Would your paladin fall from this?

[LoyalPaladin]

I think I used to have a house rule that you came up with your own dang code of conduct that I approved as a DM. This conversation has only reminded me of this house rule, and it will be one I will have to revive.

I'll fall a paladin if I have to. But I've house ruled Paladins as I stated above. They have to have a patron deity and share it's alignment. Their code is then written in accordance with the deity's dogma by the player/DM. All my players were happy with that and I've seen a few exceptional paladins be brought to the table. My favorite one of theirs was a Paladin of Silvanus.

[Honest Tiefling]

Was the paladin Neutral then? Admittedly, I dislike the idea of such a core option being locked to one singular alignment, but I'm surprised and intrigued.

[LoyalPaladin]

Was the paladin Neutral then?

Yep. It was the best play of a TN character I've ever seen. That character was the definition of balance.

Admittedly, I dislike the idea of such a core option being locked to one singular alignment, but I'm surprised and intrigued.

With my fix, you can be any alignment you want.

[Segev]

In theory, the Paladin's Code of Conduct is a balancing mechanism against how powerful the class is. And in 1e AD&D...it WAS, especially at low-mid level. So part of the restraint on the Paladin was that, if he didn't behave with the utmost moral and ethical character (and thus not always exert his power in the most personally optimal fashion), he would lose his powers. It stemmed certain kinds of abuse. It was a way to make a class that was powerful in a focused area but far more constrained in another.

3e Paladins just aren't powerful enough to justify it, and it has long since become something DMs view as a personal challenge to their creativity. Because it's THERE.

[Honest Tiefling]

In theory, the Paladin's Code of Conduct is a balancing mechanism against how powerful the class is. And in 1e AD&D...it WAS, especially at low-mid level. So part of the restraint on the Paladin was that, if he didn't behave with the utmost moral and ethical character (and thus not always exert his power in the most personally optimal fashion), he would lose his powers. It stemmed certain kinds of abuse. It was a way to make a class that was powerful in a focused area but far more constrained in another.

As I am not well-versed in older editions, did this actually work, or...? From what I know of older editions, probably not.

[Frostthehero]

I'm going to have to agree with red, but it depends on your world. In my setting, paladins are hyper idealistic, and basically have to follow the knights code, but with the penalty of falling if they violate it.

[Keltest]

As I am not well-versed in older editions, did this actually work, or...? From what I know of older editions, probably not.

I played a 1e paladin for several years. More than just restricting me from acting selfishly, it actually kept a reign in the party doing stupid destructive stuff as well. "The paladin wont like it" is like the DM saying no without actually saying no.

[Honest Tiefling]

I played a 1e paladin for several years. More than just restricting me from acting selfishly, it actually kept a reign in the party doing stupid destructive stuff as well. "The paladin wont like it" is like the DM saying no without actually saying no.

Were people back then just a lot more agreeable, because if you tell that to many a disruptive player I knew, you'd quickly find that they'd start to murder each other to be the first to get the paladin to fall.

[Taelas]

It was a very different scene. Games weren't played as fast -- a campaign could easily last years, without any characters reaching max level. There were incentives not to mess things up.

[Venger]

In theory, the Paladin's Code of Conduct is a balancing mechanism against how powerful the class is. And in 1e AD&D...it WAS, especially at low-mid level. So part of the restraint on the Paladin was that, if he didn't behave with the utmost moral and ethical character (and thus not always exert his power in the most personally optimal fashion), he would lose his powers. It stemmed certain kinds of abuse. It was a way to make a class that was powerful in a focused area but far more constrained in another.

3e Paladins just aren't powerful enough to justify it, and it has long since become something DMs view as a personal challenge to their creativity. Because it's THERE.

3e paladins are very weak. they don't need a nerf at all.

you could always just... remove the falling mechanics and adjudicate your players being naughty through roleplaying, like literally every single other class in the game. if your wizard burns down a puppy orphanage, you have the cops chase him, or have one of the survivors come after him. you won't say "gotcha! now you lose all your class features, sucker" as people do with paladins. you also won't try to put your wizard in a situation where he has to choose between two options you morally disaprove of, forcing him to fall as everyone seems to enjoy doing for pallies.

[Taelas]

It's one of the sacred cows that stuck around. I actually like the mechanic, for what it's worth. It sets paladins apart.

[Scheming Wizard]

No she wouldn't fall, because the penalty for murder is death and the man clearly admitted to murder and rape. There was no doubt requiring a trial or evidence.

[Keltest]

Were people back then just a lot more agreeable, because if you tell that to many a disruptive player I knew, you'd quickly find that they'd start to murder each other to be the first to get the paladin to fall.

Well, besides having a reasonable DM who would roll their eyes and veto that sort of behavior, I also happened to be the party tank, loaded up with so much AC and Spell Reflection that antagonizing me even without my knowledge became dangerous. My paladin mount was a panther too, which was cool.

[Necroticplague]

No she wouldn't fall, because the penalty for murder is death and the man clearly admitted to murder and rape. There was no doubt requiring a trial or evidence.

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

[Keltest]

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Ill be honest, I am of the opinion that anyone who goes around claiming to be a murderer and subsequently attacking a paladin deserves any consequences that result. If youre that stupid, you wouldn't have gone much further in life anyway.

[Necroticplague]

Ill be honest, I am of the opinion that anyone who goes around claiming to be a murderer and subsequently attacking a paladin deserves any consequences that result. If youre that stupid, you wouldn't have gone much further in life anyway.

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

[Zaydos]

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

And a DC 15 Sense Motive check. Sense Motive is a class skill on Paladin for a reason.

[Terazul]

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Except that (assuming she was a Paladin), she has Detect Evil, and he literally has the dead bodies hanging from a tree right next to them!

This is getting ridiculous. By that logic a Paladin shouldn't even bother killing anything at all because hey! Through some extreme machinations they could be acting against their own will.

And yeah, Sense Motive is a thing.

[Venger]

besides, committing Evil acts under mind control isn't an Evil act, so if that were the case, they wouldn't ping.

[Brookshw]

Except that (assuming she was a Paladin), she has Detect Evil, and he literally has the dead bodies hanging from a tree right next to them!

This is getting ridiculous. By that logic a Paladin shouldn't even bother killing anything at all because hey! Through some extreme machinations they could be acting against their own will.

And yeah, Sense Motive is a thing.

Agreed, now we're dipping into the absurd. Especially for a settong where mind control isn't really a thing (excluding Bran and whatever he's called).

Edit: of course, arguing about alignments tends to be absurd and is solid proof we're internetting correctly!

[Scheming Wizard]

Except for the fact there's no way to know he was telling the truth. Considering mind-controlling magics exist, it's very possible for someone else to have done it and forced these guys to take the fall. That's why you imprison guilty people, to give such magics time to wear off or give the court wizards time to search for such.

Westeros is a pretty low magic campaign setting. There are the white walkers to the North and the Dragons across the ocean, but the everyday folk aren't even aware that they exist. I mean what is more likely that some soldiers raped and murdered some women in the woods then bragged about it or that a wizard nobody has ever heard of brainwashed these random soldiers just to make Brienne of Tarth commit murder? She's not even a well known knight/paladin.

[Necroticplague]

Except that (assuming she was a Paladin), she has Detect Evil, and he literally has the dead bodies hanging from a tree right next to them!

This is getting ridiculous. By that logic a Paladin shouldn't even bother killing anything at all because hey! Through some extreme machinations they could be acting against their own will.

And yeah, Sense Motive is a thing.

They shouldn't kill anyone who isn't currently a threat. Anyone you think might be a threat should be checked to make sure they are or aren't. Yes, it's a pain, but nobody ever said avoiding ever committing a single evil act was easy. And it still leaves them free for the most common category of killing I've ever seen, killing people who attacked you while you were doing something else.

besides, committing Evil acts under mind control isn't an Evil act, so if that were the case, they wouldn't ping.

But they could be Evil, but innocent of this act, and mind controlled. Evil=/=guilty of whatever recent heinous act went down.

[Keltest]

So for being mind-controlled, the penalty is death? That's an entirely plausible scenario to have occur (other dude murdered them, Dominated these dudes to act as fall guys).

If theyre being mind controlled, then their deaths are on the hands of whoever controlled them and sent them after the paladin in the first place. The paladin has no reasonable way to know that theyre (potentially) innocent victims and so shouldn't be judged based on that.

Also, a character dominated into trying to kill the paladin is unlikely to surrender as that would be counter to the domination.

[Necroticplague]

Also, a character dominated into trying to kill the paladin is unlikely to surrender as that would be counter to the domination.

They aren't dominated to kill the paladin, they're dominated to take the fall for this. In that case, having a public trial in which they confess actually serves the purpose of the dominator.

[Keltest]

They aren't dominated to kill the paladin, they're dominated to take the fall for this. In that case, having a public trial in which they confess actually serves the purpose of the dominator.

If theyre only dominated to "take the fall" then they wouldn't be engaging the paladin in the first place.

[Zaydos]

They aren't dominated to kill the paladin, they're dominated to take the fall for this. In that case, having a public trial in which they confess actually serves the purpose of the dominator.

And is an obviously suicidal command and thus isn't followed..

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.

[Necroticplague]

If theyre only dominated to "take the fall" then they wouldn't be engaging the paladin in the first place.

And looking at the video, they didn't. They taunted her (I think, volume not working), then she turned around and killed them, with the last living one trying to surrender.

[Keltest]

And looking at the video, they didn't. They taunted her (I think, volume not working), then she turned around and killed them, with the last living one trying to surrender.

And with regards to the self-destructiveness of the idea, that is any different how?

[Brookshw]

And with regards to the self-destructiveness of the idea, that is any different how?

Suicide's a sin and this was suicide by paladin so clearly they were evil and killing them was okay

[atemu1234]

Suicide's a sin and this was suicide by paladin so clearly they were evil and killing them was okay

Line we don't cross-> | + <- This.