Paladin: Tricked Into Killing the Wrong Target

[Testament]

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.

Emphasis added.

This to me just screams that you're on a completely different conceptual wavelength to other people here. This sort of thing can work great in some games, but personally, the highlighted concept just makes me want to throw up.

If it works for you and your games, more power to you! I know though that I'd have no interest whatsoever in playing or running a game with that assumption.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

no, don't you understand, there only one dictionary definition of the word which is tied unbreakably to the idea of willpower and intent to cause the consequences (so if you don't know the full consequences of any given action you can't do it willingly by the dictionary, duh!) We are all supposed to go "oh, he says there's no room for debate, so he must be right."

Stop this silly having opinions and backing them up!

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

What does it say in the rules again?

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)."

So he might get away with minor infractions without loosing his abilities. Paladins are not perfection - they are still human.

Properly role-played, a paladin who violates his code of conduct in a minor way probably should reflect on it for some time (possibly in prayer) and make sure it doesn't happen again. It's only when he does so repeatedly and deliberately that his powers will go away.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

So, you assume that the Paladin's god is either an idiot, or like a bad DM is just waiting for the chance to strip him of his powers?

Right.

And the example given is Paladin sees guy --> Paladin sees guy commit an evil act --> Paladin kills guy. Not quite the same as stumbling up to some stranger in the street, killing him and taking his stuff.

The other example is more blatant: Paladin sees guy --> Paladin sees guy commit an evil act --> Guy promises to change his ways --> Paladin sees guy commit an evl act --> Paladin kills guy.

The Auld Grump

 

[I'm A Banana]

This to me just screams that you're on a completely different conceptual wavelength to other people here. This sort of thing can work great in some games, but personally, the highlighted concept just makes me want to throw up.

If it works for you and your games, more power to you! I know though that I'd have no interest whatsoever in playing or running a game with that assumption.

I think that aspect is rather key to the original inspiration for the Paladin, however (crusaders and knights of yore with all their trappings). It's why they have a Code instead of just an alignment restriction, I think. That's why they're described as being "chosen above others" in the PH. The unspoken assumption being that "others" aren't Good enough.

I mean, it's certainly not the only way to play, but it helps avoid a great many of the "paladin problems," because the paladin no longer lives in utter terror of violating the Code. It's not a fear of punishment anymore. It changes the whole tenor of the class to be something more flexible and more realistic.

I mean, no CN character IMC has been able to be that unchallenged. No Evil character has been defined purely by Evil acts. No Good character is always Good 100% of the time. Paladins are no different, and the Code ensures that it's actually easier to break them than it is to break normal alignments. So they are broken -- constantly broken and re-set, becoming stronger for the tempering.

 

[ThirdWizard]

So, you assume that the Paladin's god is either an idiot, or like a bad DM is just waiting for the chance to strip him of his powers?

I'm merely not letting my feelings over how I want the rules to work interfere with my understanding of how the rules are worded. And, no the god isn't an idiot. If a paladin kills an innocent in his name, he'll pay for it. This is about him and his god, no one else. The paladin has failed in his duties. He has somehow committed an evil deed. His god isn't going to go "Oh, well, he's done evil, but he didn't mean to. It's alright." Not in my campaign anyway.

And, all this talk about a DM screwing over his players is a straw man. I never said for a DM to bait a paladin into losing his powers. I'm saying how it works.

 

[frankthedm]

If you pretend to cast evil spells at a paladin, you should realize that you're going to get smitten. That doesn't even make sense. Why would a person do that? I'm lost here. No loss of paladin powers for that. The person invited it upon himself.

Damn skippy!

 

[gizmo33]

no, don't you understand, there only one dictionary definition of the word which is tied unbreakably to the idea of willpower and intent to cause the consequences (so if you don't know the full consequences of any given action you can't do it willingly by the dictionary, duh!)

So if I willing shoot an arrow at a kobold, and I miss and hit a paladin, then I either willingly shot the paladin, or I didn't. I vote that I didn't.

So the paladin willingly did *something*, but did not willingly perform an evil act, which I think was the spirit of the rule, dictionary definitions aside.

In fact, I always judge alignments based on means, rather than ends. People who don't, IMO, ought to let paladins use poison and summon demons as long as it's against evil people. I think the real thing about alignment is intent, and so I think the paladin in this example didn't do anything wrong as described.

However, in a "shoot first and ask questions later" situation, there comes a time when "collateral damage" is irresponsible, and would be Chaotic, if not downright Evil. A paladin in the situation described should probably want to atone, in order do make it clear to everyone that their primary goal is to serve the deity and not just win at all costs.

 

[ThirdWizard]

In fact, I always judge alignments based on means, rather than ends. People who don't, IMO, ought to let paladins use poison and summon demons as long as it's against evil people. I think the real thing about alignment is intent, and so I think the paladin in this example didn't do anything wrong as described.

I disregard intent completely. It doesn't matter to me if you have the intentions of a saint, the actions you choose are going to be what determines what your alignment is. Doing evil things for good purposes does not get anyone off the hook in my games. Some of my best villians have wished only to do good.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So if I willing shoot an arrow at a kobold, and I miss and hit a paladin, then I either willingly shot the paladin, or I didn't. I vote that I didn't.

So the paladin willingly did *something*, but did not willingly perform an evil act, which I think was the spirit of the rule, dictionary definitions aside.

Whereas I think if you ('you' that is being a paladin in an imaginary setting) take an action that directly caused an evil end, whether you meant it that way or not, that evil end is a stain upon you which interferes with your channeling of Good. If you fire the arrow that kills a paladin, you have some ritual purification and atonement coming.

Of course on law & order, jack mccoy could get you for manslaughter for recklessly taking an action you knew could cause a death (and said death then occured).