Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gargoyle" data-source="post: 488578" data-attributes="member: 529">I think if you are in doubt, as it seems that you are since you're posting for advice, you should give him a second chance.  I prefer to err on the side of the players when making such calls.The #1 problem with paladins is that players and DM's don't see eye-to-eye on what is considered an evil act before the campaign begins.  Would he have committed the massacre (and I agree that IMO it was an evil act and that he shouldn't use the detect evil ability as a "radar detector") if he knew you were going to consider it an evil act and permanently strip him of his class abilities?  It doesn't sound like it.    I don't think you should have to warn paladin players every time they are about to do something wrong either, but I do think you should cut him some slack early in the campaign and allow him to seek atonement to regain his powers.   A bloodthirsty crusading type of paladin might not consider what he did to be evil, but even then, it seems rather chaotic and should result in a temporary loss of powers.  I think the alignment shift was appropriate as well, and of course that will have to shift back before he regains his abilities in any case.It seems to me that the player really doesn't understand that a paladin exists to protect innocents, not merely hunt down and kill everything evil.  It doesn't sound like he's simply shirking the Code and powergaming.  Good intentions should count for something.  OTOH, if you feel the character was simply way out of line, and that the player doesn't deserve a second chance, that's your call.  Being too leniant on paladins makes the class irrelevant and just another type of fighter.   A paladin who repeatedly violates his code without repercussions is more annoying than a DM who is too strict.  All IMO of course.  (Edit: had to change that last sentence around, I didn't make any sense.)</blockquote>

Verification