Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Paladin hate.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

601 to 650 of 1,121 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Since the associates is part of the code to breake this part can make the paladin to fall.

"A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good"

The paladin can not just hang around with people that do more harm than good.

And the code does restrict henchmen, cohorts and follwers
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Silver Crusade

Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

Short Answer: They can't.

Long Answer: That cannot knowingly accept a follower or henchman who isn't lawful good. If the paladin has reason to believe a current follower has strayed from lawful good, they have work to either bring them back into the light, or kick them to the curb.

Andoran

Nicos wrote:

Since the associates is part of the code to breake this part can make the paladin to fall.

"A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good"

The paladin can not just hang around with people that do more harm than good.

Not exactly. What matters is that the Paladin feels that the alliance (not the associates) is doing more good than harm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Not exactly. What matters is that the Paladin feels that the alliance (not the associates) is doing more good than harm.

I don't really think that Paladins are allowed to be utilitarian about things.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...

Also I didn't realize party members were henchmen, followes or cohorts.

No wonder people are having so much trouble. Those darn fellow party members don't realize they are just cohorts, henchmen and followers.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...

Which doesn't detect law or good.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...

Also I didn't realize party members were henchmen, followes or cohorts.

No wonder people are having so much trouble. Those darn fellow party members don't realize they are just cohorts, henchmen and followers.

They have a version of detecting evil which doesn't work on the vast majority of evil mortals: those under 5 hit dice.

They also certainly do not have detect lawful good.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...
Which doesn't detect law or good.

And there are tons and tons of neutral followers lying to Paladins to get them to allow them to be followers, cohorts and henchmen so a GM can go "Gotcha!"

Come on...

Silver Crusade

Charender wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

Short Answer: They can't.

Long Answer: That cannot knowingly accept a follower or henchman who isn't lawful good. If the paladin has reason to believe a current follower has strayed from lawful good, they have work to either bring them back into the light, or kick them to the curb.

Think about the practicality of that. One neutral or evil act doesn't tell you the answer, because a person's alignment is a reflection of the average of all actions that person takes. The paladin would have to have an alignment chart for every individual henchman, and could never be sure that the situations and actions he had observed were truly representative of that person's actual average.

Requiring LG alignment was the wrong writing choice. It should be dependent on things a person actually does, because this can be observed and judged. It should be something like 'A paladin cannot employ or continue to employ a person who has committed an evil act, unless an atonement has been received by the perpetrator.' or something like that.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...
Which doesn't detect law or good.

And there are tons and tons of neutral followers lying to Paladins to get them to allow them to be followers, cohorts and henchmen so a GM can go "Gotcha!"

Come on...

So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Charender wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

Short Answer: They can't.

Long Answer: That cannot knowingly accept a follower or henchman who isn't lawful good. If the paladin has reason to believe a current follower has strayed from lawful good, they have work to either bring them back into the light, or kick them to the curb.

Think about the practicality of that. One neutral or evil act doesn't tell you the answer, because a person's alignment is a reflection of the average of all actions that person takes. The paladin would have to have an alignment chart for every individual henchman, and could never be sure that the situations and actions he had observed were truly representative of that person's actual average.

Requiring LG alignment was the wrong writing choice. It should be dependent on things a person actually does, because this can be observed and judged. It should be something like 'A paladin cannot employ or continue to employ a person who has committed an evil act, unless an atonement has been received by the perpetrator.' or something like that.

That is why the paladin is judged by what they could reasonable know. To use any other standard is ridiculous.

Paladin: I spare the presumably innocent child's life.
GM: The child is really incubating a embryonic demon, which hatches and grows up to enslave the entire human race after you pass on. Therefore, you did evil to the whole human race and you fall! *insert maniac cackling here*

If you henchmen is doing chaotic or evil things, and you know about it, you have 2 choices, attempt to redeem them or dismiss them.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...
Which doesn't detect law or good.

And there are tons and tons of neutral followers lying to Paladins to get them to allow them to be followers, cohorts and henchmen so a GM can go "Gotcha!"

Come on...

So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

The entire line though is grasping at straws to show how mean the game is, when in fact the only problem comes from a reading no one actually believes to be correct.

As usual...

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?

Exactly!

Requiring the paladin to know something they can't know is absurd. It should be based on things they can know. Which means things that they do, not what their innermost thoughts may be.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?

That the followers they acquired through the leadership feats are there to screw them over?

Because that is what it is referencing. Not just random tagalongs people they meet along the way.

Seriously this is a problem in some games rather than a strawman created that no one has actually ever encountered...

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
That the followers they acquired through the leadership feats are there to screw them over?

No, that the henchman is no longer LG.

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?
That the followers they acquired through the leadership feats are there to screw them over?
No, that the henchman is no longer LG.

Then the henchman is no longer a henchman.

"The cohort's alignment may not be opposed to your alignment on either the law/chaos or good/evil axis, and you take a –1 penalty to your Leadership score if you recruit a cohort of an alignment different from your own."

It is a feature from a feat. Do we sneak a bunch of evil followers in to lower the leadership score now too?

Is that something that happens?

No.

But since we have to grasp at straws to "prove" paladins are forced to be lawful stupid...

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Who is proving what now?

Andoran

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Who is proving what now?

When you take leadership, and you are a paladin, your followers are lawful good.

When you take leadership, you get to say your followers alignment, otherwise you can be screwed over by the alignment penalty.

That is is what it is referencing. Clearly.

If you play in a game where anyone would even think that convincing your 50th follower to be neutral makes your Paladin fall, kick that person out of the game because they are an idiot.

If that is the case against...weak sauce.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Since the associates is part of the code to breake this part can make the paladin to fall.

Which doesn't exist. Associates is a different mechanic and called out as separate from the paladin's code. Just check the PRD. You have...

The Paladin's Code of Conduct
"..."

Associates
"..."

Ex-Paladins
"..."

To become an Ex-Paladin you have to willingly perform an evil act or violate your code. The associates portion of the class is not the code and has nothing to do with the code, but does limit what sort of cohorts or henchmen that a paladin can have. Merely because they simply cannot (presumably) get cohorts or henchmen that are not (I guess no followers will want to join the paladin unless they are LG).

Andoran

And everyone who takes leadership has a penalty if they select anyone out of alignment, not just paladins.

Paladin can't select outside of alignment, everyone else takes a penalty.

How do all the other classes know...

Because it would be ridiculous to not let them. Does that really need to be spelled out? Really?


Ashiel wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Since the associates is part of the code to breake this part can make the paladin to fall.

Which doesn't exist. Associates is a different mechanic and called out as separate from the paladin's code. Just check the PRD. You have...

The Paladin's Code of Conduct
"..."

Associates
"..."

Ex-Paladins
"..."

To become an Ex-Paladin you have to willingly perform an evil act or violate your code. The associates portion of the class is not the code and has nothing to do with the code, but does limit what sort of cohorts or henchmen that a paladin can have. Merely because they simply cannot (presumably) get cohorts or henchmen that are not (I guess no followers will want to join the paladin unless they are LG).

I would add to that that willing necessarily includes knowingly. So basically this all translates to a Paladin cannot knowingly employ a henchman, follower, or cohort who isn't lawful good.

Andoran

And if Ashiel and I agree, it must be true :)


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?

Exactly!

Requiring the paladin to know something they can't know is absurd. It should be based on things they can know. Which means things that they do, not what their innermost thoughts may be.

There are ways around that, you know.

There is no "Detect Lawful Good", but there are "Detect Law" and "Detect Good". More importantly, there are these things called "Interviews" where a prospective employer talks to those they consider hiring to see if they meet necessary criteria before they are hired.

And of course if that fails, the Paladin can always take corrective action: guide the hireling towards the "correct" path or just firing them.

Being a Paragon is always a work in progress; a path with no destination. It is only when a Paladin fails to move forward, through going the wrong way or failing to move along a clear path that a Paladin can fall.


The black raven wrote:
Nicos wrote:

Since the associates is part of the code to breake this part can make the paladin to fall.

"A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good"

The paladin can not just hang around with people that do more harm than good.

Not exactly. What matters is that the Paladin feels that the alliance (not the associates) is doing more good than harm.

Based in the LG logic of the paladin. Every paladin that tries to use that as an excuse to ignore bad behaviors from his companion shoudl be smashed by the "fall from grace " hammer.


SAMAS wrote:
There is no "Detect Lawful Good", but there are "Detect Law" and "Detect Good". More importantly, there are these things called "Interviews" where a prospective employer talks to those they consider hiring to see if they meet necessary criteria before they are hired.

Not to mention that sense motive is an skill, a shame most paladins these days dump wis.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SAMAS wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
So are paladins allowed to have neutral henchmen?

Apparently not. Which makes perfect sense for the class.

If one of the henchman stops being lawful good, it is absurd to think the Paladin would then fall rather than being expected to dismiss the henchman, in the same way you don't get an Antipaladin to fall by converting a henchman.

So how do they know?

Exactly!

Requiring the paladin to know something they can't know is absurd. It should be based on things they can know. Which means things that they do, not what their innermost thoughts may be.

There are ways around that, you know.

There is no "Detect Lawful Good", but there are "Detect Law" and "Detect Good". More importantly, there are these things called "Interviews" where a prospective employer talks to those they consider hiring to see if they meet necessary criteria before they are hired.

And of course if that fails, the Paladin can always take corrective action: guide the hireling towards the "correct" path or just firing them.

Being a Paragon is always a work in progress; a path with no destination. It is only when a Paladin fails to move forward, through going the wrong way or failing to move along a clear path that a Paladin can fall.

Of course! The completely infallible 'interview' technique!

I don't know why people bother with magical detect alignment spells. None of them are worth squat against the vast majority of humanoids, who would need to have 5 hit dice to ping.

Why bother using flawed magic when you can 'interview' the prospective candidate?

'Are you evil?'

'Yes! Darn it! Foiled again! And it would've worked too, if it hadn't been for those darn kids and their cursed 'interviews!''

So, when a paladin is recruiting, all he needs to do is ask!

'Thank you for coming, prospective henchman. I can only offer the job to applicants who are lawful good. So! Are you lawful good?'

'Er...yes?'

'Good enough for me! You start Monday!'

Foolproof.


it is really hard for the paladin to know the aligment of his followers and he shoudl not fall if his followers are not LG just because.

however, the paladin shoudl be ever vigilant, not knowing for suer his follwers alignmet is not an excuse for careless behavior.

Andoran

And players who take leadership may get arbitrarily hosed if they don't realize their cohort doesn't share their alignment.

Oh wait, no...that would be painfully stupid.

We only apply such standards when we are trying to make a point about Paladins...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just don't understand what triggers the Paladin hate in the first place.

As a DM, the thought of trying to make a Paladin fall over such things is illogical.

Despite this, I always hear horror stories from other tables where those things happen.

Why do some people get turned on from making a Paladin fall, instead of letting the character fall due to their own deeds?


Oh I love things like that.

Like the Surprise attack rogue talent becomes WAY more useful if you have a pet or blind folded commoner with you at all times.

At least 1 person doesn't know that combat is starting, therefore SURPRISE ROUND! Rogue gets 1 free sneak attack.


Do people know their alignment?


Icyshadow wrote:
Why do some people get turned on from making a Paladin fall, instead of letting the character fall due to their own deeds?

Because the only ideals higher than those a paladin aspires to are those the gm holds for him. Even if you're playing one perfectly well, and even being a total bro to the party while being definitely lawful and overwhelmingly good, you "aren't doing it right" and should be getting punished for that, just like their strict codes say you should.

This goes double if you're playing it better than the gm ever could and jealousy shows up.

But the rules are letting it all pass. That can't be, obviously we'll have to fit his punishment into what flimsy lawful-good?bah-with-these-rules-it-may-as-well-be-Chaotic-Neutral code of ethis and conduct needs for him to break.

Which basically requires out-ruleslawyering and out-dumbing lawful-stupid.

Only natural they'd all come out as s%$@-gm-rocks-fall stories.

Andoran

Icyshadow wrote:

I just don't understand what triggers the Paladin hate in the first place.

As a DM, the thought of trying to make a Paladin fall over such things is illogical.

Despite this, I always hear horror stories from other tables where those things happen.

Why do some people get turned on from making a Paladin fall, instead of letting the character fall due to their own deeds?

The thing to remember about horror stories is that they are one person's side of the story.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
" A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

Does anyone else see the logical problem with this?

Paladins don't have the ability to know a creature's alignment, so have no way of knowing if a creature is LG. How can they fall over something they can't control?

It's too bad they don't have detect evil or anything...

Also I didn't realize party members were henchmen, followes or cohorts.

No wonder people are having so much trouble. Those darn fellow party members don't realize they are just cohorts, henchmen and followers.

They have a version of detecting evil which doesn't work on the vast majority of evil mortals: those under 5 hit dice.

They also certainly do not have detect lawful good.

They don't have to.

"Hmm.. Joe here is good at following orders, he makes regular donations to the Mendev Crusade and offers regular prayers to Iomaedae. Marianne has her heart in the right place, but won't follow a straight line to save her life and has no respect for leadership."

So we can determine that Marianne the Ranger being good, is also chaotic and not a very good fit for Paula the Paladin while Joe seems a good straight up second in command. She's not to be faulted that Joe is actually Simon the Assassin who's been sent to infiltrate Joe and his band of heroes and knows exactly how to portray Joe the Lawful Good Fighter since he studied him quite throughly before murdering him and disguising himself as Joe. He's also been provided with magical aid to keep his alignment secret from Paula's Detect Evil and his compatriots know allignment magic.


ciretose wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Would it be done willingly if the paladin does it despite not wanting to do it?

You mean if the Paladin did it against his will.

*facepalm*

In what world is that not still a willing decision?

I don't want to go to work every morning, but when I pull my lazy rump out of my computer chair and turn off the game of the day, it's still my choice.

If I'm presented with two unpalatable choices, and I choose the one that I dislike more, but has fewer ramifications, I'm still choosing of my own free will...even if it is the lesser of two evils.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Delthyn wrote:

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

On the contrary, I think people who believe in subjective morality would be easier on a paladin. Would allow more leeway for the player.

If you want a real pain to roleplay, try playing with a GM who believes morality is...

You should never, ever play with a GM whose ideas on morality drastically differ from your own. There's little good that can come of that, and might ruin the game for more than just you and him/her.


Makarion wrote:
You should never, ever play with a GM whose ideas on morality drastically differ from your own. There's little good that can come of that, and might ruin the game for more than just you and him/her.

False,

Just because I don't find being gay wrong doesn't mean I can't enjoy Ender's Game.

The author and myself have drastically different morality. That does not mean I can't enjoy the story.

I'm sure the people at Besthesda have a drastically different morality than mine (my morality is a bit weird by all standards) that doesn't mean I can't / shouldn't play Skyrim and enjoy it.


Marthkus wrote:
Makarion wrote:
You should never, ever play with a GM whose ideas on morality drastically differ from your own. There's little good that can come of that, and might ruin the game for more than just you and him/her.

False,

Just because I don't find being gay wrong doesn't mean I can't enjoy Ender's Game.

The author and myself have drastically different morality. That does not mean I can't enjoy the story.

I'm sure the people at Besthesda have a drastically different morality than mine (my morality is a bit weird by all standards) that doesn't mean I can't / shouldn't play Skyrim and enjoy it.

Thing is, you aren't directly interacting with Orson Scott Card or the people at Bethesda.


Marthkus wrote:
Makarion wrote:
You should never, ever play with a GM whose ideas on morality drastically differ from your own. There's little good that can come of that, and might ruin the game for more than just you and him/her.

False,

Just because I don't find being gay wrong doesn't mean I can't enjoy Ender's Game.

The author and myself have drastically different morality. That does not mean I can't enjoy the story.

I'm sure the people at Besthesda have a drastically different morality than mine (my morality is a bit weird by all standards) that doesn't mean I can't / shouldn't play Skyrim and enjoy it.

Excellent point - given that I am gay and think Ender's Game one of the best sci-fi stories out there... even if the author is, frankly, reprehensible.

The problem you'll run into is that there will be conflicting judgment calls on what constitutes rules offenses (that is, pathfinder system rules, not world legalistic rules), since alignment is defined within the rules, but what the alignments require, behaviour-wise, is vague at best. Would you sacrifice your own moral point of view to play a game? Would you have Orson Scott Card as your GM?


As a non-LG playing, moral absolutism dismissing, bad roleplaying, cynical, morally weak, degenerate I don't have a problem with paladins or alignment until threads like this come into existence and then I remember the game can technically function without them with a few mere modifications. Then I remember how grating someone with a morally absolutist viewpoint can be.

In my experience, the 'horror stories' only come about 20% of the time. I had one that got along swimmingly with people that were different race/alignment/outlook/class/whatever, one that was withdrawn, and one that fell briefly, but was rather benign and did manage to somehow keep within his code, but I did have one that didn't go so good. I'm going to spoiler this for those more sensitive among you.

Spoiler:
The paladin in question--and this is no joke--almost raped another PC. He got drunk, took his clothes off, and climbed into her bed. And just so you understand his intentions, he essentially said (and I changed some words around to get past censors) 'I shall show you how a paladin fornicates' She stabbed him with a key and kicked him out of the bed. I personally think he got off lucky. The same guy actually killed a relatively harmless homeless man; however that one was a little more ambiguous seeing as he had another party member in a grapple and was going on about the god of the end times. Still, it was enough to make other people go 'what the hell'. And when it was brought up, did he apologize and seek forgiveness? No, instead he whines and goes despite this because of all the other stuff he did (before the game began mind you), that he was still an embodiment of law and good. Mixed up with a heavy dose of "Do you guys hate me now? Should I not be a paladin anymore?' And then he goes on using his detect evil and it's like...come on, you're passing judgement on people now despite all the s!~* you do? These two things weren't the only offenses. I'm just a bit fuzzy on the other ones (I vaguely remember something about him nearly sacrificing some orphan children to get revenge on the villain). That's the main thing that bothers me about certain paladins sometimes. Not when they strive to be good, but because in some of their minds, the gods has accepted them as a holy arbiter.

You can say they were 'doing it wrong' and thus all these stories are pointless and invalid, but I'd go as far as to say if you're being disruptive or ruining the the game for someone with any kind character, you're definitely doing it wrong.

Anyway, yeah there's my horror story.

Cheliax

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I have no idea where the idea of Paladins as psychotic battle-zealots came from, but I've been playing them off and on since the 70's. Paladins are "Lawful" and "Good". They don't break their word, they don't don't lie directly to people, they don't harm innocents, or allow others to be harmed if they can take REASONABLE action to prevent it. The old adage was "The greatest good, for the greatest number of people."

Paladins do not throw their lives away pointlessly, but understand sacrifice for the greater good. Paladins do not automatically kill every "evil" being on the planet because they believe even the blackest mortal soul should be given a chance for redemption. Yes, they will kill when necessary, but their primary duty is to the beliefs of their God, which usually encourages them to try to redeem the fallen wherever possible.

If an associate of a Paladin does something evil, the Paladin would absolutely confront them on the matter.....demand restitution to victims and appropriate punishment. They would seek to have the associate recant their evil actions and walk a path of at least neutrality. They would not instantly turn on them and slay them, nor would they lose their powers because of the actions of someone they cannot control. Now, if the Paladin just shrugged and said "oh well"......THAT would be grounds for a deity to send a little 'wake-up' call to their supposed sword on earth, as it were.

Paladins will deceive to achieve their aims, but not through lies (that would violate their values of truth), but they can disguise themselves, or merely let people get the wrong impression. There is nothing wrong with a sneaky Paladin if sneaking into the Evil stronghold to rescue a prisoner is smarter than charging the gates and dying against impossible odds. Paladins are not idiots and they are not suicidal. They do the best they can and try to uphold the highest ideals, but they also understand that everyone else in the world does not live by their standards, and they can forgive that, as long as those people are not committing acts of willing evil.

The rant could continue, but I think the point is made.


Shroud wrote:
If an associate of a Paladin does something evil, the Paladin would absolutely confront them on the matter.....demand restitution to victims and appropriate punishment. They would seek to have the associate recant their evil actions and walk a path of at least neutrality.

I think most people have a problem with that. Who is your character to judge the actions of my character or demand that my character does anything?

When a non-paladin does it, we call it good role-playing. When a paladin does it we call it, "trying not to lose your class features".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
Shroud wrote:
If an associate of a Paladin does something evil, the Paladin would absolutely confront them on the matter.....demand restitution to victims and appropriate punishment. They would seek to have the associate recant their evil actions and walk a path of at least neutrality.

I think most people have a problem with that. Who is your character to judge the actions of my character or demand that my character does anything?

When a non-paladin does it, we call it good role-playing. When a paladin does it we call it, "trying not to lose your class features".

I actually think that most people don't have a problem with this. We are not talking about your character deciding to skip out on a check at the inn. We are talking about a character performing an Evil act. So, for example, murdering the innkeeper so you don't have to pay the bill.

So who am I to judge your action? I am a Neutral Good wizard that hasn't completely lost his moral center. Or a Chaotic Neutral rogue that realizes that murdering an innocent innkeeper is going a little too far.

You say that a paladin must confront the Evil jerk? I say that all Good characters have to confront the Evil psychopath or they aren't really Good. So if you are in a Good party, the Evil murderer is the odd man out, not the paladin. If you decide that you want to play a bunch of murder hobos, then you should decide that up front and the paladin would be the one that doesn't fit. The same as the Neutral Good wizard, any cleric of a good deity or even most Neutral characters that have a shred of moral decency.

P.S. I know this is a slight thread necro, but it takes me a while to read 644 posts. Yes, I read them all.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:
P.S. I know this is a slight thread necro, but it takes me a while to read 644 posts. Yes, I read them all.

Madness!


Lord Twig wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
*snip* I think most people have a problem with that.
I actually think that most people don't have a problem with this. *Snip*

I think peoples opinions vary.


MrSin wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
*snip* I think most people have a problem with that.
I actually think that most people don't have a problem with this. *Snip*
I think peoples opinions vary.

Fair enough. I don't have any evidence (other than personal, anecdotal evidence) to support my position, just like Marthkus doesn't have any evidence for his statement.

But the major point of my post was that ALL Good characters would call out another character that performs Evil deeds, not just the paladin.


Lord Twig wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
*snip* I think most people have a problem with that.
I actually think that most people don't have a problem with this. *Snip*
I think peoples opinions vary.

Fair enough. I don't have any evidence (other than personal, anecdotal evidence) to support my position, just like Marthkus doesn't have any evidence for his statement.

But the major point of my post was that ALL Good characters would call out another character that performs Evil deeds, not just the paladin.

Not true at all. Some good characters will avoid futile confrontation and get things done.

Not every good man in Germany spoke out and got thrown into a camp immediately. Some kept their heads down and tried to actually save lives. Or end the lives that needed ending.

Wilhelm Canaris did not call out Hitler. He tried to get him out of power through means that actually had a chance of success. He failed, but had he succeeded he would have prevented more evil than all the martyrs in Germany.

Oscar Schindler did not call out Hitler. He actually directly saved lives by working within the system. If that is not a valid way to play a lawful good individual within an evil society something is catastrophically wrong wity your alignment rules.


Atarlost wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:

Fair enough. I don't have any evidence (other than personal, anecdotal evidence) to support my position, just like Marthkus doesn't have any evidence for his statement.

But the major point of my post was that ALL Good characters would call out another character that performs Evil deeds, not just the paladin.

Not true at all. Some good characters will avoid futile confrontation and get things done.

Not every good man in Germany spoke out and got thrown into a camp immediately. Some kept their heads down and tried to actually save lives. Or end the lives that needed ending.

Wilhelm Canaris did not call out Hitler. He tried to get him out of power through means that actually had a chance of success. He failed, but had he succeeded he would have prevented more evil than all the martyrs in Germany.

Oscar Schindler did not call out Hitler. He actually directly saved lives by working within the system. If that is not a valid way to play a lawful good individual within an evil society something is catastrophically wrong wity your alignment rules.

Sure some of the patrons of the inn might be good-aligned and not do anything to the Evil party member because they can't, but the other characters in the party are not powerless. We are not talking an average Klaus vs. Hitler. We are talking Churchill vs. Hitler, two men that are on a fairly even level.

My Good wizard is not going to meekly accept the murder of innocents because he is afraid of the Evil guy. He is going to drop him in the nearest volcano, shunt him to some inhospitable plane, or just reduce him to dust. Or, being a God Wizard, he will just buff the party paladin and let him get his righteous smite on.

Or the paladin might convince the wizard that there is a chance for redemption. It depends if the player of the Evil character would like to continue playing that character and if he can work with a Good aligned group.

601 to 650 of 1,121 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.