[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.36499307 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

You're playing D&D and whether purposefully or on accident, you place the paladin into an unsolvable "only fall" option.

1: The classic orc babby conundrum.

2: A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.

3: Your choice of unwinnable situation.

In response to the above the Paladin player chooses... to immediately drop to their knees and pray to their god for guidance, divine intervention, or aid in choosing if no outcome is optimal. They DO have time to pray. The impetus is now on you to make the next move.

As a DM what would you do in such a situation? As a player what would you expect to happen? Have you ever had something like this happen in your game? If so, how did it turn out?

>> No.36499349

I don't cause my players to fall. They're mature adults, and know how to roleplay.
I ask them if their character retains their faith after a traumatic experience, or a situation above where their devotion is questioned. If they say yes, they fall, and to rise again they must regain that faith through meditation and self actualization.

TL;DR: hippy paladins a best.

>> No.36499371

So you don't make the paladin fall but how do you resolve the (likely accidental in your case) situation with no good outcomes?

>> No.36499380

Reminder that killing orc babus should not make a Paladin fall and only utter shit GMs think that it should. Orcs are fucking evil, killing them as children spares entire villages when the bastards grow up. They aren't 'innocent' or some shit as children, they're just fucking STUPID. If an orc baby suddenly gained the intelligence of an adult and the physical abilities, it would start trying to kill things.

For situation two, the only reasonable thing to do is save the child and personally kill every single demon who comes into the village. Failing that, kill the demon.

Unwinnable situations don't exist.

>> No.36499396

What if the Paladin prayed to their god to redeem the orc infants and make them good?

>> No.36499413

Then you wouldn't have to kill them. Hand them off to the local church to raise them if your God can do that. It's outside of your own hands, though.
Imagine the Paladin as Abraham.

>> No.36499468

The point I'm trying to make is that it would be your decision as a DM as to what happened in that situation. What would YOU do?

>> No.36499469

Not him but it's mostly up to the player. The whole concept of "making them fall" is absurd. "Paladin" is an aspect of a character like any other, and no GM (I hope) would force a PC's philosophy on something to change without permission.
>Well, you were too busy to take up that chance to strike it rich, so your character no longer values wealth
>Your character didn't go see her husband because of that meeting with the baron, so she doesn't love him anymore.

>> No.36499477

I look to real world morality calls as examples. WW2 and the code breakers is a great one (evacuate a city thats about to be bombed and reveal you have cracked a code or wait and use the advantage later when you need it to *win*).
Basically, I handle it as a rough blow, that is, while upsetting, is ultimately a stronger reminder of the need for good men and women to raise their hands to God's Work.
"Evil triumphed here because we were too few and the darkness to deep. We must walk on into this new dawn friends, and from the ashes we must kindle new light, new flame.
FOr the darkness will come again, as surely as the night, and when it comes we will be ready."
Also, the orc baby dilemma is shit tier. Gygax himself said paladins would happily kill the wicked and were under no compulsion to "bring them back alive" beyond a possible hold for trial and then hang them scenario.
Batman would be doing a whole lot better by Gotham if he just started shooting the villains.
Mercy to the guilty is injustice to the weak.

>> No.36499527

>You're playing D&D

> whether purposefully or on accident, you place the paladin into an unsolvable "only fall" option.

>> No.36499623

As a DM, I would allow the player the opportunity to crit a Wisdom roll, wherein they would earn a 3rd option - avoid falling at great personal expense.

>> No.36499689

This post is good bait. You probably killed a quest thread with it.

>> No.36499706

>unsolvable only fall option

No such thing. None of the examples given in the thread are "only fall" and no real situation exists. Asking what we as DMs would do in that case is pointless, since no such thing exists. If you think you have an "only fall" situation, you're just not thinking it through well enough. The paladin has an option available, but it just might not be pleasant.

>orc babby conundrum
Is not a conundrum at all. There is an old-time saying that goes "nits make lice". A paladin can kill the women and children to proactively protect the people, he doesn't have to put them in orphanages or something stupid like that. You know, unless his code works like that. Which is silly (how could he crusade for good if he has to constantly second guess himself concerning the welfare of the children of monsters?) but not unsolvable (he could use his funds for specialty orphanages for example).

>A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.

Ignoring how strange this is, I hardly see how either decision causes a fall. The only thing that would cause a fall would be intentionally saving neither, such as sacrificing the opportunity to save one by looting the devil's treasure room.

>> No.36499807

This is true, but confronting a philosophy, especially one as idealistic as a paladin's, with reality, can result in engrossing stories.

>> No.36499842

god damn you got a lot of sperglords with this post. Let me give you a real reply.

If I put anyone into a "will fall" scenario by mistake I would let them roll play it and then not fall. A paladin only falls after a series of evil acts or a whole lot of evil intent. No one event will turn them from their cause unless they chose it too.

If they sat down and prayed, then I would give them a crisis of faith. Their god does not answer, and the character is forced to chose on their own. After the act is done, the god would respond very directly (with lights breaking through the clouds and everything) and tell them they passed the test put before them.

>> No.36499878

>1: The classic orc babby conundrum.

>2: A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.
Only morons think those are "only fall" scenarios. Read what Lawful Good means. It doesn't mean the best good for all the people. It says the most good for the most people. In #2 the Lawful Good solution is to save the village. #1 isn't even a question here, it's D&D's binary alignment. All orcs are evil; killing evil is a Good act; therefore killing an orc is a Good act. Doesn't matter if it's a baby or Joriax the Decapitator.

>> No.36499896

>D&D's binary alignment.
Because God forbids there's a real guy who interprets those rules and breathes life in the numbers.

Even thinking about such a concept... Sheeeeesh...

>> No.36499914

If there was a guy who wanted that, he shouldn't be playing D&D. At least not 3.pathfinder. I never read how 4e handled alignment.

>> No.36499916

>All orcs are evil
I thought they were just "Often" evil.

>> No.36499921

> If there was a guy who wanted that, he shouldn't be playing D&D.

I hear you brother!
Let's purge everyone who plays the game however they want instead of "proper" way and dare to enjoy it! Purge them all, I'll say!

>> No.36499922

They're so incredibly fucking evil that orcs that want to do any sort of good are quite literally genetic abominations

>> No.36499924

Once again: If all orcs are evil and the Paladin prays for divine intervention to redeem the orc babies and make them good (or neutral and thus able to choose between) how would you as a DM handle that?

>> No.36499952

> Paladin prays for divine intervention to redeem the orc babies and make them good (or neutral and thus able to choose between)
His god smacks him across the face for being so pompous as to assume that hasn't been tried before in the thousands of years that good and evil have existed.

>> No.36499968

You really should pick different game, you know. Perhaps chess, or checkers.

RPGs might not be best choice for you...

>> No.36499976

So did it work in those thousands of years or not?

>> No.36499979

No such thing, and if you believe otherwise you should never DM or play a divine class.

>> No.36499994

As a DM I wouldnt punish them for doing exactly what the player has designed their character to do.

Nor would I place the party in a catch 22 like that. If they party is stuck in a conundrum, its one of their own design.

>> No.36500007

>I never read how 4e handled alignment.
4e changed them by removing the middle sections of all the alignments. There were only five alignment choices, and they were sliding scale, not multifaceted
Lawful Good
Chaotic Evil

No inbetweens.

5e put them back to normal, but both it and 4e STRONGLY advised not to play anything Evil cause those players tend to be disruptive towards others, and you should ask your DM first before choosing such alignments.

>> No.36500033

4e's alignment is basically Mass Effect/Jade Empire, but you wont get dicked because your not 100% lawful god or chaotic evil

>> No.36500037

It's important to note that the descriptions of the Good and Evil alignments pretty much explicitly cover Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil, respectively. People don't notice this and get buttmad, sometimes, for whatever reason.

>> No.36500038

Actually he is right. In D&D. Evil is an element like fire. The Orc is quite literally made of evil. Now there is a 1% chance that orc is Thrall and resists his base nature and is not influenced by evil the substance, but most of the times he'll turn out to be your average Lugdash the Butcher.

>> No.36500067

That's actually not important to note whatsoever, honestly. It's incredibly stupid because it's trying to change a system that's been ingrained since the first days as a sacred cow. Who is it appealing to? The people who LIKE alignments (yes, they exist) hate that the alignment grid got gutted. People who HATE alignments hate that it's in at all.

It's such a half-assed attempt to appease to a large crowd and it just comes off as clumsy. Either remove the whole thing, or leave it as it is.

>> No.36500080

> Now there is a 1% chance
Actually no. The chance is as high as the DM wishes so. Stop acting like there's some sort of Inquisitor standing behind your back and observing you playing the game, ready to burn you and your house to the crisps the moment you even think about actually, well "role" playing.

>> No.36500104

> I never read how 4e handled alignment.

Then no wonder you can't handle it. I suspect you didn't give much reading to how other versions treat them too.

Here's an obligatory link, study it, you might actually learn something new.


>> No.36500125

OP, you're an idiot. It is impossible to force a Paladin to fall.

>> No.36500181

Step 1: lure them into a cliff
Step 2: Push the paladin off the cliff
Step 3 Watch the paladin fall down to earth

>> No.36500185

That's D&D cosmology. If your setting is different, if you house ruled something whatever. This interpretation only works in the base settings. If you change something in said setting it is no longer the base setting. If the OP wishes it to not be base setting he must inform us his settings inner workings. As such all we can assume is he had a question about the base setting fluff. Your attempt to divert this conversation to how things are in your setting is an exercise in futility. You also assume I am not an Inquisitor.

>> No.36500225

>That's D&D cosmology.
No. That's your interpretation of it. No set of rules dictates how any DM is supposed to construct his stories and what traits of characters should his NPCs possess. No set of rules covers every possible situation, event and occurrence.

And that's DM'd job to judge such cases and act accordingly.

BTW, "cosmology" suggests that you take multiverse into account. And this is a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery big place, filled with many different settings.

>> No.36500334

>A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.
...is there not a correct solution to this, which is "charge the devil and attempt to royally fuck its shit up"?

>> No.36500382

It's a classic scenario where a Paladin is forced either to charge the demon to rescue a girl or leave the demon to kill the girl in order to save the village and for whatever reason they cannot do both.

>> No.36500425

> for whatever reason they cannot do both.

If the Paladin doesn't try, even going as far as to doing honorable self sacrifice, then he is no Paladin.

And just because some shit which couldn't be prevented happened, it doesn't mean the Paladin falls. He lives to honor and remember the dead and find a way to find and punish the evildoer.

My opinion? Such an occurrence should rather strengthen the Paladin rather than make him fall.

>> No.36500431

If the pally choose the child over the village, he/she might take it to heart and become a BBEG
If the pally choose the village over the child then the pally will be persecuted for it

The correct choice would to choose neither and deck the devil and it's forces aftwerwards

>> No.36500467

>If the pally choose the village over the child then the pally will be persecuted for it
Why should he?

Chances are - nobody will learn about this.

In addition, why people shouldn't show some compassion? "Damn, nobody would find a solution for that scenario, and we want to know Sir Jamie, that we respect you for being able to make a hard choice... And I'm the mother of that child".

Come on, it's RPG. Possibilities anyone?

>> No.36500524

>it would be your decision as a DM
No the entire decision is with the Player because it's all about the Player Character.

>> No.36500541

God says, "End the orcs."

God says, "Save the village, avenge the child."

God says, "Defeat is inevitable you cannot win every battle. This does not mean you should stop trying. Go forth and do good."

>> No.36500558

>"Defeat is inevitable you cannot win every battle. This does not mean you should stop trying. Go forth and do good"


>> No.36500603

>No. That's your interpretation of it.
No that's alignment as spelled out in the books.

>> No.36500615

No, that's how you want it to play out in your adventures.

>> No.36500629

What a player does is their decision. But you decide what others do INCLUDING their god. If you don't make any decisions for NPC's (which a god happens to be) then you aren't really DMing. You're just letting the players have NPC's do whatever they want.

>> No.36500642


>> No.36500650

Incorrect on all counts. I am, first, arguing from someone else's point of view. Second said point of view encompasses all D&D settings that are not home brewed. In fact it affects home brews that include outsiders with subtype evil or good, protection from alignment, and detect alignment. Check the archives on suptg. We widely agreed this explanation solves shit.

>> No.36500667

>You're just letting the players have NPC's do whatever they want.

>The Tarrasque is rampaging about the city, crushing buildings underfoot, ripping soldiers off the walls with its terrible jaws.

>The terrasque dies, loot please.

>Something isn't quite right here....

>> No.36500675

I'm terribly sorry, but you seem to suffer from some sort of kinghtly "I must warn them all" syndrome. Come on, I'm posting on a 4chan. I'm EXACTLY here to take a bait.

>Incorrect on all counts.
I don't think so. I think I have right here and nothing you just said changes anything.

>> No.36500700

Unn yeah

The dickish thing a player could do is looting the place instead of stopping the tarrasque

>> No.36500728

I would stop playing d&d to find a better game.

Or, you know, be reasonable and don't enforce such kind of 'rule'.

>> No.36500767

The player gave the perfect response. He prayed to his god who will provide his champion guidance. Whichever option his god provides is correct. If he gets through the situation with full faith in his god. He maintains his powers.

>> No.36500782

What annoys me is when DMs just make gods not reply when you pray to them. Like, shit nigga, I'm a paladin/cleric, my god is supposed to talk to me and shit. Just make the god go, "Okay, so orcs are evil, kill them" or whatever. They're supposed to give SOME direction sometimes, they don't always need to be 99% silent and 1% overly cryptic cliches. Hell, they don't even need to spell it out. You could just have the god remind them that the greater good sometimes requires sacrifices and you can't save everyone blah blah. Or whatever the god is about. If they're the god of 'save everyone no compromises' then maybe they'll tell the paladin to save everyone, no compromises.

>> No.36500821

>But you decide what others do INCLUDING their god.
What his god does has nothing to with the situation. A Paladin is a Paladin because of his faith. If he does not lose his faith he can continue being a Paladin.

>> No.36500844

Gygaxian paladins didnt have any problems with any of those.

>> No.36501025

ITT: People react to reference to Paladin's falling without reading context.

I would have the god answer according to their wishes, depending on the situation.

>> No.36501262

I tell him that he feels he is under the judgeful eye of his god.
And then decide whether he falls on his reasoning for his decision

>> No.36501573

>Servant of the God of Israel
But Anon, in games where paladins fall, they cannot serve Evil Gods.

>> No.36501588

Gygax also considered House rules a disease and trumpet Vancian casting as best and only casting.
Leave him and his ideas in the Grave.

>> No.36501674

I think there is a very short solution for this problem.

"Good" doesn't mean "soft" nor is equal with it.

Your paladin can be a walking goodie-two-shoes AND still be a remorseless exterminator of evil. Why? Because he/she fights evil. Sounds weakly or shallow? Then how about an example of a good, yet not soft character?
Dr King Schultz (and his horse Fritz).
Is he a good person? Definitely.
Is he a bounty hunter who is willing to shoot without warning elderly sherrif or a father in front of his son? Positive.
Why? Because it's his job to get those men for their evil deeds in the past. All of it when remaining a decent, well-meaning and good hearted person.
Because good doesn't mean soft.

>> No.36501763


Finally someone is not sucking his dead dick.

>> No.36501783

We're currently trying out 5th Edition, where Paladin don't Fall the same way, so problem solved.
They can fail sure and feel miserable about it, but no extremely strict yet poorly defined code as in 3rd Ed; no Honor Code as strict as a Paladin's should ever use the "word" etcetera in it's description, especially when the consequences for breaking it are so grave.

>> No.36501851

>2: A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.

A paladin is not responsible for the sins of the evil-aligned. He could pick neither, try to stop both and fail, or only pick one and none would make him fall. The choice here is of an evil creature's design, and thus it owns all fault for how things proceed. The decision to murder innocents is not the paladin's.

A paladin cannot be tricked into committing evil and have that activate a 'fall'. A paladin can only fall when they knowingly serve evil. This scenario does not involve the paladin serving evil, only choosing for the moment which he will protect from evil's wrath.

>> No.36501901

>purposefully or on accident
>or on accident
>on accident

For fuck's sake it's BY accident!

>> No.36501927

So a paladin would truly fall if he/she willingly abandons his/her deity and serve an evil aligned deity?

>> No.36501967

They are denouncing their faith.
Willingly commuting an act against your god/faith (such as by freeing an evil creature you knew was evil) is doing something against your LG faith.

>> No.36502044

It never made sense to me that it was "on purpose" but not "on accident."

>> No.36502076

You're acting on a purpose, with a purpose in mind.
The nature of accidents means you can't act on one.

>> No.36502149

Depends on how the player RPs the situation. If they do it in a selfless, heroic, badass fashion and are willing to risking loosing their powers/life for the sake of righteousness I grant them a miracle or let them keep their paladin status. If they do it self-pitying, selfish, apathetic or dickish fashion then they get nothin.

>> No.36502170

In 5e, orcs are evil because while the good and neutral deities gave their creations total free will, the evil ones made so that the beings they created were pushed toward evil.

An orc can be neutral or good, but they must constantly fight their innate evil urges to do so.

On the other hand, if the elven deities forgave a fucking Demon Prince, and one who ascended to this status by betraying them, when he sincerely repented, I like to think that a good guy would at least try to help the evil beings to stop being evil. Probably by leaving the orc babies in an orphanage or a community that accept them. So I would say that it's the advice a god would give to their Paladin.

The thing with the devil is easier: the good guy will rescue the village, and try to rescue the kid. Unless letting the kid get killed results in something worse than the village being destroyed.

>> No.36502502

Sometimes bad shit happens whats important is that the paladin doesn't waver in their conviction.
>Orcs being evil depends on the setting I guess classic grum orcs are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.
>Protect the child and face the evil in front of you regardless of the fear you have in your heart for what might happen to the town later "if the divine die must be cast let them know that they cannot make the servants of good falter in their purpose."

TLDR: There's no way any one person, even an instrument of a deity can fix all teh problems before them, whats important is that they become a symbol, a leader, for all those who see to follow.

>> No.36502626

But the same thing that protects the villains from being killed by Batman protects Batman from being killed by villains, Anon.

If you take away the metafictional armor, he's just a man, and even a lucky thug could theoretically kill him, much less a serious super like Clayface or Poison Ivy.

>> No.36502720

I wouldn't have the player fall through a single act. Especially one that's contrived bullshit created by a bad GM solely as an excuse to make the Paladin fall, like in the baby and village example.

>> No.36502807

Don't "only fall" decisions only exist if you misinterpret the Code of Conduct? I think this is all just DM misconduct, OP, which means we'll have to revoke the DM's special powers, I guess.

>> No.36502910


The nature of a binary choice is that it can ONLY exist as a philosophical conundrum. It cannot exist in the real world, because the real world simply cannot have binary decisions. There are always more choices. It is not possible for a situation in a real world to have no content, and it is impossible for a situation in a plausible context to be so simplistic as to only allow two possible outcomes. If you are offered a binary choice it is a binary construct; because you have built it. It is not natural nor real, and like all things unnatural and unreal, only acting beholden to it can give it force.

The appropriate reaction for a paladin confronted by a philosophical paradigm is to start asking questions of context until the paradigm has irreperably broken down.

The appropriate reaction for a paladin in a 'real' world situation confronted by what appears to be a binary choice is to refuse to be told it is binary, to start seeing the other options, and to take the one that shatters the illusion of the binary construct.

The appropriate reaction to a paladin's player whose GM has arbitrarily simplified the world such that only two outcomes can exist is to tell them to stop being a gigantic faggot who is deliberately refusing to allow the necessary alternatives to exist. If you refuse plausible alternatives to even be attempted, you are a shit GM.

It is the world's job to tell you what the options appear to be. It is the paladin's job to see what the options actually are, and go for the truest one. IT is the GM's job to respond to unexpected solutions by assigning a difficulty and rolling, instead of having a tantrum that their perfect little conundrum is broken.

Refusing to allow better answers than your own because you wanted to prove how smart you are is Riddler-grade faggotry. And nobody likes the Riddler.

>> No.36503960

1. Is orc baby inherently evil? If yes, smite it like the rest. If no, bring it to the church orphanage.

2. Kill the devil. Why the fuck are you bargaining with a devil?

3. Divine intervention/pardon

>> No.36504129

So you're saying a Calvinist paladin should kill human babies because the total depravity of humanity means that all human actions, even seemingly good ones, are mixed with evil, and every human is naturally and inescapably disposed to evil.
Of course, Paladins are part of the Elect, predestined to receive God's Grace, and therefore are regenerated by the Spirit.

>> No.36504184


Orc isn't quite literally made of evil in DnD. Only creatures with evil subtype are literally made of evil.

Orcs are 'usually evil', but it doesn't specify the why of this.

>> No.36504210

I once threw the old "You cant feasibly save the village and the NPC who helped you" on a group with a paladin. They saved the village and of course she didn't fall because these dilemmas are moral dilemmas for the sake of story and not a Paladin Trap. I have only ever made one character 'fall' and that was a cleric who hurled abuse at their god and denounced them.

In one of these situations, praying to the god will achieve nothing. The Paladin is a Paladin for a reason, they go with what they think is the right course of action and unless it is blatantly evil there is no need for repentance. They are only mortal after all

>> No.36504252

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A village is likely to have multiple babies in it. Frankly, I find it entirely retarded for a paladin to fall in such circumstances. Any true paladin when presented with this scenario would refuse both options and battle the devil.

A devil will do evil deeds, and a devil pretending that they are resultant of a paladin's actions is nonsense.

>> No.36504427

I roll on my Divine Intervention Table to see what happens.

99 : Intended God intervenes
90-98 : Agent of Intended God intervenes
89 : God of the same court intervenes
70-88 : Agent of the Court intervenes
69 : Loki Intervenes
68 : Leader of the other Court intervenes
50-67 : Local God intervenes
11-49 : No Response
1-10 : Demon responds
00 : The Father Sees You

Also, I can't make the paladin fall. The paladin falls when they find their faith broken. He decides when his powers are up. I expect my players to be good roleplayers.

This is a false hope.

>> No.36504453

Rolled 13 (1d100)


>> No.36504467

Welp, sucks to suck pally. You are the agent of your god. You ARE the back up. Now get to work and take responsibility.

>> No.36504532


I'm pretty unfamiliar with D&D in general, but these conundrums don't seem like conundrums to me. They're interesting moral questions, but ultimately your answer just depends on what you think is true, right? Like, either orc babies are evil by nature or not, and either it's good to favor a consequentialist-ish kind of good over a deontological-ish good in the latter. To someone with a defined and set system of morals, or given certain definitions in the game universe, these things aren't even dilemmas. I don't know why someone whose entire thing is "knowing what is Just and True" would fail to make a decision here, let alone fail so hard they lose their faith. Did their God never run through trolley problems with them, or bother to define the Evil they're supposedly fighting?

Again, I don't really know anything about D&D paladins but this seems like a pretty dumb problem for them to face.

>> No.36504567

Don't worry, they are dumb problems. Bad DM's are just notorious for trying to make Paladins fall

>> No.36504572

>If an orc baby suddenly gained the intelligence of an adult and the physical abilities, it would start trying to kill things.
The same goes for human babies but we don't kill them.

>> No.36504579

A human baby wouldn't have the fondness for rape and murder that is inborn in every orc.

>> No.36504583

>Play a class that is at odds with the world
>Requires believing in a broken ideal that can't possibly be held up
>Built in mechanics for when the player fails this

>Something that should be avoided.

Instant fall is stupid as shit though. Slippery slope is where it's at

The duke has stolen an artifact of your faith and refuses to return it!
>Fight your way to it, killing innocent men to uphold your ideal
>Hire a thief to steal it, funding crime

That should be how you lead to a paladin falling.

>> No.36504589

Say that a paladin had a wife or a loved one. The demon gave him a choice, keep his wife alive or the village, yadda yadda. If he chose the wife, would he fall because of selfish actions or would he just bear the guilt for as long as he lives?

>> No.36504599

>Say that a paladin had a wife or a loved one. The demon gave him a choice, keep his wife alive or the village, yadda yadda. If he chose the wife, would he fall because of selfish actions or would he just bear the guilt for as long as he lives?
Kills the demon, lives happily ever after.

>> No.36504607

Not all paladins are level 20 dipshit.

Believe it or not, you can be a level 1 paladin that struggles to kill a pack of goblins.

>> No.36504613

Have you met a human baby?

Those things try and eat anything that moves, hump inanimate objects, and will tear apart bugs just for kicks.

>> No.36504622

It's not theft, it's repossession. the object was stolen to begin with

>> No.36504624

Then the DM's an asshole.

>> No.36504628

You are still putting gold in the pocket of a man you should be arresting.

And that bit about "slippery slope" may have gone over your head. You should get your reflexes checked.

>> No.36504640

As a DM, there are no situations where fall is the only option, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

>> No.36504643

So find a repo man and hire him. Completely legal, dilemma averted.

>> No.36504645

You can arrest him later. For now he is a paid worker doing a job for the greater good.

You're slippery slope needs more grease.

>> No.36504667

Say it's not a DM story arc. Say it's fluff. Would this fluff be consistent with what you think falling requires?

>> No.36504669

>subject to a lowly repo man

It got you to make the step. It had exactly enough grease to it.

The thief is caught and to be executed for stealing from the duke!
>Admit your guilt and take his place
>Spring him and slink into the underground

>> No.36504670

>Serving an evil and blasphemous man by killing his enemies

>> No.36504676

"Only fall" situations are an unreasonable bullshit. A paladin faced with such a situation can only do their best to save everyone and stop all the evil. Whatever choice they make is motivated by the pursuit of their ideals and vows, and couldn't possibly cause them to fall. The idea that a divine patron would look down and say, "Sorry, but you failed to solve an unsolvable problem and some evil happened, I'm revoking your divine powers licence" is goddamn retarded.

The real danger of these situations is the paladin's own remorse at not being Superman and being unable to save everyone. This regret, if allowed to fester, could lead to a questioning of ideals and thoughts of trying... 'alternative' methods. Now, some of THAT could lead to a fall, but choosing to save one thing over another, when you can absolutely only save one, does not constitute a breach of the paladin's oaths.

TL;DR If there is no right answer, you shouldn't be punished for choosing wrong.

>> No.36504684

The paladin should try to fight the demon anyways, even if he knows he can't win.

>> No.36504696

so that he dies, and his wife, and the village?

>> No.36504699

>No. That's your interpretation of it. No set of rules dictates how any DM is supposed to construct his stories and what traits of characters should his NPCs possess. No set of rules covers every possible situation, event and occurrence.

No, it's what the monster manual says. If you want to discuss your personal interpretation of alignments that doesn't adhere to the rules, you should state so.

>> No.36504707

Let him die. You did say he was a criminal.

>> No.36504710

They could be deceived or simply pressed into service.

>> No.36504716

>subject to a lowly repo man
The King's repo man, then.

>The thief is caught and to be executed for stealing from the duke!
>Admit your guilt and take his place
>Spring him and slink into the underground
That's not even a dilemma so long as you believed that the thief deserved a hanging anyways.

>> No.36504733


Now come on. There has to be some consistency with alignment here. Knowingly letting a person die when they were acting on your behalf has to set off some kind of alarm bells in your head. Or is a Paladin still Lawful Good so long as he believes he is? Doesn't this lead to sociopathy?

>> No.36504735

>hanging a thief
>not fining and imprisoning him till he reforms

How are your eyes lately? You blind yet?

Congrats, you got him killed.

>> No.36504741

Clearly, there was some sort of catch where the demon was powerless if the Paladin did not consent to one of his actions. By not taking either option offered by the demon, he denied him the opportunity to do either.

>> No.36504753

This situation is incredibly contrived.

>> No.36504758

That's not clear at all. If you've taken the third option, the demon clearly can, too; to kill you, and then make good on his threats and kill everyone.

>> No.36504759

Well else would the demon bother bargaining with the paladin and not just slaughter everything in sight, including the paladin?

>> No.36504767

I make them fall for praying.

>> No.36504774

Kill demon or die trying.

>> No.36504780

What, having impressed peasants as your personal guard? Or guarding your treasury? I don't think so.

As for deception, just shout out that you're here to reclaim the relic he stole and that the duke is a thief and blasphemer. If they decide to knowingly stand against God's will, they're not innocent anymore.

>> No.36504783

To induce a situation that potentially makes the paladin fall, to enjoy the paladin's suffering, whatever. You can come up with any number of situations where the demon can present this ultimatum exactly because he holds enough power to prevent the paladin from simply killing him and then carry out the ultimatum.

>> No.36504787

Like I said, kids are cruel, Jack.

>> No.36504792

And what guarantee did he have that the demon, a creature made of lies and sadism, would keep it's word and spare one for the other? What would stop it from moving on and destroying that which it promised to let be? The paladin should fight for even the slimmest chance of victory, and have faith his god will empower him with whatever ability necessary to slay the monster. After all, the entire class revolves around the idea of power through faith

>> No.36504794

>If they decide to knowingly stand against God's will, they're not innocent anymore.

This is sociopathy.

>> No.36504795

[citation needed]
Often chaotic evil means that according to the Monster Manual 40% of the population is chaotic evil. Even assuming another 40% are neutral evil or lawful evil that's still one in five that are either neutral or good.

>> No.36504799

Any demon with sufficient power has much better things to do than make one single paladin fall/suffer.

>> No.36504802

The situation I made up with the demon and the wife was really shitty, my bad. What I was really meaning to go for is will the paladin fall if he does something selfish, like saving the lives of a few loved ones over many people.

>> No.36504809

By praying to their god for guidance, the paladin admits that they cannot do the right thing themselves. Therefore, they fall.

>> No.36504818

Only one honorable option: You stop bitching and you fall, trying to at least save one.

Then you multiclass and/or go on an epic redemption adventure that will land you with your divine powers back and probably some nice holy loot.

And that way you build a fun character with an actual backstory instead of a Mary Sue. I know a lot of you have been hurt by finding yourselves in a group with an asshole GM playing out his teenage power fantasy, but trying to lawyer your way out of any situation that might make your character even temporarily lose his toys, is pathetic at best.

>> No.36504825

Is the punishment for the thief's criminal lifestyle not death? Justice is merely being served through another conduit. He even died in the service of good, possibly earning him a place of honor in the afterlife

>> No.36504832

I'm not sure genetics is a thing in D&D

>> No.36504838

Only if the act is actually selfish. In my mind, the only real option for the paladin is to smite the shit out of the demon, whether or not such an act is basically suicidal. Playing the demon's game at all simply allows the spread of the demon's influence in the world, and that cannot be allowed.

>> No.36504858

What, for striking back at people who attack you while you're recovering stolen property? I mean come on, it's not like the duke's guards are going to use non-violent resistance. This isn't Sword of Truth.

>> No.36504862

Yeah, let's work with this.

Your paladin has scouted a marauding band that has split in two and knows their targets: the first his home village of small size, the second a somewhat middling town. Attacking the band alone is suicidal. He has the option to warn one of the targets in order for them to prepare, but in doing so forsakes the other, even if he rides hard. What is the correct choice for this Paladin?

>> No.36504889

ITT: paladins drowning in their ideals

>> No.36504893

And by some interpretations of Unearthed Arcana, it is literally the only option. Paladins are reclassed as a subclass of cavalier rather than fighter, and will "charge any enemy in sight". As the demon is a Powerful Monster, and his troops are probably Elite Footmen or Elite Status Cavalry, he will charge the demon

>> No.36504903

>1: The classic orc babby conundrum.
Adopt baby to attempt to steer it towards good, if impossible slay it.
>2: A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.
Child dies to preserve the most life possible, not a situation where I would even have the ability to save both so failing wouldn't even be a consideration.
>3: Your choice of unwinnable situation.
Don't believe in them, Paladin falling wise.

Basically most engineered Paladin falls situations are less about morality and more about some edgy DM trying to force a point while running against logic.

>> No.36504956

No such thing as an "only fall" scenario, since deities are anthropomorphic entities and not Kantian machines.
1. Orc babby conundrum? Your deity will forgive you if you argue in favor of your conviction.
2. Devil double threat? The paladin going utilitarian is not out of the question. A paladin doesn't fall either when someone innocent dies on the other side of the globe regardless of whether the paladin eats meat or oatmeal for breakfast. The deity recognizes that devils will be devils and judges the paladin based on conviction and reasoning. The paladin is, of course, expected to mourn whatever innocent deaths may be the case.
3. Actually thinking that you can present a paladin with an unwinnable situation makes you fall as a DM and lose your class features.

Admitting that one does not KNOW the right thing is not the same as admitting that one cannot DO the right thing, otherwise there would be no paladins since none of them are faultless, and every one of them has required guidance at some point earlier in their life, probably during paladin initiation. Admitting faults makes you more empathic and therefore a better paladin.

>> No.36504963

Send one of the party to the village I do not choose.

Why the hell would I be travelling alone?

>> No.36504983

It's a constructed situation. Call me out on its construction, but that's how it is.

>> No.36504988

>3. Actually thinking that you can present a paladin with an unwinnable situation makes you fall as a DM and lose your class features.
There's rules for that in WTFRPG

>> No.36504999

>describes Good/Evil alignment system in real world terms
>asks if using the Good/Evil alignment system is acceptable justification for killing babies

Calvinist doctrine is retarded specifically because of the concepts of predestination and elect in a world where Detect Evil isn't a thing.

>> No.36505022

Is this implying that at the start of Heart of the Dragon Queen, when the players are faced with an unwinnable situation, that a paladin should fall because he can't stop the raid 100% and win the duel as a level 1 or 2 party?

Thus "forcing" the paladin to reroll Oathbreaker, which for all intents and purposes, is a death knight.

Tldr: forcing a paladin player to fall because
> meh fedora let Christians
Is retarded.

>> No.36505048

Depends on the deity or ideals of the paladin.

Deity of community? Protect the town.
Deity of love? Protect the wife.
Deity of life? Do you plan on having children? Then the wife. Otherwise? The town.

>> No.36505063

>a world where Detect Evil isn't a thing.
Isn't that part of the whole Prosperity Theology thing? Not the scammy televangelist "send me money and God will make you rich!" part, but the idea that you'll know you're one of the Elect because God will make sure you do well in life.

>> No.36505076

Depends on his god, I'd say. I mean, in my settings gods are basically just REALLY POWERFUL, really smart people. So how does the god feel about law, about codes, about oaths, and about the specific act.

If for instance, the pallybro kills an orc babby, and he's following a good god of War who is okay with bending oaths or laws sometimes in the name of justice, then if said god is bro-tier the pally will have a fatherly conversation with the god at some point and probably be fine.

Basically, gods are people too. Each one has it's own standards and opinions on shit like this, and as DM it's my responsibility to roleplay that. Unless you went in knowingly following the GOD OF DICKWEEDS though, you won't fall immediately. At most, you'll fall over time, and effects won't manifest until after this battle is over.

>> No.36505083

Use fire signals to warn both villages

>> No.36505090

If that were the case, there would be no poverty.

>pure-hearted people receive the most money, donate the most to charity
>evil people receive least money, donate the least to charity

>> No.36505105

Also evil people would still be the most greedy, so they would attempt to gain the most money.

The rich meanwhile donates whatever they have in excess of what poor people have, so everyone has the same amount of money.

>> No.36505109


>Apply diplomatic pressure to force his hand
>Challenge him to a duel over the matter
>Pay for it/Negotiate for it.
>Ask for a non-evil ally to retrieve it instead of paying criminals
>Take the matter to a higher court, like the king, to force the return
>Publicly accuse the Duke of Robbery and Blasphemy before retrieving the item. Those who guard him and the item from you cannot claim ignorance, and self-defense during the retrieval of stolen goods isn't on the slope.
>Accept the outcome and retrieve it from its next owner when the Duke loses it/dies/whatever.
>Anything else that isn't dumb as fuck

>> No.36505120

>LG Paladin following Sneakbastard Daggerback, the God of Dickweeds

>> No.36505129

The town would have far more descendants than you and your wife. A god of life would always get more from the preservation of more lives

>> No.36505136

Clearly, then, the peasants are wicked and sinful, and must be saved from their foul impulses by the fair, noble King and his faithful clergy!

Oh, yes, and we need several gold-painted boys for our upcoming festival. Make sure they're nice and... angelic.

>> No.36505160

Sneakbastard Daggerback is Lawful Neutral, bro. His domains are Law, Trickery, Commerce, Contracts and Dickweeds. He's therefore Paladin Complaint.

>> No.36505185

Most gods of life are neutral - what you describe would be chaotic while "ALLE LIFE IS SACRED, NONE MOST DIE" would be lawful.
Even if the deity were chaotic, you would get points for trying to preserve life.

>that spoiler
My peasant sense is tingling.

Except he cheated himself to his domains and lied on his portfolio and alignment.
He's META-chaotic.

>> No.36505206

How does law/chaos apply to any of this?

>> No.36505222

>Realize you serve a Greater Good that cares more about the safety of all concerned than some trinket
>Publicly denounce the tefth, give testimony and let it be ruled by law

>> No.36505226

What if he tricked the goddess of law into signing her shit over to him via a lawful contract, then used the portfolios he gained to make everything legit?

Presumably after knocking her up.

>> No.36505231

I think it would depend more on the paladin than the situation. If the paladin truly believes with ever fiber of their being that they are doing the right thing then they will not fall.

It does depend on the setting too I guess. I'm sure that way of thinking doesn't fly in too many settings. Even so I think it makes things more interesting since it opens the door for misguided paladin villains.

>> No.36505233

Prosperity Theology was the idea that certain attributes were common to the Elect, such as industriousness and diligence, and that those attributes typically lead to temporal prosperity.

>> No.36505241

Fuck alignment, utterly and completely

>> No.36505249

I should also point out that those attributes weren't exclusive to the Elect, as the theology went that it was impossible to determine who was and wasn't saved in life.

>> No.36505255

In morality, utilitarianism is chaotic good and deontology is lawful good. Virtue ethics is neutral good. Deontology relies on rules such as "You must not kill" or "Preserve all life" while utilitarianism relies on a situation-based approach that constantly changes what your best action would be.

Still meta-chaotic, and you make him sound LE now, which a paladin wouldn't like.

Alignment is nice because it's an easy way to convey morality instead of saying "I'm a Kantian" and expecting everyone to know what you're talking about.

>> No.36505267

A lot of Protestant doctrine is pretty damn vile like that. Prosperity theology doesn't at all align with the Bible, a text that is the only source of divine truth if you are into the whole Sola Scriptura thing.

>> No.36505329

>A lot of Protestant doctrine is pretty damn vile like that.

This is what happens when your theology emphasises an immediate relationship to God that isn't available.

>> No.36505346


>> No.36505351

I'll ask you this:
What is a paladin's duty?
a) do ALL THE GOOD in the world, always, forever, regardless wether it's suicidal or not
b) do all the good that he can whenever he can

If you answered a) then yes, that is an unwinnable situation

>> No.36505384

What is this from?

>> No.36505620

Utilitarian Lawfag here,

Situation 1 is not an 'only fall' situation, if the babies ping as evil then it's logical that they, like their parents and all other orcs are objectively evil as they're supposed to be a caricature of man's darker side anyways. Killing them removes their chance to do evil later thus it's good.

Similarly from the Utilitarian perspective if they were left alone they would grow up and create the same amount of hardship for the local villages as their parents, to remove them in this situation provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Dilemma solved.

Situation 2 places the Paladin under duress, in other words they're being coerced into making a decision. If we look at the RAW for D&D Paladins can only fall if they make these choices willingly, as they're being coerced into a decision nothing happens regardless of their choice.

From the Utilitarian Perspective saving the village is the good thing to do as it's the lives of many vs one child.

In either case the dilemma is solved.

In regards to situation 3 I'm not as asshole so I'd choose to do nothing, no situation you can create where the Paladin would be forced to fall is anything other than placing them under Duress. I wouldn't convict someone for being forced to kill another at risk of their family being killed for not complying I won't force a Paladin to fall by placing them in 'unwinnable' situations that railroad them into unwanted decisions.

>> No.36506993

Anyone 5e here? What does /tg/ think about the Vengeance paladin? It see to be a lot less "Judge Dread" LG (where 99% chance of being guilty isn't good enough to arrest someone) and more like Black Templar from 40k.

>> No.36507376

That's an interesting conundrum.
>Approach the Duke in negotiations. I have high Charisma, Diplomacy is a class skill, and as a knighted paladin I also bear a noble title. If he remains unyielding after negotiations, formally challenge him to a duel over the item, as a champion of the faith he has stolen from. If he accepts, kick his arse non-lethally. If he refuses, his noble name is doubly tarnished forever and people will see your faith with more favour for being patient, proper and fair.
This slippery slope needs to be steeper, Anon. I could swear I'm sliding uphill.

>> No.36507448


I would do nothing, but gods aren't real. The paladin fails to save anyone, and subsequently falls.

>> No.36507505

>Pick up wife
>Store wife in Hosteling armour normally reserved for warhorse
>Mount warhorse, save town
Alternately, I'm a paladin of high enough prestige (IE level) that demons are threatening me directly. Odds are my wife is either prepared to lay down her life as I do mine, or badass enough to protect it herself.

>> No.36507509


Who says the church doesn't employ specialists for such things? Men who give over themselves to the faith, swearing themselves to the faith, but perform actions which are necessary in defense of the faith and its property?

Perhaps they willingly damn themselves to perform the task. A group that performs the dirty work, sacrificing their souls so that the pure don't have to.

>> No.36507739

>that picture
Wizard Friend casts hold person, paladin begins unstrapping kids and removing hostage.
You could argue that I don't know any wizards, in which case I will fill the position with a bard, for what sort of knight does not travel alongside a talented minstrel?

>> No.36507836

In none of those situations would a paladin fall. Because the gods aren't stupid enough to decide to revoke his power because he had to make a single choice. He did what he thought best. As long as he continues to serve, there is no reason to revoke anything.
The only way he would fall in those situations is if he became a little pansy and decided that he did something horrible and gives up like a bitch.

>> No.36508423

>Prayed to god
>village dies
>orc baby walks away
>whatever whatever
>it was clearly god's will
>No fall

That's the only outcome I would accept from my GM. If my GM was an edgy underaged faggot and tried to tell me that I fell because of that course, I'd simply go find another group to play with.

>> No.36508685

>you place the paladin into an unsolvable "only fall" option.

Can't happen, so I don't ever have this problem.

>> No.36508798

>Gygax also considered House rules a disease

In AD&D, the tournament rules edition of D&D.

>> No.36509134

>A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.

The needs of the many out way the needs of the few, and if a Paladin was to fall because of this, the DM is shit and I'd probably pour water on his notes before walking out.

>> No.36509749

You aren't a cop. You're a paragon of good. It isn't your job to arrest people, it's your job to serve as a shining beacon of good. Even good nations have spies that might steal on occasion.

Theft isn't wrong in this case. However there are more options. You could fight the guards and pointedly NOT kill any of them. You could use your grand charisma and holy position to denounce the evil man and have the guard abandon him.

There are a lot of options.

>> No.36509836

>gods in dnd are omnipotent
>every single one decides everything that happens everywhere in the multiverse

>> No.36510450

I see this picture posted a lot and I'd really like to know how the situation was resolved in the comic itself.

>> No.36510539


In order the next 4 pages of the comic.

>> No.36512180

>for what sort of knight does not travel alongside a talented minstrel

Squire only lets me have a Full BAB companion, Anon. No minstrels for me unless they're Cavaliers or some shit.

>> No.36512222


Well, if I'm giving a Paladin a failure is the only option and you MUST fall, I'm obviously That DM.

Therefore, what's really important to me is making sure that the Paladin loses and drops all of his nifty class features.

So either his deity doesn't exist, or doesn't respond. If I'm feeling particularly mean, I'll give him the "wrong" (ha! Both possibilities are wrong!) answer and then fall him anyway, and then smugly explain that his prayer was hijacked by a Devil or something.

Of course, I wouldn't do something like that, because I'm not an asshole, but if we start with the initial premise OP.....

>> No.36516247

>Rescue child
>make a last stand/desperate attack on demonic forces

Tyats the most knightly thing I've heard all week.

>> No.36516372

No matter what, the Paladin will always try to do the best. So no, killing the fucking baby isnt okay. He will try to rise him himself while looking at him. If the baby grows up and ends doing evil things, his own father-paladin with great grief shall put an end to his wickedness.

Daily reminder that killing evil sentient beings isn't good, nor lawful.

>> No.36516608

Unfortunately, that's not playing by the rules.

I wish there was room for that in D&D. We'd have a lot less sperglikes in the community. Unfortunately, D&D is the primary exporter of 'GM as physics engine/overgod' bullshit.

>> No.36516637

I don't think anyone worth talking to wants to purge people who play games how they want.

But if playing how you want requires you to break the rules, it stands to reason you should ask if you're playing the right game. It's not like there aren't a fuckton of fantasy RPGs to choose from.

>> No.36517205


Quads of truth.

>> No.36517512


Let me give you an alternate answer:

A good DM doesn't put his players in this situation.

>> No.36518728

The simple fact is that no such situation can be an instant fall.
Any religion would have a list of scriptures a mile long on how to act in such an occasion.
A paladin following a god of retribution would deem a quick death the right amount of mercy due an orc child.
A paladin following the patron god of the town threatened by the demon would save the community first since to loose it would mean to reduce his god's influence.

There is no such thing as a gray area to a religious zealot.

>> No.36518786

The DM can never make or decide if the Paladin falls

The Paladin only falls when their faith is broken, thats the big deal with falling, it's not tripping over every root that pops up, it's your footing crumbling beneath you and you go tumbling into the black.

>> No.36518900


> Gygax also considered House rules a disease

Which is why he never put in any of his books that the DM should feel free to ignore or modify the rules. OH WAIT.

> http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Rule_Zero

Jesus. You're talking about a guy who played his games rules-light and would allow almost anything provided you could come up with a good plan or reasoning for it. Christ.

>> No.36518939

Give the thief the option to retrieve the artifact as part of his redemption, continue to guide him on the path afterwards so as to not have done a job half-assed.

>> No.36518965

They still had the choice to serve him, or to die opposing him like good men. If they are deceived, than you can attempt to reason with them, but if they are beyond reason than you have to do what you must. Keep in mind that you are a literal representative of Good and Law, so that adds some weight to your words. You are vouched for by God himself.

>> No.36519012

>1: The classic orc babby conundrum.
Baptize the orc pups, then ritually execute each individual one so that they may never be made unclean with sin.
>2: A devil threatens to kill an innocent child or have its forces destroy a village where the paladin must choose and cannot plausibly rescue both.
Whichever evil the paladin faces before him is his main prerogative. Do not back down in the face of evil when the power of the righteous cam quell it.

Do you even zealotry, OP?

>> No.36519079

well your right about the second thing the right thing to do is charge at the demon in righteous furry

>> No.36519099

>In a world where Good has PLATOONS OF ANGELIC WARRIORS who regularly manifest to shred evil

In worlds where Paladins have magic, they'll never, ever fall BECAUSE THEY CAN CALL ON GOD TO HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT WOULD BREAK THEIR FAITH.

>> No.36519287

Suppose you're the captain of a ship, and you see a distress flare from an allied ship. Their ship is going down, but they're in contested waters. Entering the waters could provoke all out war with the kingdom controlling the territory, but without aid, the allied ship will sink and lose all hands. Wat do?

>> No.36519308

There are no unwinnable situations.

Paladins exist as part of a religion and order. They are expected to act ethically as members of that order. Provided they act in a manner in accordance with a paragon of his or her faith, they are on the right path. If paladins fell anytime they did not act optimally, they would all immediately fall.

The orc baby scenario is stupid because a paladin can always refer to their teachings for guidance. The paladin studies these teachings for a living: they will know how their diety and order feel about presumed innocence, ends justifying the means, and other such dilemmas.

As DM in that scenario I would do nothing. The gods in my games don't take house calls. Even if they did, a paladin is a grown adult who doesn't need hand holding. They can make decisions and live with the consequences.

>> No.36519357

Orc Baby Scenario is REALLY EASY anyway.

"I take the baby and raise it as my own!"

This gets scarier the more alien the creature in question is, as the paladin will almost certainly be able to teach it to be Good.

A holy Qlippoth, riding into battle on a Deep Dragon while crying out from a dozen mouths that "EVIL WILL FALL THIS DAY!"

>> No.36519487

you are correct they are one of the less likely to fall into evil by nature and in adition like kobolds its largly because there god tells them to be evil

most anything can be good some things are just more likely to be then others

>> No.36519520

just because lawfull good is usualy for the good of most people does not mean all lawfull good is like that there is more then one type of lawfull good just like there is more then one type of neutral good or lawfull evil

alignments are clasifications for philosiphys there not philosiphys in themselves

>> No.36519531

gods cant do that anon

>> No.36519559

evil is not an element you could argue that negative energy is but not evil

>> No.36519587

auctualy a cosmology refers to a single setting the great wheel and its material plane is one cosmology if you cross the plane of shadow into another setting thats a difrent cosmology

>> No.36519619

well not quite right there is a limit to communication but it would be fairly easy to houserule that out and say you can talk to your god without a massively high level spell and it would be a pretty good home rule i dont think i would use it but i wont say its bad

otherwise i agree with you

>> No.36519656

that first things an outright lie and that second thing is an unimportant matter its just how he wanted to make casting in his system sure he had some funny ideas (his handeling of the orc baby situation was outright retarded (maybe not so much retarded as puts people into a stuned silence)) and yes some people need to acknowledge he is not perfect but then some fagots go and overreact to the he never did anything wrong fagots by making him seem like shit

also dident they cremate him rather then bury him

>> No.36519712

then you go down fighting it does not matter what happens what matters is that you try and make the good thing happen

>> No.36519726

thats genius

>> No.36519738

that is the first step on a slippery slope anon

>> No.36519827

yes fucking exactly it does not matter what the consequences for failure are its about doing the right thing and the right thing to do is fighting to the death why is this so hard to understand

>> No.36519836

not really coruption on a mass scale is fucking hard much easier to go person by person

>> No.36519868

i must commend you on managing to find a situation in which the answer is not attack the demon as for the question if he only chooses his small town because he knows the people there he falls im not sure how he would choose which town to save though

>> No.36519884

ok i will call you out

you have a porely constructed situation

>> No.36519924

he would use one of those magical contracts and those are null and void if the signitory is tricked into signing

>> No.36519936

then those that hire them disgrace there faith

>> No.36519960

hell when you look at there stats they really dont have that much power there bigest strength is there senses and ability to know when things happen that affect there domain

>> No.36519991

oh i like that idea

>> No.36520008

you go and help your ally if there fighting that enemy country you should be fighting that country to thats the whole point of an alliance

and if they simply hit a reef or something then i doubt the country will care about you being in there waters if they do get them condemned internationally

>> No.36520090

Do you even Kobayashi Maru?

The allied ship has entered the buffer zone of your state and a neighboring power you're in a state of cold war with. By sailing a military ship into this zone you are committing an act of war.

>> No.36520119

ah that makes it difrent then

now if it was an outright law i would say the ally should be fighting for our side but its a cold war so that does not work

now you of course can not go into the zone what you need to do is determine why the ships in distress if it was attacked in this zone it was allowed to be in then your the enemy has performed an act of war on your allies and so your at war now to

however if your ally crashed then sadly there screwed we will mourn there loss

>> No.36520131

I reprogram the simulation so the enemy captains fear and respect me, and flee without a fight

>> No.36520154

speaking of acts of war heroes of battle really should have had guidelines on what to consider an act of war

>> No.36520718

Considering im suddenly the kind of DM that pulls an fall or fall situation i'd probably thrash around and cry about how the player cant do that.

At least mine did.

>> No.36520921

If I forced him into this situation, I slap myself in the face for being that DM. If he got himself into this situation or it somehow just sort of happened, well, then it depends on his god's personality. A merciful god might perform some miracles to help him defy the odds and pull through, and a merciful one who does not have the time or ability to intervene would just give him a get-out-of-falling-free card as long as he does his best to allow the least possible evil. However, if he chose one of those smite-and-cleave hardass gods who scoff at the idea of mercy, then he's shit out of luck. He's pretty much already fallen by failing to prevent the no-win situation. His god would turn his back on him and refuse to help.

>> No.36521078

On a scale of one to ten, fuck demons

>> No.36521149

>paladins are always religious

Reread the rules, son

>> No.36521186

>implying I don't rescue ally, take full responsibility for actions, and fuck the police

If some dirty space bitches are gonna blame a guy for rescuing another guy, war was inevitable. Fuck 'em.

>> No.36521187

>If that were the case, there would be no poverty.
>>pure-hearted people receive the most money, donate the most to charity
>>evil people receive least money, donate the least to charity

You misunderstand the prosperity doctrine entirely: You have money, therefore you are good, therefore you don't have to donate to charity, you are already good.

Prosperity Doctrine is not only about "being well off," it's about "being a little shit about being well off."

>> No.36521203

Why is the paladin not attacking the devil? He's a paladin. Why is he talking to a devil? Why is he believing what a devil says?

The god action in situation 1 would be to grant the paladin a magical headband that can't be taken off and that constricts whenever the wearer gets any funny ideas about being a jerk. Watch as he grows into an orcish Sun Wukong.

>> No.36521220 [DELETED] 

>In morality, utilitarianism is chaotic good and deontology is lawful good. Virtue ethics is neutral good. Deontology relies on rules such as "You must not kill" or "Preserve all life" while utilitarianism relies on a situation-based approach that constantly changes what your best action would be.


Ah yes, so many degrees of in the absolutist creed: "Maximize utility."


Yup, telling a murderer where a friend is hiding because you don't want to be a liar, such amazing lawful loyalty right there.

>> No.36521243

>A lot of Protestant doctrine is pretty damn vile like that. Prosperity theology doesn't at all align with the Bible, a text that is the only source of divine truth if you are into the whole Sola Scriptura thing.

Yeah. I've got no time for people who go Sola Scriptura and then invent extra bits.

I've got a lot of time for Sola Scriptura but none at all for the fractured protestantism that replaces a single pope with a thousand lesser popes, each as certain of his own righteousness.

At that point, you've just replaced the old pope with a new pope who doesn't even have the decency to speak Ex Cathedra when coming up with new doctrine, or wearing cool hats.

>> No.36521247

Swap the innocent child out for the orc babby.

>> No.36521318

>Suppose you're the captain of a ship, and you see a distress flare from an allied ship. Their ship is going down, but they're in contested waters. Entering the waters could provoke all out war with the kingdom controlling the territory, but without aid, the allied ship will sink and lose all hands. Wat do?

If I'm in the real world, I go pick them up. I'm either a merchant marine ship (In which case come the actual fuck on), or I'm a navy ship in which case this kind of decision is my actual job. Sailors get rescued. Mine, yours, theirs. Even after they sank the Bismarck, they stayed around to pick up German sailors until they got submarine warnings and had to get out.

>> No.36521340

>Send one of the party to the village I do not choose.
>Why the hell would I be travelling alone?

Refusing to engage is a sign of weakness. "Oh I could never be in a moral dilemma because I'll just invent a reason it isn't one."


X+1 villages where X = party members.

>> No.36521372

>evil is not an element you could argue that negative energy is but not evil

Fireball - Evocation [Fire]

Animate Dead - Necromancy [Evil]

Could've fooled me!

>> No.36521400

>In morality, utilitarianism is chaotic good and deontology is lawful good. Virtue ethics is neutral good. Deontology relies on rules such as "You must not kill" or "Preserve all life" while utilitarianism relies on a situation-based approach that constantly changes what your best action would be.


Ah yes, so many degrees of freedom in the absolutist creed: "Maximize utility."


Yup, telling a murderer where a friend is hiding because you don't want to be a liar, such amazing lawful loyalty right there.

>> No.36521415

>To these dumb ass paladin conundrums..

>Play in Aebrynis

Orc baby? That must be one FUCKING evil baby!
>Slay on sight

>> No.36521421

This. Save the Child and try so rescue as much villagers as you can. And if you die while doing it, you've still fullfilled your Duty.

>> No.36521423

Pokemon-esque minigame sidequest

>> No.36521462

If I wanted any PC to lose something I would just take it away because I'm the GM and the only thing that isn't in my power is keeping the players from leaving the game if they aren't enjoying themselves, which is exactly what they would if I went off the deep end and did something so incredibly stupid.

>> No.36521506

>Gotta Redeem Them All

>> No.36521601


And i suppose that the name of that ship is H.M.S. Kobayashi Maru?
That is something I never really understood. Here is my reasoning. You should help them by crossing the border. You committed an incident, sure, but you saved lives. There should be no one there to witness it. If there were ships there to witness it and they attack you that means they were in the position to help the damaged ship in the first place. If they didn't want to help it that only logically means that they attacked it in the same skewered logic that they assume when they accuse you of triggering war by crossing an arbitrary line to help a fellow man. That means that they are willing to fabricate a reason to start a war and if they are willing to do so only means that that conflict is inevitable and only a matter of time. I as a captain would not make the war problem of "my future self" only to buy meaningless time of false peace by committing what amounts a blood sacrifice through inaction.

The same can be applied to orc baby scenario. It boils down to how DM builds his world. If he builds it with strict good evil scale and orcs are firmly within evil than cut the baby down like you did his parents. Do not make the body count that the fully grown orc will tally be the "problem of my future self" just because he was a cute baby, take responsibility. If the DM inserts modern world morality and everyone is born with a free will then take the child to your churches orphanage. If your good does not want you to kill innocent babies then he should take responsibility for it through his earthly institutions.


>> No.36521625

The second scenario of demon threatening child and a village boils down to a "needs of a many or needs of a few" and in my opinion paladin should save the child in front of him for one soul should not be put on a scale with all the others only to lose and be proven that the individual does not mean anything in the grand scale. Religions teach that a man should not be only a cog of the machine but he is worth something by himself and is worth of saving. Think of the biblical parable of sheep herder and the lost sheep. On the other hand if you are officer of earthly government instead of paladin than I would expect you to save as many as you can if it means paying only one life.


>> No.36521648

>then he should take responsibility for it through his earthly institutions.

>"God, you need to raise these kids!"

I fucken lel'ed

>> No.36521932

There are no unwinnable scenarios unless your DM is dumb enough to have his world operate on wishy-washy modern "this makes me feel icky" morals.
A Paladin is a judge, jury and executioner in many places hence the Orc question is moot and the Gods/Forces who grant him his power are not going to throw down the hammer for trying to save people.

>> No.36521941

Someone did actually ask Gygax about orc babies.
Pic related.

>> No.36522291

Thank you anon!

>> No.36522887

>Aside from one small scene where i went 'fear n' loathing' with allucinations descriptions in a cyberpunk game i haven't seen drugs in games ive been or played...Except for one campaing wich was full on with it, all the time. It was OC setting, a post apocalyptic one where the world 'ended' because of a virus wich made people go mad- all kinds of mad. All. Kinds.The sessions themselves were acid trips. drugs were used but the game was a trip, and bad trip, even without. A pity one of the players confused 'madness' with 'screw around any possible chance of plot', but the game worked and could have kept going if real life didn't messed things up.Any way... the major thing that marked the experience for me were how the characters saw different things- and it was a hell lot of fun seeing them mixing things up, so they were all on the same track doing stuff together but on completely different pages. A trip to the other town had one guy going there because 'yes, we need some bitches!' thinking LA (pre-cataclysm) was that way, for another one they were running away from devil flying monkeys of satan, and to another it was because merlin told him so(he was searching for the holy grail to heal the world). The only sane guy helped a lot to push them the same way.So thats my two cents. If more then one character are on drugs at the same time, go wild with it. Its very funny

What kind of character was the "sane man" and way he working with the party? (I realize most people in the setting are mad but why was he working with these madmen in particular)

>> No.36523171

>Make them swear to LG and kill them before they can recant.

Take this to its logical conclusion for max hilarity. A paladin who only slaughters good people so they get fast tracked to heaven, but knows everyone Evil is redeemable or at least able to be forced into swearing to LG, and so doesn't kill them until they do so.

>> No.36523526

>Playing 5e
>Paladin of Vengeance
>No instant-fall mechanic

>"Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil. I choose the greater evil."
>"By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the way of exterminating my foes."

Welp, that simplifies things.

>> No.36523578

What happens if the law says illegal to be a paladin?

>> No.36524790

You're a Paladin. You follow and enforce the Law, not the law.

>> No.36524861

No one is above the law. You are neutral good now.

>> No.36525007

Not sure if I would play that myself, but it definately makes things easier for both sides.
Is there a Paladin of Fight All the Evil Until it Dies/Vies for Salvation? That's my usual go-to.
>Smack to near death.
>Offer mercy of guidance or mercy of blade.
>Redemption lessons or quick death ensues.

>> No.36527644

>he thinks paladins have to enforce the positive law of a society for some idiotic reason
>he thinks paladins have to follow evil or chaotic laws

Not even once, knave

>> No.36527694

>he thinks falling changes a Paladin's alignment.

>> No.36527716

You can't accidentally force a paladin into a fall situation. You, as the DM, consciously choose to take away your players toys. Don't act like it can ever not be on purpose.

>> No.36527908

The orc baby is up to debate on how orcs are in each universe.

But the village thing is dumb. A paladin shouldnt fall because he was forced to pick two bad options It should only reinforce his faith against the powers of darkness.

In any case, a paladin would go for the baby which is absolutely helpless while the village has a slim chance of defending itself. He would then hurry to defend the village as fast as possible. You know, if he didnt pray to his god for some fucking help.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.