Reasons for a paladin to fall . . . with a twist

[sword-dancer]

What of a Paladin who believes he hadn`t fullfilled his duty prperly or at least acceptable and "retired" to bring not more shame and dishonor to his good and his brothers and sisters.
The god seeing that he did what he could at his best and reasonable judgement, only the opposition was better and his judgement of the situation, as he later learned, wasn`t correct.
So he "retired" but his god knowing this wasn`t failure of intent, but only bad luck decided to give him time he needed to heal his wounds get his selesteem etc back, consider him one of his champions, only one who isn`t momentarly fit for full field service.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

As a DM, my God would cast out this paladin. Some religions draw no line between intent and action, and it's an idea I agree with. The fact that the scenario was false means nothing to me, or the gods in my campaign. The paladin intended to sacrifice a child to spare himself more torment. The fact that there wasn't actually a child makes no difference. The paladin chose to sacrifice a child for himself. And the soul is all about choices.

If it were this easy, there'd never be a Paladin in existence in any game setting anywhere. Orcus would simply stroll up to the gates of every castle and city in the land, little girl in tow, and demand every Paladin in the city come down this instant and throw themselves upon their swords, or he'll kill the little girl.

Then he'd probably drown the little girl in the blood of all the stupid, dead Paladins.

It's the same with the other scenarios presented above where the paladin is tricked into making a sinful choice that turns out to have been a false choice. Meaningless. If you pick up a gun that you believe to be loaded, point it at a human being and pull the trigger, you're guilty of murder. If the gun jams and doesn't fire, you're still guilty of murder. That was your intent, and you acted on that intent. The paladin falls.

I agree with intent, but that hardly changes the situation. A Paladin who refused to carry a little girl out of a burning building, in case she weighed him down, has certainly thought solely about his own hide over that of an innocent. But a Paladin being forced to kill himself for another? That's a whole bigger kettle of fish.

I wanted to play someone who thought s/he was fallen, but who in actuality was not.

As people have already suggested, there are ways (guilt being a very good method) of having the Paladin believe he has fallen. As a further suggestion, how about a Paladin who seems like s/he should have fallen, but hasn't. Wenching, drinking binges, bad manners, awful rude behaviour; a gruff exterior that hides a heart of gold and genuine desire to bring peace and defeat evil.

 

[DeBracy]

Hmm. How is the character going to continue beleiving he's fallen when his paladin special abilities still work? I guess he'll be so distraught that he won't use most of them, beleiving they've fled him, but it might be a bit hard to ignore that he's not missing 4-6 points off all his saves.

Hopefully, Mr Paladin doesn't have his character sheet available in game.....

 

[fusangite]

If it were this easy, there'd never be a Paladin in existence in any game setting anywhere. Orcus would simply stroll up to the gates of every castle and city in the land, little girl in tow, and demand every Paladin in the city come down this instant and throw themselves upon their swords, or he'll kill the little girl.

I'm not usually in agreement with Lord Pendragon on much but he's clearly in the right here. The D&D alignment system is premised on the same moral structure as Star Trek: whenever there appears to be a choice between saving a small group or individual and protecting a much larger group, or, indeed, the whole universe, the choice is false. The meta-god that runs the Star Trek universe and the D&D alignment system does not permit there to ever be a choice in which sacrificing a small group or individual is a necessary evil to achieve a greater good. The alignment system is clear evidence of this because it is resolutely blind to any distinction between goals and strategies, means and ends.

Just like Captain Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard, any true hero in the D&D universe knows that in any situation in which he must choose between saving the universe and saving an innocent child, one of three things must be true:
(a) the only way to truly save the universe is to save the innocent child first;
(b) the child will be miraculously saved/ressurrected as a result of saving the universe;
(c) either the impending destruction of the universe or the impending destruction of the child is an illusion.

The designersof the D&D alignment system and the Star Trek script bibles were not completely on glue here. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant also argued that God would never permit people to have to make the kind of choice you're describing. While empirical observation of our world doesn't seem to bear that out, fortunately, D&D and Star Trek take place in parallel universes with different rules.

 

[Seonaid]

Why not have the paladin know that he hasn't fallen?

Now this is truly a fascinating idea. I gave it no more than a second's thought initially, but now that you've spelled it out, it looks very, very interesting . . . It would cause more work on my DM's part (of course), but I'll run it by him and see what he thinks. It could be fun times all around! Thanks for stopping by my little thread.

Thanks for all the good ideas, folks. I'm still processing so keep them coming if you've got 'em!

 

[shilsen]

Now this is truly a fascinating idea. I gave it no more than a second's thought initially, but now that you've spelled it out, it looks very, very interesting . . . It would cause more work on my DM's part (of course), but I'll run it by him and see what he thinks. It could be fun times all around! Thanks for stopping by my little thread.

Glad to help. You did mention my little thread, after all

 

[iwatt]

Glad to help. You did mention my little thread, after all

Little thread?.......

you mean the paladin thread that just won't die?

 

[Alzrius]

The paladin chose to sacrifice a child for himself. And the soul is all about choices.

You did read the part covered by the spoiler-blackout, right? Said paladin knew it wasn't really an innocent child...he just didn't realize he knew.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You did read the part covered by the spoiler-blackout, right? Said paladin knew it wasn't really an innocent child...he just didn't realize he knew.

I did, but quickly. I'm not sure I buy the "realized without realizing he realized" rationale, but I concede that your scenario is not that which I argued against in my previous post.

 

[shilsen]

Little thread?.......

you mean the paladin thread that just won't die?

Guilty as charged