DM tried to have my Fighter "Fall"

[elonin]

I'm shocked that the dm would have made a paladin fall for such actions.

[Elandris Kajar]

I personally believe that the DM didn't notice even though the paladin did not smite, lay on hands or otherwise use any Paladin abilities. If you were a Paladin, you would probably smite the slaver.

[Venger]

If slavery is evil to your god and lawful for the king, there is no way out with this kind of DM trap. Either he doesn't act good or he doesn't act lawful.
Even with the worst interpretation, this character may have commited a chaotic act, but did nothing evil, hence I don't understand why he may have fallen as a paladin, according to RAW.

Then, slavery may be allowed in this kingdom, but if it was not allowed by his faith, should a paladin stay lawful to the local law or to his god's code ?

as ever, most of the things people assume about how pallies are compelled to act are not actually true

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.

paladins do not have to worship a god or be beholden to a king.

Lawful does not mean "follows the local laws." the simplest example of this is if a pally goes to baator. he's not bound to follow devil law and do naughty things.

I'm shocked that the dm would have made a paladin fall for such actions.

why? that's all people do to paladins. they make them fall.

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

I guess your party never runs into evil monks

Killing an unarmed person because he is evil and will cause the death of you and slave children is something a chaotic neutral person would do. It was not out of character......I am the character, I get to decide how they act to things. I hate that people are always telling others how they should be roleplaying. I reprimanded him, but understood his reasoning even if I dont agree with it. That's okay. I don't have to agree with everything my party does, as a Lawful Good character I try to urge the party to the light and order. Not railroad them. People with your opinion are the reason why you can't be good in most games anymore.

I know, right? it's your guy, no one knows what's OOC for him except you. besides, killing bad guys is never an evil act, even if it is an Evil act.

rolling Good is a sucker's game. I always roll Evil and just play a good guy, especially since Good is evil and Evil is good in D&D. no one ever tries to make you fall as an urpriest for saving too many puppy orphanages.

Anyway, great story, everyone wants Good characters/Paladins to fall, just play an Evil/Neutral character instead and nobody will ever question you being too good/nice/anything.

pretty much this

If you took it as a personal attack then I apologize. From your post I did get the feeling that you were attacking me as a roleplayer, and trying to say that I role played my character wrong. I accepted the actions of the Ranger because, lets face it I can either quite playing the game or I can have a different idea about being lawful good. I have explained my take on lawful good as being a guiding force of my party towards order and goodness. I talked the ranger out of several evil actions during the mod, but I talked him out of it. I didn't make any threats or ultimatums.

Being inflexible and bossy is why LG gets such a bad wrap. It is unrealistic, and a caricature of how real LG people would behave. He killed a man I felt was evil to the core, he killed him to save himself, our party, and the slaves. My character does not agree with it, but outside of the two dimensional "PALADIN SMITE!" mentality I can forgive my party for their transgressions and try to guide them to be a force for good. I see lawful good as being a driver of an out of control semi. Sure I could jump out at the slightest hint of trouble or I can stay and try my best to to guide it away from as many innocent people as possible.

My character strives towards a world of order and goodness, where the rule of law bolsters the prosperity of all races. He never lies about anything that will not assure those goals, and he does not impose personal tyranny on those who fall short of his vision. I am perfectly okay with that, I just wish people didn't expect me to be a jerk or stick in the mud because I have ideals.

very well done. way to avoid the pitfalls of lawful stupid/stupid good. I wish more DMs would let people play paladins like this

[Elandris Kajar]

why? that's all people do to paladins. they make them fall.

As proven by this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...a-Paladin-fall

[Sacrieur]

I'm going to play devils advocate here and say that while I did enjoy the core of your story accepting the actions of the ranger was completely out of character. Killing an unarmed person out of convenience is most likely evil in the standard dnd setting and your dwarf still adventuring with the person after this event seems unlikely at best.

My 50 cents.

It's not really "convenience" like you'd have to wait five more minutes in line. It would have resulted in some serious problems.

[Douglas]

rolling Good is a sucker's game. I always roll Evil and just play a good guy, especially since Good is evil and Evil is good in D&D. no one ever tries to make you fall as an urpriest for saving too many puppy orphanages.

Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.

[Venger]

Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.

pally of slaughter is... well, it's called PoS for a reason. pally of tyranny's where it's at.

[Andezzar]

Try playing a Paladin of Slaughter some time. Avoiding a Fall with that Code of Conduct strikes me as a lot harder than the normal Paladin one, and the resulting gameplay might be amusing.

Yeah the codes of the two evils "paladins" are particularly stupid. Willingly committing one good act causes both of them to fall. Simply mirroring concepts for good and evil does not work.

[General Sajaru]

Yeah the codes of the two evils "paladins" are particularly stupid. Willingly committing one good act causes both of them to fall. Simply mirroring concepts for good and evil does not work.

Why not? If normal paladin is going to be penalized for ever doing evil, shouldn't an evil paladin be similarly penalized for doing good? Now, the whole sowing death and destruction wherever you go as the Paladin of Slaughter is a bit more iffy.

[Keltest]

Why not? If normal paladin is going to be penalized for ever doing evil, shouldn't an evil paladin be similarly penalized for doing good? Now, the whole sowing death and destruction wherever you go as the Paladin of Slaughter is a bit more iffy.

It forces a "stupid evil" playstyle. A LG paladin is perfectly capable of avoiding Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good, but if you take away all good actions, youre pretty much left with only the evil ones that get you hunted down and killed.

An actual evil character would have a vested interest in NOT having the public will be against them, and would be perfectly willing to put on the appearance of being good if it benefitted them.

[Talakeal]

I have 14 cha..yes as a dwarf, it is painful to waste a 16 in pb.

Nothing to add to the thread at the moment, but I just wanted to say I feel your pain.

I too am playing a dwarf (ranger) with a 14 charisma in my current game, and it really hurts when doing PB.

I wonder it they actually thought about how punishing racial stat penalties could be if you are playing against type and using a point buy?

[General Sajaru]

It forces a "stupid evil" playstyle. A LG paladin is perfectly capable of avoiding Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good, but if you take away all good actions, youre pretty much left with only the evil ones that get you hunted down and killed.

An actual evil character would have a vested interest in NOT having the public will be against them, and would be perfectly willing to put on the appearance of being good if it benefitted them.

It doesn't say that you can't perform neutral actions, like not killing everyone you encounter. Unless you're of the opinion that NOT killing someone is a Good action. In which case I can see your point.

[Sir Chuckles]

It doesn't say that you can't perform neutral actions, like not killing everyone you encounter. Unless you're of the opinion that NOT killing someone is a Good action. In which case I can see your point.

"sow destruction and death at all opportunities" is pretty explicit. In addition, the whole "don't listen to anyone who hasn't beaten you up" in combination with "disrespect all other authority figures" put an impressively short lifespan on the character.

[Andezzar]

we're not talking about neutral acts but any little acts of goodness or kindness will cause those guys to fall. Giving one of your party members some food without asking for something in return, healing them for free, donating to an orphanage to appear good etc.
The problem is that good acts don't cease to be good acts even if you use them to set up an evil scheme. Paladins of tyranny or slaughter are unable to do such a thing without falling, which is silly.

[General Sajaru]

Well, I have to say that the whole idea of the Chaotic Evil Paladin of Slaughter following a Code of Conduct is pretty ridiculous, and the way in which it's worded is bit stronger than that of the traditional Paladin. After all, if the standard Paladin Code of Conduct said "Must seek to aid those around them and defeat evil at all opportunities" they'd have a pretty short lifespan too; as is usually pointed out when talking about Paladins playing the Lawful Stupid alignment.

Giving one of your party members some food without asking for something in return, healing them for free,

Both of those are neutral acts; helping your party/followers isn't Good, because it's to the selfish end of having them support you and help you in return. Now, if you gave an orphan on the street a copper then you'd fall immediately. At the same time, the paladin who ignored said orphan would probably have their DM question their goodness, and if they accidentally rode them down while pursuing an evildoer, they'd probably fall too.

[Gale]

The code of conducts for the evil Paladins is absurd. A Paladin of Slaughter is borderline insane under the given rules. They never willingly commit a good act, lest they lose all their powers; and they refuse to help anyone while constantly pursuing murder and destruction. It makes the character impossible to play beyond an NPC villain, and even then it’s debatable as to how this person managed to continue existing in a world where everyone would be against them.
The Paladin of Tyranny is better, but it still forces the player to role-play a cartoon villain the entire time; which completely removes all moral ambiguity from the character. I’ve always been of the opinion that few people regarded themselves as being truly evil. In their minds what they are doing is good. Or they may see evil acts as necessary to accomplish a greater good. It If it wasn’t, then they wouldn’t be doing it. It makes the idea of following a code of conduct that instructs you to be blatantly evil at all times absurd.

[anti-ninja]

The code of conducts for the evil Paladins is absurd. A Paladin of Slaughter is borderline insane under the given rules. They never willingly commit a good act, lest they lose all their powers; and they refuse to help anyone while constantly pursuing murder and destruction. It makes the character impossible to play beyond an NPC villain, and even then it’s debatable as to how this person managed to continue existing in a world where everyone would be against them.
The Paladin of Tyranny is better, but it still forces the player to role-play a cartoon villain the entire time; which completely removes all moral ambiguity from the character. I’ve always been of the opinion that few people regarded themselves as being truly evil. In their minds what they are doing is good. Or they may see evil acts as necessary to accomplish a greater good. It If it wasn’t, then they wouldn’t be doing it. It makes the idea of following a code of conduct that instructs you to be blatantly evil at all times absurd.

well that is what you get when you base a classes abilities around being an extremist.

[Elandris Kajar]

well that is what you get when you base a classes abilities around being an extremist.

Yes. This is beautiful.

[martixy]

I'll distance myself of the discussion on paladins and just say that I really like how you pulled one over your DM.

We all know you knew what you were doing. Good job. ;)

[Oddman80]

Thanks for sharing - I was sure he was somehow going to still strip you of something..

[Ettina]

Both of those are neutral acts; helping your party/followers isn't Good, because it's to the selfish end of having them support you and help you in return.

That's assuming that's their motivation. I always play my evil characters as genuinely caring for their fellow PCs despite not caring about anyone else - otherwise, I'd probably do PvP because my characters wouldn't care enough to avoid hurting teammates when they can get away with it. In pretty much every evil campaign I've had, I've run into a moment where, if not for this emotional attachment, my character would probably have harmed her party in some way.

[LoyalPaladin]

I half expected this to be about the fighter losing all his bonus feats.

I did too. I kept waiting for it. That would've been ridiculous. I'm slightly concerned there with be DM revenge planned though. Especially if he was willing to fall a Paladin for following his Paladin code. Haha.

[Segev]

My own signature NE character tends to be VERY loyal to his party, ESPECIALLY if they're Good and/or Lawful people. Playing the hero can buy forgiveness for a lot of sins, and can also get you rewarded - with gratitude - with what you might otherwise have taken by force (and earned enemies for). Staying on good terms with your allies means they will go out of their way to protect/save you when you need it. Having a reputation for loyalty means people will trust you in the future, making it a lot easier to get what you want because they believe you will deal honestly.

In truth, he isn't even as emotionally distant as he might act; he does care, and given preference, will protect friends and allies just because he doesn't want to lose them. However, he will lie and break his word. He will engage in reprehensible acts and betray trusts...but he'll make sure that nobody will ever know, even if that means binding all possible witnesses to his necromantic will to silence them forever.

He'll hope allies might understand, especially if he can come back to save them later and pass his lie off as "to be in a position to save them." But it will niggle at him to know that an ally saw him give his word and break it. Not because being foresworn upsets him, but because that ally now knows his word is not quite so much his bond as he wants everybody to believe.

[ComaVision]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.



It's kind of funny because my character concept was initially to play as a pacifist but it just wasn't mechanically functional in a party that's DFI dependent for damage and I'm the closest to full BaB.

[anti-ninja]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.

sounds more CE to me.

[ComaVision]

sounds more CE to me.

I also donate money to the poor, churches, and groups that I find agreeable as an aside from saving the world.

[OldTrees1]

I also donate money to the poor, churches, and groups that I find agreeable as an aside from saving the world.

Still sounds like CE. (Evil can be nice when it wants to and frequently lacks a reason not to be nice when it wants to be nice)

However I think your gaming table uses different moral theories than mine.

[ComaVision]

Still sounds like CE.

Haha, that's fair. My point is that it's arguable/subjective. I only kill inherently evil beings unprovoked.

[OldTrees1]

Haha, that's fair. My point is that it's arguable/subjective. I only kill inherently evil beings unprovoked.

The "inherently" aspect is unexpected given your example. You must be using different goblins than I. That would also explain anti-ninja's reaction (since your goblins are as abnormal as my devils).

[Flickerdart]

I've been playing my Bardadin of Freedom (not dwarf so I can have a good Charisma lol) as a complete extremist. I will shank someone on the street if they ping evil because evil must die and I do not recognise the authority of the town guards. This character was also involved in the wholesale slaughter of goblin children (DM said they were pinging evil so...). I think my DM was kind of surprised by my take on CG but he's tolerant enough that he's not going to fall me at a whim.

Yep, that's definitely Chaotic Evil. A greedy merchant or a corrupt minister might be considered Evil, but their crimes (if any) hardly justify execution. Children of any race definitely don't. A CG act would have been to turn them over to an orphanage so they could be raised Good, or taking care of them yourself, or finding a goblin tribe that was already at least neutral.