fighter or a Wizard. It's just a tool to use. Losing the use of a spellbook represents no failure for the Wizard, just a run of bad luck or potentially petty DMing. It's like loosing your magic sword, or having to throw the powerful artifact away. Just the loss of a power. It's a thing.

A Paladin who looses his powers has lost more than a Thing....he has lost his Tao, his Way, his Path, his God. He wanders in the Dark Wood and needs to climb the Shining Hill. Wandering through the dark wood should be expected, but a Paladin must always seek to come back out of that wood. It's not about being a better person, it's about being the same person, held to a higher standard.

I guess what it comes down to is that I view Falling as something momentous and difficult to reverse. Lucifer Fell.

Milton makes it pretty clear that Lucifer only Fell because he didn't want to try and be better. "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" is the cliche, right? That's the path of the Blackguard. The Paladin who falls, and who has no interest in that shining hill.

Adam Fell, too. But Adam can come back into the good graces of God, with toil and hard work and profuse apologies. A Paladin isn't perfect, like an Angel or Jesus; nor is he unrepentant, like Lucifer. He's Adam -- he makes mistakes. And he tries to make them better.

As far as Arthur is concerned, I never considered Arthur a paladin. It was Galahad, I believe, that assumed that role in the Arthurian legends.

Seems a bit like splitting hairs, but Arthur was the one with hyper kingly magical juju. Galahad was a sword-boy, a fighter pure and true. One with a very strong LG alignment that he never really waivered from, but just a knight. Arthur is the King, with all the magic and divinity that royalty entails.

But either way, the trope remains in effect: The Repentant Sinner is a stronger, more durable, more interesting, more versatile trope than the Flawless Icon. Paladins begin as dragon-slaying childhood heroes, but once dead orc babies come into the picture, it's time for something deeper, and the Repentant Sinner satisfies that.

Unfortunately the Paladin class as written in the PHB is not a reasonable mechanical expression of such a character IMNSHO.

Eh, it just needs a little boost. So why not, I'll write a book about it. We'll see what happens.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Because my way is in the dictionary, and yours is not - the word has a definition, so why make yourself look silly by changing it?

There is a reason that the word is willingly. You are changing a definition to fit your argument.

Willingly. Ie: not forced. Paladin sees guy. Paladin decides to kill guy. Seems willing to me. Paladin sees guy. BBEG dominates paladin and makes him kill guy. That's not willingly doing an evil act.