|
Ahh.
Check check it out y'all check check it out y'all.
Now Seelah can start hanging around with corrupting influences like Amiri with her loud music and Seltyiel with that long hair more often!
Where did you get that from , eh? Very dodgy!
Just another thing to whet my taste buds ;-)
Nice.
Also confirmed. Giants are now a sub-type of humanoid. Check out the Favoured Enemies table.
And it's taken from the PFRPG product page. It's one of four page shots and a video.
That was confirmed in the Ranger preview, wasn't it?
That was confirmed in the Ranger preview, wasn't it?Also confirmed. Giants are now a sub-type of humanoid. Check out the Favoured Enemies table.
And it's taken from the PFRPG product page. It's one of four page shots and a video.
Yeah.
|
Yeah.That was confirmed in the Ranger preview, wasn't it?Also confirmed. Giants are now a sub-type of humanoid. Check out the Favoured Enemies table.
And it's taken from the PFRPG product page. It's one of four page shots and a video.
Eh. So I misremembered what had been officially previewed and what had been in a message board post. So sue me.
I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical, but the new change isn't too bad. I was worried though that it might be somthing along the lines of
"Paladin's don't need to worry about working with evil people...ever...that's right, no need for morals."
But limiting it to dire circumstances isn't too bad. Though I do still worry that some players might interperate as this:-
"It's okay to play an evil PC in a party with a paladin, if the paladin complains it's his/her problem not yours, since they are are allowed to work with evil characters now."
Eh. So I misremembered what had been officially previewed and what had been in a message board post. So sue me.
If by "sue" you mean "tie to a lamb post, cover in honey and lick it up", then NO.
Pervert.
Creative Director
|
Correct. A paladin and an evil PC can now be in the same party. The paladin would likely want to try to mitigate or stem the results of the evil PCs' actions and should certainly try to convert or redeem or otherwise help the evil PC find the light... that's something that's actually really neat and cool for a Paladin to do, and builds in a reason for a paladin to stick with a party that has an evil character AND allows for more fun roleplay opportunities.
But the main reason for this loosening of the paladin code is to allow paladins to take part in adventures and plots where the PCs have to pick the lesser of two evils to ally with in order to tackle a greater evil. This is a really cool plot element, and one that we use a fair amount in Paizo products. By loosening the code, we not only let the player of the paladin feel less guilty about these situations, but also let the GM know it's okay for the paladin to do this and, perhaps most importantly, that the non-paladin players know it and won't be as tempted to be jerks about picking on a paladin PC for putting up with something evil.
After all... what's the point of a paladin code if the code is SO RESTRICTIVE that you never get to test your faith or your convictions in the field, as it were?
It's certainly a welcome additon, as it will shorten my list of houserules even more.
Correct. A paladin and an evil PC can now be in the same party.
They could before, it just required the evil PC to have a Ring of Mind Sheilding and the wisdom to realise that performing evil acts in front of the paladin is a quick way to a smiting.
... and builds in a reason for a paladin to stick with a party that has an evil character AND allows for more fun roleplay opportunities.
This, saddly, I'm not fond of. Why should the paladin stick with an evil PC unless under the most dire circumstances? Setting's like Golarian aren't exactly short of PC's, so the paladin is never going to be desperate enough to travel with an evil PC long-term.
... that the non-paladin players know it and won't be as tempted to be jerks about picking on a paladin PC for putting up with something evil.
They'll still be jerks. I've seen games in which some players activly take bets on "Who can make the paladin fall". Mind you, these are the same games where players also change their character's alignment to evil instantly once they find out a paladin's playing. A change in the code isn't likely to stop those players from acting like jerks.
After all... what's the point of a paladin code if the code is SO RESTRICTIVE that you never get to test your faith or your convictions in the field, as it were?
Isn't that...kind of contradictary? If the code is loose, the paladin's faith and conviction isn't going to be tested, since it'll be rare for the paladin to ever need to go against the code. If the code is ridgid, the paladin's faith is more likely to be tested, since he/she will find themselves asking "Is sticking to the code worth it?".
I still agree with the change, but it should be said that for the most part I think the problems still exist. But then again, I don't think the problem is with the code, I feel the problem comes from problem players.
Even if you change the code, you will still have player's thinking that "Paladin's are anal". And the sad truth is, unless the code is removed entirely, most problem players will still think that (because heaven forefend the holy warrior might be required to have some morals).
stuffs
My problem with not letting paladin's associate with evil characters has always been that it is really difficult to convert someone if you aren't willing to talk to them or be around them. There's also the issue of taking prisoners -- if you have a prisoner is he a party member? Can the paladin be around him?
It maybe a bit silly but I really have always felt that a paladin should be allowed to be in a party with an evil character if the paladin is there to 1> try and convert the evil character or 2> limit the evil the evil character can do.
|
|
stuffsIt maybe a bit silly but I really have always felt that a paladin should be allowed to be in a party with an evil character if the paladin is there to 1> try and convert the evil character or 2> limit the evil the evil character can do.
Agreed. A paladin's way to fight evil should not be limited to sticking his holy avenger in evil people's guts.
In fact, by standing next to the evil guy and doing good deeds, the contrast will inspire even more respect for the paladin and the ways of good in the heart of the common people. It shows that paladins are not living in their ivory tower, separated from the real world just so they can follow their precious code to the letter. They are down in the trenches, confronting the ugly realities of life and still striving the best they can to fight the good fight.
|
|
Making it easier to reach out to evil characters and to lead by example is the main reason I like this change, really. It's something I've always thought a paladin should do, but some harsh interpretations of the code made it hard as hell for them to do so.
Of course the fact that it makes Strange Bedfellows situations like those that have turned up in a few of the APs more feasible for the code-as-written is a big perk as well.
This is how I've interpreted the paladin's code for a long time anyway, so it's awesome to be able to just point at the book instead of having to tell my players repeatedly how they don't have to walk on eggshells to play a paladin.
stuffsIt maybe a bit silly but I really have always felt that a paladin should be allowed to be in a party with an evil character if the paladin is there to 1> try and convert the evil character or 2> limit the evil the evil character can do.Agreed. A paladin's way to fight evil should not be limited to sticking his holy avenger in evil people's guts.
In fact, by standing next to the evil guy and doing good deeds, the contrast will inspire even more respect for the paladin and the ways of good in the heart of the common people. It shows that paladins are not living in their ivory tower, separated from the real world just so they can follow their precious code to the letter. They are down in the trenches, confronting the ugly realities of life and still striving the best they can to fight the good fight.
+1
My problem with not letting paladin's associate with evil characters has always been that it is really difficult to convert someone if you aren't willing to talk to them or be around them. There's also the issue of taking prisoners -- if you have a prisoner is he a party member? Can the paladin be around him?It maybe a bit silly but I really have always felt that a paladin should be allowed to be in a party with an evil character if the paladin is there to 1> try and convert the evil character or 2> limit the evil the evil character can do.
It could be argued that it's a priests job to convert, and a paladins job to fight.
Besides, taking someone prisoner isn't "associating" with them. If you're dragging someone in manacles along behind you, spectators aren't exactly going to look at you and think "That person must be a friend of his".
They are down in the trenches, confronting the ugly realities of life and still striving the best they can to fight the good fight.
Facing the harsh reality of the world isn't exactly an excuse for a paladin to neglect their code. You can't exactly call them paragons of good if they have it easy. On the contrary, being subject to the harsh world and still maintaining their morals is somthing that would show them as the epitomes of good.
As I said, I don't have any problems with the change...as long as it's only in the most dire circumstances. I wouldn't ask a druid PC to quest with a Blighter, or a cleric to work with another cleric of a god opposed to them, so I don't see why I should push any paladin PC's into questing with an evil character.
It could be argued that it's a priests job to convert, and a paladins job to fight.
Only for minimum-wage priests (by priests I mean members of the church - clerics, paladins, often druids, sometimes wizards and bards and so on, depending on the church).
Those who go the extra mile (and if you want to keep getting divine magic, you better go the extra mile) don't stick to their job description.
In fact, if I were a deity and one of my followers would try something like that on me, I'd remark that breething's not in the job description, either.
In today's job market, you just cannot do a half-hearted attempt.
Besides, taking someone prisoner isn't "associating" with them. If you're dragging someone in manacles along behind you, spectators aren't exactly going to look at you and think "That person must be a friend of his".
Agreed 100% or more.
Though I have to remember the "prisoners count as associates in the widest sense of the word, so you lose all your powers HAHAHAHA." trick for the next time I be a lousy a%#@&$+ GM. Too bad I never do that. (It's far more satisfying to imply that I might do something like that and let them agonise over the prisoner thing.)
Facing the harsh reality of the world isn't exactly an excuse for a paladin to neglect their code. You can't exactly call them paragons of good if they have it easy. On the contrary, being subject to the harsh world and still maintaining their morals is somthing that would show them as the epitomes of good.
I'd say that's the only way to really put your fidelity to the test.
Everyone can be nice in a meadow full of fluffy bunnies.
As I said, I don't have any problems with the change...as long as it's only in the most dire circumstances.
Now that part is too boring.
If it will accomplish a greater good, the paladin can - maybe even must - associate with evil characters. Of course, he cannot condone any actual evil acts, and in fact must make sure the evil character keeps his nose clean.
I think a party consisting of your usual bunch of adventurers, plus a paladin and a cleric of Asmodeus is the most rewarding party makeup for a paladin's player.
Now that part is too boring.If it will accomplish a greater good, the paladin can - maybe even must - associate with evil characters. Of course, he cannot condone any actual evil acts, and in fact must make sure the evil character keeps his nose clean.
Being able to associate with evil and and condoning evil acts, however, is where the problem lies. Can you really say you disaprove of someones actions even though you voluntarily associate with them?
Even with the "only under dire circumstances" I wouldn't allow it, unless it was really dire, I.E "The world is about to end unless you and this specific group of [Evil] people do somthing to stop it" dire.
Besides, I think alot of folk seem to forget that, paladin's code or no, a PC can still travel with a paladin if they're evil, they just have to use their head. I've never seen a PC paladin "detect" their adventuring buddies unless one just happens to screaming "I'm evil" (such as worshiping an evil god, in which case why is the paladin interested in helping them?) or unless they're commiting evil act's right before the paladin's eyes. This, to me surgests that as long as the evil's PC act with half a brain the paladin won't have any reason to suspect, and thus no need to use detect evil on them, and thus no need to fall for knowingly working with evil.
Being able to associate with evil and and condoning evil acts, however, is where the problem lies. Can you really say you disaprove of someones actions even though you voluntarily associate with them?
Yes. I do not condone many of the actions my friends have taken but I still associate with them. I don't condone the actions of my enemies, however if I don't talk with them and show them my thoughts on the issue they will never change either.
In fact staying apart is a great way to lead into philosophical inbreeding.
Also the paladin doesn't have to detect evil on his adventuring party to accidentally find out one of his allies is evil. For example let's say the paladin and his friends stop to help an injured orc. Now the paladin is worried about a possible ambush but has no reason (other than the fact the person he is helping is an orc) to suspect one. So he detects evil on the Orc and does the cone version, to try and catch anyone else within that area that might be planning an ambush. The paladin's friend, the bard is the one currently treating the orc's injuries. Now the Bard likes the paladin (even though the bard is evil) and so has been sparing his friend the details of his personal life/ history. However because he is in the cone he sets off the detect evil ability. The paladin wasn't suspious of the bard, and he wasn't being paranoid, he was just checking for an ambush.
Even in this case what can he do? He doesn't have a reason to suspect the bard is actually big evil, or even actively evil recently. However in the old rules (and current unfortunately) he can't associate with the bard anymore. This means he can't try and show his one time friend a better way to live (whose to say the bard hasn't been thinking about changing his ways?).
And what if the law states that if an evil foe surrenders to you, you must try and show him the error of his ways and get him to convert to good? Can't do that if you can't associate with him.
And just what is this association? Can the paladin talk to them? Could he heal them? Is he just not allowed to travel with evil? Could he not fight on the same side as an evil character for the duration of a battle against, say golems, to save his own life?
From Beta: "Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
innocents."
"act with honor" and you know what a Paladin is all about.
I still look back at the Knight Protectors. 1st ed, Paladins and LE fighters worked together for some time. Untill a Paladin fell and became the very first deathknight and brought the knighthood low.
Yes. I do not condone many of the actions my friends have taken but I still associate with them.
If your friends do somthing you don't approve of, do you help them do it?
I don't condone the actions of my enemies, however if I don't talk with them and show them my thoughts on the issue they will never change either.
Have you ever tried converting someone to a different religion RL? Generally it takes a huge, life-changing event for people to actively convert from one way of life to another (unless they're not particularly happy in their curent life). Simply telling someone they're performing evil acts and that it's wrong will never change them.
For example let's say the paladin and his friends stop to help an injured orc. Now the paladin is worried about a possible ambush but has no reason (other than the fact the person he is helping is an orc) to suspect one. So he detects evil on the Orc and does the cone version, to try and catch anyone else within that area that might be planning an ambush.
If he suspects an ambush, why use the cone version? Surely if you think enenmies might be dropping down you'd save as much time as possible and use the single target version (which is only a swift action). Besides, just because the orc's evil doesn't nessicitate an ambush, evil humaniods bleed just as easily as non-evil ones.
The paladin's friend, the bard is the one currently treating the orc's injuries. Now the Bard likes the paladin (even though the bard is evil) and so has been sparing his friend the details of his personal life/ history. However because he is in the cone he sets off the detect evil ability. The paladin wasn't suspious of the bard, and he wasn't being paranoid, he was just checking for an ambush.
The problem I find with senarios like this is I always ask myself why? If the bard is really openly travelling with the palain, what's his game? If I know someone whos powers focused on smiting someone like myself, I'd avoid them unless nessicery, through fear that they'd turn on me.
I think alot of people seem to forget that if your character is evil..they're EVIL, not simply "Neutral with evil tendencies" or "Good, but from a different viewpoint". If the bard is really played to the alignment then he's going to cause problems anyway. Besides, if the bard has half a brain he'll invest in a Ring of Mind Sheilding, which'll save him alot of hassle.
Even in this case what can he do? He doesn't have a reason to suspect the bard is actually big evil, or even actively evil recently. However in the old rules (and current unfortunately) he can't associate with the bard anymore. This means he can't try and show his one time friend a better way to live (whose to say the bard hasn't been thinking about changing his ways?).
If he's known the bard long enough to be considered a good friend and not changed his ways, how does he expect to do so in future?
And what if the law states that if an evil foe surrenders to you, you must try and show him the error of his ways and get him to convert to good? Can't do that if you can't associate with him.
Paladins are free to object to laws they disagree with. Besides, again, taking someone prisoner is not association. Theres nothing in this case to stop the paladin dragging said evil to a priest.
And just what is this association?
Somthing which (heaven forefend) requires common sense. And easy to think of it as this, if they're in a postion where someone might refer to the evil PC as the paladin's "associate", then it's a big no no. There, simple.
Can the paladin talk to them? Could he heal them? Is he just not allowed to travel with evil? Could he not fight on the same side as an evil character for the duration of a battle against, say golems, to save his own life?A paladin can still talk, we're talking on forums, does that instantly mean people will associate us together? No.
Heal them? Yes, a paladin can show mercy. Though I image any paladin with half a brain would be careful. It's one thing to heal to stop someone dying, it's another to heal a mugger back to full health after attacking you.
Travel? Maybe, a paladin can't control the road, so he has no right to force an evil character not to travel along the same route. Though personally if an evil character was too eager to follow my paladin, I'd assume foul play.If you want to go by a tighter definition of "Assocaite" then fine, but these examples are just too over the top.
Yes. I do not condone many of the actions my friends have taken but I still associate with them.
If your friends do somthing you don't approve of, do you help them do it?
Different issue. You said association was condoning their actions.
I don't condone the actions of my enemies, however if I don't talk with them and show them my thoughts on the issue they will never change either.Have you ever tried converting someone to a different religion RL? Generally it takes a huge, life-changing event for people to actively convert from one way of life to another (unless they're not particularly happy in their curent life). Simply telling someone they're performing evil acts and that it's wrong will never change them.
Of course it isn't easy. That's why you need time to be around them talk to them and work at it. Can't do that if you can't associate with them.
For example let's say the paladin and his friends stop to help an injured orc. Now the paladin is worried about a possible ambush but has no reason (other than the fact the person he is helping is an orc) to suspect one. So he detects evil on the Orc and does the cone version, to try and catch anyone else within that area that might be planning an ambush.If he suspects an ambush, why use the cone version? Surely if you think enenmies might be dropping down you'd save as much time as possible and use the single target version (which is only a swift action). Besides, just because the orc's evil doesn't nessicitate an ambush, evil humaniods bleed just as easily as non-evil ones.
Because the cone will detect multiple beings at the same time? Even if they aren't evil they might ambush you still. If they are evil the Cone's larger area means you might be able to detect additional Orcs (or whatever) near by. Passive sensor mode so to speak to detect more anomalies (for a not perfect scifi analogy).
The paladin's friend, the bard is the one currently treating the orc's injuries. Now the Bard likes the paladin (even though the bard is evil) and so has been sparing his friend the details of his personal life/ history. However because he is in the cone he sets off the detect evil ability. The paladin wasn't suspious of the bard, and he wasn't being paranoid, he was just checking for an ambush.The problem I find with senarios like this is I always ask myself why? If the bard is really openly travelling with the palain, what's his game? If I know someone whos powers focused on smiting someone like myself, I'd avoid them unless nessicery, through fear that they'd turn on me.
I think alot of people seem to forget that if your character is evil..they're EVIL, not simply "Neutral with evil tendencies" or "Good, but from a different viewpoint". If the bard is really played to the alignment then he's going to cause problems anyway. Besides, if the bard has half a brain he'll invest in a Ring of Mind Sheilding, which'll save him alot of hassle.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you a baby eating cultist bent on world domination and destruction at a whim. You might actually *GASP* like the paladin for being more than you are. It could be you want to destroy the rest of the world for not being worthy, where as the paladin actually is worthy so you support him (think the movie Consantine). Maybe the Bard is trying to corrupt the paladin. Doesn't mean the paladin knows it or that he has reason to suspect anything from his friend. The Bard's "Game" doesn't really matter in this case, it's a straw man argument.
The paladin didn't know the Bard was evil until recently. Just because the Bard is evil doesn't mean the paladin knew about his deeds, or why/how he became evil. All such knowledge in this case would be Metagaming.
SO you are saying my examples are "Dire circumstances"? or does knowing someone and travelling with them isn't associating with them what is?
Associates aren't necessarily friends, they are people you know and interact with.
I like it. It's like a paladin's muscle relaxer for the soul. Doesn't make the issues go away--it just gives enough room to work through them.
I'm actually a little surprised at the number of people who wanted such a rigid game mechanic (because let's be fair--that's what this is). As a DM, it has always been insanely hard to work a paladin into a group of rather varied individuals, and harder still to avoid posing circumstances that require the player to choose between a) Leaving the party, probably bathed in the blood of another player or key NPC, or B) Losing all powers (with or without copious bloodshed).
For once, we might get to see a paladin in a party without putting a burden on other characters as to their selection. Remember, folks. Sarenrae may rock, but she's a game deity--I think she'll allow a few atonements for the sake of facilitating game mechanics.
If the bard is really played to the alignment then he's going to cause problems anyway.
This statement is false, and it is such misconceptions and simplifications that give the alignment rules a bad rap.
This statement is false
Actually I take that back, or at least need to qualify it.
The exact boarder between "Neutral" and "evil" is a little fuzzy. If you WANT to say "You are not evil unless your character performs evil actions overtly, indiscriminately, and compulsively", that's your prerogative.
I think that would be a little wonky, though. At the very least there are a few iconic villains and monsters whose alignments you would need to change to neutral to fit such an extreme view (I'm looking at you, paranoid keeps-to-himself lich).
The thing about that is, if your standards for evil are that exacting you're going to have to let neutral PCs get away with a LOT of crap before they suffer alignment changes. You've basically created a world where no one is evil unless they make a concerted and consistent effort to STAY evil.
And somehow, I get the feeling that that isn't actually your style.
Here's the fun thing, every character should be held to their alignment. Sure a Paladin wears it on his sleeve but the LE fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain is going to have alignment issues. The LE wizard who teams up with the Paladin to defeat the chaos of a plague demon also doesn't enjoy watching the paladin help the sick or weak. The CG barbarian hates the restrictions of civilized lands that require him to wear clothing.....
Basically the Paladin is held to a now slightly higher standard but everyone needs to keep their alignment in mind and will if the game goes on long enough have to make comprises they are unhappy with.
Back in 1st ed there was a rating system, if you RP'd your alignment it was easier to level, if not it was harder. In truth that was a harsh system to a degree but it did enforce every character behave based on their professed alignement, not just paladins. I've never as a DM had to change the alignment of a palyer's character, though I did remove a Paladin's paladinhood once. I was a player in a game where one party member in a very long running game (18 years so far and still going) had his alignement changed because he wasn't really neutral in respect to law and chaos. He always sided with chaos, never trusted any local ruler even ones he put their or for that matter my character who was LG and a ruler of a land. Though he did trust me in battle he was always prepared to flee my lands just in case. Eventually the DM and player had a chat and his alignement went from NG to CG. Not a huge deal but it made more sense and the player agreed.
Here's the fun thing, every character should be held to their alignment.
No. Wrong.
Their alignment should be held to THEM, not the other way around. If the one on their sheet doesn't fit, a better one should be chosen, but at no point does this process restrict the behavior of a character.
You may already agree with me here, but just the same you can't dismiss this as a nit-pick: the difference is HUGE.
Even in the case of the paladin, the only class that actively wants to confine itelf to a single sector of the grid, alignment remains a passive label. He's LG because he does good, not the other way around, and there are just as many ways to be LG as there are ways to be any other alignment.
I really want to play a paladin now. I like the role-playing potential and how the iconics are paired. Playing a paladin in a place that, while not necessarily evil does have loose morals, would be a blast.
Sorry, Thurgon, I just can't seem to leave your post alone.
LE fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain is going to have alignment issues.
Okay, fair enough. LE fighters can't go out of the way to protect the weak for no gain.
Now, what about a Lawful Neutral fighter who murders anyone who looks at him funny? I assume he'll have similar "alignment issues", right?
Now, my question to you is, what happens to the fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain UNLESS they look at him funny (in which case he murders them)?
Because that's describes the warrior-aristocrats of a half-dozen cultures; they're there to protect you, but you'd better give them the respect they feel they deserve.
And I don't care WHAT alignment you call them, but you have to put them somewhere.
I really want to play a paladin now. I like the role-playing potential and how the iconics are paired. Playing a paladin in a place that, while not necessarily evil does have loose morals, would be a blast.
Totally agree, by the way. It's like whoever wrote the "can't associate with evil" line was TRYING to squash roleplay.
I think the paladin who refuses to associate with evil remains a perfectly logical and valid character, by the way. But it's nice to be able to make that decision.
Either way, you now have to take a more personal responsibility for the consequences of that choice.
Now, my question to you is, what happens to the fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain UNLESS they look at him funny (in which case he murders them)?
Because that's describes the warrior-aristocrats of a half-dozen cultures; they're there to protect you, but you'd better give them the respect they feel they deserve.
I'd say you're looking at Lawful Evil here; if you pick away the surface of why warrior aristocrats of that sort "selflessly" do anything, you'll find a motive, be it getting respect, vanity or somthing else. Not all motives are external (goes without saying, but still...)
As for the broader topic, many of the posters on this thread are speaking as if "paladin may associate with evil" means "paladin must associate with evil", like he has no choice about it. It's like there are players out there who, upon finding there is a paladin in the party, would immediately change their alignment to evil and go "aah-ah-ah... it says in the rules you have to put up with me." That would seem to be a problem with the player, not the character (sadly, I've seen those problems, too).
As far as whoever said the paladn was responsible for making sure the other characters kept their noses clean, I wouldn't hold a palain responsible for others' evil acts unless they knew it was going to happen, and did nothing about it. Otherwise, you'd just have all those holy warriors curling up into the fetal position and sucking their thumbs, considering all the evil they can't prevent.
I'd say you're looking at Lawful Evil here; if you pick away the surface of why warrior aristocrats of that sort "selflessly" do anything, you'll find a motive, be it getting respect, vanity or somthing else.
If you pick apart why anyone does anything you will, obviously, find a motive.
The poster only specified "without personal gain", which we must surely take to mean "without personal, tangible gain" (otherwise, we would have to define "warm fuzzy feelings" as also being a form of personal gain, which opens the whole "what is altruism" can of worms, which I don't think is really necessary for purposes of this discussion, except to say that vanity or respect can be prominent motives in Good characters as well and that that doesn't make their actions any less Good).
I'd say you're looking at Lawful Evil here; if you pick away the surface of why warrior aristocrats of that sort "selflessly" do anything, you'll find a motive, be it getting respect, vanity or somthing else.If you pick apart why anyone does anything you will, obviously, find a motive.
The poster only specified "without personal gain", which we must surely take to mean "without personal, tangible gain" (otherwise, we would have to define "warm fuzzy feelings" as also being a form of personal gain, which opens the whole "what is altruism" can of worms, which I don't think is really necessary for purposes of this discussion, except to say that vanity or respect can be prominent motives in Good characters as well and that that doesn't make their actions any less Good).
Are you saying that all effects from acts must be tangible to affect alignment? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just not sure I get where you're coming from; in my experience, that "warm fuzzy feeling" you seem to be dismissing is a large part of most good alignments (along with respect, and yes, sometimes vanity).
Actually, I'm not saying anything about what factors you should use to determine alignment in your game, as long as they're consistent. :)
I was criticizing another poster whom I think might not have thought his views through very well. The problem with making a lot of "If you do/don't do X act then you can't be/must be Y alignment" assertions is that they're bound to conflict. If you say "helping the weak makes you not-evil" and also "killing out of pride makes you evil", you're going to be buggered as soon as you find a characters that does both.
The "is a ruthless samurai neutral or evil" thing was a total sidetrack, I admit. I guess I wasn't going anywhere with that. My main point was that it doesn't make sense to say "good acts aren't good if you have a motive for them".
Everyone has a motive. Where you do draw the line between a selfish motive and an altruistic one is anyone's guess, but I think it's somewhere south of "respect and vanity", personally.
(Which is all a sidetrack anyway, since there's nothing to say that our ruthless samurai ISN'T defending the poor out of some genuinely selfless motive, however you want to define "selfless". My main problem is that I digress. ^_^U)
Actually, I'm not saying anything about what factors you should use to determine alignment in your game, as long as they're consistent. :)
I was criticizing another poster whom I think might not have thought his views through very well. The problem with making a lot of "If you do/don't do X act then you can't be/must be Y alignment" assertions is that they're bound to conflict. If you say "helping the weak makes you not-evil" and also "killing out of pride makes you evil", you're going to be buggered as soon as you find a characters that does both.
The "is a ruthless samurai neutral or evil" thing was a total sidetrack, I admit. I guess I wasn't going anywhere with that. My main point was that it doesn't make sense to say "good acts aren't good if you have a motive for them".
Everyone has a motive. Where you do draw the line between a selfish motive and an altruistic one is anyone's guess, but I think it's somewhere south of "respect and vanity", personally.
(Which is all a sidetrack anyway, since there's nothing to say that our ruthless samurai ISN'T defending the poor out of some genuinely selfless motive, however you want to define "selfless". My main problem is that I digress. ^_^U)
I agree, and thanks for the clarification. Personally, I believe that motive is the primary marker for alignment; the act itself (or lack thereof) is secondary.
Also, if digression is your biggest problem, I don't think you have much to worry about -- :-P
Different issue. You said association was condoning their actions.
So you don't associate with them if they are doing somthing you disaprove of?
Of course it isn't easy. That's why you need time to be around them talk to them and work at it. Can't do that if you can't associate with them.
If a paladin spent the realisticlally required time to actually convert someone, there would be no point giving them martial training or anti-evil abilities, since they would need to spend the majority of their time just converting. Theres a reason why preaching faiths has it's own full-time profession. Are you really going to train an entire order of evil-slaying knights for them to spend 3/4's of their time just converting when theres already people (clerics and other priestly types) that are able to do the same thing? (Hell, even better since clerics have access to more religious oriented spells, such as Hallow, Bless and Atonement).
Because the cone will detect multiple beings at the same time? Even if they aren't evil they might ambush you still. If they are evil the Cone's larger area means you might be able to detect additional Orcs (or whatever) near by. Passive sensor mode so to speak to detect more anomalies (for a not perfect scifi analogy).
That's still no good, since unless you focus for three rounds you'll never pin-point them. Besides, you don't have to be evil to set up an ambush. Knowing if the orc in question is actually evil isn't going to answer the question "Is there an ambush?" Besides, evil if the orc is evil, and you pick up evil auras, that still doesn't necessitate an ambush. Somthing will have injured the orc if he's telling the truth, and it won't always be a random aninmal.
Just because you are Evil doesn't mean you a baby eating cultist bent on world domination and destruction at a whim. You might actually *GASP* like the paladin for being more than you are.
Even though, as you yourself have said, the paladin should be there to correct every little evil act he does? Sorry, but I don't see how I could be friends with someone who critises what should be the majority of my actions.
And to be quite honest, I hate examples like this. They are horrendously unrealistic, nothing like this is ever liable to actually crop up in a game. When an example like this is given, they always put the paladin in unusal circumsatnces and the evil characters in question are always so unrealistic, usally because they're "just evil", with no real reason, motive, inherit evil traits and for some bizzare reason an innate like to people radically different from them and the need to spend time around one, despite said person, as you said, pointing out everything wrong with them.
Associates aren't necessarily friends, they are people you know and interact with.
Listen, this isn't somthing that needs to be clarified. It might be a bit hard to describe with wording, but we all actually know to what extend "Associate" means. Let's stop acting like we don't. Besides, it still says in the entry that a paladin can only work with evil under exceptional circumstances, so by your example, even in PF, spending time with the bard is a no no. Hell, if you really consider "just speaking with someone" association, by PF, you still can't speak to them unless it's a very unusual circumstance.
I think what you really prefer is for a far looser code (or maybe even the lack of one altogether).
Would Roy and Blkar be a good example?
Urg, sorry, no offense to the author, but I don't consider Oots to hold good examples of alignment. For one thing, Roy isn't a paladin. Secondly, later on in the strip, a celestial actually tells Roy his actions lean more towards Chaotic Good rather than Lawful (I actually remember my reaction whilst reading that...it was along the lines of "Thank god, thought I was going crazy since he and the Oots fans insist he's acting lawful".) Besides, Belker's a poor example to use as an evil character. Remember that the main cast are all parodises of some sorts - Belker is suppsoed to be the quintesseintal "Chaotic Stupid" PC, someone who sees the [Evil] descripter and assumes the have free reign to kill, loot, do anything the party doesn't want, and, in short, act more antagonistic than the villans.
Sorry, Thurgon, I just can't seem to leave your post alone.
LE fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain is going to have alignment issues.Okay, fair enough. LE fighters can't go out of the way to protect the weak for no gain.
Now, what about a Lawful Neutral fighter who murders anyone who looks at him funny? I assume he'll have similar "alignment issues", right?
Now, my question to you is, what happens to the fighter who goes out of his way to protect the weak for no gain UNLESS they look at him funny (in which case he murders them)?
Because that's describes the warrior-aristocrats of a half-dozen cultures; they're there to protect you, but you'd better give them the respect they feel they deserve.
And I don't care WHAT alignment you call them, but you have to put them somewhere.
A murderer is generally not lawful neutral. See the lawful part works in there as well. If the law/code of the society included the right to kill anyone who looks funny at you, chances are that looking funny at someone is their style of a challange. In which case it's not really murder in the sense of it being an illegal activity. It's killing in defense of your rights/honor/whatever.
Knights of the middle ages pretty much had this power. They were suppose to defend their commoners but if disrespected by a commoner they had the right to pass judgement on them. This is not a murder, it's legally applying the rules of the society. Both the commoner and the knight know this will happen or could, it is a Lawful Act. I would say it tells you little about the man's alignment unless you know why he is applying the rule. If he does so because he always follows the rules of his society without question it would seem he's LN, if you claim he did so the weak will learn their place well you might be talking LE. If he did it because he could get away with it and he likes killing well any E will do.
Even with the "only under dire circumstances" I wouldn't allow it, unless it was really dire, I.E "The world is about to end unless you and this specific group of [Evil] people do somthing to stop it" dire.
So a mere, say, orphanage full of little kids should left for the demons if the Paladin has no one to help him except some diabolists?
Besides, I think alot of folk seem to forget that, paladin's code or no, a PC can still travel with a paladin if they're evil, they just have to use their head. I've never seen a PC paladin "detect" their adventuring buddies unless one just happens to screaming "I'm evil" (such as worshiping an evil god, in which case why is the paladin interested in helping them?) or unless they're commiting evil act's right before the paladin's eyes.
That depends completely on what you have experienced.
I have seen many paladins scan everyone he associates with as a matter of course. After all, if he associates with someone who's evil, he breaks his code. Not knowing the guy is evil is no excuse - not if you can easily detect evil all day long.
Not to mention that the whole thing shouldn't rely on deception.
So a mere, say, orphanage full of little kids should left for the demons if the Paladin has no one to help him except some diabolists?
And the paladin is going to have time to scan each person indiviually? If the orphanage is under attack the paladin is likely to act first, scan later. Besides, I have to question why the diabolists are so eager to help but no one else is. Sorry, but as I said I hate these whole "Can a paladin work with evil under these circumstances" hypothetical situations. If you see a situation IG where somthing like this crops up (I.E supposedly evil people helping in a situation where evil wouldn't normally help but good aligned characters would) then explain that situation rather than these hypotheical ones.
That depends completely on what you have experienced.
I have seen many paladins scan everyone he associates with as a matter of course. After all, if he associates with someone who's evil, he breaks his code. Not knowing the guy is evil is no excuse - not if you can easily detect evil all day long.
Not to mention that the whole thing shouldn't rely on deception.
Theres a word to describe a paladin like that - Paranoid.
Besides, theres "not knowing" and "not having any reason to find out". I don't see why a paladin would go out their way to scan their party unless they have reason to beleive they should.
|
|
So a mere, say, orphanage full of little kids should left for the demons if the Paladin has no one to help him except some diabolists?And the paladin is going to have time to scan each person indiviually? If the orphanage is under attack the paladin is likely to act first, scan later. Besides, I have to question why the diabolists are so eager to help but no one else is. Sorry, but as I said I hate these whole "Can a paladin work with evil under these circumstances" hypothetical situations. If you see a situation IG where somthing like this crops up (I.E supposedly evil people helping in a situation where evil wouldn't normally help but good aligned characters would) then explain that situation rather than these hypotheical ones.
That depends completely on what you have experienced.
I have seen many paladins scan everyone he associates with as a matter of course. After all, if he associates with someone who's evil, he breaks his code. Not knowing the guy is evil is no excuse - not if you can easily detect evil all day long.
Not to mention that the whole thing shouldn't rely on deception.
Theres a word to describe a paladin like that - Paranoid.
Besides, theres "not knowing" and "not having any reason to find out". I don't see why a paladin would go out their way to scan their party unless they have reason to beleive they should.
Ok.
Curse of the Crimson frickin' Throne!
In this Adventure Path, the players are supposed to team up with fairly obviously evil people to defeat a greater evil or accomplish a goal towards defeating that evil. Twice! Maybe three times if you count getting information in exchange for not slaughtering a bunch of evil later. In each case, the evil people have their own motivations for joining up which is not the same as the players' but is not opposed either.
So, there's not only a real game example, but as Paizo published it, it was clearly supposed to be workable with paladins, especially given Seelah's presence as an iconic in this AP.
Ok.Curse of the Crimson frickin' Throne!
In this Adventure Path, the players are supposed to team up with fairly obviously evil people to defeat a greater evil or accomplish a goal towards defeating that evil.
Firstly, points for using an example which actually crops up IG, even if I still disagree. Though remember that this is the same story in which the PC's meet by finding an common enemy and hunting that enemy down. Besides, I would count working together to overthrow a tyranicle queen working with devils as a dire situation I.E one in which I wouldn't mind a paladin working with evil.
So, there's not only a real game example, but as Paizo published it, it was clearly supposed to be workable with paladins,...
True, but I've also seen alot of complaints regarding adventure paths "not working" with paladins.