| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Salabasha |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 03:30:27
This may have already been asked before, or something similar to what I am about to say... but here it is.
Ok, there is a good aligned PC, lets say a paladin. Now the paladin is charmed, hypnotized etc. etc. to do the biddings of someone else. While under the other persons control, he goes on a killing spree, killing women, children etc. etc. (*What a evil aligned character would do*) Now he wouldn't do this normally, except for the fact that he is under the individuals spell. Here is the question... When this is all over, should the paladin stay at his current alignment or be forced to go to evil alignment (Hence becoming an Ex-Pally)  |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 10:49:40
The Bookwyrm is essentially correct. Although my gaming experience has shown that this is a consequence only within the scope of general D&D worlds like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.
I know that other worlds, like Dragonlance have campaign specific components that alter the basic rules presented in the PHB, and as I understand it, so will Eberron.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 10:42:36
As far as I know, regardless of the situation and cause, a paladin's power is taken back the moment he or she makes an action that is contrary to the code. If this was against the paladin's will, his or her powers might be returned when control is, but otherwise it follows the rules in the PHB. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 10:31:34
But how about this….although slightly off topic of the original post… .
Say a cleric of paladin of a LG deity is forced against her will to perform evil (charmed, dominated, or whatnot) isn’t it logical that the deity (or whatever celestial power that works to grant the deities abilities to mortals) would cut off the granted powers and spells for the dominated time in question? Why would they stand for their mortal representatives to be used like puppets?
My point being that I always had a problem with a magically coerced “good” cleric/paladin (or the vice/versa counterparts) being allowed to use the deity granted spells and abilities while “under the influence” if you will. I always felt that this connection would be temporarily lost if such a domination occurred as the deity would not allow for such.
Of course I know many DMs who theorize that clerical/paladinic abilities are more innate and inborn not really learned and that is fine too. But then where do you draw a line? How long will a deity allow their representative (and as a result their own powers) to be toyed with before they put a stop to it? Certainly it would have to stop sometime.
And does hierarchy have any play in the matter at all? Consider the Chosen…closest to the divine. How long could their powers (if they could be dominated or controlled) be used before the deity would intervene (not long, if at all, is my guess).
Next would be high priests. How long could they be controlled for and maintain their powers? (For an example look to Maruandyr of Hluthvar as per the Ruins of Zhentil Keep entry. He is slowly being driven to insanity by a Zhent agent. How long will he maintain his abilities once he is insane?)
Then there are lesser clergy. Should the time a dominated being is allowed access to divine abilities be based on level or rank at all?
I am not sure that my own idea is right or the best; it is simply the default one I have always been using. I am interested to hear other ideas.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 07:38:42
That's funny Cardinal, because that was one of the aspects of 2e that I disliked the most. I never felt it was quite right for a character to "gain" levels as a "fallen" class of anything, like the paladin you just mentioned for example.
It just seems so...artificial.
|
| The Cardinal |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 07:14:20
Well he could also 'change sides' depending if he is high enough to take the Blackguard PrC. That is one think I liked about 2nd edition (at least in the First BG Game mechanics), You could gain levels as a fallen paladin (actually a fighter... just with the cool title of Fallen Paladin...) Found out recently that he could be Dual classed as Necromancer... but this bugs up in SOA. But I think it was a neat little feature in the original BG |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 07:03:20
Quite right, Sarta. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 30 Apr 2004 : 02:03:27
Atonement is necessary and should be easily made available in this particular case.
The reason I say this is that the paladin didn't "fall" but instead was used. From a meta-game perspective, you as the DM did this to him against his wishes. As such, the player shouldn't be made to go through long-term suffering for something completely outside of his control unless he is enjoying the role play aspect of this and it is advancing the storyline.
Sarta |
| Roewyn |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 19:48:31
Well, I would take any paladin abilty he had after one very serious non good deed or a series of small staff unless he had a very solid faith in what he did was for absolute good. If he can justify himself and prove his points to me (dm) then there wouldn't be any problem.
But rules suggest if a paladin under magical charm kills innocent people or becomes a tool for evil, he needs atonement.
It is logical for me. He represents an order of a good deity in society and have resposiblities. If he fails and disgraces his order for whatever reason, he will need to clear his honor and name of him and his order. Clerics cast atonement after a task. That task depends on the crime of the paladin, it can be a simple 7/7 praying or a crusade. But atonement is necesary. |
| SoulLord |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 17:44:51
My take on it
In game mechanics if you use a circle of protection evil
against the mind controled paladin it would fail because the paladin
is still good.
After the control is broken the paladin should make amends <atone>
but since he wasnt himself I wouldnt strip him of his paladin abilities unless he doesnt seek to make amends for his actions |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 13:26:43
I've never run a campaign, as most already know, but I think that if I did, I would look into using Monte Cook's rules for alignment. In Arcana Unearthed, the PCs do not have alignments - as Monte says "there are no alignments in AU into which you must shoehorn your characters". The rules simply do not define alignments, instead allowing the characters themselves to decide what is good and evil.
I'm not saying I would run all my campaigns under this ruling, but it would be interesting to try.
|
| Roewyn |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 07:37:27
I punished my fallen paladin but still good and seeking atonement with that situation in a game . He missed our regular session to meet with his girlfriend and the next session I said that he slaughtered 6 innocent villagers because of a charm spell.
It was fun to see him crawling. heheheh
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 05:36:45
Salabasha, it's actually simpler than that. Alignment is choice, not action. The paladin is choosing to be good, but is forced to do something against his will. |
| Salabasha |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 03:47:53
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
He keeps his Lawful Good alignment but his paladin powers are lost until he receives an Atonement.
So even during the hack en slash that he does to other people, he still is good aligned? |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 29 Apr 2004 : 03:32:43
He keeps his Lawful Good alignment but his paladin powers are lost until he receives an Atonement. |
