SHould paladins powers be lost peicemeal?

[Kahuna Burger]

In the killer paladin thread, a couple of people brought up that, by the RAW, paladin power loss is all or nothing. However, it seems that a lot of people favor removing one or two powers as a warning, or making some powers unreliable, etc.

How do you like to do it? Should a paladin lose just Detect Evil, or have his warhorse refuse to come until he atones for a transgression? Or is it all paladin all the time vs nothing?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

You know what I'd really like? A Fallen Paladin class. That'd solve a lot of issues. It could even have access to the hide skill so there would be a chance to qualify for Blackgaurd.

Anyway, to answer your question: depends on the diety. Sorry, man, that's all I got.

 

[DM_Matt]

I am puzzled by the amount of time people waste debating paladin punishments and devising plot traps for code-bound characters. The paladin's code serves no game-balance purpose, and people have very different conceptions of good. DM's should not declare that players should live by their particular worldview as to what is the ultimate moral heights. Paladins should be played to A CODE, but it should only be enforced for a general degree of consistancy and be tied more ot the player's understanding of good (within reason) than the DMs.

 

[Mallus]

I voted for selective loss.

In fact, I could see Paladins actually gaining different abilities during their period of attonement, as their respective gods show them different aspects of their faith. A Paladin's Fall, and subsequent redemption should be something that fully engages the player.

Consider a militant Paladin too enamoured of warfare who gets stripped of his/her Smite ability, but gains instead the power to 'spread the Good News' (some kind of enthrall effect?), and is ordered to live among the poor and downtrodden. Or a pacifist Paladin who strays into outright cowardice who loses all healing ability but gains divine fighting prowess, then is sent to the front lines in a war against manifest evil.

Attonement can be a lot more than just saying you're sorry (err, or finding a sympathetic cleric).

 

[ThirdWizard]

My answer is: if it fits.

It would depend on the nature of the offense and whether there is a suitable punishment. Small offenses that are ambiguous might qualify. Okay, so all offenses are ambiguous around here (), but if the DM thinks it is ambiguous enough, then maybe losing one power would work.

If the DM thinks the PC is being too greedy, he could lose Lay On Hands.
If the DM thinks the PC is being too merciful/not merciful enough, he could lose Detect Evil.
If the DM thinks the PC is being too proud, he could lose Divine Grace.

These would all be within the confines of the Paladin's Code, of course. I don't want to make any real examples or anything, these are just ways to make the punishment fit the crime. So a chaotic act, or whatever, that was the result of one of the aforementioned qulaities might qualify for some temporary punitive measures to keep the Paladin on track. This would be especially good to stop gross violations before they existed, giving a little buffer for the Paladin to notice, "Hey, I might be pushing a bit too far with that," and back off.

Of course, this would be supplement to any questions/concerns the Player brings up and any Code that the DM and Player work on together for the Paladin and/or his Order.

 

[adwyn]

A paladin's fall from grace (and return to) is an inherent part of the class, and I'd hate to see it removed from the game. But the straight stripping of all abilities doesn't make sense. In the past when I've had to impose some form of divine disfavor I've tried to keep it more in line with the transgression. Losing the warhorse, or at least having show obvious signs of embarrasment, and other powers piecemeal makes more sense.

 

[engrishonly]

I've always liked the "all-or-nothing" part of Paladinhood... mainly because there are too many Chaotic Good Paladins with situational ethics that border on selfish nihilism. You don't get to be a "Fighter with Benefits" just because you like magical abilities.

If you want to play a Fighter or Ranger or some Arcane-Fighter PrC, great... but if you want to walk the difficult path, then I will both challenge and reward you.

I think that is part of playing a Paladin - being forced to make choices that can destroy you.

And I think that is part of being a good DM - being fair, honest, not vengeful towards your players, but making the game challenging and not the straight path to the end... especially for those who have chosen the straight and narrow.

If I take away your powers as a Paladin, then we will walk together towards the story that leads to your atonement... it's just the start of another adventure, not the end of one (Paladinhood).

Of course, everyone can be petty & vengeful at times, especially the DM... so that's really the only reason why it might not be good if Paladinhood is all or nothing.

 

[Haloq Jakar]

I have never had a player seriously want to play a paladin in my game in the 20+ years I have DMed. Actually the movers and shakers in the player pool have more or less made it clear they do not want the restrictions that having a paladin PC would bring. This is from a group that tends towards CG as party alignment. Its the L(awful) part of lawful good they fear not the good part. They see chaos as a right.

Now as a player I have had 2 paladins over the same course of time. One was an idiot like Dudley Do Right, he never seemed to notice that his so called squire was up to no good all the time. Whenever said squire was caught being bad I just paid off the offended party with all my gold and alot of the squires as well.trying to right the wrongs. Its kinda fun being broke all the time makes for needing to slay that next giant or dragon to pay for supper.

My other paladin was a serious attempt to play somewhat like a Greek hero. I had a bow and a pegasus and fought mostly from the air out of melee range but I was playing in a campaign where the DM wanted me to be more like a cavalier type you know the jousting lance/ melee type who would never use a bow or run from a fight.

In any case I believe that slowly stripping away a paladins powers works best in the long run

 

[LostSoul]

If you want to play a Fighter or Ranger or some Arcane-Fighter PrC, great... but if you want to walk the difficult path, then I will both challenge and reward you.

I think that is part of playing a Paladin - being forced to make choices that can destroy you.

[snip]

If I take away your powers as a Paladin, then we will walk together towards the story that leads to your atonement... it's just the start of another adventure, not the end of one (Paladinhood).

Here's my point of view:

I don't think there is any reward for playing a Paladin. With all its abilities, it's balanced against the Fighter or Ranger. Without them, it's not worth playing.

The toggle between "on and balanced" and "off and ineffective" doesn't really aid the player in making moral choices. The "off" setting is just too much of a hit to effectiveness.

When you play an atonement adventure, it can be fun; but if your friends are with you (the rest of the PCs in the party), they are going to be doing all the heavy lifting. Unless the adventure is really tailored to your character - and doesn't give the other PCs a chance to use their (more powerful) abilities - the other PCs are going to shine in your atonement adventure.


I voted for "never lose powers", but that's not really what I think. I think that the player should be able to decide when and if he loses his powers, and what powers he loses. Barring mechanical changes to the class, of course, like benefits for falling from grace.

 

[jdrakeh]

I voted for selective loss, as well - although it should be noted that this can (and in some instances probably should) cover the 'all or nothing' atonement approach, too. This allows atonement to more directly reflect the nature of a particular violation of the Paldin's code or alignment. Let the punishment fit the crime, as they say.