Lawful Good vs Awful Good vs Lawful Stupid

[Thannazzar]

So Im currently playing an investigative part of an AP.

The bad guys are a secret cult, we think we know their location (we have been refused entry during the day) and returned at night but the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).

Im playing the cleric, so short of burning 4th Level Spells on divination to give the LG party members just cause. (The watch is most likely in the pocket of the cultists) Im struggling to deal with the investigative challenges.

The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).

Ive been hunting around for some quotable logic from the PF system to give a clear cut view about Alignment and Actions, in terms of justifiable lawbreaking, without success can anyone point me in the direction of usable material.

I think that entering a location illegally is justified under LG if you know the badguys are there doing bad things.

But how about if you suspect the bad guys are there or there may be information to lead you too them?

The level we are at is `when confronted by a potentially corrupt Watchman who detects as mild evil'is (Direct Quote from the Party Paladin) "Well being evil is not illegall....unfortunately"

[Chemlak]

Lawful does not mean Legal. Unless the Lawful characters' personal rules include "will not ever break the law, regardless of circumstance", then there is nothing wrong with a LG character breaking the law as long as 1) it fits within their rules and 2) is for the good of others.

[Imbicatus]

Quote:

The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).

I stopped reading right here. You GM is completely misusing alignment. Your best bet is going to be to find another game.

If you really want quotable things that show why the GM is wrong, check the Core Rulebook

Quote:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

[ShadowcatX]

Personally, I'd totally allow them to enter the building, but I'd suggest lawful pcs would take the penalty for it, whatever penalty breaking and entering carried.

[Mister Fluffykins]

Nowhere in the Core Rulebook's description of Lawful Good does it actually mention legality. Lawful doesn't necessarily mean -legal-. It represents holding yourself to a strict standard rather than acting on a whim (be that standard a personal code of conduct, a set of traditions, or an actual legal code.) These are all relatively similar, but different enough that every single LG individual doesn't have to be played identically to the last.

The question is, what code is your party beholden to? Are their actions determined by social mores (what society deems to be correct and proper), or morality (which is similar to mores, but viewed through a religious lens)? Do they strictly uphold all laws and legislation regardless of the impact they have on the little people, or do they defer to their god's interpretation of what a just, legitimate law is?

[Undone]

Thannazzar wrote:

So Im currently playing an investigative part of an AP.

The bad guys are a secret cult, we think we know their location (we have been refused entry during the day) and returned at night but the LG members of the party refuse to enter a locked building on the basis `we would be breaking the law'. (all brilliantly roleplayed by the way - these arnt Lawful Stupid players).

Im playing the cleric, so short of burning 4th Level Spells on divination to give the LG party members just cause. (The watch is most likely in the pocket of the cultists) Im struggling to deal with the investigative challenges.

The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).

Ive been hunting around for some quotable logic from the PF system to give a clear cut view about Alignment and Actions, in terms of justifiable lawbreaking, without success can anyone point me in the direction of usable material.

I think that entering a location illegally is justified under LG if you know the badguys are there doing bad things.

But how about if you suspect the bad guys are there or there may be information to lead you too them?

The level we are at is `when confronted by a potentially corrupt Watchman who detects as mild evil'is (Direct Quote from the Party Paladin) "Well being evil is not illegall....unfortunately"

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.

If they believe there are cultists in there, proof or not, they are OBLIGATED by the code to investigate without harming anyone.

Because DnD takes place in ~15th century times where you didn't really have a legal right to unlawful searching the GM needs to remember that there wouldn't be laws against breaking and entering if you think something might be up and are authorities.

Additionally "Respect LEGITIMATE authority." if they make the sense motive when they ask the guards if they are in the pocket of the cult killing them, storming the place, and wiping the cult out with extreme prejudice would be a completely reasonable response.

[Argent Snow]

Paladins may not lie - but they are not forced to answer a question. They may opt to say "I do not wish to answer this" or "I can not answer this to you" (for I can't compromise my plan)

Also, while they may not feint or do dishonor in combat, they may still apply tactics - flanking an Army is not dishonorable at all (as it is expected by military commanders that they try to attack the weaker sides) and neither is an Obligue Order (even if the later might be at the edge of being called a deception) for such speaks only for the wits of the general. They might employ very much more group tactics - but then again they would become Knights doing that...

Your point about entering a location. First of all, a paladin is much likely to be part of the armed wing/order of a church, more specifically he is very likely to be a designated protector of the followers of his god. This is quite similar to a guardsman, who is the designated protector of the inhabitants of his city, so he might have (in church law!) similar priviliges. One of these priviliges has not changed too much from the early medival time: Knights/Guards/Policemen may arrest people if they have enough evidence or the order to do so, and they may enter a location in several cases. The most relevant to this is, if there is strong suspection that they will by this lead to arresting people in ipsa rapina et adhuc flagrante crimine comprehensi (during a crime).

If however Church Law and Royal/City Law match in what the guard allows the paladin is an other item. I suggest asking your GM about writing down the priviliges/rules the church of your paladin grants/demands to be uphold in regards to religious crimes and what sentences the church demands (like burning at the stake for repeated Necromantism - which is pretty much what NG Sarenrae Inquisitors do - or possibly decapitation for being a Rovagug Cultist as sentence by the LG Torag cult)
Also, ask how far the City Laws give someone acting for (one of the many) the Church Law(s) has special rights - like the right for the in flagranti arrest I mentioned above.

[Chemlak]

Discussion thread about Law/ Chaos.

[Argent Snow]

Undone wrote:

If they believe there are cultists in there, proof or not, they are OBLIGATED by the code to investigate without harming anyone.

Because DnD takes place in ~15th century times where you didn't really have a legal right to unlawful searching the GM needs to remember that there wouldn't be laws against breaking and entering if you think something might be up and are authorities.

Additionally "Respect LEGITIMATE authority." if they make the sense motive when they ask the guards if they are in the pocket of the cult killing them, storming the place, and wiping the cult out with extreme prejudice would be a completely reasonable response.

Also: Paladins are often part of a church, and churches tend to have their own law (please take a look at the Roman Catholics here...). This makes them an authority themselves - which allowes (and demands!) them to investigate crimes of their area - which includes heresy, breaking of taboos, harming of innocents and spreading of heterodoxies.

[Jaelithe]

Paladins, in certain circumstances, may lie, no matter the ill-considered rules against it, if their revelation of the facts will result in evil because the person to whom they are speaking will use the knowledge unmistakably for evil. In other words, a paladin may say to the Nazi officer, "No, there are no Jews in my attic," even if Anne Frank and her family are up there.

"Paladins may not feint"? This is patently false. Feinting is an entirely justified combat tactic. A paladin, by feinting, is allowing the opposition to draw an unjustified conclusion, i.e., the blow is going this way. He or she is not responsible for what others infer, when he or she has not precisely implied it.

Paladins are not LAWFUL good, they are lawful GOOD—that is, law in the service of good. They may defy the law or break their code if it serves the good, because both the law and the code exist to uphold the good. The spirit of the rule, both literally and figuratively, trumps the letter, even for a paladin.

[Orfamay Quest]

Ultimately, the only solution to a bad gamemaster is not to play in their game.

If a game master thinks it's more fun for a player NOT to be able to play a character than for a player to be able to play a character, a way will be found to prevent such play.

I think the most usable quote at this point is "thank you very much, may I have my dice back please, and I'll see you when the next campaign starts."

[Orthodox Banjoist]

Maybe your DM has forgot:
SRD
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

I suggest to talk with your DM... if is not able to read, this is a problem :D

[EntrerisShadow]

Imbicatus wrote:

Quote:

The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).

I stopped reading right here. You GM is completely misusing alignment. Your best bet is going to be to find another game.

If I may play GM's advocate here:

I am a lover of classic Paladins. I want the law-and-order, holy avenger, could-never-behave dishonestly types. For all the talk of "lawful stupid" Paladins I hear about, I do not think I've ever seen one played in this method.

Every - and I do mean every - Paladin I've ever encountered was trying to be a Chaotic rebel with awesome powers. The worst of these veered hard into Chaotic Neutral territory (one even skirting chaotic evil - but that's was more seriously a Good vs Evil issue, so I digress) and should anybody have the audacity to call them on it they were - say it with me now - "just playing their character."

I know I'm in the minority here since I interpret Lawful to pertain specifically to societal law because EVERYBODY has a personal code, even if that personal code is "Do What Feels Good". (I also drop the Lawful restraint from monks for this reason to remain consistent.)

Being "Good" in most tabletop games, and especially PF adventure paths, is usually pretty easy. It's the default setting for most adventures. Just by participating in most of the quests you're given you'll be on the side of the angels - and usually those scenarios where you're not it's a big last minute "Gotcha!" reveal.

Being ethical, on the other hand, is much more difficult. And it should be. Why would Paladins have to be Lawful Good if the Lawful part of that statement meant nothing?

Ultimately, Good is more important, but Paladins should exhaust every other option before resorting to anything illegal or dishonest. I have some rules for Paladins a lot of players would call 'arbitrary', but I don't do a lot of mechanical punishment. Rather I would prefer my players try to think before they just take the path of least resistance.

[Corvino]

Not allowing a Paladin to Feint is a bit crazy. I don't really see why one would given the game's mechanics, but it's a completely legitimate combat tactic and not "dishonorable" in the least.

I've seen a lot written about Paladins but actually have played with very few (probably because of the code). Some of the interpretations I've seen are very interesting.

One was playing as a very hardened, dogmatic member of an order who focuses strongly on one aspect of the oath. This guys destroys evil because his order says so, regardless of what local law enforcement think about it. No moral dilemma - he sees something he perceives as evil and immediately gets smiting. Arguably he'd see evil surviving as a stain on his personal honor. Local laws are not the only laws. Historically this may not have been too far from the truth with various medieval knightly orders. I can see how people would disagree, but in a cracksack world this character is plausible. That guy who dumped Int & Wis? This could well be him.

Paladins are more interesting when they're conflicted. When they try and balance the dictates of their faith with local law and the greatest good for the greatest number, that's how some people think they have to be, but it's not. If the player is indecisive then this will suck for the party, and forbidding interesting courses of action is why some people hate paladins.

(I don't hate paladins. I like the idea of trying to do the right thing, and taking a third option when faced with tough choices. But if your GM and you have a very different idea of permissible behaviour it's going to suck.)

[Quintain]

I view feinting in combat as a contest of combat intellect. Just as armor vs weapon is a contest of AC vs. To-Hit.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Undone wrote:

Because DnD takes place in ~15th century times

It doesn't actually. It takes place in a fantasy world that might, but doesn't have to, depending on the setting, be similar to RW medieval/renaissance times, thus can have whatever law system the DM desires.

[Mike Franke]

Yeh, your GM is wrong on alignment, but assuming that you like him anyway and want to continue gaming, have a talk with him.

If he is going to impose such incredible alignment restrictions, make sure he builds in ways around them in the game.

For instance, if LG characters can't break in and enter you GM could:

1. provide a way for them to gain the legal authority to do so such as deputizing them or allowing them to gain a special exemption from the city as a "licensed investigator". In the old days this was the old "the city has hired you to look into something hook."

2. Have the bad guys leave their hide out so the characters can catch them outside the lair.

3. Have the bad guys leave the door unlocked. It is not breaking and entering if the door is unlocked.

4. Have the bad guys' actions visible in some way from the outside. The imminent or ongoing "badness" provides and excuse to go in that overrides the breaking and entering. "People are in trouble, I will ask for absolution later!!!"

There are lots of ways around this situation but it is up to the GM to make sure they are available not just gloat over his alignment created no with situation.

[Corvino]

I can just see it now.

An whole order of Paladins knock boldly on the door labelled "Evil Lair". A red, horned demon opens the door.

Paladin: Prepare to die, demon!

Demon: *steps backward* This is private property. If you enter it's trespassing. I'll call the city guard, and you'll get in trouble.

Paladin: Oh. I hadn't thought of that. Do you have a deed, or other proof of ownership?

Demon: The original property transaction is on record at the local town hall. It's registered to a Mr. L Morningstar, that's me.

Paladin: Uh. Okay. Carry on.

*Edit* He totally has permits for those sacrifices too.

[CaptainMarvelous]

If your DM has a thick skin you might consider showing him this thread. Nothing makes people reconsider their behavior like a chorus of people judging them for it.

I've seen way more people change their behavior to avoid ridicule than change their behavior due to the power of a superior argument.

[Imbicatus]

Corvino wrote:

I can just see it now.

An whole order of Paladins knock boldly on the door labelled "Evil Lair". A red, horned demon opens the door.

Paladin: Prepare to die, demon!

Demon: *steps backward* This is private property. If you enter it's trespassing. I'll call the city guard, and you'll get in trouble.

Paladin: Oh. I hadn't thought of that. Do you have a deed, or other proof of ownership?

Demon: The original property transaction is on record at the local town hall. It's registered to a Mr. L Morningstar, that's me.

Paladin: Uh. Okay. Carry on.

*Edit* He totally has permits for those sacrifices too.

I can actually see this happening in Cheliax with Order of the Godclaw Hellknight paladins...

[EntrerisShadow]

Corvino wrote:

I can just see it now.

An whole order of Paladins knock boldly on the door labelled "Evil Lair". A red, horned demon opens the door.

Paladin: Prepare to die, demon!

Demon: *steps backward* Dammit, this is the third time this week, we need to lose the sign *Sighs* This is private property. If you enter it's trespassing. I'll call the city guard, and you'll get in trouble.

Paladin: Oh. I hadn't thought of that. Do you have a deed, or other proof of ownership?

Demon: The original property transaction is on record at the local town hall. It's registered to a Mr. L Morningstar, that's me.

Paladin: Uh. Okay. Carry on.

*Edit* He totally has permits for those sacrifices too.

I would actually love a scenario like that. It's obviously taken to the extreme for comedic purposes, but I think that would be a fascinating battle of wits and oneupmanship.

[pauljathome]

Mike Franke wrote:

Yeh, your GM is wrong on alignment, but assuming that you like him anyway and want to continue gaming, have a talk with him.

If he is going to impose such incredible alignment restrictions, make sure he builds in ways around them in the game.

For instance, if LG characters can't break in and enter you GM could:

...

There are lots of ways around this situation but it is up to the GM to make sure they are available not just gloat over his alignment created no with situation.

+1000

If the GM wants to run investigation adventures then it is largely HIS responsibility to make sure that the PCs can succeed. His interpretation of alignment is very extreme and very problematic.

[Lincoln Hills]

Let's tiptoe around the abyss of alignment and offer practical suggestions...

You might consider clairvoyance. Lawful characters might go for the "if they're innocent they have nothing to hide" excuse. You're not actually trespassing; it's just spyware. ;)

Sending in a solitary scout who can return with testimony (or, better, evidence) of wrongdoing is an OK option, though it leaves the rest of the players sitting around while the scout gets a one-on-one session.

Get somebody caught by the villains. NPC or PC - it doesn't matter. Once the people in the safehouse are holding somebody against their will, the LG characters are obligated to charge to the rescue!

[Quintain]

If you are working with a 15th Century mindset, remember that in that times, the King owned all the land, and those who resided on it were simply stewards -- they didn't actually have ownership rights. So, provided you have the King's consent, you can enter anywhere you like "In the King's Name".

[Undone]

Quintain wrote:

If you are working with a 15th Century mindset, remember that in that times, the King owned all the land, and those who resided on it were simply stewards -- they didn't actually have ownership rights. So, provided you have the King's consent, you can enter anywhere you like "In the King's Name".

When they go to the outhouse scream "IN THEE KINGS NAME!" And kick the door open. Barbarian level achieved. Paladin moral quandaries bypassed.

[Argent Snow]

Let's quote the PRD...

Quote:

paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline

[...]
Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades
[...]
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.
[...]
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).

( http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html#_paladin )

Ok, That summs up the relevant Fluff and Crunch on that part. What is a binding, legitimate authority for a Paladin? First of all, the leader of the church of his/her god (if he chooses so) is for sure. A King or other ruler that is accepted by this leadership should be too.

IMHO a Paladin that follows Sarenrae (NG, so he might do that for only 1 step away), may opt not to accept the rulership of an LE Vampire King, as that one is, while trying to uphold an ordered society (Lawful), is still an abdomination of life and an enemy of his goddess atop of being Evil. He might still acknowledge that he is the better choice against the CE Cultist, and offer him redeeming (as it is demanded by the Sarenrae morals).

A paladin that choose Iomedae, the LG goddes of valor and paladins, might find his role picture in the holy text "Acts of Iomedae" - The second miracle was slaying a ruling coven of witches, so Rulership does not qualify as needing to be acknowledged for it is not always legitimate. Also the tenth act refers to a rightful lord, implying that there are rulers that are not legitimate.

I once again point out, that the rules a Paladin follows are most likely written down somewhere - sit down with your GM and work out some special limits or rules that fit his connection to his or her god. Work on how much the safty of society as a whole (Lawfullness) is worth in comparison to the rights of the individual (one part of Chaos) - Is it allowable for him (and his god) to break into a house for the better of society? If not per se, is it allowable with a special permit or under special circumstances? What are those circumstances? The later question is what brings us back to the question the opener asked:

To aid someone screaming for help? I bet that would be a yes for all paladins, as long as they know it is not the evil one crying for help (and even then they might need to intervene and demand a mercyful death for them).
To prevent a severe evil deed you know for sure is about to happen? The very text I quoted on the Paladin demands to act in that case IMHO.
To prevent a severe evil deed you know likely to be happening? That is a bit more problematic, but if it is still very likely, then it is like the for sure case.
To prevent a common evil deed that might or might not happen? If it is not severe and thus does not demand immediate action and is not very likely to happen, then you can't justify stepping on the rights of the individual.

A Paladin is needed to be Good and for the better of society (Lawful), he may not lie (but opt not to tell the truth or all he knows).

Concerning the Devil with the ownership deed, some Paladins might come up with a simple solution, if they have Knowledge: Religion or Planes high enough - If the true and given name of the Devil on the deed is their name, then the Devil also is obligated to follow the rules of anyone knowing the name. if it is not the true and given name, then the deed is void as you can't own objects under an alias ;)

[Ascalaphus]

Maybe there should be an Urban Paladin archetype, that's equipped with a more sophisticated Code class feature to deal with these things. "In addition to respecting legitimate authority, an Urban Paladin is empowered by Divine Right to act as provisional authority if local authorities are found morally wanting..."

Seriously. There are urban rangers and urban barbarians. Why aren't there urban paladins? ("My Divine Bond is a judge with a briefcase full of search warrants...")

[Orfamay Quest]

I don't think the problem is a more sophisticated code. The problem is GMs who can't or won't read the existing code properly.

This is a case in point. Refusing to allow paladins to feint in combat isn't something that can be fixed in the sourcebook, as it's reading something into the code that simply isn't there.

[Dracovar]

As many point out - your problem is your GM. That's gotta be some of the most questionable LG interpretations I've seen since Iomedae decided it would be a brilliant move to smack around some mythic heroes because they answered her questions incorrectly...(WotR path).

Since other players in the group decided to play LG, presumably KNOWING that this is how your GM interprets that alignment, well, leave to *them* to figure out how to get into the building. In the meantime, have your character go have an ale at the local taphouse.

If you do actually have 4th level divination spells, well, use them to provide the proof the party needs. If not, see my note about going to have a beer (perhaps literally and figuratively speaking).

I'd chalk this one up to "hey guys, you all are LG, so, figure out what our next move is. It's your alignment that's on the line, not mine."

[Melvin the Mediocre]

Early Christian philosophers (I think St Thomas Aquinas in particular) talked about natural law, divine law, and ... gosh its been a long time since I studied this... "kingly" law because I can't remember the real term. They discussed all being laws, but not all in harmony. A pathfinder paladin should most likely follow divine law, not the law of the local ruler, unless of course those are in perfect harmony. Ask your DM if a lawful evil duke became a diabolist and passed a new law requiring all landed knights to sacrifice a virgin to Orcus once a year, would the paladin fall for following that law, or disobeying that law?

[Lincoln Hills]

Groucho: Girls, I've just thought of a way for you to avoid the terrible consequences of that unfair law! But I can't tell you the solution here. Meet me in the hayloft.

[Akerlof]

Thannazzar wrote:

Ive been hunting around for some quotable logic from the PF system to give a clear cut view about Alignment and Actions, in terms of justifiable lawbreaking, without success can anyone point me in the direction of usable material.

Check out Ultimate Campaign:

Lawful Good wrote:

Justice is all. Honor is my armor. He who commits a crime will pay. Without law and truth, there is only chaos. I am the light, I am the sword of righteousness. My enemy shall pay in the end. Right is might. My soul is pure. My word is truth.

Core Concepts: Duty, fairness, honor, property, responsibility, right, truth, virtue, worthiness

A lawful good character believes in honor. A code or faith that she has unshakable belief in likely guides her. She would rather die than betray that faith, and the most extreme followers of this alignment are willing (sometimes even happy) to become martyrs.

A lawful good character at the extreme end of the lawful-chaotic spectrum can seem pitiless. She may become obsessive about delivering justice, thinking nothing of dedicating herself to chasing a wicked dragon across the world or pursuing a devil into Hell. She can come across as a taskmaster, bent upon her aims without swerving, and may see others who are less committed as weak. Though she may seem austere, even harsh, she is always consistent, working from her doctrine or faith. Hers is a world of order, and she obeys superiors and finds it almost impossible to believe there's any bad in them. She may be more easily duped by such imposters, but in the end she will see justice is done—by her own hand if necessary.

"...in the end she will see justice is done—by her own hand if necessary," is NOT compatible with "Well being evil is not illegall....unfortunately." (That would be Lawful Neutral.) Lawful Good is about seeing justice done, evil is unjust, so minor rules like trespassing will not be a shield against an LG player.

[Tacticslion]

Let's apply logic to PAizo's own presentation of Paladins.

To build my case, I'm going to use a lot of what some would consider, "well, duh" explanations - these are not meant to question intelligence but to inform and also increase the standing of my conclusion.

Council of Thieves is an AP or "Adventure Path": that's an official published adventure path by the company that produces the rules. This means tha, for better or worse, Paizo, who publishes the game, has effectively put their stamp of approval on how things are presented within Golarion in specific and the game Pathfinder in general. What I am about to note has never been disputed by Paizo, and, in fact, is effective encouraged by the Council of Thieves adventure path Player's Guide - I don't have that guide available to quote at resent, else I would. The AP involves engaging in illicit activities in direct contravention to local and national laws by participation in a rebellious group that defies local authorities. This group is led by a lawful good priest. One of your first actions in game is evading arrest. That happens so early, it's not a spoiler: it's a preview.

Iconic characters, in Pathfinder terms, are pre-generated characters that Paizo uses as a kind of representative "baseline" that works as a valid interpretation of a given class - not the only interpretation, but a solidly valid one. in the context of APs, these characters are recommended "ur-examples" of what is considered good characters, both as a class and as a general principle, to play in the AP.

Steel ah, the iconic paladin, is an iconic for Coucil of Thieves. The art repeatedly shows her engaging in illegal activities. She never falls as a Paladin, nor ceases being lawful good for the duration of the AP (they have her "suggested statistics" at the end of every AP installment - she never deviates from being either lawful good, or a paladin). While Paizo has published things it regrets or ret-cons later, Seelah being the iconic for Coucil of Thieves is not among decisions they've regretted or rescinded. Thus the company that makes the rules interprets them as validating a lawful good paladin as being able to outright break local laws and defy corrupt or bribed authority.

Also: spoilers, please, guys.

[Corvino]

Ascalaphus wrote:

"My Divine Bond is a judge with a briefcase full of search warrants..."

This is my new favorite thing. Boston Legal for Paladins. Thank you Ascalaphus.

[Lincoln Hills]

I never knew paladins were gullible buffoons! When it suits them to be, I mean. When it suits them to be.

[Arachnofiend]

Lawful characters draw their code of conduct from external forces, as opposed to chaotic characters who draw their code of conduct from within themselves (Chaotic Evil characters have a code of conduct, it's just that it's probably "I'm gonna get what I want"). There are other ways to interpret it but I like mine because it's loose enough that it doesn't restrain character creation and applies equally to both the good and evil sides of the alignment.

Per the rules, the only code of conduct that the Paladin has to abide by to prevent a Fall is the Paladin Code itself. You can start a revolution and overthrow all the governments as long as you do so in a way that pursues the goals of the Paladin Code and you'll still be entirely Lawful Good.

Frankly, I think respecting the law regardless of the moral consequences of it is more Lawful Neutral territory anyways.

[Undone]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Lawful characters draw their code of conduct from external forces, as opposed to chaotic characters who draw their code of conduct from within themselves (Chaotic Evil characters have a code of conduct, it's just that it's probably "I'm gonna get what I want"). There are other ways to interpret it but I like mine because it's loose enough that it doesn't restrain character creation and applies equally to both the good and evil sides of the alignment.

Per the rules, the only code of conduct that the Paladin has to abide by to prevent a Fall is the Paladin Code itself. You can start a revolution and overthrow all the governments as long as you do so in a way that pursues the goals of the Paladin Code and you'll still be entirely Lawful Good.

Frankly, I think respecting the law regardless of the moral consequences of it is more Lawful Neutral territory anyways.

If something would be evil not to do. (Save someone from falling off a cliff vs let them fall) Then even if it's unlawful to save the person the paladin must.

Lawful good paladins may stage revolutions. Revolts simply have to follow the paladin's code of "For the greater good, by the books." Paladins are lawful good because they seek to establish and conform to a set of laws that are purposefully created to be good. They are lawful good BECAUSE laws are good.

I assure you if our favorite LG paladin god saw cultists trying to summon haster the local laws would do absolutely jack to slow her down.

They may break the law and then attempt to defend themselves in court (Likely successfully) but you'd be surprised what essentially deputized adventurers could do legally.

Additionally I'd like to point out that if they are brought to court they are filthy rich. It costs only a couple gold to hire an expert with profession lawyer, who can aid others with profession lawyer.

Take this to it's logical conclusion. WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

[Jaelithe]

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

[Mike Franke]

Only because they deserved it! Stop answering incorrectly!

[Undone]

Jaelithe wrote:

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

That's not how they remember it.

Quote:

Only because they deserved it! Stop answering incorrectly!

What is your favorite color?

[NobodysHome]

Lots of excellent answers in this thread, most pertaining to "How do you interpret Lawful Good"?

I am playing a Lawful Good life oracle who worships Sarenrae. She stabilizes our enemies and refuses to heal our allies if they torture or murder captives. And my GM has no problem with how I am playing her.

I am playing a Lawful Good cleric of Iomedae. The city she is sworn to protect is under siege by betrayers and demon-worshippers. She is slaying her fallen enemies the moment they fall to lessen their ranks. And my GM has no problem with how I am playing her.

So either my GMs are insane, or Lawful Good is not a straitjacket.

[Deadmanwalking]

Jaelithe wrote:

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

That's...not precisely canonical at this point. So no need to find a new patron per the official setting.

[Arlow]

Follow in the gm folly. Let the group go in alone while you wait outside as "back up" to slow down incoming "reinforcement". It is totally viable behavior (personnal experience of breaking. In while a teenager) along whit the rules at your table. You never know you might be the only survivor

[Jaelithe]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

That's...not precisely canonical at this point. So no need to find a new patron per the official setting.

Ah, the retcon. Too late. It's out there, in black and white. :)

[Deadmanwalking]

Jaelithe wrote:

Ah, the retcon. Too late. It's out there, in black and white. :)

So are Paladins of Asmodeus, doesn't mean they exist in the default setting.

[Undone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

That's...not precisely canonical at this point. So no need to find a new patron per the official setting.

Wait what this actually happened? What?

[Jaelithe]

I don't follow or remotely care about Golarion, so I really don't have a horse in the race. I simply recalled what someone said about Iomedae and noted it, without much concern over it.

The default setting is whatever the editors want it to be, of course. Correcting an error is only sensible.

Still, she had a little more pizzazz before they went and overwrote her 'tude. ;)

[Jaelithe]

Undone wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Undone wrote:

WWID What would Iomedae Do? You can't lose your paladin hood if you follow that.

Isn't this the wench who slaps people around for giving her an answer she doesn't like? Think I'll find another patron, thanks.

That's...not precisely canonical at this point. So no need to find a new patron per the official setting.

Wait what this actually happened? What?

Yeah, evidently it happened, and Deadmanwalking is taking it upon himself to do a little unsolicited damage control. ;)

[Deadmanwalking]

Undone wrote:

Wait what this actually happened? What?

Sorta. Mild spoilers follow.

Wrath of the Righteous:

At one point during Wrath of the Righteous you meet Iomedae in person. She's got a mission for you, and asks you several questions to see if you're worthy. If you both fail to answer the questions and demonstrate an attitude that seems inappropriate to her, she b!+#* slaps you for (at that level) relatively moderate damage.

She heals all such damage immediately after the questioning and sends you on your way, but still, from some people's perspective, she effectively grabs you and then slaps you around if you say stuff she doesn't like...which people see as a problem, and I can understand why. I think there's a legitimate tonal problem, but people exaggerate how severe it really is.

Jaelithe wrote:

Yeah, evidently it happened, and Deadmanwalking is taking it upon himself to do a little unsolicited damage control. ;)

Eh. James Jacobs has specifically said that the way people read it was in no way how it was intended. Indeed, here's a link to that effect. So it's not exactly me doing damage control, just making people aware of it.