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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 659 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

So, it's a bit dated in the current convo, but Nightweaver, you made an interesting post and I'm curious about some of it (and was interested in commenting on others).

Nightweaver wrote:
Worldmaker - I would submit that Fidelity could be substituted for Chastity.

Why? I'm genuinely curious? Chastity does not mean abstinence, but rather purity. So, I'm kind of curious what the reasoning is behind this. I'm not particularly arguing here, just curious. :)

Nightweaver wrote:

Some other thoughts I jotted down - in no particular order:

At one point someone suggested (in regards to anti-paladins) that Selfish = Evil. Incorrect. Selfish = Placing Personal desires (Freedom) over others wishes = Chaotic.

I'm sorry, but this is false. Selfishness is not the same as individuality. Individuality (chaotic) is the concept in which you apply concepts (such as rules or lack thereof, actions, or whatsoever have you) to yourself for your own purposes, but still being mindful of the consequences to others (or not, depending on the individual in question). Selfishness is a willingness to apply anything to anyone (yourself or others) for your own purposes, regardless of the morality - it is, in fact, a lack of morality.

THAT SAID, having selfishness doesn't necessarily equate to being evil. Being Evil (capital "E"!) comes from an excess of selfishness. Ignoring what is right for the sake of yourself is clearly wrong. This is evil. There are other forms of evil, but taken to their logical conclusion, they are (sometimes distorted) forms of selfishness as well.

Nightweaver wrote:
There was a comment about Barbarians resembling Samurai. What?!? Samurai follow a code of conduct that makes western knights (of which paladins are the paragons)seem like drunken frat boys. If ever there was a example of Lawful Stupid it would be a group who must commit ritual suicide for failure, instead of just rededicating themselves to making it up.

Eh, the western knights had a strikingly similar code in many ways, including the suicide. It was enforced about as often, probably. The Samurai just have better press about it, today.

Nightweaver wrote:
Another big confusion on the Law vs. Chaos issue is elves. They are described as Chaotic. But one of the most widely read example of elves is Tolkien. And his elves are predominately lawful - a well ordered society that stands unchanged over millenia. Having recently re-read Dragonlance Chronicles, I see that as the guiding principle of the Sun and Moon Elves of Krynn.

Yeeeeeeah, PF elves don't fit Tolkien. Most D&D (and thus Pathfinder after it) doesn't, really, despite the fact that Tolkien was a major influence and source of inspiration on the game's development.

Nightweaver wrote:

As to my personal take:

I support every god having its own divine champions. My first RPG, I was the "paladin" of the goddess of thieves - in other words I was a thief, with all the abilities therein. Another party member was a Paladin of the head of the pantheon, a god of law and justice, etc. His Class was Paladin.
So by all means, allow a Prestige Class - Like Divine Champion or Divine Defender from 3.5 for non-LG Paladins.
But the Paladin Class requires absolute, unfailing, devotion to a code. A Chaotic character may abide by his word, unless it would be advantageous to break it. That isn't good enough for a Paladin.

I pretty much agree. :)

Ash: every time you decide to use a feat, use a skill, roll a dice, or anything at all like that, you are, in fact, metagaming. I disagree with your posit that metagaming is a bad thing. I like your arguments, though. Very well written and structured. I don't agree with your conclusions and feel a few things you hold are faulty presumptions. BUT! That's the great thing about PF. It works whether or not you agree with me!

Jak: heh. Nice. Funny.


Tacticslion wrote:
Ash: every time you decide to use a feat, use a skill, roll a dice, or anything at all like that, you are, in fact, metagaming. I disagree with your posit that metagaming is a bad thing. I like your arguments, though. Very well written and structured. I don't agree with your conclusions and feel a few things you hold are faulty presumptions. BUT! That's the great thing about PF. It works whether or not you agree with me!

Metagaming in the way I was referring would be to change the way your character would act, or intentionally make them act in a certain way, for purely out of character reasons. Choosing to make use of a feat is mechanically representing something that your character can do. There is a vast difference.


People that believe their perspective is the absolute reality amuse me in mine.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:
People that believe their perspective is the absolute reality amuse me in mine.

I can perceive no other reality from my perspective.


Can you conceive of a reality that is not defined by your perspective?

Without external definition, which I can never really get as far as I know, every reality is a schrodinger's cat equation as far as mine is concerned.

Edit for clarity: I am not allowed to open the box. I can merely hypothesize. All additional data is subject to my own perspective and therefore suspect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Knowing that no one else shares my perspective, yes.


EDIT: DROPPIN' QUOTES ALL UP IN HEAR! ('Cause it's really confusing and lacks all context without them.)

Ashiel wrote:
Metagaming in the way I was referring would be to change the way your character would act, or intentionally make them act in a certain way, for purely out of character reasons. Choosing to make use of a feat is mechanically representing something that your character can do. There is a vast difference.

Not really, although I see your reason for thinking so, and it's even correct, in its own way.

Effectively the question I'm getting at becomes, "Do you control your character, or does your character* control themselves?"

In all cases, technically, you control your character. As one who has written (and played) much, I've seen the tendency for characters to take on a "life of their own" and go directions in stories that I've certainly never intended for them to go. It's kind of fascinating, and sometimes amazingly brilliant. Sometimes I like the new direction. Sometimes I don't. Most of the time when I don't like it, I let it go, figuring "Meh, whatevs...". Sometimes, however, it's too much, and I step in and change it.

See, I have a power that enables me to do this: the Edit. I can, in fact, force a character I write to do something. It doesn't matter that it "feels" out of character - I have that godlike Authority. Given a little time (and repetition), such actions will become "in character", because it's a series of thought-patterns that the character established within themselves (and that I've established for them).

This is true in writing or in games. The rest is now about justifying that first action... which doesn't always have to be justified.

You're focusing on that first action, however - that "moment of choice" when, from your current perception of your character, the act or agreement "feels" out-of-place. In such an instance, the character - the piece of paper with scribbles on it and shared fabricated imagination - is "attempting", after a fashion, to control you. As the player, you have the right (or power) of the "Edit" function. It's difficult to use sometimes... that preconceived notion is powerful. But in such cases as these (potentially disrupting a game), it can be a bad thing if you don't. And thus, Self Control (a fruit of the Spirit!) comes in. Metagaming. In a very real way, you're forcing your character to make a decision that you don't think they'd make "on their own".

But similarly, they'd never make the decision to "take Dodge at 3rd Level" on their own, either. They just think (if they "think" anything at all) that they're training really hard to avoid getting hit (or anything else, really, it's up to each person to justify their own character's motivations for their actions and choices). Similarly, it may "feel" out of character for them to make a decision... but I don't know about you, but I've done/said/etc things that are very "out of character" (for both good and ill) for me. Sometimes they even stick and become part of my character. That's part of life. It can also be part of the game.

And really that's my contention: metagaming - on any level - isn't really a "bad" thing in and of itself. However, much like the "bad paladin" (which I contend is caused by a player), bad metagaming (which is also caused by a player) gets all the press, and has become a dirty word, and people think it should be avoided or changed.

To be clear, it's not always easy. The paladin class can really test the limits of some people's abilities to do this. Yes, it's written that way. That doesn't mean that it's flawed or wrong. I, for one, enjoy the way its structured. It provides for some story elements by hemming away others. As always, however, you can change things in your own games. And if you want something that isn't allowed at someone else's table... oh well. Better luck next time! (One day, Manshoon clone, I will get to play you! One day!**)

* More accurately, your preconceived notions of said character, i.e. your prejudice!
** (But today, is not that day!)

Liberty's Edge

I am constantly detecting new realities with my detect-o-meter. I blame the large Hadron Collider.


Triomegazero Then I fear that I cannot find you amusing on that basis.

However, on what I deem to be a more favorable attribute, we can share baking recipes. It's nice to find another person that hasn't necessarily found that their grandmother's brownies were necessarily the best ones in the universe. I find that the people that I perceive to be the true reality people tend to offer recipes but rarely accept them without bias. Invariably they either don't like walnuts or they demand fudge. Alas

...Do you bake? ;)

Stud puffin can I pretty please come over and play with it.

Tacticsillon I find that I agree. Metagaming as currently seemingly defined by the mass majority seems to be limited to a very narrow aspect of what I as well would consider metagaming. From my perspective no matter how arresting the character invariably it is myself making the decisions on how he will act and occasionally I have to pull strings to make them play with the group otherwise every single character I play with create wonderous item would stay home and become brilliantly rich and buy spell books to further his fortune. After all if the wizard is going hunting for power and he has the ability to grow it at home in a nice comfy bed with little risk to himself why on earth would he leave?


Simplex, complex, multiplex; everyone should read Empire Star by Samuel R. Delany; it will hurt your brain in the best way possible.


Jack the Loony Alchemist wrote:
People that believe their perspective is the absolute reality amuse me in mine.

I tend to come from the school of thought that we share reality, and we can observe it. If someone challenges what is, then for their theory or view of reality to be given credibility. Galileo and his pupil often had opposing views on reality, and would then attempt to test or challenge the theories of one another through logic and reasoning.

If a man tells me the sky is falling, and I look up, and see that it is not. I assume that man to be mistaken until I see some reason to believe him other than just hearing him say so. Not because I believe him a liar, but because through my own observation that his claims seem to be false.

I do not generally argue positions for which there is not evidence of. I have personally seen both angels and demons in my life without being under the effects of any sort of substances, and because of these experiences it affects my outlook on things. However, I wouldn't begin to argue that angels and demons are real, because I have no proof to provide other than my own anecdotal accounts, which are probably pretty useless to any real discussion on the matter.

So far the best alternative that has been shown in terms of the Paladin's code & associates issue is to suggest that when it refers to the paladin's moral code that it is somehow not speaking of their paladin code. Finn K said he was going to elaborate and (I presume) make a case as to what it actually means, without adding, removing, or twisting the wording to try and finagle it into something different.

As long as someone can provide something that...

  • Doesn't add, remove, or alter the wording.
  • Reference something that is not within the book.
  • Can still be read directly as per the instructions.

    I will give it great consideration. But since my reading of the rules supports all of this criteria, and I haven't seen an argument that does, I must with my own perception accept that this appears to be the correct reading of it even though I don't like it and recommend you don't play like that.

    But people just seem so amazingly interested in just saying that it's wrong, or getting butt-hurt instead of offering an alternative viewpoint for me to examine and possibly switch to, which contributes to my give-a-damn-o'-meter being very inactive.


  • That sounds like fun. I'll have to pick that up hitdice thanks. In turn if you have not read the schrodinger's cat trilogy by robert anton wilson I highly recommend it for a good afternoon outside yourself.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:


    ...Do you bake? ;)

    Sadly no, but I do enjoy my wife's creations.

    Liberty's Edge

    Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

    Stud puffin can I pretty please come over and play with it.

    That's what she said.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I did, Ashiel, offer an opposing viewpoint using nothing but the core rule book and the dictionary in my rather long winded response on varying perspective. I do not deny the veracity of your perspective. I just find it an unreasonable conclusion without additional supporting evidence since the source material has such vague wording. The only supporting evidence that I have is that paizo encourages people to play in different ways and desires money. Beyond that I can drag out my huge ominous book that I use on literary analysis that is probably outdated and state my perspective on how it relates from my perspective.

    I have little desire to convince you that your belief is wrong. I am merely asserting that there is one with just as much merit not necessarily more. I am also postulating that the odds of paizo changing are very very low.

    I have never stated that you were wrong, merely that I disagree and my tush feels fine although I do need a new office chair.

    I do find it amusing that this entire discussion has little relevant meaning. The way almost everyone I know plays paladins I suspect is near identical to how you suggest playing them. The difference between our opinions is one of sentence structure and context, this is why I compare this debate to a religious argument. Without input from "god" the two sides aren't going to get very far.

    I tend, in my reality, to apply chaos theory to psychology including my own. As such I find that I do not believe in an absolute reality, or that people really ever have a concrete one to begin with. I tend to go along with the structure that all reality is false and that any evidence to the contrary is a clever ploy by god to trick us. This is not witticism merely my own point of view. I seem to think I enjoy what I think I seem to feel on what I deem to be a consistent basis therefore I think I enjoy existing enough to continue existence. I think I do my best to only try to define the rules of my realty as they pertain on a relative basis to amuse myself. I believe that others exist only so far as I myself exist and I try not to limit their amusement as I think I would not appreciate them attempting to limit my own.

    TriOmegaZero Alas oh well I'll keep searching for another who bakes. Eventually I'll complete my tastes of the world recipe book.


    I bake :D


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Kelsey my dear I love you. What by the foul and wicked ravens that screech outside my door do you bake? By chance is it fudge? I am always on the lookout for another good fudge recipe.


    No fudge. Sorry. I like breads.


    Alas, but then bread is always good. If you ever feel the compulsion to drop me a bread recipe my email is TheGrifter41@aol.com.

    I eagerly welcome all recipes. If I don't like it then invariably my fiance will and I will have to cook it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Tacticslion:
    I was presuming Chastity in the Abstinence sense, and thus - as my friend that often plays Paladins, Knights (of the Templar/Hospitaller sort), etc. suggested to me - suggested an alternative. Fidelity, would suggest in this context, romantic love toward a wife/husband. Or the pursuit of such aims within the bounds of propriety.
    After all, many knights in fiction seek the favor (that silk scarf, or the positive feelings it reflects, not any illicit act) of a fair maiden. And some will pursue this further to a honorable marriage.
    My point was to suggest that paladins are not monks (in the western sense, not Monks the Class)and need not necessarily forswear romance or lose the blessings of their patron.

    While I've only experienced the term Meta-gaming in a negative connotation, I find I like your use. And yes, it effectively represents what I was trying to say. Just because a player knows something, because it is happening at the table he is sitting at, doesn't mean he has to let his character know.

    I seem to recall some books/movies/tv shows where a character knows that one of his companions is doing something he might not approve of if he were to see it, but knows that it is for a good cause, and let's it slide. Perhaps with a "remind me to talk to you about X, after this is done."
    And if the objectionable behavior really was the best way to accomplish a good objective, without unnecessary harm to innocents, etc., then surely the patron god - as reflected by the DM will be merciful.
    Or, alternatively: the paladin's companion uses steals from the enemy guards to achieve their objective. Afterwards, the paladin "suggests" that the companion make a donation at the next church they visit. The exact amount being decided by the conscience of the companion. Such acts of repentance, could a small price to pay for having the paladins powers along.

    Which gives me a new way to look at this. The Original suggestion was that it would be nice to have the Paladin's powers without the party conflict. Seeing it as the Paladin being at fault because of his code. Perhaps instead it should be looked at as: if you want to have the Paladin's firepower in your party, you need to respect his bosses' authority.
    From an in-game perspective, Paladins are rare, even rarer than Clerics. If you (meaning the party) want the services they provide, then you have to pay some lip service to their beliefs.


    Ashiel wrote:
    Man you're hostile. So very, very hostile.

    You might want to look in the mirror one day.

    I don't have to provide you with 'another way to interpret' the RAW, because either you can look at the RAW and work that part out yourself, and no amount of telling you that YOU ARE SIMPLY APPLYING BINARY THINKING seems to get through, because you simply don't want to accept other peoples viewpoints. You only have Taliban Paladins. You denounce any deviation from your Taliban Paladin path as Infidels and Blasphemers. According to you, Paladins have no flexibility, no common sense, no free thought, and no pragmatism. I can see why they might be disruptive in your games, you hobble them completely and then complain.

    The problem is the Players, and in particular, myopic thinking that you keep asserting.

    You can copy/pasta all the dictionary entries you want, it just makes the argument taht you are completely literal about everything all the stronger.

    Ashiel wrote:
    However, if you have nothing better to share, you are just spitting in the wind.

    I thank you for the confirmation of my moral victory, I'll accept that for the surrender it represents.


    Nightweaver wrote:


    After all, many knights in fiction seek the favor (that silk scarf, or the positive feelings it reflects, not any illicit act) of a fair maiden. And some will pursue this further to a honorable marriage.

    2nd Ed Paladins Handbook has a section on this - "Courtly Love".

    Works well.


    How has this thread gone on so long? To me it was settled on page 1/2...


    I vaguely recall that. I don't believe I have a copy any longer. I agree though, that it was a generally good book - unlike Clerics.

    Ultimately, the biggest change I would suggest to the RAW, is to add the Paladinic Codes (which for PF are in the 3 Faith Books) into the core book.
    Likewise any ancillary dogma/code/etc. that should be essential to other classes should be incorporated into the core book. Unlike 3E, where I encountered players who refused to believe their monk should have to abide by the sort of poverty depicted in Kung Fu because that detail was in Dragon, or some other secondary source, and not spelled right out in the PHB. I note that it didn't make it into PF either.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Hell... (or better Heaven^^)

    Lawfull Good, diesn't means "Lawfull Stupid".
    The main problem with the issue the TE talked about is RP not rules.
    The most players see Paladins LG as Lawful Stupid and that is the problem, not the alignment restriction.

    The fantasy books are full of LG characters which play well with the group, the art is to:
    1. Didn't show the LG Paladin that you do some bad stuff
    2. Alsways have a plan B if the Paladin somehow take notice f it.

    Well known LG Characters in Books:

    Sturm (Dragonlance), Boromir (LotR, even Faramir could be LG, to some degree even Aragon could be a well played LG character).

    Spoiler:
    Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

    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.

    Lets go through the Code of Conduct:
    if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

    If I going prssed into a situation where I have to permit a act of evil to save innocent life, this is not willingly. Sure it shouldn't be an easy decision for the Paladin and he should look for other ways, but in the end he's sacrifising his code for the greater good -> OK

    that she respect legitimate authority
    This only means he have to respect the evil overlord for his position, not to obey his orders. So if an evil King torture his people etc. he will figth against hin, but in a chivalric way, he will always name him King and will respect his word. A good example for such behaviour are the german UBoots in WW2. They fought their enemys with all he had, but they always stick to the Genfer Convention, securing castaways and the crew, even if this means bringing themself into danger (Laconia).

    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.

    And last but not least, I think this shouldn't be the problem, honor was always a part of the fantasy genre and if someone is not able to play this part, he better should not play a paladin.

    I playing Paladins and LG Clerics all the time and never had problems.
    One of my group didn't recognize I#m a cleric of heironeous at the first time, even if I played him always within the rules of his faith.

    I think most of the problems with paladins comes form "Lolfull stupid" players who want to play a paladin "because he is lawfull stupid", without recognising that this class brings up so much potential for good RP action.
    Also most other player see paladins as Lawfull Stupid (thats why I ruled that in my group no player says which class he plays)

    Silver Crusade

    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 do enjoy reading your posts Ashiel!


    Tryn wrote:

    I think most of the problems with paladins comes form "Lolfull stupid" players who want to play a paladin "because he is lawfull stupid", without recognising that this class brings up so much potential for good RP action.

    Also most other player see paladins as Lawfull Stupid (thats why I ruled that in my group no player says which class he plays)

    Yes I agree.

    The problems aren't found in the class, they are found in the PLAYERS :P

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Shifty wrote:
    Finn K wrote:

    Islamic tradition dictates that the punishment for apostasy is death. If you decide to leave the religion or renounce your faith, you must be killed. This rule is enforced in Islamic-controlled countries.

    ...except there are 'only a couple' of million Muslims who would argue that this is not the tradition at all, and claim that this is a later 'interpretation' brought about by certain cultural groups.

    Bangladesh, for example, is a country of 142,000,000 - 90% Islamic, and they happily denounce the traditions you speak of as being 'garbage' that other 'evil men' came up with and twisted the words to justify grabs for power.

    Thats the first country off the top of my head.

    Its a bit like the Burqu and Hijab being worn by women; thats not a religious demand, its a cultural one.

    Shifty-- what you quoted under my name, was actually a statement of Ashiel's that I had quoted in my post. I did state the point you make above, that the majority of muslims, and the majority of 'Islamic' countries in the world, either do not apply Shari'a law, or do not accept that as a legitimate part of Shari'a law. Your point about the Burqa and the Hijab is likewise entirely accurate (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are two of the countries that are, or have been, pretty rabid on both of these points-- covering their women and executing apostates).

    I have to add though-- the line about needing to kill anyone who, once having been a muslim, either rejects the Islamic faith or changes their faith to something other than Islam, is *IN* the Quran (or at least, since I can't read Arabic and therefore haven't read what Muslims will tell you is the true Quran, it's been in every translation, technically just the "Meaning of the Quran" that I've read; and everyone I've spoken to who has read the Quran in Arabic agrees that that statement is in there... how thoroughly binding it is, as a principle of law, is open to debate-- btw, I'm not a muslim, but due to my job when I was in the military, I had to read several translations of the Quran). I also spent some time in Iraq as a U.S. Army Soldier-- how the Iraqis viewed that provision of Shari'a law, depended on which Iraqis you were talking to-- the Kurds didn't accept it as part of their law, most Sunnis and secular Shi'as didn't think it should be part of Iraqi law; some very 'religious/traditional' groups among the Shi'ites (Sadr's bunch for instance) thought that it was a necessary part of Shari'a law, and that Shari'a should be enforced throughout Iraq.


    Chubbs McGee wrote:
    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 do enjoy reading your posts Ashiel!

    Thank you, Chubbs.

    Shifty wrote:
    You might want to look in the mirror one day.

    We all have our demons we must face from time to time.

    Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
    No fudge. Sorry. I like breads.

    Bread is good. I prefer bread over sweets.

    Jak the Loony Alchemist wrote:
    I did, Ashiel, offer an opposing viewpoint using nothing but the core rule book and the dictionary in my rather long winded response on varying perspective.

    My sincerest apologies. Somewhere in the posts I think I missed yours. I will go back and re-locate it, and read it, or read it again if I had forgotten it.

    Shifty wrote:
    and no amount of telling you that YOU ARE SIMPLY APPLYING BINARY THINKING seems to get through

    Binary thinking is logical. Writing and thinking in pure logic. To speak to a computer through code is to communicate in pure logic. Logic is good. Logic is truthful. I would not wish to think in ways that are illogical, as it feels very wrong to me. Abstraction and allusion have their places, but not in a rulebook. If my "binary mind" upsets you, my apologies for your inconvenience.

    I couldn't imagine how to stop thinking in such a way, because it allows me to discern information in the cleanest way that I know how. Quickly. Efficiently. It slices through more useless thoughts that only get in the way of obtaining truth. We have an advantage over mechanical machines in that not only can we attain the ability to think in pure logic, but we can use it to discern problems before they arise and take steps to correct it, before the program simply grinds to a logical error.

    Logical thinking is correct thinking. It is not to be contested but celebrated. To stop thinking logically? I'd sooner cut off my ability to breathe.

    Quote:
    because you simply don't want to accept other peoples viewpoints.

    I have accepted the views of others in the past. I'm just selective about it. If it does not hold up to logical scrutiny, then it will be filed away for historical purposes only.

    Quote:
    You only have Taliban Paladins. You denounce any deviation from your Taliban Paladin path as Infidels and Blasphemers. According to you, Paladins have no flexibility, no common sense, no free thought, and no pragmatism. I can see why they might be disruptive in your games, you hobble them completely and then complain.

    As I have apparently overlooked Jak's rebuttal, I will forgive that you have overlooked my commentary over how Paladins are treated in my actual games, because I deviate from the book when the book does not work. Which is exactly what others have suggested. You talk of common sense, free will, and so forth. The Paladin class as written does not seem to think highly of such concepts, as there is only absolutes. If you commit 1 evil act, you fall. If you break 1 code condition, you fall.

    I digress. This is getting no one anywhere. My apologies for the waste of time.

    Silver Crusade

    Shifty wrote:
    Tryn wrote:

    I think most of the problems with paladins comes form "Lolfull stupid" players who want to play a paladin "because he is lawfull stupid", without recognising that this class brings up so much potential for good RP action.

    Also most other player see paladins as Lawfull Stupid (thats why I ruled that in my group no player says which class he plays)

    Yes I agree.

    The problems aren't found in the class, they are found in the PLAYERS :P

    Shifty-- Good point, and with regard to the problem being the Player, that's usually the case with a truly obnoxious and disruptive character, regardless of that character's class/race/etc. :)

    Silver Crusade

    Shifty wrote:

    Clearly the class is just too difficult for some people that can't align the Int 'requirements' and the Wis 'requirements' of the class.

    It seems the arguments are being presented strictly from a sheer Int perspective with little to no Wis temperance; they are being stated by the "Pallies are disruptive" crowd as black and white, binary, hardline fundamentalism and there is not even the suggestion that the Paladin might be running that code in any sort of real-world practical way.

    So quote all the RAW you guys want, you are only demonstrating the flaws in your own 'reasoning'.

    The Paladin used to be high on CHA too, I think that should be mandated back again into the character... might go some way to re-illustrate that the Paladin isn't really some gormless boor.

    That's what you meant by 'too much int, not enough wis'. Good point, no argument with you there.

    Silver Crusade

    Tacticslion wrote:


    Eh, the western knights had a strikingly similar code in many ways, including the suicide. It was enforced about as often, probably. The Samurai just have better press about it, today.

    *blinks*

    Studied medieval history a bit, I did. The knights of medieval Europe, depending on which group/order and such, did have some pretty hard core codes of honor (behavior) in their day-- but because of the way the Catholic Church felt about suicide... No, suicide was right out. On the other hand, taking on suicidal tasks, standing and fighting to the death against utterly impossible odds, and that sort of thing, was completely acceptable. You were NOT allowed to kill yourself though-- you had to get someone else to do it to you.

    For that matter, the kinds of weapons-training and the sophistication of fighting techniques in the Middle Ages were every bit as complex, effective and well-developed as anything you can find in the Japanese/Chinese/other-Asian Martial Arts... and the dedicated training on the part of professional fighting men (such as Knights, when their primary duty was being warriors) was every bit as hardcore as the training Samurai underwent-- the difference is, when Europe developed all kinds of nasty technology that rendered swords and such hopelessly outdated and ineffective on the battlefield, the European cultures didn't bother to preserve and maintain knowledge of all of those old, outmoded techniques... Japan and other Asian countries held on to all of these ancient traditions even after picking up guns and modern tactics, which is why we know about those martial arts, but not the ancient European martial arts.

    Silver Crusade

    Jak -

    Nice rundown of the various uses of language and such. Haven't said anything directly, 'cause no need-- nothing I find to particularly disagree with. (other than maybe your guy with the tin hat, and his view being valid... If by 'valid', you mean in the sense of logical argument, as in, *IF* we accept that his premises are true, then the presented conclusion must logically follow... I'm still not sure what premises this maniac might perceive that could provide him with a logically valid argument that the sky is falling, but I'll concede that it's possible...)


    Farther down in a later post I defined valid from his perspective and reasonable from the viewers perspective.

    His belief is valid because all supporting evidence supports his out cry. His belief is not reasonable to act upon because we cannot see his supporting evidence, quite the contrary.

    To state that his perspective isn't valid is to by function state that our own is invalid. After all he is merely reacting to what he thinks he perceives and so are we.

    We can state tendencies and cite statistical correlation and drag out all of the telescopes in the world and they are still nothing more than supporting evidence that we perceive. He has his own evidence, he can see the sky falling and that is far better than any graph to him as ours is to us.

    Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    And now for my overdue reply to Ashiel-

    Ashiel wrote:
    Fair enough. Though to be fair, you yourself do admit the parenthesis is RAW as well, and it sounds to me like a description of the types of things that are considered dishonorable to the Paladin code. So do you feel that the Paladin can work by RAW if you do not ignore the sub-text in parenthesis, which you agreed was RAW?

    Yes. But, it depends on how you use the English language (I think Jak was getting at this point too). If you interpret English as strictly and literally as possible, then yes, it means exactly what you think it means and your interpretation is correct. However, you can acknowledge the RAW, while doing what we do every day in the real world, and the academic world, and the professional world (and etc.) in interpreting/using the English language, and take them as guidelines, not absolutes. Also, since they're in parentheses, the primary point is "Act with Honor" and those can be taken as examples of what acting with honor usually means, again without being taken as absolutes.

    Every day English does not function well as a language if you take everything you say and everything you read absolutely literally in the strictest possible definitive sense. The RAW is the same way... as someone else has noted, if you interpret all of the RAW the same way you're taking the paragraphs in the Paladin class description-- the system is broken and non-functional, because there are points where the rules either just don't work in and of themselves if given such a strict literal reading, and other places where rules break when applied in conjunction with other rules if you take such a strict literalist interpretation (while it's late and I'm not up to finding specifics right now, I know I've found them before-- many places).

    Now, I'm already on record as stating that I go with RAI anyway over RAW if the two don't match and RAI won't break anything else if we go with it-- but part of the point is, the rules require interpretation... there is no ONE right reading/interpretation of them. Yours so far is one valid reading, but if you apply it that way, you get a broken, non-fun game.

    Regarding Poison, btw-- I threw that in there as "always evil" because poison was declared to always be evil in several of the editions of AD&D and D&D-- didn't realize that changed with PF, my bad.

    Ashiel wrote:
    Well cheating and lying are closely related to the point of being the same thing. In both cases they are deceiving others for your own purposes, and both can lead to denying someone else something more often than not.

    And yet, while it's more difficult to excuse cheating than lying... Deceiving others for your own <selfish> purposes is wrong for a Paladin, almost as an absolute, I'd think... but deceiving someone in order to save lives and prevent greater evils, can be entirely in keeping with "Act with Honor" (depends on your 'Honor Code'-- but unlike Kant, Aquinas, et al., I accept a 'small evil' as being okay IF that's what is necessary to prevent a 'BIG Evil'. This is interpretation, true-- but just what I said above, and it says I think in the preface and other materials of the rules (if it doesn't in PF, it should): apply common sense. Needs interpretation. The rules are NOT holy writ. I'd also add, the rules were NOT meant to be applied rigidly. Again, this is how you interpret and use the language-- if you insist on the absolute/strict/totally literal/definitive-but-no-connotative-meanings interpretation of each and every word and sentence, it's one way to do it and it's valid-- and you will get the interpretation you're reading it to be; but I don't think that's the only correct way to read the rules.

    Regarding my points drawn from analogy to Constitutional Law and the U.S. Military's oath of service: it's RAW, the same way as the Supreme Court's power of "Judicial Review" (the ability of the Court to consider whether laws passed by Congress are in accordance with the Constitution, and to invalidate the offending law if it violates anything in the U.S. Constitution, on the grounds that the Constitution is the highest law and takes precedence-- anything that conflicts is null and void) is Constitutionally-mandated, even though the Constitution never states the principle directly (long argument from my current PoliSci class in Constitutional Government-- short version: trust me, the principle really is required under the Constitution, because it's part of the basic assumption in having a Court separate from Congress and the Executive in the first place). Shorter relevant version: the RAW does not work, if you don't have basic 'rules of order' for resolving conflicts between rules. The RAW for Paladins, if you do not allow Paladins the provision that they can break lesser obligations if absolutely necessary in order to fulfill higher obligations, either breaks outright, or allows you to put the Paladin into impossible situations, where no matter what he or she does, he or she is going to lose his/her Paladinhood, because there is no choice (including doing nothing) that won't violate some portion of his or her code. You gotta give it to the Paladin, for the same reason Military Regulations give it to the Soldier, and the Constitution gives the power to the Court-- without needing to spell it out. Again, though-- reasonable interpretation of the rules, but not the only way to interpret, apply (and admittedly apply necessary outside principles) to the RAW.

    Celtic mythology gives some excellent examples of what can happen if you DON'T allow Paladins this principle-- particularly in the tale of Cu Chulainn... He had geasa laid upon him, one forbidding him to eat dog meat, and another one, forbidding him to reject hospitality (a significant no-go in Celtic culture anyway): someone who knew of this flaw invited him into their home (thus, starting the 'accepting hospitality') and then offered him a meal of roasted dog-- if he eats it (which is what he eventually does), he's broken his geas against eating dog meat; if he refuses, he's broken the geas against insulting/refusing someone's hospitality. Either way he was screwed.... (he was spiritually weakened by the broken vows, and died in a set-up battle not long after). I suppose if you want to keep the strict RAW without the interpretation I've given it, anyone playing a Paladin in your game would be totally screwed the same way Cu Chulainn was.

    Ashiel wrote:

    You make an interesting point. But if it is not referring to the Paladin's code of conduct, which by definition is a set of morals (see morals), then to what code of morals is it referring to? Alignments do not have codes unto themselves, so much as general traits that are consistently shared by those of a certain alignment. It specifically calls it out as the paladin's moral code.

    While it seems to me a great stretch to assume it means any other code, could you provide some proof to the claim that it is referring to another code entirely?

    Proof? No, because it's a matter of interpretation. However, you cannot offer proof that it DOES mean the Paladin's 'Code of Conduct'-- because if it meant, as a matter of absolute certainty, the Paladin's 'Code of Conduct', the book would have said 'Code of Conduct', NOT 'Moral Code'-- therefore, it's open to interpretation. It's valid to take that to mean the Code of Conduct, but it's also valid not to.

    If it isn't the code of conduct... quite likely (especially given many articles, interpretations, and thoughts written on the subject over the years in relation to both the D&D Alignment system and morality in general in and out of the game), the moral code is going to be something that deals with Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil-- in game terms, because it's talking about the 'Moral' code, it means the Paladin's outlook on Good and Evil... not the Paladin's personal guidelines on her own conduct, and not her views on Law and Chaos.

    You do have to do some thinking about intent to come up with that conclusion, but since they didn't come out and say 'Code of Conduct' when they could have in that paragraph, you have to do at least a little thinking about intent to come up with any conclusion, including the one you have come up with so far, and the meaning that I have come up with.

    Ashiel wrote:
    Please understand, if I somehow implied that Paladins lose their powers from their allies not following the paladin's code, that was not my intention. I was commenting on the fact their associations clause notes that they must disassociate with anyone who regularly offends their code. Not that they lose their powers, but that they must avoid those individuals, creating an inevitable party-split unless the group is playing to the code. It notes that they may work with evil characters under a specific circumstance, but that doesn't release them from consistent breaking of their code (presumably because as soon as possible the Paladin will resume shunning the evil character by default).

    First, note my interpretation of moral code, vs code of conduct-- it matters in interpreting 'Associates with' matters. Second-- the Associates paragraph does not directly include reasons to strip the Paladin of his/her Paladin-hood. It's NOT part of the Paladin's own Code of Conduct-- if it was supposed to be part of the code, it wouldn't be in a separate paragraph under its own header (I think you acknowledged that, but just in case). Third-- this is very obviously something that has to be read as "the Paladin SHOULD avoid..." NOT "the Paladin MUST avoid..." If it were MUST avoid, there could be NO provisions for the Paladin to work with evil characters even for a very short and brief mission. So... all the Paladin needs, is good reason to presume that by continuing to work with this adventuring party, he is still serving the greater good-- it doesn't matter how much their conduct offends him. He 'should' otherwise avoid them... okay, when everyone's in town, the Paladin is NOT going to be hanging around drinking with his fellow party-members who 'offend his code' or generally spending any time with them if not necessary-- but any time on adventures can be deemed necessary, just give the Paladin a little motivation in the form of this is what it takes to achieve the greater good, and you've over-ridden everything in that paragraph about "the Paladin avoids..." Again, the very presence of an option for Paladins to work with evil characters "under extraordinary circumstances" makes everything else in the paragraph a "should" not a "must".

    There's the response so far. Since we agree on how it should work, regardless of different interpretations of RAW-- heh. RAI over RAW anyway :) . comments?

    (Ashiel-- repeat of my earlier request though. Don't let the "Good vs Evil characters" thread die on me after I made a couple posts over there that deserve some kind of comment.)

    Silver Crusade

    Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

    Farther down in a later post I defined valid from his perspective and reasonable from the viewers perspective.

    His belief is valid because all supporting evidence supports his out cry. His belief is not reasonable to act upon because we cannot see his supporting evidence, quite the contrary.

    To state that his perspective isn't valid is to by function state that our own is invalid. After all he is merely reacting to what he thinks he perceives and so are we.

    We can state tendencies and cite statistical correlation and drag out all of the telescopes in the world and they are still nothing more than supporting evidence that we perceive. He has his own evidence, he can see the sky falling and that is far better than any graph to him as ours is to us.

    So you did. I think I'm gonna have to get some sleep before I can wrap my brain around it though. :)

    Shadow Lodge

    Ashiel wrote:
    In the case of chopping up a dead body, the actual act of tearing up that body is not evil. It may be really gross, but it's not evil. Circumstances surrounding you chopping up that dead body, however, can definitely be evil (did you murder? Are you chopping up the body to torture their onlooking loved ones? Etc).

    I think the circumstances of the chopping make all the difference. Donner Party? Probably just neutral, not evil. Vlad the Impaler? Evil. Mutilating a corpse as a warning to other criminals? Evil.

    I suppose I look at altruism/selfishness and slant that against necessity/enjoyment. If my PC's loved one were bitten by a zombie, and I murdered them before they turned, that wouldn't be evil. It would be merciful. But it's the circumstance that matters. If my PC carves up a body to disguise myself as a blood thirsty savage in order to escape their encampment, that's probably just neutral. Indulging in vengeance in order to strike fear into the hearts of others can probably never be good, and thus not Paladin-ly.

    The act itself is unwanted by both your typical decedent (and in D&D they ARE still around somewhere, typically), and by society at large. Doing something contrary to another's wishes because you have to is one thing. Doing it because you enjoy it is quite another.


    The reality is this, lawful alignments are hard to play and manage. This is the point. The problem is not mechanics based, its player based. Keep the code of conduct, remove it, or write your own. It doesn't matter. Be far the most time I have ever spent arguing with players is when the question of lawfulness comes into play. Monks don't have a code, yet in my experience, they run into the same problem. Poor players play characters poorly. It is the job of the DM to help the player play better, which is taxing, but if you can't handle it then stop DMing.

    Grand Lodge

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

    "We can't hire you due to your lack of experience in the field." ;)

    Lawful isn't that hard to play, as long as you understand what it means. And to know that, you must talk to your DM. Because what it means to him is the important part.

    Scarab Sages

    You know, the pedanticism present in this thread is astonishing, especially because its a case of molehilling. It need not be as complicated as some of you are insisting it is.


    Vindicator wrote:

    The reality is this, lawful alignments are hard to play and manage. This is the point. The problem is not mechanics based, its player based. Keep the code of conduct, remove it, or write your own. It doesn't matter. Be far the most time I have ever spent arguing with players is when the question of lawfulness comes into play. Monks don't have a code, yet in my experience, they run into the same problem. Poor players play characters poorly. It is the job of the DM to help the player play better, which is taxing, but if you can't handle it then stop DMing.

    I've never experienced a problem, or even difficulty, with Lawful alignments. I can't help but wonder why monks would have any issues similar to Paladins, given that they have no restrictions beyond remaining a general alignment.

    *shrugs* Different results, I guess.

    Silver Crusade

    What I don't get is why people have such a problem with alignment? You choose an alignment because that's how you want your character to act. You choose elf because you want your PC to be an elf, not a human, dwarf or a halfling. You choose a Wizard because you want to be a Wizard, you don't choose wizard so you can be a fighter.

    I think some people have trouble with alignment because they want their PC's to act the way they do in real life.


    shallowsoul wrote:
    I think some people have trouble with alignment because they want their PC's to act the way they do in real life.

    Which is only a problem when people take Good characters but are actually RL jerks.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    #1Back when it was good, Dragon magazine featured different paladin "achetypes" based on religion (they actually did it twice, if you go way back). Corrupter NE, Despot LE, Anarch CN, Enforcer LN, Garath CG,Paramander N,and Sentinel NG. These might give you a starting point to create a class following the paladin/anti-paladin format. As presented in Dragon these classes were on 3.5 rules (so their powers are spread out like paladins in 3.5 PH), but they have slightly different abilities based on their alignment/code of conduct focus. It would actually be nice if Paizo did alignment archetypes for paladins.
    #2 In gaming for 30 years, I always run across people who have problems with this alignment and that alignment (lawful good and chaotic evil, being the two most controversial). Not to beat a dead horse, but Dragon (back when it was good) also had an article on different perceptions of lawful good. First, the paladins decides what "law" he follows. He is not going to change his code to abide by the "laws" of a chaotic society. A paladin of Shelyn may prioritize saving precious artwork and a paladin of Abadar would almost certainly not lose sleep over sacrificing a single individual for the welfare of a city if he saw no choice. I always view the coduct of a paladin the the laws of his religion. For classic examples that could be considered lawful good in some circles, Dirty Harry is lawful good (he upholds the ideal of justice and acts with a strict moral code of his own, but he is not bound by the "flawed" laws of his city). In many ways the Marvel hero Ghost Rider could be considered lawful good. Lawful good does not necessarily mean helping birds with broken wings, and packing up his gear and going home over an illegal entry, it means an unwavering commitment to do whatever needs to be done to achieve the ideals of goodness.

    Silver Crusade

    I would say it's up to the player and the DM to discuss just how the paladin is going to be played. A paladin can be lawful good while being blinded by his faith. He could be the type of paladin that thinks all goblins are evil and should be punished on sight. Well there is nothing wrong with that because in the eyes of the paladin he is doing the right thing by destroying an evil creature.

    I've seen some paladins played to where they punished anyone who was evil that broke the law. They even went so far as to bring anyone to justice no matter if they were stealing in order to feed their family. He ended up taking the guy to jail, tracked down the family and gave them money from his own pocket but the thief still had to serve his time.

    Scarab Sages

    I think the problem here is not with paladins being Lawful Good. The problem here is with GMs and players who are chaotics in real life and can't grasp the essence of being lawful. It just doesn't make sense to them and rubs them the wrong way at every turn. This is why they call it "Lawful Stupid". For instance, Montana says above: "I think that good should be more important than law". That's sounds like classic chaotic philosophy. A lot of the other comments above are in that vein. As a basically lawful-aligned person in real life I frequently say similar things about chaotic behaviors because they make little or no sense to me. This is why I have to work very hard when I play a chaotically-aligned PC. There's nothing inherently good or bad (or evil) about chaotic or lawful behavior, but it does frequently lead to this kind of social friction for obvious reasons.


    I'm pretty lawful-aligned, I believe in the laws, I follow the laws, I help enforce the laws within the scope of my ability as a citizen, and I still think good takes precedence over law.

    One of my friends is a lawyer, he frequently talks about some of his cases (never the details naturally), it gives me some very good perspective on this.


    Shifty wrote:
    shallowsoul wrote:
    I think some people have trouble with alignment because they want their PC's to act the way they do in real life.
    Which is only a problem when people take Good characters but are actually RL jerks.

    And because some people's concept of Good is only about as sophisticated as your average hippie commune.

    Silver Crusade

    Ashiel wrote:
    Vindicator wrote:

    The reality is this, lawful alignments are hard to play and manage. This is the point. The problem is not mechanics based, its player based. Keep the code of conduct, remove it, or write your own. It doesn't matter. Be far the most time I have ever spent arguing with players is when the question of lawfulness comes into play. Monks don't have a code, yet in my experience, they run into the same problem. Poor players play characters poorly. It is the job of the DM to help the player play better, which is taxing, but if you can't handle it then stop DMing.

    I've never experienced a problem, or even difficulty, with Lawful alignments. I can't help but wonder why monks would have any issues similar to Paladins, given that they have no restrictions beyond remaining a general alignment.

    *shrugs* Different results, I guess.

    Never seen such problems with monks either, myself-- a monk can commit violations of his/her usual alignment on a pretty regular basis, so long as they keep making up for it in other ways-- basically, so long as they don't go far enough to result in a voluntary or involuntary change of alignment, they're still a monk.

    The Paladin's problem, such as it still is in any reasonable treatment of the Paladin's code, restrictions, etc, is that the Paladin becomes an ex-Paladin for any knowingly/willful evil act, or any (serious) violation of his/her code.... a much more frequent, easily crossed issue, than the long hard slide it usually takes towards a change of alignment.

    (Ashiel-- BTW-- promised reply to your other posts made yesterday. I'll presume the discussion's over and done if I don't see a response to it.)


    I suppose it has become a sad sad thing indeed, when even our fantasy heroes are rarely, if ever, heroic.

    601 to 650 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.