Paladin: Tricked Into Killing the Wrong Target

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

This comment seems to argue directly against your assertion that paladins are only human.

I agree with you that paladins are human, and imperfect. But I disagree that they're just common mortals trying to make a difference. Paladins are souls that were created stronger and more pure than others. The idea that a paladin should serve as a "Repentant Sinner" is anathema to what the paladin archtype is to me. Paladins aren't sinners. They may make mistakes, they may even be overcome with emotions under certain circumstances, but that does not make them mundane.

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.

This is where I disagree. The paladin is something in between. He's not Adam, a common mortal man. His soul is closer to his god than Adam's, his arm serves as the instrument of that god's will. His heart is the bastion of god's faith.

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.

Royalty means nothing in the context of a paladin, holiness does. Galahad was the only Grail Knight good enough and holy enough to find the Grail. Arthur was not. That Arthur had "more magical juju" is beside the point.

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.

Two points: firstly, I am not suggesting a Flawless Icon trope as the paladin archtype. I'm suggesting a Paragon of Virtue. Secondly, the Repentant Sinner may be all that you claim (I might dispute it, but it doesn't serve a purpose in the context of this thread,) but that does not make it a paladin.

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.

Again, you seem to suggest that depth can only be found with a paladin who falls again and again. I suppose this is a subjective point, so I cannot really gainsay it, save to say that I have not found this to be the case in my own experiences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Paladins are souls that were created stronger and more pure than others. The idea that a paladin should serve as a "Repentant Sinner" is anathema to what the paladin archtype is to me. Paladins aren't sinners.

According to the knightly tradition that yeilded the paladin as an archetype, the only human being that wasn't a sinner was the Son of God (and perhaps his mom). Which means that an entire class of people being sinless is almost blasphemey in this light. Paladins are mortals, and they are only on a "high ground" because of their free will to choose to puruse it.

The idea that Paladins aren't sinners is inconcievable to me. The idea that they are "better than your average person" simply by being Holier than Thou is full of pride, hubris, and dreamy idealism. Paladins cannot be better than your average person, I think, and still be relatively playable as characters. If they are held to a higher stnadard, they are going to meet that standard less -- their speciality lays in their free choice of that harder path, not in the fact that the gods love them more for some reason.

I can't imagine a person who doesn't do wrong, constnatly and regretably. Paladins distinguish themselves not by doing the impossible (being perfect), but by trying for that imposible goal (rather than settling for their sin as others would).

It's not the destination, it's not the perfection -- it's the constant striving to get there that makes them special.

A Paragon of Virtue is, in many styles of campaign, unrealistic. This isn't true in every kind. Where Good and Evil are clearly defined and there aren't really hard ethical and moral questions it's easy to stay true to the path. However, in any campaign where the motives, personality, and justice of Law and Goodness could become an issue, a Paragon of Virtue is an impossibility. Thus the origin of many Paladin threads -- how does a Paragon of Virtue make these difficult choices?

To be a sinless mortal is almost a contradiction in terms, and this is especially true the more complex and challenged the character's moral high ground is. In effect, you can only be a Paragon of Virtue if that Virtue isn't significantly challenged. When it is, when you are forced to choose between two evils, Paragon of Virtue is no longer a valid archetype. Which is where Repentant Sinner comes in.

Note that I'm not trying to gainsay different ways to play the Paladin. I'm merely saying that there comes a point where you either have to just agree to not make Virtue that big of a deal ("It's okay to murder innocents if you were tricked into it"), or you have to accept that paladins, like all other people, sometimes do bad things. And a Paladin that does bad things is distinguished not by blemishless purity, but by constantly striving for that ideal, and thus living as an example to every other sinful mortal out there. That just to hold the Paladin to an extremely strict code doesn't mean that it's suddenly an unfair way to play.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

It sure as heck sounds to me like your interpretation - ' You will lose your powers even if I have to redefine a word to make it happen'.

I am saying that 'willful' and 'willingly' do not mean being tricked into something, which is what you are claiming. He has not commited an evil act, merely a misguided one. (In one example deliberately misguided.) And I am very glad that I will not be playing in your campaign.

The Auld Grump

 

[ThirdWizard]

It sure as heck sounds to me like your interpretation - ' You will lose your powers even if I have to redefine a word to make it happen'.

*ahem* I didn't redefine anything. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

I don't think it would be proper for a paladin to plead ignorance and for that to actually work. He doesn't know this is evil, or he didn't know that was evil, it doesn't matter. Commit an evil act (killing an innocent) and suffer the consequences stated under the rules.

Now, if you want to play it a different way, sure. But, don't go claiming I'm making up stuff.

As for the situation, it isn't going to happen. Only a fool would put an illusion on someone so a paladin would kill them (disregarding the fact that a paladin can detect evil at will). What's the outcome? Paladin has his powers back the next day, realizes that someone is after him, and has even stronger convictions in his beliefs now. Great job, BBEG. You now have a worse problem than before. Congratulations.

 

[genshou]

The concept that a Paladin isn't a real Paladin unless they've had to atone is steeped in fallacy. "Better to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission before" is NOT a teaching of any real-world religion from which the Paladin concept may have been derived. A soul is always stronger who remains faithful no matter what happens (here I think of Job).

And Adam isn't the best choice of someone to refer to as a "common mortal man", according to the Bible he was/is a prophet of God. That should put Adam a bit above a "common mortal man" when it comes to how close his soul is to his god. I'd say prophets were a cut above the common mold, but saying that is so "because God made them to be that way" doesn't make as much sense to me. Paladins are those who have taken up a life of self-sacrifice in order to do their god's will, not for self-benefit but for the benefit of their fellow sentients. instead of saying that their souls were "crafted" or "forged" by their gods specifically for that purpose, perhaps they are just the virtuous among the virtuous, the most pious of the pious, and that is why they are chosen to become Paladins when others might just be Lawful Good Fighters.

Anywhere, there's my late entry of 2cp, which at the current going rate amounts to enough to buy half a torch. If it's on sale.

 

[sad_genius]

The Paladin should be fine. Sometimes innocent people die in the fight against evil, that's just the way it is.

 

[Endur]

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.

Actually, atonement can be a very big issue depending on the campaign world. I know one Living Greyhawk character that went over two years without his divine powers before he received his atonement quest.

This was in a campaign where Raise Deads were a dime a dozen but atonements were rare.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Commit an evil act (killing an innocent) and suffer the consequences stated under the rules.

Doing evil requires what is called mens rea: evil mind...aka the intent to do evil or the reckless disregard for the potential to do evil.

Killing an innocent person under an illusion simply doesn't qualify.

Only a fool would put an illusion on someone so a paladin would kill them (disregarding the fact that a paladin can detect evil at will).

That ability is as per the spell...

In other words...its a cone shaped emanation that works better the longer you use it, and requiring concentration. Round 1, Detect the presence of evil; round 2, number of evil auras within the area; Round 3, the power & location of the aura.

Depending on the power of the person whom the illusion represents (ie, the BBEG), its a sliding scale as to whether the Paladin is even going to bother using the ability.

Here's what I mean by that. Detect evil is a powerful ability, but it takes time to use, and requires concentration. It isn't something likely to be used in combat, or if there is imminent danger. If the BBEG is an extremely powerful being of many supernatural powers (spells, abilities, etc.) and a known hair-trigger, dallying to DE is a potential death sentence for the Paladin, if not his entire party.

On the other hand, a BBEG who is merely Machiavellian- a master manipulator, a mover & shaker without significant combat/spell abilities, and the encounter is in the streets as they pass- DE is something the Paladin should ABSOLUTELY do before attacking. (Since unprovoked attacks on a citizen in the streets is a "breach of the peace" it is unlikely the Paladin would even attack the REAL BBEG in such a situation.)

 

[Storminator]

I generally DM that a paladin shouldn't fall unless the player wants to play out the consequences.

That said, I really like Kamikaze Midget's thinking on the subject. It's a heck of a lot deeper than my own, and I really learned some new perspective on the paladin class.

Thanks KM!

PS