Why aren't paladins liked?

[Herpes Cineplex]

By saying “are you sure?” rather than giving the player advice along the lines of what you said, I am bringing their attention to the situation at hand without telling them what to do.

Which works fine, as long as both you and the player agree that what he's about to do is going to cause a problem for his character.

Obviously, that wasn't the case this time around. The player looked at the situation, looked at what he understood a paladin's responsibilities to be, and decided that he wasn't breaking any code and his god wouldn't have any reason to punish him for it. You looked at the same situation and decided that what he was doing was chaotic enough and sacreligious enough to warrant immediate loss of paladin abilities.

Giving him a more explicit heads-up on the issue (even just saying "Are you sure? Because in this setting, desecrating tombs will make you lose your paladin abilities") would be a better alternative, I think. You're not telling him what to do with his character: you're telling him what YOU are going to do to his character, and you're informing him how your gameworld operates, which can only help him to avoid getting into fixes like that later on. He's perfectly free to continue ransacking graves all day long if he wants to; once you've informed him of the consequences, your hands are clean.

Hell, if the player thought it was important to get into that tomb immediately, he might very well have cracked the seal on it anyway and made the game really interesting by actually choosing to violate this code, and that's just cool. And probably the guy wouldn't have refused an atonement under those circumstances, so you wouldn't have had to convert his character into a villain.

Which I will admit wasn't such a bad result, all things considered (fallen paladin villains are great!), but I'm still a bit disturbed by the thought that you'd slap the character down for breaking a rule he was never actually informed of. Obviously, ignorance of the law is no excuse; I just think there's also no excuse for not educating someone who is ignorant of the laws before you let them run around breaking 'em.

--
just something to consider

 

[DragonLancer]

I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.

I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Right, so digging through someone's grave isn't paladinish. I agree with that. However, I am extrememly wary of wholesale destroying someone's character like that. Slap them on the wrist? Definately. Maybe take their smites away, and, as they do more good deeds, give them a level back each time (you now smite like a lv 1 paladin). Maybe take their spells away, or have their caster level or duration halved until they make good. Maybe, for the purpose of paladin abilities, reduce their cha by 2. All good slaps that get the point across, but aren't characer destroying moments.

Because striping someone of their abilities is, if not a character destroying act, does cause major changes. It definately kills the mood. It might do so forever. Your player could decide you're out to get him. And then, how do you give him his abilities back without it feeling somehow cheap and stupid? (By the way, for purposes of the paladin, I hate the atonement spell. Atonement comes from within, not without) And it definately undermines his confidence. How does he know you aren't going to take his abilities away again?

Though it's quite possible that this isn't the first time DragonLancer's player did somehting like this. In fact, it's possible that this is the repition of a long running set of thoughtless actions. If he's talked to the player before, and said things like "kicking the old woman was very unpaladinlike, I may have to take steps if you keep it up," then I think the act of stipping the paladin of his abilities was probablly warrented. And, I think it's likely that this is the case.

But as a general rule of thumb, don't sideswipe your players quite that bad, unless, of course, they enjoy that sort of thing. But I find that it does a lot to stretch and often break trust between the DMs and players.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.

In lieue of that, consider using an existing in-game mechanism: a knowledge-Religion check. "Hmmm, is this something that really peeves my god? Why yes, clerics across the continent got splitting headaches during the Sword of Parasiel incident. Maybe there's a key...."

That at least turns it into an off-line discussion after the game. You can then do minor ret-con and say the ruling only applies to this particular priest/temple/tomb/region/order if the player's ideas makes more sense than yours.

 

[DragonLancer]

Because striping someone of their abilities is, if not a character destroying act, does cause major changes. It definately kills the mood. It might do so forever. Your player could decide you're out to get him. And then, how do you give him his abilities back without it feeling somehow cheap and stupid? (By the way, for purposes of the paladin, I hate the atonement spell. Atonement comes from within, not without)

I'm going to stand up here and say that if the character is going to do something that goes against his code, then he is going to suffer the consequences. If a player doesn't like having repercussions for his actions, then (1) he's playing the wrong class, and (2) he's perhaps in the wrong group. I have mentioned this to the player and he's happy with the group, although he has a couple minor gripes with my DMing style. but the rest of the group is very happy.

Though it's quite possible that this isn't the first time DragonLancer's player did somehting like this. In fact, it's possible that this is the repition of a long running set of thoughtless actions. If he's talked to the player before, and said things like "kicking the old woman was very unpaladinlike, I may have to take steps if you keep it up," then I think the act of stipping the paladin of his abilities was probablly warrented. And, I think it's likely that this is the case.

Throughout that paticular campaign the other players were often telling me that they felt his actions and words were not appropriate to a Paladin, and even suggested that he lose his powers on a couple occasions. I did not strip him of them at those times but I did suggest to him out of game that he change his attitude.

But as a general rule of thumb, don't sideswipe your players quite that bad, unless, of course, they enjoy that sort of thing. But I find that it does a lot to stretch and often break trust between the DMs and players.

I don't see why. I don't go out of my way to screw the players, but as I have said, they need to accept consequences. Its not a trust issue, its a roleplaying issue.

 

[Voadam]

I consider smashing the tomb to be a non-lawful act. I never said it was an evil act, more a chaotic one. He didn’t consider his actions or consequences, and just went straight to it hammer & tongs. Plus, I do consider it a breach of the paladin’s code. It wasn’t tomb robbing but it was a form of desecration.

Non-Lawful act = irrelevant for losing paladin powers.

A breach of the code does not revoke the paladin's powers, only GROSS violation of the code. The code requires acting with honor, respecting legitimate authority, helping those in need and punishing the wicked.

So do you consider busting into the crypt in these circumstances a GROSS violation of the code, either in disrespecting the legitimate authority of the sanctity of the tombs or acting dishonorably.

Losing a paladin's powers is a binary decision: did he act evil or grossly violate the code? If so then all powers revoked.

from the srd:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.


Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.

Unless you are using different guidelines from those in the PH/srd in which case the question would become have you made these different requirements/restrictions known to the player.

 

[Mort]

I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.

I have in the past (and the recent) considerd writing out a code of conduct for Paladins in my game, but theres always too many grey areas, where different circumstances have differing reasons and outcomes.

Thinking "Any player would be aware..." is one of the most dangerous things a DM can do. What may be obvious to one person may not even be on another person's radar.

If there is no written (or otherwise expressely clear) guide; the DM should, in no uncertain terms, let a player know the character is about to fall.

Otherwise, how is the character deliberately comiting an evil act, if the player didn't know it was evil?

 

[DragonLancer]

Lawful also includes respect for the deceased. This wasn't a temple to some evil deity or demon prince. It was a tomb of a revered saint.
I think I am safe in saying that most DM's would consider that, on some level, against the code of the Paladin.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities.

Fair enough, and if it's working for your game more often than it causes problems, more power to you. I'll just submit that in this particular case you described, it's obvious that this particular player was not, in fact, aware that his actions would be grounds for losing his paladin abilities, that he was a little peeved about how this ruling was made, and that disagreement could have been avoided completely if you'd given him a more specific warning. Adjusting your style in that regard might make your game better for both of you.

And given that other people in this thread have said they wouldn't strip the paladin of his powers for that action, I think it's safe to say that it's possible for even a smart player to not be aware that a paladin can lose his abilities immediately for doing something like that in your game.

--
goggles of hindsight +5

 

[sword-dancer]

During an adventure to recover a healing artifact, the party were tricked into believing that it was inside a sealed tomb of a holy saint. Without a shadow of a doubt the paladin went to smash it open and reclaim it. I asked was he sure he wanted to do that, and he said yes. So, he lost his powers for desecrating the tomb (he didn't just try to open it, he smashed it open).

The next story he was offered a chance to atone for this act (I didn't see it as that big an issue). He refused, saying that what he did was for the betterment of others and that any deity who would condone his champion because of that was not worth his service, and so he semi-retired the character (Who would return later in the game as a blackguard villain).

Short Said, The Player was right, and The Paladin was Right!

He didn`t desecrate the Tomb, he openden the Tomb to take an item from the Saints resting place, to help people.
Usually Saints are persons woh helped good people, and if the saint was a healer, to use something from his grave would have not only his acceptance, but definetly his approval.

I can see what your saying, and I do agree to a point. However, I think that any player would be aware that the desecration of a tomb (especially one of a revered holy saint) is grounds for revokation of a Paladin's abilities. .

No, I wouldn`t have even wasted one thought that it could be considered desecration, i would´ve considered it almost automatically furthering the goal of the causes the saint stood for.