|
Yeah it is stated, but also written by a freelancer. So it may be ruled non canon.
Anyhow for now it seems to be ok, until someone from paizo over rules that god or some such.
This is the problem you'll constantly run into Seeker: as the products from Paizo multiply, you'll get more and more inconsistencies with the ruling of James that was quoted in this thread. Believe me: I played 20+ years in the Realms and this kind of thing was frustrating for me in my younger days, but as I grew older and slower, I started to realize that it's sometimes better to have no rules at all on some issue (as opposed to have a strict ruling, because now, for every inconsistency you meet in a Paizo product, you'll need the OK of James to "confirm" this or that god has paladins or not).
Which is ultimately the point Jared and Karui are trying to make I think: if the Core says nothing on pally one step rule, why be rigid and enforce it? I play an elf paladin in a local Second Darkness game and I'm having the time of my life. He lives day-to-day alongside Chaotic Good elves, and thus he is not the "life of the party", but when shyte hits the fan, he is the first to make it to the frontier to repel invading demons, and thus the Queen trusts him implicitly and with her life, as she knows he is utterly unable to lie (i.e. the Queen may secretly think he is one insane elf for living a life so full of restraint and rigid codes of honor, and she may even wonder how he hasn't become Forlorn yet, but part of her also thinks this one elf may have found the Brightness and she sees in him glimpses what a lawful elf society could achieve; i.e. when one values the collective above him/herself, etc.)
I have no issue with Milani haveing paladins really. I have always said one step is a good safe rule. Just that most gods past one step really would not care if yo broke your code, nor would they care enough to have them. So as a rule one step is a genreal rule.
Some gods do fit even if the AL does not. I still think paladins are one step, but Milani is a god of devotion so I am fine with that one as she is a god that would care if you broke your code. I see her as an exception, not the norm.
I reamin opposed to any evil gods haveing paladins however as it is just silly to be honest.
|
if the Core says nothing on pally one step rule, why be rigid and enforce it?
Well for one thing the core rules are supposed to be as setting neutral as possible and to allow as many possible different styles of game as possible. However The PFS and Golarion are all part of a specific setting which means additional rules and things slightly different from the main core.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Threadjack]
Since they did not exist at the time, who would be the likely sponsors of "Anti-Paladins"?
From the major Gods,
Urgathoa = NE
Rovagug = CE
Lamashtu = CE
Gorum = CN But:
Norgorber, or are they not subtile enough?
Calistria, or are they "too icky"? I am at work, so I don't have my Gods & Magic handy. What minor and/or racial gods would also work? [/threadjack]
I could totally see Rovagug having Anti-Paladin types that seem more like Firefly's Reavers than anything else. Appalling figures of terror and destruction, causing fear and pain, and seeing their every act of destruction and terror as a sacrament to their imprisoned god.
Lamashtu's Anti-Paladins would likely come from her favored races, the Gnolls, the Minotaurs, perhaps the occasional Hobgoblin or Bugbear, and similarly have an agenda to push back, or nibble away at the soft underbelly of, the 'civilized' races. Gnoll Anti-Paladins may work as slavers and bring their catch into Katapesh not merely to make a quick dinar, but also to fuel the corruption of mankind, to sell them their own kind to use as chattal, and further their decline into depravity. The human slave-merchants are paying the Gnolls in good hard coin to damn themselves, and while the average Gnoll neither knows nor cares about such esoterica, the wiser priests of Lamashtu cackle at the sick poetry of it all.
I find Gorum, perversely, *less* likely to have an 'official' sanctioned group of Anti-Paladins than Calistria. His love of carnage, war and slaughter could lead to the occasional utter madman, who bathes in blood and savors the feel of bones breaking beneath his greatsword, but I see the Anti-Paladin as being a more *deliberate* evil. A Calistria 'righter of wrongs' would be very much like a 'Vengeance Demon' from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, seeking to take bloody specific and terrible retribution on some specific group for some slight. While a Gorumite would revel in just wanton havoc, the Calistrian evil would have very specific and calculating plans to wreak very detailed and personal vengeance on certain individuals (or groups). I see the difference here, between Gorum and Calistrian evil followers, as being one of premeditation. The Calistrian would have cruelty and deliberation as part of their modus operandi, while the Gorumite would carom from minor land-war to peasant uprising to hobgoblin invasion, with little interest in whose blood was spattering against his breastplate, so long as it was frequent.
On the other hand, Gorum might end up with *more* of these crazed devotees of bloody warfare than Calistria has 'avengers of injustice,' but they'd be less an official sanctioned and recognized part of Gorum's church. A Calistrian high priest, I could see having an Anti-Paladin on speed-dial, for when an 'outrageous' offense to the churches sensibilities demands an even more outrageous and excessive response...
Urgathoa is described as considering herself to bear ill will to none and to recognize no enemies, although conceding that several dieties (Pharasma and Sarenrae) despise her for her nature and endlessly move against her. An order of Anti-Paladins devoted to a diety who is so much an incarnation of enlightened self-interest, utterly selfish and with no designs against any other power (merely a desire to be left alone to sate her own gluttonous and unwholesome appetites), seems to be more effort than she would be interested in exerting. When I picture Anti-Paladins, in my head, I see them as wandering forces of destruction, seeking out evils to commit, while a 'holy warrior' of Urgathoa would likely be tasked very specifically to just fight back the (in her mind) annoying and pointless attacks by 'bigots' in service to Pharasma and Sarenrae, making any order of Anti-Paladins an unusually passive, defensive and reactive group, compared to the traditional perception of that role. Her 'reavers' would end up being 'defenders of the faith,' albeit an *evil* and selfish faith, and not the stereotypical wandering agent of chaos and evil.
Hard to say with Norgorber as well. He's got a genteel side, all intrigue and secrets and thievery and the occasional poisoning in the night, but he's also one-quarter Father Skinsaw, the god of murder, and there's not much subtle in that aspect. I could see any Anti-Paladins of Norgorber being pretty exclusively tied to that aspect, as the aspects of Norgorber do seem to be divided up by alignment, with Father Skinsaw being more CE, Blackfingers being more LE, the Gray Master being more NE and the Reaper of Reputation being more N. That could just be my whacky notion, 'though...
|
|
Similarly while Sune herself is chaotic, she could sponsor a lawful order devoted to the preservation of beauty and the downfall of her evil rivals.
Sune makes some sense, just because it's entirely conceivable for a leader to be chaotic, fun-loving and free-spirited and yet to expect obedience from her followers. 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
Cayden and Desna don't flow so well for me as Paladin-sponsors. Milani, on the other hand? Yeah, I could see her sponsoring some Paladins, despite being personally chaotic.
I could see Pharasma sponsoring some undead-fighting Paladins, despite being neither Lawful, nor Good. (Although part of that might come from how Pharasma 'feels' more like a LN god, than a N one, to me...) Gozreh and Nethys, on the other hand, not even. Gozreh's 'holy warriors' would be rangers. Nethys' holy warriors would be spellblade / magus / gish sorts.
Similarly while Sune herself is chaotic, she could sponsor a lawful order devoted to the preservation of beauty and the downfall of her evil rivals.I could see Pharasma sponsoring some undead-fighting Paladins, despite being neither Lawful, nor Good. (Although part of that might come from how Pharasma 'feels' more like a LN god, than a N one, to me...)
I could agree with that. she screams to LN to me anyhow . Still if she is N then paladin will from time to time have issues with her, but undead focued should be golden for the most part
Again on Sune, she is the goddess of marriage so she so understands oaths, life long commitment and dedication very well. Which is why she was the exception.
Similarly while Sune herself is chaotic, she could sponsor a lawful order devoted to the preservation of beauty and the downfall of her evil rivals.I could see Pharasma sponsoring some undead-fighting Paladins, despite being neither Lawful, nor Good. (Although part of that might come from how Pharasma 'feels' more like a LN god, than a N one, to me...)
I could agree with that. she screams to LN to me anyhow . Still if she is N then paladin will from time to time have issues with her, but undead focued should be golden for the most part
Again on Sune, she is the goddess of marriage so she so understands oaths, life long commitment and dedication very well. Which is why she was the exception.
I think Pharasma is LN in that she's very clear on her own personal laws and expects everyone to obey them and gets rather ticked when they don't. (We're talking about you, Urgathoa.) Other people's rules, or the concept that Law is the be all and end all etc? She'd pretty much roll her eyes at that as she has too much to do administrating the dead to deal with the foolish office politics of celestial bureaucracies. Plus she has to deal with a bunch of chaotic people too on a regular basis and allying herself with Law, even in theory, would cause more administrative hassles than it would solve.
I think the gods of law have likely sent her repeated invitations to join them and she has just as steadily ignored them.
With that in mind, while she would likely be perfectly happy to give some followers the ability to smite undead, exactly what is in it for her precisely to limit this power to Dudley Do-Right types? If someone who kicks puppies and fails to tip the waitress wants to smack some ghouls too, that also gets the job done.
In short, I think the lady of graves really doesn't care about your personal hobbies or foibles so long as they're not on her very short list of dos and don'ts.
Lawful and "The law" are not the same thing. Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. It has little to do at times with Law and everything to do with order.
Pharasma likes order, she likes things to run smooth and work one way, she does not like when things work outside her order {undead}.
I am with Kevin and set here, she seems LN to me
Dear lord, it's Abadar, not Adadar.
Dear lord, it's Abadar, not Adadar.
What about ABBAdar?
If you change your mind/I'm the first in line/Honey I'm still free/Take a chance on me....
We do know that the Council of Thieves AP has an article on Asmodeus, who is LE, that talks about him having paladins, but official Paizo people have posted in the forums that this info slipped through and does not fit Golarion and should not have been published.
That is a crying shame. I literally just got around to reading that article tonight (I'm going to start CoT #5 next weekend, so time to fill the read-ahead buffer) and I was struck by how cool and flexible that was. I refuse to excise that from MY* Golarion and I fully intend to try to find a way to slip an Asmodean paladin in somewhere to have a heart-to-heart with my player's paladin of Sarenrae. The role-play potential is huge.
Yes, I know we by definition have that right. I just wanted to register my opinion as a player and a DM.
We do know that the Council of Thieves AP has an article on Asmodeus, who is LE, that talks about him having paladins, but official Paizo people have posted in the forums that this info slipped through and does not fit Golarion and should not have been published.That is a crying shame. I literally just got around to reading that article tonight (I'm going to start CoT #5 next weekend, so time to fill the read-ahead buffer) and I was struck by how cool and flexible that was. I refuse to excise that from MY* Golarion and I fully intend to try to find a way to slip an Asmodean paladin in somewhere to have a heart-to-heart with my player's paladin of Sarenrae. The role-play potential is huge.
Yes, I know we by definition have that right. I just wanted to register my opinion as a player and a DM.
It's already been de-canonized by Paizo. It never should have been there in the first place, so say the authorities on the matter. Don't lose any sleep.
|
I have read over much of this thread, and have seen some interesting opinions, ranging from letting non-lawful, non-good deities possess paladins, to some other various things. If this has been touched on, then let me apologize and, at the same time, reinforce these points.
First, we must remember what makes a Paladin.
Paladins MUST be Lawful Good- we agree on this. The codes of a paladin are stricter than even the clerics of their religion, as the Paladins have more need to keep track of the deeds of their order. The nature of being a paladin requires intense discipline, faith, and the will to get up every day and know that your cause is righteous.
Now, that being said, deities in Pathfinder, as well as D&D and similar RPG's, are very rarely as scrutinizing as it would seem. Often, their dogmas are quite ambiguous, or more generalized. For instance, let's say a NG deity's dogma is just that- do good. It doesn't say how to go about doing good, doesn't even say what "good" is (though I think all of us have a sense of morals here). As long as you are doing good, as your deity wishes, your deity is ambivalent on what you believe the best way to do good is. Whether you are assisting the noble rule of a king, or starting a revolution to bring down a tyrannical government, GOOD IS GOOD. Your deity will be pleased with either just as equally. Of course, if your deity is LG, then chances are better your deity cares more intently about how you go about doing good. While it may not be a sin to engage in a CG act, you are still expected to know what your deity wants, and act accordingly. If the act is a price to pay, so be it.
Let's take a LN example. LN is often concerned with Order- law for law's sake, so to speak. Using the one-step rule, this deity can possess paladins as well. Let's say a Paladin sees an innocent person thrown in jail. Does that mean you should go bust him from jail? Maybe. But this should not be the first card you play. Try going about it through legal means. Able to get him out? Defend him in trial? Do it. If those fail, THEN you can try busting him out, as his captors are ignoring the law, or abusing it, which does not sit well with LN or LG.
As for the CG deities, this is a topic for player and GM to discuss. Be reminded that Lawful and Chaotic are not just traits- they're a mindset as well. If the principles of a CG deity are something a Paladin would not do, then Paladins have no place in that deity's worship.
Again, paladins by nature are LG- THEY CANNOT BE EVIL. This does not mean paladins cannot fall away, or become obsessed with law over good, or something else. Becoming evil means a paladin is forsaking their vows and codes. This is why many paladins who fall farthest away become BLACKGUARDS. Antipaladins, by comparison, are rare, and the result of SERIOUSLY depraved individuals who value evil over all else. More than likely, however, most paladins who give up their vows are merely tired of the lifestyle, or have lost faith in their deity. These people are more likely just to become fighters (or perhaps knights, if you're using that system). Let's remember that it's not a natural reaction for sane people to, when a deity fails to protect you or your loved one in a time of need, for people to trade in their white capes for black ones and launch a crusade of violence.
In summary, the one-step rule (which has been in place since at least 3.5- see the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms setting as well) is an excellent rule of thumb, as people will often emphasize certain traits of a religion over others. Does that make them wrong? No. If their beliefs guide them to do their best work in their deity's name, then their work is holy. As long as these beliefs do not contradict anything that the deity stands for, there is no problem. So, if a religion allows for both Law and Good to exist simultaneously, then there are assuredly Paladins.
Phew. Sorry to write an essay, but I've been considering paladins of lesser deities lately and saw this thread. Hope this clears things up a bit more.
I really don't see where worshipping Asmodeus causes harm to others. There is no need to harm people. Read the write up. He can kill other worshippers of Asmodeus-because it shows a)he's stronger than they are and b)he's making a statement to Asmodeus that his nicer way of doing things is best. Depending on the nature of the relationship between worshippers and deities, he may actually have a chance of converting him to...well, probably LN, but still.
Asmodeus, being a god and all, is a legitimate authority. Who actually uphold his bargains...to the letter. So honesty and integrity in a Paladin isn't something he'd necessarily dislike. And if your good deeds are ultimately put to bad ends, well, you aren't liable for what other people do.
Would a Paladin fall for killing demons? Ultimately, he's helping out Asmodeus. Or Devils? Ultimately, he's helping out the Abyss. I just don't see how a Paladin autofalls for worshipping Asmodeus.
And Paladins can associate with evil people for the greater good. Maybe he really needs to kill demons, since they are a bigger threat to the material plane. As long as a Paladin does not violate his code while doing it, he'll be fine.
Oh, and just FYI, tricking a paladin to do good things to an evil end doesn't make them fall. They have to willfully and knowingly break their vow to fall.
A Paladin can't 'whorship' a evil deity. Read Asspciations...sorry but whorshipping a evil deity I would considerr a very long term assciation with a evil being.
Now I am all for people bending the rules and such for Paladine's choice of gods...heck I can maybe even see some evil ones concepts( still want to play a Paladine of Bane from the FR campaign setting with the heritcle feats).
But as a general rule this option should have a yeild or even maybe a stop sign next to it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need a Player's Guide to Golarion.
Clerics, in Pathfinder, can worship ideals, and don't have to worship dieties.
Clerics, in Golarion, must worship dieties.
Paladins, in Pathfinder, don't necessarily worship a specific diety.
Paladins, in Golarion, must worship one of an approved list of dieties.
Threads like this proliferate because the rules of the game don't necessarily match the extra specific limitations of the setting.
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting made the interesting choice of limiting some core rules (clerics, druids, etc. had to choose a patron god), and yet expanding or loosening up other core rules (paladins of Sune, monks and paladins being able to multiclass, depending on their orders).
It would be interesting to see if the Golarion setting has any expanded options over the core Pathfinder rules (like the paladin of Sune, or, in this case, perhaps Pharasma), or just has some extra restrictions.
I think we need a Player's Guide to Golarion.
Clerics, in Pathfinder, can worship ideals, and don't have to worship dieties.
Clerics, in Golarion, must worship dieties.
Paladins, in Pathfinder, don't necessarily worship a specific diety.
Paladins, in Golarion, must worship one of an approved list of dieties.
Threads like this proliferate because the rules of the game don't necessarily match the extra specific limitations of the setting.
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting made the interesting choice of limiting some core rules (clerics, druids, etc. had to choose a patron god), and yet expanding or loosening up other core rules (paladins of Sune, monks and paladins being able to multiclass, depending on their orders).
It would be interesting to see if the Golarion setting has any expanded options over the core Pathfinder rules (like the paladin of Sune, or, in this case, perhaps Pharasma), or just has some extra restrictions.
+1
An interesting question though, is whether a paladin can be an atheist or agnostic. As far as I can see in RAW there's nothing specifically preventing it, although Divine Weapon and Holy Champion mentions the word "god" in the description. I would certainly allow it in my game, since in my mind the paladin is above all a beacon of law and good, something he can still be even without worshipping a specific deity.
|
|
An interesting question though, is whether a paladin can be an atheist or agnostic. As far as I can see in RAW there's nothing specifically preventing it, although Divine Weapon and Holy Champion mentions the word "god" in the description. I would certainly allow it in my game, since in my mind the paladin is above all a beacon of law and good, something he can still be even without worshipping a specific deity.
Why would a paladin be an atheist? BTW, I see atheists as people who actively denounce or oppose the worship of deities, "Imagine there's no Heaven, Above us only sky!" kind of John Lennonism. In a magical worlds with clerics and oracles who on a DAILY basis heal the wounded and cure the blind with their GOD-GRANTED divine powers, it is extremely hard to refute the good that can come from following good gods or be a member of a good-aligned faith. Real world atheists are against religion because it is the source of wars and a fuel for fanatics. But in a world like Golarion, I could see a CG guy being opposed to "organised" religion, but not opposed to the good that comes from the good gods and their good followers in itself. Now, I can't see for the life of me why a LG guy would be opposed to good-aligned organised religion, which is a central pillar of community, let alone even IMAGINE why a paladin would call himself an atheist.
We're talking about Golarion right?
BTW, I see atheists as people who actively denounce or oppose the worship of deities
Atheism in Golarion isn't like that, in fact...
atheism (the "gods" may be real, but not divine and therefore not worthy of blind devotion and worship)
That is why I could see an atheist paladin in Golarion, that more followed an ideal than a deity.
BTW, I see atheists as people who actively denounce or oppose the worship of deitiesAtheism in Golarion isn't like that, in fact...
atheism (the "gods" may be real, but not divine and therefore not worthy of blind devotion and worship)That is why I could see an atheist paladin in Golarion, that more followed an ideal than a deity.
All paladins in Eberron must have a deity. James Jacobs said as much. There was a long thread on it because it was only vaguely implied in the 3.5 Golarion book, but James said it would be more than implied for the PF version.
PS:After checking it seems to have been overlooked again. I guess RAW you can get away with a godless paladin, but not by James intention.
BTW, I see atheists as people who actively denounce or oppose the worship of deitiesAtheism in Golarion isn't like that, in fact...
atheism (the "gods" may be real, but not divine and therefore not worthy of blind devotion and worship)That is why I could see an atheist paladin in Golarion, that more followed an ideal than a deity.
Sort of along the lines from the real world where some believe that the old gods (Greek, Norse, etc) were really just members of a powerful alien race that once visited Earth and were worshiped as gods.
All paladins in Eberron...
I am guessing you meant Golarion here?
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
These discussion might go better if we don't represent a "divine-powered/holy warrior" strictly as a paladin or anti-paladin. Frankly, I think that's what most people are asking for, they use Paladin as a term of conveinence which is where we get into "Deity XYZ can't have a paladin because Paladins must me Lawful Good."
To me, a Paladin is the good/virtuous variant. Anti-Paladin the chaotic/evil variant. The problem lies that outside the Paladin/Anti-Paladin dichotomy there's a large gap and no filler.
Personally, I like the idea that every deity can have this type of class, I just wouldn't necessarily call them "Paladins". The challenge is, how do you design said class that mechanically/thematically is on par with the Paladin and Anti-Paladin classes?
|
|
Personally, I like the idea that every deity can have this type of class, I just wouldn't necessarily call them "Paladins". The challenge is, how do you design said class that mechanically / thematically is on par with the Paladin and Anti-Paladin classes?
The easiest solution, IMO, is just to tweak the Paladin / Anti-Paladin appropriately. A 'Liberator' or 'Champion' or 'Paragon' might have the standard Paladin abilities, but be CG or NG, respectively. The Paladin's 'lawfulness' doesn't really have much to do with their class abilities anyway. They can't detect chaos or smite chaos, after all.
A LN holy warrior would replace detect evil and smite evil with detect chaos and smite chaos, but otherwise could keep the same abilities (or choose at 1st level whether they will have Lay on Hands and Mercies, or the Antipaladin equivalents).
A CN holy warrior could smite and detect law, and choose Paladin or Antipaladin features as well. (Some dieties might preselect that choice. Gorum is unlikely to have as many healers as smiters.)
[Precedent for this sort of thing existed in Greyhawk, where LN St. Cuthbert didn't allow negative energy channeling, and LN Wee Jas didn't allow positive energy channeling, IIRC.]
LE Tyrants / Despots and NE Reavers / Blackguards or whatever could use the same mechanics as Antipaladins, since, just as the Paladin doesn't really have any lawful powers, the Antipaladin doesn't really have any focus on the Chaotic side of it's alignment.
Really, the LN and CN holy warriors are the only ones that require anything more than filing off the LG/CE alignment restrictions for Paladins and Antipaladins and opening them up to CG/NG and LE/NE.
If one had a couple weeks to play around with the idea, you could also go all-in and pick apart the *awesome* Holy Warrior rules from the Book of the Righteous, and make distinctive holy warriors of some of the bigger dieties, but in a setting that tosses out new dieties all the time, that way lies a heck of a lot of work. (If I were to do such a thing, for instance, I'd draw the line at the 'big 20' main gods, and leave all the lesser gods out of it, just to put a cap on the amount of work necessary.)
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
Prob a misunderstanding from one of the Paladins of an evil god thread, I think you did give a statement that they had to be within one step of their god.
|
Creative Director
|
Prob a misunderstanding from one of the Paladins of an evil god thread, I think you did give a statement that they had to be within one step of their god.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
If a paladin worships a god, the god needs to be of an alignment within one step of LG (or for antipaladins, within one step of CE). But yeah. I suspect a misunderstanding too, since "If a paladin worships a god" also means "A paladin doesn't have to worship a god."
Why would a paladin be an atheist? BTW, I see atheists as people who actively denounce or oppose the worship of deities, "Imagine there's no Heaven, Above us only sky!" kind of John Lennonism. In a magical worlds with clerics and oracles who on a DAILY basis heal the wounded and cure the blind with their GOD-GRANTED divine powers, it is extremely hard to refute the good that can come from following good gods or be a member of a good-aligned faith. Real world atheists are against religion because it is the source of wars and a fuel for fanatics. But in a world like Golarion, I could see a CG guy being opposed to "organised" religion, but not opposed to the good that comes from the good gods and their good followers in itself. Now, I can't see for the life of me why a LG guy would be opposed to good-aligned organised religion, which is a central pillar of community, let alone even IMAGINE why a paladin would call himself an atheist.
We're talking about Golarion right?
Well, a Paladin from Rahadoum might very well not worship or condone the worship of any Gods...
By your standards, no supporter of the Rahadoum regime could be Good...Disregarding that the Rahadoum regime in fact achieved something (end of warring) that is probably on par what any Good church could potentially achieve. FYI, Rahadoum is listed as merely a Lawful nation, no more or less Good than Absalom (just more rigid/lawful), so there`s plenty of room for their society to include Good people IMHO, even if their society isn`t ESPECIALLY bursting with Goodness, which would be extremely rare in Golarion.
I don`t think your take on morality vis-a-vis Gods and Atheism actually corresponds to what Atheism is in Golarion, which as you recognize doesn`t have that much to do with real-world Atheism (though you quote numerous examples of that anyways). I don`t think Atheism imlies anythin on the scale of Good and Evil in Golarion...
Rahadoumian intelectuals may very well concede the obvious benefits of Good Gods, but they would put forward that short-term benefits are outweighed by long-term reliance and weakness upon Divine intervention, and that Humanity itself can move towards a strongly Good world on it`s own power if it relies on it`s own power and not that of the Gods. When a healing spell can said to be `Evil` because it`s sponsored by an Evil source, even if it accomplishes Good in the mean-time, I don`t see an ultimate conflict with Good morality in rejecting all intervention/ sponsorship by Gods, regardless who they are. Good Alignment has often been associated with respecting individual will, teaching a man to fish, etc, so while Rahadoum may be extreme in certain ways I don`t think they are INHERENTLY INCOMPATABLE with Good Alignment, or Paladin-hood, even if a Rahadoum Paladin MAY encounter situations which may call into question Rahadoum`s strict prohibitions, etc.
...ESPECIALLY if one concedes Godless Paladins as being accepted by Rahadoum, and being capable of being flag-bearers for the regime, etc.
(which isn`t clear to me, because the Oracle backstory suggested ALL `divine` magic, whether or not it is connected to Gods, is frowned upon... though that could be a folk `misunderstanding` that all divine magic comes from the Gods, and atheist Paladins are indeed accepted by the Rahadoum regime... JAMES?)
--------------------------------------
I wasn`t aware that God-less, or Diety-Independent, Inquisitors were `blessed` in Golarion canon,
I had been under the impression they were exactly like Clerics, just more militant and inquisitive or whatever.
Good to know.
Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
Just curious, if a Paladin or Inquisitor do not worship a deity, how is the loss of divine powers handled? Mechanically, it's the GM, but thematically who/what cuts the divine cord in these instances? Is it hand waved as some sort of karma or cosmic justice?
Just curious, if a Paladin or Inquisitor do not worship a deity, how is the loss of divine powers handled? Mechanically, it's the GM, but thematically who/what cuts the divine cord in these instances? Is it hand waved as some sort of karma or cosmic justice?
I am guess while they may not have a god, that power would be watched by something.
It`s not that much different than non-magical classes with alignment restrictions, e.g. Monk. Nothing (besides the GM) needs to be `watching` them, the abilities are simply inherently tied to adherence to a code of behavior, and straying from that means those abilities don´t function.
Just curious, if a Paladin or Inquisitor do not worship a deity, how is the loss of divine powers handled? Mechanically, it's the GM, but thematically who/what cuts the divine cord in these instances? Is it hand waved as some sort of karma or cosmic justice?Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
I would say that the paladin's own self-doubt and uncertainty over whether what they are doing is right and upholds their code is what causes their power to disappear.
|
Creative Director
|
Just curious, if a Paladin or Inquisitor do not worship a deity, how is the loss of divine powers handled? Mechanically, it's the GM, but thematically who/what cuts the divine cord in these instances? Is it hand waved as some sort of karma or cosmic justice?Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
It's a combination of karma, cosmic justice, and loss of faith within the divine spellcaster's mind and soul that result in the loss of powers if a non-deity-worshiping divine spellcaster screws it up.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for the record... I don't think there's a lot of paladins in Rahadoum at all. The role of "paladin" is more likely played by non-religious crusaders there, since the people of Rahadoum are unlikely to interpret ANY form of divine magic as "okay" in most cases.
If I recall the people of Rahadoum treat all users of divine magic as "clerics" or god worshipers, Look what happened to the poor oracle.
My impression has long been that the reason the Paladin is LG and is unique, rather than being one of a number of alignment-based holy warriors has to do with the history of the class.
It represents the ideal of the Carolingian knight (derived from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (1961) along with Ariosto's Orlando Furioso and the Chanson de Roland)-- loyal to liege (Law-- even if the king is wrong, which is frequent, unfortunately, in the later Chansons de Geste) and to God (Good). The uniqueness of his (or her, cf. Bradamante) alignment and powers derives from a historical and religious context where such faithfulness was the apex of honor, and hence would entail special grace and fortune. It's a particularly monotheist concept (the Islamic version is the Ghazi)-- and sometimes the notion is extended to pagan, Jewish, or even Muslim figures (the later is Saladin, in Western literature). It's thus sometimes of an anomaly in a polytheistic, amoral universe like Golarion, but it has a lot of literary tradition. Paladins are LG and special because their source material assumes that LG or its equivalent is the best alignment, the most close to G*d.
Moreover, the dedication to duty and self-discipline that is L in the alignment is perhaps the crux. Being Lawful means you spend the time necessary to achieve the mysteries of the faith through hard work, not charismatic inspiration. As warriors, it thus seems appropriate that they be strictly regimented to balance their Fighter-like prowess with mild Cleric-like abilities.
I fully understand why many players want a CG Paladin or some such. After all, many of them are Americans! But that's not the nature of the class in its sources, which give it a great deal of flavor. Consider the variation in the Arthurian legend, where we have a plethora of Paladins, though many are flawed (being flawed is OK so long as you repent it...): Perceval, Lancelot (a Paladin of Amour Courtois), Gauvain, Borre, etc. Personally, I like earthy, intelligent, human Paladins, and I think that's how they're best played. Perceval may be an idiot and Galahad inhuman, but they aren't the be all and end all. Anderson's Holger is Ogier the Dane, a Paladin of Charlemagne who made many, many mistakes... including rebellion and manslaughter.
Thinking about this makes me want to throw one together for PaizoCon.
Milani (and some other CG or even N gods) could simply grant a religion trait like this:
Paladin of A Different Law: You can be LG and take levels in paladin even if you adore this deity.
Since in Blood of Angels there's a race trait allowing NG and CG monks, why not trying a solution like this?
I'd say that any and all LG, LN and NG deities can have Paladins. Not all of them possibly do, but the fact that they CAN is what I'd highlight. Also, for that other thing mentioned, I'd rather see the alignment restrictions on Monks and Barbarians completely removed. Some sacred cows do need killing, and pointless restrictions to alignment would be one of them if you ask me.
Yes! Sweet, sweet Necromancy..........
|
|
Milani (and some other CG or even N gods) could simply grant a religion trait like this:
Paladin of A Different Law: You can be LG and take levels in paladin even if you adore this deity.
Since a Paladin technically doesn't have to revere a god *at all,* this would probably be fine. Nothing in it states that Milani is the source of the Paladin's powers, after all, making it really no different flesh than a Ranger or a Bard saying that they 'revere Milani.'
It's not that they are necessarily a 'Paladin of Milani' they are a 'Paladin, who happens to worship Milani.' (While frowning at the unorthodox and anti-authority methods her tenets sometimes endorse. You walk a narrower path than that, and believe that overthrowing tyranny and bringing about a more just and good society doesn't *always* have to involve bloody revolutions, or a short-sighted 'guilt by association' knee-jerk assumption that *all* authority is inherently corrupt.)
Also, for that other thing mentioned, I'd rather see the alignment restrictions on Monks and Barbarians completely removed. Some sacred cows do need killing, and pointless restrictions to alignment would be one of them if you ask me.
Hell to the yes.
'Barbarians' who enter a state of intense focus that is not even a little bit 'out of control' or 'frenzied,' and martial artists who are all about flowing like water and emptying the mind and embracing the eternal now, seem as valid character choices as the crazy wild screaming barbarian or the rigid disciplinarian martial artist.
Are Paladins forced to worship an LG, LN or NG deity in Golarion, or are they allowed a bit more space in that regard?
I did see a Paladin of Milani once, I think it was in the Guide to the River Kingdoms.
They do not have to, however if they do, then it must be within one step. So sayth James.
To be honest, I think that's stupid.
Like Set said, a Paladin of Milani sounds awesome.
However, I'm at least glad that the Paladin of Asmodeus is still banned and retconned to Hell.
Then again, I'd still prefer if the Paladin did not stray from LG as a class, even if they did worship a Chaotic deity.
I myself would allow Milani as an exception as she understand devotion, So would have no issue making a paladin fall that broke his. Kinda like Sune paladins in FR, sometimes exceptions make sense.
Dude, a lot of people seem to hate the Paladins of Sune. I'd want an explanation as to why.
Sure, she's a Chaotic Good deity, but how does one exception make her the most reviled Paladin-related thing after the Paladins of Asmodeus?
Hell if I know, she was the Goddess of marriage, so to me it fit. She understood a life long devotion and vows and promises to never break such. I mean sure she was chaotic, but she was a good fit as an exception.