I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 659 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

@Ashiel

I think that your idea of the Paladin not being able to travel with non-evil but non LG people by RAW misses one of the big points, and I'm a little surprised given your last comments about the Hellknight.

A Paladin can do a lot of things when he's redeeming. And as long as there's signs of improvement, he's perfectly golden. Did he manage to get the thief to stop stealing from innocent townsfolk and reserve his impure impulses for use again other criminals (think White Collar)? Then he's perfectly golden and no atonements needed. Did he get the killer for hire to refocus as a protector of the innocent (think Leverage)? Then he's golden again. Did she get the Hellknight to give up on evil and move toward at least neutrality? Then she's golden!

People forget that a Paladin can reform evil too, not just killstabbitydoom evil. And that in many ways it's better! Not only did team E lose a minion, team N or team L gained one! The only time a Paladin should give up and leave a team is if they prove repeatedly that they are unredeemable. In which case, honestly, he should show up again later as an NPC challenge, either RP challenge (interfering with the group since he can't redeem them) or a combat challenge (stopping them cold in their tracks, depending on how bad the PCs are acting).

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:


Shifty illustrates why paladins are a problem. They are the only class which by design force other players to conform to their restrictions to be able to function within the group. No other class in the book requires that other players at the table change their behavior for the benefit of your class.

Aside from Wizards, Clerics, and other memorization-based spellcasters, you mean?

Aside from Rogues who steal things and get you in trouble? Or Barbarians who fly off at the handle?

Speaking of people changing your behavior without your consent, why are there evil alignments in the game, and why does that one attention hound always insist on inserting one into a party of good adventurers?

Sure the Paladin has issues, but they're only mildly worse than a whole host of other design intentions.

Shadow Lodge

JCServant wrote:
Quote:
Nah, still evil. Selfishness is evil. Selfishness is the opposite of Altruism which is good. The bad guy who has no compassion or remorse for his foes? Evil. The Emperor from Star Wars? Evil. You don't have to be a blood thirsty killer to be evil. It is entirely possible to seem like a good guy while being evil. Most adventurers hurt, oppress, or kill in general. The evil guy just might enjoy or at least not mind it as much as the next guy.
That's your opinion, not RAW. And by embellishing and adding to what's in the alignment description in RAW by your own take on what is "Evil," you are unnecessarily placing a much larger restriction on the paladin than what is already there.

I think it is worth noting that Ashiel doesn't actually USE the alignment system. Sorry, but I'd say that this undermines her authority on how it is properly played.

Shadow Lodge

A. Malcolm wrote:
Why not petition for a new arch-type rather than a revision of the class entirely? That would probably be much more likely to happen in the grand scheme of things.

Simple, honest question, isn't it?

From whare I sit, the OP doesn't petition for this simply because she doesn't actually want it fixed. Again:

A) OP wouldn't ever exercise the option to play a non-LG Paladin.

B) OP loves LG and plays it whenever possible.

C) OP does not use alignment at all in her own campaigns.

D) OP finds it easier to change RAW than to rely on house rules.

I'd go on, but my impossibility matrix can't handle the throughput.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:


I mean, Clerics fight almost as well as Paladins, and have far, far more power that could be abused if used irresponsibly. A cleric that utters a holy word in the middle of a town will slaughter everyone near them, not just evil guys. That cleric could be Any Good or any Neutral, and still wield that awesome power. What does the Paladin really have the cleric doesn't? Entirely defensive abilities, 5 BAB over 20 levels? Oh yeah, the Paladin can turn a stick into a +5 holy weapon at the levels a cleric is summoning celestial hordes.

I don't know whose case you're arguing, specifically, but in light of the OP's comment below, it may not be germane to this thread:

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:


Corpse mutilation is a religious taboo.

Then all the non-religious paladins are in the clear?

:)

Ashiel wrote:


Corpse mutilation is not evil. It may be a taboo, but it is not evil. Due to my religion I wish to be cremated because I believe my ashes should become ashes once more, and the dust I was created from return to the dust I was made from. I find the concept of filling a body full of chemicals to try and preserve it, stuffing it in a coffin, and then burying it in a way that it won't quickly return to the world, to be bizarre and unnatural; but evil? No, no, not at all.

Corpse mutilation IS in fact evil on the premise that when I die, I trust that no one is going to do nasty things to my body. I mean if a corpse is "just an object" then why not make a puppet out of it and put on a good show?

It's a social contract sort of a thing. We all leave corpses and "the golden rule" is the purest form of good I can recollect.

Shadow Lodge

mdt wrote:


If the purpose is to terrorize people, then it's evil. Trying to terrorize anyone leads down a slippery slope and never ends well. Today we're terrorizing people over rape. Next year, it's over thievery. Next year it's lying on your taxes. Five years down the road it's for having more than 2 kids. Ten years down the road it's doing anything without permission from the people in charge.

While I don't generally support 'slippery slope' arguments, this was exactly the way it worked with history's Vlad the Impaler. He even went so far as to cook his enemies children and force them to eat. Eventually your reputation for cruelty becomes so great that your foes start to expect it, and then you have to up the ante before their fear becomes anger.

Shadow Lodge

Good fun guys. Keep it coming! I've missed you more than I care to admit.


mcbobbo wrote:
A. Malcolm wrote:
Why not petition for a new arch-type rather than a revision of the class entirely? That would probably be much more likely to happen in the grand scheme of things.

Simple, honest question, isn't it?

From whare I sit, the OP doesn't petition for this simply because she doesn't actually want it fixed. Again:

A) OP wouldn't ever exercise the option to play a non-LG Paladin.

B) OP loves LG and plays it whenever possible.

C) OP does not use alignment at all in her own campaigns.

D) OP finds it easier to change RAW than to rely on house rules.

I'd go on, but my impossibility matrix can't handle the throughput.

I think the issue is how we think of Paladins. You guys think of chivalry, knighthood, and everything that comes with it, such as obedience, a strict code of behavior, and uncompromising principles. That's not a bad thing. Sans the chivalry and knighthood, that's how I play Paladins. However, I don't see all of that as what a Paladin is. I see it as character details to be applied to an individual Paladin. I see the Paladin class itself as a good aligned holy warrior, and nothing more or less. Is that RAW? No. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was. Do to my view of what a Paladin is, I see room for NG and CG Paladins, and I think that the class should have that variety instead of being so strict and given only one possible set of goals. I may not be likely to exercise this new option, but I still think that it should exist. I have a major problem with how strict the Paladin class is. I don't think that the base classes should be so inflexible. That's what a prestige class exists for.


Kthulhu wrote:
Blue Star wrote:
Not killing bad guys, especially some of Batman's bad guys, is plain irresponsibility. The fact that Gotham even has crime in the same universe as Superman is sheer addle-brained lunacy.
Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that it's long past the point where NOT killing the Joker if given the chance is itself an evil act.

Indeed, it has come to a point where I'm amazed he makes it back to Arkham Asylum, he should get captured, and then killed by the police. No one would convict the man who killed the Joker.


I have a proposition for you guys. What if a neutral version of the Paladin/Anti-Paladin with similar crunch was made that could be a Law supporter, Balance supporter, or Chaos supporter? Then, we could eliminate the entire Paladin class, combine the good, evil, and neutral versions into one class, and call it the Champion. Using this new class, you could still play the classic highly strict LG Paladin, but you could also be NG or CG, or neutral if you wished, and the class itself wouldn't actually be called the Paladin, so you could reserve that name for LG characters in your world if you wanted to.

Would this work for you guys? I'd be willing to get behind it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mcbobbo wrote:
mdt wrote:


If the purpose is to terrorize people, then it's evil. Trying to terrorize anyone leads down a slippery slope and never ends well. Today we're terrorizing people over rape. Next year, it's over thievery. Next year it's lying on your taxes. Five years down the road it's for having more than 2 kids. Ten years down the road it's doing anything without permission from the people in charge.
While I don't generally support 'slippery slope' arguments, this was exactly the way it worked with history's Vlad the Impaler. He even went so far as to cook his enemies children and force them to eat. Eventually your reputation for cruelty becomes so great that your foes start to expect it, and then you have to up the ante before their fear becomes anger.

If you're bringing up Vlad Tepes, keep in mind the times and the culture. In absolute terms, Vlad was an evil man, but relative to his culture, he was just a particurlarly bad apple in a cursed orchard. He came from a culture steeped in blood, betrayal, and revenge and pretty nasty times.


Balance (in the moral sense) is dubious at best, you will see players latch on to that aspect to do evil things, all for the sake of "balance", and I'd rather not even deal with that fight. Paladins are lawful by default for following a code, even if the code needs to be re-written, and so you would have to toss the code to get rid of them being lawful.


While I like the idea, I agree with Blue Star. Druids fit the warrior of balance thing better anyway, in my opinion.


Blue Star wrote:
Balance (in the moral sense) is dubious at best, you will see players latch on to that aspect to do evil things, all for the sake of "balance", and I'd rather not even deal with that fight. Paladins are lawful by default for following a code, even if the code needs to be re-written, and so you would have to toss the code to get rid of them being lawful.

I could see a code existing for each alignment, actually.

I actually don't like the idea of a balance Champion. It seems like it's just asking for chronic backstabbing disorder.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I have a proposition for you guys. What if a neutral version of the Paladin/Anti-Paladin with similar crunch was made that could be a Law supporter, Balance supporter, or Chaos supporter? Then, we could eliminate the entire Paladin class, combine the good, evil, and neutral versions into one class, and call it the Champion. Using this new class, you could still play the classic highly strict LG Paladin, but you could also be NG or CG, or neutral if you wished, and the class itself wouldn't actually be called the Paladin, so you could reserve that name for LG characters in your world if you wanted to.

Would this work for you guys? I'd be willing to get behind it.

Kels, I don't know what to tell you here; you want to go to blogspot and put up that class, you might get some traction with the player base, maybe even enough to get some decent play-test information.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to start a grass roots movement with the goal of Paizo rewriting the character class chapter of the CRB and outmoding every published reference to the paladin, I wouldn't hold your breath.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I actually don't like the idea of a balance Champion.

Stay away from Michael Moorcock then!


Hitdice wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

I have a proposition for you guys. What if a neutral version of the Paladin/Anti-Paladin with similar crunch was made that could be a Law supporter, Balance supporter, or Chaos supporter? Then, we could eliminate the entire Paladin class, combine the good, evil, and neutral versions into one class, and call it the Champion. Using this new class, you could still play the classic highly strict LG Paladin, but you could also be NG or CG, or neutral if you wished, and the class itself wouldn't actually be called the Paladin, so you could reserve that name for LG characters in your world if you wanted to.

Would this work for you guys? I'd be willing to get behind it.

Kels, I don't know what to tell you here; you want to go to blogspot and put up that class, you might get some traction with the player base, maybe even enough to get some decent play-test information.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to start a grass roots movement with the goal of Paizo rewriting the character class chapter of the CRB and outmoding every published reference to the paladin, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Call LG Champions Paladins, and nothing is outmoded at all. Even their class features remain the same.

You have a point about homebrewing. No promises, but I just may do that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I actually don't like the idea of a balance Champion.
Stay away from Michael Moorcock then!

Who is that?

I included a TN "Balance" person in the proposal because I was going for all alignments. I'd love a better idea for a TN Champion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Michael Moorcock, author of the Elric Saga.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I actually don't like the idea of a balance Champion.
Stay away from Michael Moorcock then!

Who is that?

And I thought that "who's that Pratchett guy?" was impressive ;)


I haven't heard of him before now or read his work, so I cannot express an opinion.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Michael Moorcock, author of the Elric Saga.

TOZ thanks sarcasm like we don't know about Elric!

I love these threads on Paladins though ;)

Maybe a lively discussion of some scenarios and how one beleives a paladin should/would act is in order!

I'll start........kidding


LazarX wrote:


If you're bringing up Vlad Tepes, keep in mind the times and the culture. In absolute terms, Vlad was an evil man, but relative to his culture, he was just a particurlarly bad apple in a cursed orchard. He came from a culture steeped in blood, betrayal, and revenge and pretty nasty times.

Or we could bring up Edward I of England "longshanks" also knows as Malleus Scotorum.

He was an absolute hero with the catholic church and the subjects of England.

If you are north of Hadrian's wall, he is a bloodthirsty brutal villain.

It is also interesting to note, that thought the Knights Templar were fighting for the christians during the 1st through 3rd crusade, Very many of the templars started to respect the muslim nobility more than the christian nobility because they were more honestly pious.

The concept of alignment works for the game, and certainly does not work for humanity. I run idealized stories and don't feel like bringing real world issues into the games so alignment works for D&D.

At its conception Law, Balance, and Chaos were natural forces. Balance was desired for stability because pure law or pure chaos would destroy reality. You cannot have Law without Chaos. You can have good without evil.

I always thought that True neutral in AD&D should have been called Balnced neutral. Neutral good/evil as we know it should have been balanced good/evil. Of course michael moorcock shapes most of how I view alignment, but I always envisioned a paradox that the ultimate war to end reality would involve Heaven allying with Hell and Olympus aligning with the abyss. In pathfinder terms, Archons and Devils lead the charge against Azatas and Demons for the shape of reality.

Kind of like the battle between Republicans and Democrats in the USA. both are fighting for their ideals and the battle will ultimately destroy reality. (in this case US decline due to the battle between conservatism and liberalism).

I view Law and Chaos as more constant than good or evil.


Blue Star wrote:
Balance (in the moral sense) is dubious at best, you will see players latch on to that aspect to do evil things, all for the sake of "balance", and I'd rather not even deal with that fight. Paladins are lawful by default for following a code, even if the code needs to be re-written, and so you would have to toss the code to get rid of them being lawful.

Balance as viewed on the Law and Chaos axis was originally conceived as the 'force' which preserves the world from oblivion. if Law wins or chaos wins ultimate destruction will occur.

In Moorcock's multiverse and I beleive in AD&D the TRUE NEUTRAL would work with whatever side was the underdog.

Gygax actually wrote in an early issue of Dragon how Druids were True Neutral but they leaned towards evil more because those were the only people that could make the correct decision for preserving balance.

It was an issue before 30 I have it bookmarked on my CD rom at home (I hope) I will try to find it for later.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I haven't heard of him before now or read his work, so I cannot express an opinion.

if there was a class of Philosphy of ALignment in D&D Michael Moorcock would be the required reading.

D&D magic system is VAnce...

D&D alignment is Moorcock.


Hypothetically lets say Paladins could be neutral or chaotic

What would they stand for?

Paladins as is are Bastions of Good and Law

Anti-Paladins are a hot mess of evil

Chaotic or Neutral paladins are...um...do what ever they feel like doing at the time?

just doesnt seem like a paladin.

Imagine a paladin with this mindset

Paladins are supposed to be a person that others can always look up to, that can always be trusted, throw in neutral or chaotic and you now have a paladin that can be good but also lie, cheat and ignore crys for help if he so chooses.

If a woman is getting attacked outside in the street a paladin needs to be the guy rushing to help and not the one in the window watching and calling the police.

while it is good that the person in the window is doing a good thing in alerting the athorities, they are not actively trying to stop the situation.

That can not be what a paladin is


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Who is that?
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Michael Moorcock, author of the Elric Saga.

Not to mention musician (noted collaborations with Hawkwind and Blue Oyster Cult).


StealthElite wrote:

Hypothetically lets say Paladins could be neutral or chaotic

What would they stand for?

Paladins as is are Bastions of Good and Law

Anti-Paladins are a hot mess of evil

Chaotic or Neutral paladins are...um...do what ever they feel like doing at the time?

just doesnt seem like a paladin.

Imagine a paladin with this mindset

Paladins are supposed to be a person that others can always look up to, that can always be trusted, throw in neutral or chaotic and you now have a paladin that can be good but also lie, cheat and ignore crys for help if he so chooses.

If a woman is getting attacked outside in the street a paladin needs to be the guy rushing to help and not the one in the window watching and calling the police.

while it is good that the person in the window is doing a good thing in alerting the athorities, they are not actively trying to stop the situation.

That can not be what a paladin is

Except an NG or CG holy warrior would not ignore cries for help. They are still GOOD, they just aren't LAWFUL. Lawful good doesn't have a monopoly on good and honorable deeds. An NG or CG character doesn't do whatever they feel like doing, they do what's good and righteous. They just have a different idea of what that is than an LG character.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Except an NG or CG holy warrior would not ignore cries for help. They are still GOOD, they just aren't LAWFUL. Lawful good doesn't have a monopoly on good and honorable deeds. An NG or CG character doesn't do whatever they feel like doing, they do what's good and righteous. They just have a different idea of what that is than an LG character.

If a Character is actually playing the Chaotic, neutral spectrum of thier character then they really dont have to go out of thier way to do something.

Im sure the people on the show what would you do are good at heart but most of them stand by and do nothing as something wrong is happening.

They are good but they are unwilling to go out of thier ways to help.

Jet from avatar: the last airbender is CG but do you believe his moral code would be a good templet for a paladin?

He has good intentions, hes fighting what he believes is evil but his methods for going about solving the problem are not what a paladin should be trying to do. He takes no prisoners he believes are evil, no mercy for anything he believes is affiliated to the "evil" even if they have done nothing wrong but in the end a good person

Aang(LG) however fights the same evil, but always finds the best solution to handle the situation. tries to reform a person from thier evil ways and refuses to hurt innocents even if they belong to "evil" culture.

Without discipline a paladin isnt a paladin, Chaotic characters and neutral characters usually dont have the discipline to follow a code of honor at all times.


I don't agree. Your view of NG and CG looks more TN and CN to me. If you don't go out of your way to help people, you are neutral leaning towards good, not good. A good alignment required devotion, discipline, and dedication regardless of whether it is LG, NG, or CG.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
StealthElite wrote:

Hypothetically lets say Paladins could be neutral or chaotic

What would they stand for?

Paladins as is are Bastions of Good and Law

Anti-Paladins are a hot mess of evil

Chaotic or Neutral paladins are...um...do what ever they feel like doing at the time?

just doesnt seem like a paladin.

You make the mistake of thinking Neutral and Chaotic have no principles or convictions, when the truth is that they merely have different ones.

The Law/Chaos divide is the same divide as the pro-life/pro-choice divide.

Different convictions. Chaos is not random or unreliable.


So lets use your previous paladin as an example(yes i know they atoned)

would you put the kicking in the door, killing the bad guys with no offer to surrender, mutilating thier bodies and putting them up for display a LG, CG, or even NG thing to do?

Do you think a paladin should be like robin hood(usually portrayed as CG) who would ambush and kill guards without offering surrender and steal everything?

sure its to give it to the less fortunate which is good but still consider.

What did those guards do? how do you know that they werent even more good than the paladin and just doing thier job so that they could support a family.

Heck the money you stole might be going to help the dead soliders widow and children lol

When presented in a situation of a bar fight that started because a drunk gaurd squeezed you butt a reason to beat the crap out of every gaurd that comes in the tavern to arrest you for fighting? was that a good thing to do?

If you want to make a NG or CG paladin, call it a crusder and be done with it


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chaos is not random or unreliable.

Now the debate is how should CN characters act!

Leave it to TOZ to take us from LG to CN.....

"All aboard! Next stop Hell "

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

In a hand basket. ;)

Liberty's Edge

You know what I wish? I wish we'd stop calling them Law and Chaos. Those are honestly some pretty bad terms to describe them. It'd be like describing people as Totalitarians and Anarchists, neither of which accurately describes their alignment.

Perhaps some new terms are in order. What though? I haven't a clue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

how about liberal and conservative!

Same letters!
though transposed?

Liberal good = chaotic good
Conservative good = lawful good

I confused myself....
; )

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Deontological and Consequentialist.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
In a hand basket. ;)

Say, would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?

Liberty's Edge

KenderKin wrote:
how about liberal and conservative!

Oh oh! How about Randians versus Socialists!


You guys caught me editing my post!


Chubbs McGee wrote:
Ashiel writes too much! I need a synopsis or something. Demonic bears only have an attention span... Ashiel writes too much! :D

Sorry Chubbs. ^.^"

Shifty wrote:

Oh ok, so now you are choosing to have a contradictory each-way bet.

Sensational.

On one hand you are now citing the 'rigidity' of the Code and implying it straightjackets the paladin and the party into some kind of Taliban doctrines (and by implication also suggesting that this is how everyone does/must play), yet then applauding some examples where people have actually applied some common sense and NOT ONLY stuck to the code and the spirit of the Paladin, but did so in a way not disrutpive to gameplay.

Don't get morally offended when people disagree with you, especially when you use sensationalist and misleading statements, which I pulled you up on, especially as you subsequently go on to recant.

Flip flop flip flop.

Exactly what makes it contrary to read that the RAW says one thing, and yet profess that you not only see why people would deviate from this RAW, but actually encourage it?

The Paladin's code, by the rules, is very strict. If you commit one evil act or misstep on any part of your code, you immediately lose all of your Paladin powers, until atonement is gained. It's not just about acting good, it's about rigidity, according to the RAW.

I was agreeing with Kelsey that they are innately the most disruptive class when played by the RAW, which further goes on to say that they are not allowed to associate with people who are either Evil, or who consistently offend their code of ethics. The problem is that while Paladins are Lawful Good people, Lawful Good people aren't necessarily Paladins. The code says you cannot lie, cheat, steal, act dishonorably, disrespect authority, use poisons, commit evil acts (how severe doesn't matter), and so on. That makes them incompatible with:

  • Alchemists using poisons.
  • Barbarians disrespecting authority.
  • Bards telling lies.
  • Most Neutral characters.
  • Any character who likes the Dirty Trick combat maneuver.

    And so on and so forth. That's the RAW. They are expected to not associate with anyone who can't or won't follow the Paladin's own code of conduct on a regular basis. They are only allowed to do so under the expressed condition of actively teaming up against a greater evil, and that the alliance is temporary, and that it should require atonement spells periodically.

    Meanwhile, I note that while I recognize this as RAW, it is one of the areas I strongly encourage people to consider house-ruling, or taking a less strict approach in terms of game-play.

    Don't speak condescendingly to me 'cause you can't or won't read very well.

    Finn K wrote:
    On the History of the Paladin: since the very first appearance of the Paladin in the D&D game, in the little booklet supplement to the original 3 little booklets, 'Greyhawk', the Paladin actually was very much about the 'good vs evil' schtick. Even though in those original booklets, Good and Evil weren't part of the official alignment system at all (it was just Law and Chaos), Greyhawk STILL talked about the Paladin as a holy warrior fighting against evil (I actually started playing the game way back then-- but if you can find reprints of the books or loose PDF copies out there, it's worth a read to see where they started and how they evolved). By the time that AD&D (1st edition) hit the shelves, we had the same lovely Law/Chaos and Good/Evil Axes building the alignment system we know and (maybe) love today... and the Paladin was very much about Good vs Evil, although law was a little more important back then. You see, in AD&D (both editions), if a Paladin ever knowingly and willfully committed a chaotic act, he lost his Paladin status, and would have to seek out a high-level cleric and atone for his misdeed. However, in AD&D (both editions-- same rules sets) if a Paladin ever knowingly and willfully committed an evil act, he lost his Paladin status-- permanently, no atonement possible. That, plus every other bit of flavor text and power reference, gives me the distinct certainty that, as conceived, Paladins were always more about the Good than the Law, although the balance between the two has shifted a little bit from time to time. If you have the old books, you can check 'em out-- the flavor text and restrictions in every version of the game (up until the abomination that is 4E) emphasizes Good above all else.

    Nice. Thank you Finn. I will see if I can find copies of the books you mention here. It sounds very interesting. :)

    Quote:
    Regarding Paladins in Pathfinder, and how they ought to be played: I still think my thoughts on how Paladins ought to be played do not violate the RAW, but I acknowledge that's my interpretation of RAW, and the way it's written, my interpretation is certainly not the only one possible-- though it clearly differs from what you perceive the RAW to mean, that doesn't mean either of us is necessarily wrong-- English is a notoriously flexible and not-always-precise language. On top of that, to be honest, although I've read up on Paladins in Pathfinder, I haven't played a Paladin *in* Pathfinder yet, nor are any of my fellow players running Paladins in the two Pathfinder campaigns I'm currently in-- I feel reasonably well-qualified to speak since Pathfinder is the descendant of 3.5 and the rules/issues are similar enough that I can read up on it and understand the difference (I did play a Paladin-- mentioned her in one of my earlier posts-- in 3.5, and I played Paladins in both versions of AD&D)-- this does mean my view of RAW may be a little skewed, if there are fine points to Pathfinder's treatment of Paladins that I haven't picked up on yet.

    Seems fair enough. Actually, on the subject of english being a flexible language: That is why I included the definitions of words during my post, to eliminate confusion. I felt this was especially warranted when I was noting the strict conditions of their association limitations.

    On the subject of Paladins, I have always liked them from a conceptual standpoint. The 3E and 3.5 Paladins were notoriously bad in terms of mechanics, so I usually just played Clerics with Paladin flavor (much like my brother played his Fighter with Paladin flavor); because I do firmly believe that you can capture the spirit of the Paladin without bothering with the Paladin class, because it's an ideal first and mechanics second.

    Quote:
    However, the way I've presented what should and should not be allowable for a Paladin is also the way most of the people I've gamed with (and all of the people I find reasonable and worth gaming with) have treated the alignment/code/morality issues involved with Paladins in the game-- if what we were doing is 'house-ruling' it, so be it-- guess we're going to continue doing that, because I don't think anyone I game with now is going to want to run it via the harsh RAW interpretations some folks have given for it.

    Hey, no problem there. While I love discussing the RAW in my favorite game, I have a lot of house rules that emerge over time to smooth out bumps in gameplay. There is nothing wrong with House Rules, as long as everyone can agree with them. As I've noted incessantly, this is one of the areas I actually recommend taking a looser approach with. ^-^

    Quote:
    I'm reasonably satisfied that we're in agreement with this being how things ought to be done in game... whether we agree on it being RAW isn't so important (unless you're planning on bringing a Paladin into official PFS play) :)

    Indeed, indeed. ^-^

    Redliska wrote:
    Ashiel I just didn't want to use a certain term for non consensual relations. It might take things further out of hand.

    Ohhhhh. O.o

    My bad man. I thought you meant just being sexually promiscuous. I didn't realize that you meant non-consensual. That would definitely be a very bad thing. :(

    mdt wrote:

    @Ashiel

    I think that your idea of the Paladin not being able to travel with non-evil but non LG people by RAW misses one of the big points, and I'm a little surprised given your last comments about the Hellknight.

    A Paladin can do a lot of things when he's redeeming. And as long as there's signs of improvement, he's perfectly golden. Did he manage to get the thief to stop stealing from innocent townsfolk and reserve his impure impulses for use again other criminals (think White Collar)? Then he's perfectly golden and no atonements needed. Did he get the killer for hire to refocus as a protector of the innocent (think Leverage)? Then he's golden again. Did she get the Hellknight to give up on evil and move toward at least neutrality? Then she's golden!

    People forget that a Paladin can reform evil too, not just killstabbitydoom evil. And that in many ways it's better! Not only did team E lose a minion, team N or team L gained one! The only time a Paladin should give up and leave a team is if they prove repeatedly that they are unredeemable. In which case, honestly, he should show up again later as an NPC challenge, either RP challenge (interfering with the group since he can't redeem them) or a combat challenge (stopping them cold in their tracks, depending on how bad the PCs are acting).

    Well, why are you so surprised mdt? I said my group plays with a much, much less stringent associates clause when it comes to Paladins, which allowed the awesomeness that was that game and her influence on the party to occur. The RAW says that if they consistently offended her code (and believe me, some of them were very consistent about it), then she would have to leave them. This is one of those (admittedly very few) situations where I suggest that the rule be ignored, or at least house-ruled to be a bit more open.

    For example: I totally agree that a Paladin should be able to win converts through patient devotion to her cause, and her patient attempts to lead by example rather than decree. That is what the Paladin in my story did. If you wanted to add an amendment to the Paladin rules to say something along the lines of "A paladin is allowed to remain with companions that do not grossly violate her code of conduct, under the assumption that she is attempting to lead them away from their usual conduct by show of her own example", or something like that, it would be great. :D

    I added the "grossly" so that you could legally overlook minor infractions, but draw the line at stuff like putting babies through wood chippers. :P

    mcbobo wrote:
    Aside from Wizards, Clerics, and other memorization-based spellcasters, you mean?

    What?

    Quote:
    Aside from Rogues who steal things and get you in trouble? Or Barbarians who fly off at the handle?

    Neither of which are required to do this by their class. A rogue could be built to be Indiana Jones, while a barbarian could be built as a Samurai. Paladins are required by RAW to disassociate with anyone who cannot follow their Paladin code regularly.

    Quote:
    Speaking of people changing your behavior without your consent, why are there evil alignments in the game, and why does that one attention hound always insist on inserting one into a party of good adventurers?

    Get better players? I've seen evil characters played in predominately good parties with no issues; but that was generally because they were not "stupid evil". Some of which were Magnificent Bastards.

    Quote:
    I think it is worth noting that Ashiel doesn't actually USE the alignment system. Sorry, but I'd say that this undermines her authority on how it is properly played.

    Wow, that's both rude and whacky. 3.x/PF has been around for more than a decade, and the alignment system has changed slightly during that time. I noted that I stopped using alignment in my online games because it was causing more trouble than it was worth in my online games. Alignment has never caused an issue in my tabletop games because we have remained with the 3E mindset that alignment is both an overall thing, and also that actions can be affected by circumstances, which is essentially required to avoid logical problems creeping up everywhere (generally dealing with absolutes doesn't work with most things).

    Your comment is about as insightful as saying someone who doesn't play Chess anymore doesn't know how to play Chess. Sorry, but it's kind of silly.

    Quote:

    Simple, honest question, isn't it?

    From whare I sit, the OP doesn't petition for this simply because she doesn't actually want it fixed. Again:

    A) OP wouldn't ever exercise the option to play a non-LG Paladin.

    B) OP loves LG and plays it whenever possible.

    C) OP does not use alignment at all in her own campaigns.

    D) OP finds it easier to change RAW than to rely on house rules.

    I'd go on, but my impossibility matrix can't handle the throughput.

    To avoid you misrepresenting miss Kelsey, I'm replying to this one too.

  • Not sure where you got the first one, but I would see where she was coming from. I've made a number of changes to allow other people options I wouldn't normally do myself.
  • Considering that "Lawful Good" can be played regardless of an alignment system, whether you're playing D&D, D&D sans alignment, or Deadlands in the Weird West, this is reasonable.
  • Probably because of the arguments it brings up, and the logical fallacies that emerge when people try to apply alignment like absolute values in a computer program, without a well-built mechanical structure to support it. The biggest problem is alignment is 80% fluff, 10% mechanics, and 10% vagueness.
  • Reporting issues with the game is what led to many of the Pathfinder changes. It seems reasonable to assume that eventually Paizo may release errata, new splat material, and maybe a few years from now a revised version. Speaking your mind about the mechanics on the general discussion of the forum does seem like a logical step to take to discuss the game.

    Quote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    I mean, Clerics fight almost as well as Paladins, and have far, far more power that could be abused if used irresponsibly. A cleric that utters a holy word in the middle of a town will slaughter everyone near them, not just evil guys. That cleric could be Any Good or any Neutral, and still wield that awesome power. What does the Paladin really have the cleric doesn't? Entirely defensive abilities, 5 BAB over 20 levels? Oh yeah, the Paladin can turn a stick into a +5 holy weapon at the levels a cleric is summoning celestial hordes.
    I don't know whose case you're arguing, specifically, but in light of the OP's comment below, it may not be germane to this thread:
    MontanaMacAilbert wrote:
    No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

    If you were following the context, you would notice that I was discussing the concept of Power vs Responsibility and how relevant it is to the Paladin's code and alignment. A discussion I was having with mdt, and one in which I used the cleric as an example as having overall more world-changing power as a good guy, and noted that fallen Paladins that retained their powers would have difficulties using them recklessly anyway.

    Quote:

    Then all the non-religious paladins are in the clear?

    :)

    Actually, all of them are in the clear. Despite being taboo, you are not committing evil by tearing up an object. You are not oppressing, harming, or killing anyone. Likewise, different religions have different taboos. If you were in Europe in the middle ages, dissecting a corpse would have been seen as sacrilege, and doctors had to exhume recently deceased corpses to learn about their bodies to better help the living. Whereas if you were in Egypt quite a while earlier, you would have seen that not only was "desecrating" a corpse done regularly, but it was actually considered a sacred and holy ritual - directly contrast to what middle age Europe would have considered it.

    So yeah, by terms of hard logic and D&D alignment, chopping a corpse into tiny chunks might be squicky, gross, scary, and maybe even disturbing to watch, but it's not evil.

    Quote:

    Corpse mutilation IS in fact evil on the premise that when I die, I trust that no one is going to do nasty things to my body. I mean if a corpse is "just an object" then why not make a puppet out of it and put on a good show?

    It's a social contract sort of a thing. We all leave corpses and "the golden rule" is the purest form of good I can recollect.

    And frankly, I don't care. Once you die, your soul is gone, your body is going to rot and nasty things are going to happen to it anyway. It's going to break up, and worms are going to crawl through your insides and your outsides, and buzzards are going to pick your bones and then plants and fungus are going to take root in whatever pitiful scraps remain.

    Unless of course people desecrate your corpse by setting it on fire, fill it full of chemicals and stuff it in a box-prison and bury it away as a toxic unnatural mess, remove your brain and organs and pack you with salt, freeze dry you, turn your remains into laboratory-made gemstones, eat you, etc, etc, etc.

    You're basing your opinions off religious or social considerations. Not what is innately good or evil. Once your soul is gone, the life evanescenced from your body, then all your body is, is an object. Like any other. It's an object some cultures or creatures may revere, but it is still an object. It may not be socially acceptable to cut it open and see what's inside, just as it's not socially acceptable to look at a woman behind her veil, depending on the culture.

    As a Christian, I see where you're coming from. But let's actually think logically here, and outside our own little box of views on the world we live in, and extend our thoughts a bit further than if we think something is gross or icky.

    EDIT: And since you asked why we don't use corpses as puppets, because that's kind of gross dude. While it's not harming the corpse, most living creatures find the dead remains of their species a bit creepy, and even dead remains of other species creepy (a lot of people are frightened if they walk up on a dead animal).

    In a fantasy world, there just might be a culture somewhere that the dead are re-animated in some way (either via animate dead or animate objects and used as puppets in shows. Maybe there it's a normal thing, and so people got used to it, possibly from an early age, and it doesn't seem gross or icky or scary, but might disturb outsiders down through their very last nerve.

  • Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    TL;DR


    I only read the 1st post by the OP.....usualy I read it all of a thread before replying but this is a long thread. But I have two points...

    1) The problem is not the LG requirment. Every alignment in the book has bad player examples....making Paladins of every alignment only means you see it. The code is the 'problem'. Imagine a CG paladin telling the party wizard to to cast enchantment spells on enemies because it take away freedom of choice. The problem is the GM and players don't communicate with each other. Or if they do one player being a dick and does not care.

    2) If you want to play a holy warrior of any alignment play a cleric...or a oracle of battle if you don't want to be tied down to anyone god.


    Studpuffin wrote:
    TL;DR

    You're on a message board that is nothing but reading, literally one post after another, in pages of pages of text. There is no difference between reading one post that is an average of 3 posts long because it's responding to three posts, and reading three posts.

    TL;DR is always converted by my brain to: TD;CR (Too Dumb; Can't Read).

    EDIT: In short, if you have some sort of allergy or disability towards reading, or don't wish to exercise your ability to do so; why are you on a text-based forum anyway?

    Liberty's Edge

    It was a joke. Jeez. Lighten up, Francis.

    Liberty's Edge

    Ashiel wrote:
    Chubbs McGee wrote:
    Ashiel writes too much! I need a synopsis or something. Demonic bears only have an attention span... Ashiel writes too much! :D
    Sorry Chubbs. ^.^

    I mean... seriously? Seriously? But you don't get my joke. Oy.

    Shadow Lodge

    Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

    I have a proposition for you guys. What if a neutral version of the Paladin/Anti-Paladin with similar crunch was made that could be a Law supporter, Balance supporter, or Chaos supporter? Then, we could eliminate the entire Paladin class, combine the good, evil, and neutral versions into one class, and call it the Champion. Using this new class, you could still play the classic highly strict LG Paladin, but you could also be NG or CG, or neutral if you wished, and the class itself wouldn't actually be called the Paladin, so you could reserve that name for LG characters in your world if you wanted to.

    Would this work for you guys? I'd be willing to get behind it.

    So long as we're talking about equally rigid codes with some opportunity for fair application, then yeah, I'd totally permit that in any game of mine. And I'd support that change to RAW, even if only as official archetypes for the Paladin class.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Silly, silly PF players. As always we should turn our gaze to comic books:

    Paladin or Lawful Good = Superman/Captain America

    Ranger/Chaotic Good = Batman/Spider Man

    I won't bother with the other potential classes/alignments; you get the point.

    Did superman once tell a half-truth to get Mxlplct to say his name spelled backwards? Sure he did. Did Captain America once work alongside the Hulk, at the time an outlaw of the federal government in the first few issues of the Avengers to take down some major bad guys? You know it! Nuff Said.

    A buddy of mine played the best paladin I ever saw just over a year ago. We were in town investigating some shady business and a fair was in progress. All the rest of us players were really serious, slightly nefarious, slipping in and out of crowds, eavesdropping and adding Bluff to Diplomacy to get townsfolk to tell us about the bad guys w/out getting pinched. The paladin didn't ask a single dark question; instead he went about the fair asking people how they were, what their troubles were, investigating seemingly mundane details.

    My friend did it in a way that was both elequent and unobtrusive. He waited patiently for his turn at the table and was usually wearing a smile when speaking in character. By the end of the inquisition phase the paladin was able to guide us to an NPC that could fill in the blanks on all our questions w/out making a single roll.

    The GM said he made the townspeople feel more real; when acting as said folk the paladin took them seriously and made them feel better and genuinely helped them in their lives.

    That to me is a paladin; selfless dedication to the betterment of everyone else while at the same time adhering to a certain code of honor and ethics. Is this the Bushido code, Courtly Love and Chivalry, perhaps a handfull of laws modeled after the 10 Commandments? Who cares as long as its consistent, honest, fair and contributes positively to society. Superman.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    YAY!! Batman's alignment! This thread is now complete. :D

    451 to 500 of 659 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.