Recent Posts
Perhaps the problem lies not in the 'many' DM's interpretations, but rather on your playstyle, so perhaps Paladin is just not the class for you.
But that's just it. I don't play paladins. But the paladin's code doesn't just apply to himself! Here's some examples of rulings I've seen in person or positions I've seen defended in this or other threads:
1) The paladin will never ambush an enemy. Suddenly standard party tactics and stealth are out the window. I'd hate to play a rogue, ranger, or illusionist with a paladin in the party if the DM or the Paladin thought this.
2) The paladin will only ever fight one on one - it's dishonorable to flank enemies. I played a rogue in a game where the either the DM or the Paladin's player, I forget which, decided this. It's not fun to play a character who's combat effectiveness relies on flanking when the best, and sometimes only, flanking partner refuses to participate.
3) The paladin will always be honest in everything, and will never participate in a lie. Try playing an illusionist in a party with this guy.
4) The paladin cannot allow the crime of grave robbing - any treasure found in ancient crypts or burial places must be left there. No, this wasn't compensated by additional treasure in other forms - it was part of the cost of being able to call on the paladin's awesome powers.
5) The paladin cannot associate with anyone who commits evil acts. This isn't even a matter of bananas interpretations of the codes, this is one of the only actual explicit clauses in it. Note that it doesn't say they can't associate with evil people, rather it says they can't associate with people who commit evil acts. Acts such as casting [evil] spells. So much for the fiend bloodline sorcerer, an otherwise cool PC concept which I'm just not allowed to play if there's a paladin in the party.
-----------------------
If the paladin's code, and the stupid restrictions that overzealous DMs put in it, only applied to the paladin, then I'd be happy with the 'don't play a paladin' line. But they don't. Not only can DM's bully paladin players with these rules, but they can also bully the rest of the party with them indirectly. And I've seen more then one Paladin player use their code to manipulate and bully the rest of the party as well, getting some sort of power trip from it.
Perhaps the problem lies not in the 'many' DM's interpretations, but rather on your playstyle, so perhaps Paladin is just not the class for you.But that's just it. I don't play paladins. But the paladin's code doesn't just apply to himself! Here's some examples of rulings I've seen in person or positions I've seen defended in this or other threads:
1) The paladin will never ambush an enemy. Suddenly standard party tactics and stealth are out the window. I'd hate to play a rogue, ranger, or illusionist with a paladin in the party if the DM or the Paladin thought this.
2) The paladin will only ever fight one on one - it's dishonorable to flank enemies. I played a rogue in a game where the either the DM or the Paladin's player, I forget which, decided this. It's not fun to play a character who's combat effectiveness relies on flanking when the best, and sometimes only, flanking partner refuses to participate.
3) The paladin will always be honest in everything, and will never participate in a lie. Try playing an illusionist in a party with this guy.
4) The paladin cannot allow the crime of grave robbing - any treasure found in ancient crypts or burial places must be left there. No, this wasn't compensated by additional treasure in other forms - it was part of the cost of being able to call on the paladin's awesome powers.
5) The paladin cannot associate with anyone who commits evil acts. This isn't even a matter of bananas interpretations of the codes, this is one of the only actual explicit clauses in it. Note that it doesn't say they can't associate with evil people, rather it says they can't associate with people who commit evil acts. Acts such as casting [evil] spells. So much for the fiend bloodline sorcerer, an otherwise cool PC concept which I'm just not allowed to play if there's a paladin in the party.
-----------------------
If the paladin's code, and the stupid restrictions that overzealous DMs put in it, only applied to the paladin, then I'd...
I have no problem with these limitations as role playing aspects, if the player choses to run with a stricter code. These are all additions to the existing code by people defining what honor means to them. I have used many of them when not playing a Paladin, but playing similar characers of high moral caliber. I particularly like the no grave robbing, and have seen characters hit with legal troubles because they raided tombs. Number 5 is no longer true in Pathfinder, read the current code.
read the current code.
Thank you for calling my attention to the current code. The changes are an improvement, but still not nearly clear enough.
And since 'act with honor' is still very poorly defined, whatever weird interpretations of honor the DM or the paladin's player may choose to apply aren't 'additions'. There's way too much regular adventuring that could easily fall into forbidden territory with the code being as nebulous as it remains.
There's also the problem with the nebulous alignment rules to begin with. What is a chaotic act? How many chaotic acts does it take for a paladin to no longer be lawful good? Is it one? Is it three? Is there such a thing as a 'neutral act'? Does a paladin who commits too many neutral acts change alignment and stop being a paladin? Paladins are still likely to get into trouble when they find the DM's answers to these questions are different then theirs.
The rules are very nebulous here, at one point saying the DM should generally let players play their alignment as they wish, and should talk to players before changing anything arbitrarily, but on the other hand the rules also imply that an character's alignment can change from even a 'momentary lapse in personality', and requires a 5th level spell to repair - something few characters have easy access to before 9th level.
And the paladin still can't associate with others who violate his code unless he has regular access to that 5th level spell. So from 1st to 8th level, the rest of the party is still expected to live up to the paladin's code, or the paladin can lose his class features and be forbidden from leveling up in the paladin class for the crime of hanging out with the sorcerer who cast too many deceitful illusions or the alchemist who applied some poison to his crossbow bolts.
man who catch fly with chopsticks can accomplish anything.
That's cool if I'm playing the paladin. What I hate most is that I also have to go through this process, with both the DM and and paladin's player, even when I'm not playing the paladin, because the paladin's code punishes them for associating with others who violate their code as well.
How about this for your plan
Explain to the DM how you see the paladin...
IF DM does not understand he asks the PC when he has a question
how does this fit into how you see the paladin...Nobody puts paladin in the corner
Outside the box.
There is no spoon.
man who catch fly with chopsticks can accomplish anything.
I think the worst part about the paladin is just how strong people's preconcieved notions about them are...especially among people who to have played older editions. Seems most people see the paladin as a stick up the ass, must fight evil no matter how bad they're gonna get smeared, force your party to act the same way type of character. When i think of a paladin, that's the LAST thing i think of. I think of a mortal conduit for divine justice and retribution...but that's just me.
That being said, if there's one thing paladins are good for, it's being fodder for epic discussion board arguments.
Apologies if this isn't clear enough but...
[quote=]jreyst wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
...bring harm to the enemy WHILE his/her innocent spouse and young children bear witness...
Evil AND dishonorable.
I don't think so. Things should be placed in the right context for the family, but slaying evil in front of their loved ones isn't necessarily evil.
If Alice the Mad Villain holds her innocent husband hostage, and you kill her to keep her from killing her husband, I don't think that's evil. Or necessarily dishonorable. If Alice the Mad Villain is trying to kill you and will not surrender, and her family happens to be watching the battle, this is not evil and/or dishonorable. Ignoring the trauma introduced would be cruel, but I don't understand where this is evil or dishonorable.
What you do should be good or evil whether you're being watched or not, and despite who you're being watched by. Isn't that kind of the point?
In a Greyhawk game I played in where I ran a halfling sorceress the Paladin's player held an npc villain (more of a guard) captive as the group ventured inside a Brigand Keep the guard's only request was for leniency towards his family who were present when the group walked to the keep commander's quarters.
The Paladin's response once the guards at the commander's quarters stepped forward to challenge us was to calmly run his captive through from behind even though he was both unarmed and had up to this point kept his word in helping the group get as far as it did without trouble.
Now that was just one of a number of questionable things he did during the course of that campaign and ultimately because the dm had no problems with his fanatical attitude he didn't have any problems with keeping his paladinnic status even if he often behaved like he was a Paladin of Hextor than Hieronneous.
Now from what I've read so far if the dm has no problem with how a paladin is played then there's no problem period no matter how it comes across to everyone else.
I'd explain further but I doubt it make any difference, I have run a paladin in 4e and for the record he's unaligned, not sure I can run characters as anything other than good mind you.
Am I the only one who thinks that it isn't Pazio's job to sort out the Paladin's Code but its down to the individual GMs and Players?
If Pazio produced a hundred page book describing a Paladin's Code there will still be threads like this arguing the toss about the interpretation of this phrase or that.
It really doesn't matter what I think what a Paladin's Code should be to anyone other than me. Likewise someone elses Code might not fit my idea of what it should be. And here is the kicker ::No matter how carefully crafted your argument might be, I'm going to ignore it::. Just as much you will ignore me. We'll end up in a spiral which degenerates into "I'm right you're wrong" "No I'm right you're wrong" ad nauseam
Its down to you as a GM and Player to thrash out what the Code should be for that particular game and come to an agreement. Then there should be no "gotcha!" moments.
And if there is, its down to the GM to point out that they believe that what the PC Paladin is about to do is violate the Code that they agreed upon. No arguement from the Player as a GM you have made the final call. And if they ignore that warning, tough. Attonement time.
Am I the only one who thinks that it isn't Pazio's job to sort out the Paladin's Code but its down to the individual GMs and Players?
If Pazio produced a hundred page book describing a Paladin's Code there will still be threads like this arguing the toss about the interpretation of this phrase or that.
It really doesn't matter what I think what a Paladin's Code should be to anyone other than me. Likewise someone elses Code might not fit my idea of what it should be. And here is the kicker ::No matter how carefully crafted your argument might be, I'm going to ignore it::. Just as much you will ignore me. We'll end up in a spiral which degenerates into "I'm right you're wrong" "No I'm right you're wrong" ad nauseam
Its down to you as a GM and Player to thrash out what the Code should be for that particular game and come to an agreement. Then there should be no "gotcha!" moments.
And if there is, its down to the GM to point out that they believe that what the PC Paladin is about to do is violate the Code that they agreed upon. No arguement from the Player as a GM you have made the final call. And if they ignore that warning, tough. Attonement time.
While I agree that i the end it is entirely up to the GMs to determine what is and is not in the code, I believe these discussions are not a waste of time. If you believe so, why do you still read them? The fact of the matter is, it helps poeple understand eachother to discuss things like this, even if they disagree. And people do change their minds, as I have morphed my image of the Paladin's code along with these threads. That you ignore other people is your perogative.
While I agree that i the end it is entirely up to the GMs to determine what is and is not in the code, I believe these discussions are not a waste of time. If you believe so, why do you still read them? The fact of the matter is, it helps poeple understand eachother to discuss things like this, even if they disagree. And people do change their minds, as I have morphed my image of the Paladin's code along with these threads. That you ignore other people is your perogative.
I don't need to read 400+ posts to work out that MrX will say he thinks this is evil and MrY says it isn't for A,B and C reasons as its all based on opinion. And that is the way all alignment/paladin's code threads work.
What I have as a Paladin's Code or Alignment is based around the core rules and GM/Player agreement. It won't change no matter how crafted your debate maybe. Likewise I'm sure my opinion if its different from yours wont change your fundemental belief on what alignment/paladin's code should look like. I don't see that as being snarky but that it is a fact of life.
Opinions, specfically disagreements with, pretty much spiral into "Your wrong, I'm right" repeat ad nauseam with no one giving ground. You disagree with me and thats fine. All this is my opinion after all!
Discussion is fine and dandy but when it devolves into the "I'm right, your wrong" spiral then it becomes pointless. That is what I ignore not discussion.
Neither opinion is invalid for that particular player/GM but generally is for the other.
While I agree that i the end it is entirely up to the GMs to determine what is and is not in the code, I believe these discussions are not a waste of time. If you believe so, why do you still read them? The fact of the matter is, it helps poeple understand eachother to discuss things like this, even if they disagree. And people do change their minds, as I have morphed my image of the Paladin's code along with these threads. That you ignore other people is your perogative.
The example I mentioned was one of a number that left me wondering exactly who was wrong since I tend to run characters who act as protectors for the rest of the party and yes even as a halfling sorceress I did have her charge in front with only a shield spell and later on an extended mage armour as protection armed only with a two handed wielded shortspear against foes who would otherwise annihilate any spellcaster with no protective magical items.
Its only been today that i finally understand who the onus for judging the paladin's actions really falls to and the discussions have helped me get over something that ultimately wasn't worth worrying about.
Still worth rereading though!
1) The paladin will never ambush an enemy. Suddenly standard party tactics and stealth are out the window. I'd hate to play a rogue, ranger, or illusionist with a paladin in the party if the DM or the Paladin thought this.
2) The paladin will only ever fight one on one - it's dishonorable to flank enemies. I played a rogue in a game where the either the DM or the Paladin's player, I forget which, decided this. It's not fun to play a character who's combat effectiveness relies on flanking when the best, and sometimes only, flanking partner refuses to participate.
3) The paladin will always be honest in everything, and will never participate in a lie. Try playing an illusionist in a party with this guy.
4) The paladin cannot allow the crime of grave robbing - any treasure found in ancient crypts or burial places must be left there. No, this wasn't compensated by additional treasure in other forms - it was part of the cost of being able to call on the paladin's awesome powers.
1) Not entirely true.
The Paladin may well see this as a quick way to get a position of decisive advantage, and encouraging the swift surrender of the surrounded/outflanked enemy. This would be great in sparing unnecessary bloodshed. Should the enemy refuse to surrender then its all on.2) As above.
Strength of numbers encourages swift surrender. However should there be a matter of honour fought one on one (or a FAIR challenge issued) then mano-e-mano would be applicable. Of course, honourable duels are only extended to those who are of a certain station...
An outnumbered enemy choosing to refuse to lay down arms has chosen his own fate.
3) Nothing to do with illusions, unless your party is fond of duping innkeepers with fools gold or something whilst running scams on honest people trying to make a living.
4) So what part of digging up the local cemetery for pocket change did you think was Kosher?
4) So if the party kills the elder mummy and minions we can't take anything from the pyramid they were operating out of?
This is always going to be situational, however, in this case it is less a crypt, and more a lair. Sentient undead with an army aren't the same as long sleeping remains.
Even IF this wasn't the case, why would this be a bad thing?
You'd find a lot of people would find taking blood money or funds derived from prostitution or drugs (or a long list of other nefarious activities) unacceptable today, let alone to people who proclaim (and hold true to) a high set of standards and ideals.
4) So if the party kills the elder mummy and minions we can't take anything from the pyramid they were operating out of?
I don't think I have ever seen a Paladin who was unwilling to take the loot off a mummy. I have played non-Paladins who forced the party to give up the loot from similar situations though. This isn't something worked into the code, but how some players play it.