What is the dumbest way you've seen a paladin lose his paladinhood?

[TheAuldGrump]

And quite a few campaigns, both published and homebrew, do require both Paladins and Clerics to choose a diety.

And read the rules - they do in fact lose their abilities for behaving in a chaotic or evil manner. I would add in 'knowingly', if you don't know that the person you are helping is evil then it does't cause a problem - unless you don't then try to fix matters. (And murdering the evil cleric sitting in a chair is still murder.) Nor do I expect the paladin to detect evil on everyone he meets.

Stupidest loss of Paladin abilities:
P: I torture the peasant for information about the pirates.
D.M.: Ummm, you do know that torture is itself an evil act?
P: The peasant deserves it - he didn't rebel against the corrupt town government!
D.M.: Peasant, two hit points, no attack bonus, rebel against the town he doesn't know is corrupt.... right...
P: Yes!

On the bugbear issue, I once had a party hanged for killing an orc who was just walking down the road.... Seems there was a peace treaty that both sides were actually honoring...

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* And best paladin behavior - I had one player who went out of his way to redeem the villains if he thought there was a chance. It backfired on him once, but I allowed him to succeed several times.

 

[Mark Chance]

Status-losing among paladins has been, IME, largely the result of bad DMing stemming from DMs imposing a ridiculously huge number of qualifiers into what is meant to be a simple code of conduct.

 

[Altalazar]

Status-losing among paladins has been, IME, largely the result of bad DMing stemming from DMs imposing a ridiculously huge number of qualifiers into what is meant to be a simple code of conduct.

What makes you say that? I've never seen a bad DM call lose a paladin his status, but then I haven't seen that many paladins (Jacques, Zee HO-ly PalaDEEN Notwithstanding...)

 

[Mark Chance]

What makes you say that?

Well, obviously, my experiences with people trying to play paladins in games run by weak DMs "made" me say that.

 

[Altalazar]

Well, obviously, my experiences with people trying to play paladins in games run by weak DMs "made" me say that.

I mean, the actual examples - just how restrictive were they?

 

[Mark Chance]

I mean, the actual examples - just how restrictive were they?

Oh.

Well, one campaign I played in ages ago while stationed in NC had a DM who told the paladin player that his character, a 4th-level paladin, lost his paladinhood for organizing and participating in an ambush against a mob of ogres and hill giants that were ravaging the countryside. Apparently the DM expected the paladin to stand in the middle of the road and challenge the mob to single combat.

I've seen a number of example where DMs somehow interpret the paladin's code of conduct as ruling out all forms of deceit regardless of circumstances. Need to hide from the Nazghul in one of these campaigns? Don't do it in a paladin's house since he'll be "honor-bound" to rat you out.

Et cetera.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think, in general, progressing slowly down in abilities is a better 'warning' than just stripping them of all powers for killing an orc.

They killed flower-bearing bugbear....they perhaps loose spellcasting first...then the gods keep an eye on them...if they do something noble, the spells come back. OTherwise, they stay gone, and if the power of Law and Good sees any more (even slightly minor) infractions, powers start bleeding away fast...

 

[kingpaul]

A paladin I had in a previous campaign wasn't stripped of their status, but did lose many of their abilities for a time. Our group was on a covert mission. We ran into another group on the road, and one of them began talking to my paladin. I was very careful to not outright lie, everything I said was the truth. However, I just didn't say the whole truth. DM said I was dissembling, and lost my abilities until that piece of the adventure was over.

 

[Dr. Harry]

A paladin I had in a previous campaign wasn't stripped of their status, but did lose many of their abilities for a time. Our group was on a covert mission. We ran into another group on the road, and one of them began talking to my paladin. I was very careful to not outright lie, everything I said was the truth. However, I just didn't say the whole truth. DM said I was dissembling, and lost my abilities until that piece of the adventure was over.

This has historically been argued in much the same context. The case that I am most familiar with was in England, during the reign of Elizabeth & James VI. Catholic priests were forbidden to enter, on pain of death, but the priests would sneak in to England to tend to the English Catholics.

If a priest was arrested on the road and asked point blank, that is one thing, but what if the priest is found hiding in someone's home - and that someone will also be killed, or at the very least dispossed, if the priest is found. The concept of "equivocation" was created to allow priests to dissemble (as in your example). I.e., "Have you ever been over the sea?", with the clear meaning of "have you been to Europe" could be answered "no" if the question didn't specify WHICH sea, as long as the person had not been over ALL seas. This was a great source of debate in the Jesuit order, with the head of the Jesuits in England (Fr. Henry Garnet) deciding that equivocation was not proper.

 

[Richards]

A question posed by Lord Pendragon:

Out of curiosity, was the harvest something that could be done in a day, or was the paladin meant to give up his paladinhood--by forsaking his mission in order to help the farmers--in order to regain his paladinhood?

I'm not saying this particular paladin did right. He doesn't seem to have tried to keep the farmer's family from starving at all, but would he have managed to save his paladinhood had he offered the farmer gold to buy food, or sent the farmer to his Order for succor? Or was he expected to selflessly sacrifice his paladin powers forever to help this farmer bring in his crop, as the only way to prove he was worthy of paladinhood in the first place?

The whole "farmer test" was set up to see whether the ex-paladin would be concerned only for his own welfare (that is, his chance at restoring his paladinhood), or if he was willing to help others as his code demanded. Had he stayed on the farm and aided the farmer and his wife with the crops, at the end of the third day he would have "known" the sealed scroll was for him, and sure enough, it would have been the "Congratulations, it looks like you've learned your lesson" scroll. Ironically, it was by ignoring his paladin status/chance at redemption and just doing the right thing - without worrying about a reward - that was the key to regaining his paladinhood.

Johnathan