An argument for why paladins should be banned


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
The Exchange 3/5

Premise: An option is banned only if it conflicts with the nature or goals of the campaign.
Premise: Paladins conflict with the nature or goals of the campaign.
Conclusion: Paladins should be banned.

-------------------------------

Reasoning:
Premise #1:
It appears is that nothing inside the Core Assumption is banned, unless it appears to specifically harm the campaign. That is, when we examine the core, we "start" with everything allowed, and then Mike looked through it and sees something and says "Hey, X would make the campaign worse" and makes an exception for it (i.e., bans it).

Premise #2:
I am aware of many aspects of the campaign with which paladins conflict.
They often slow down gameplay, due to arguments on how to deal with evil creatures or items, and in many of the scenarios that request that you obfuscate the truth.
They seem to have canon issues - why are the LG holy warriors working with thieves and murderers, ahem, i mean "a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil". In fact their code of honor in many instances requires them to break the code of the society. "Explore, Report, Cooperate." A paladin's code of honor can be broken in many instances by accepting aid from people they should be cooperating with.
They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class. No other archetype/class has as much built in potential for friction. Other players can put paladins in situations where they should either be breaking their code and losing their class abilities or engaging in pvp and losing their characters.
This can affect wealth for the party. There are many missions (any missions requiring subtlety, theft, or other forms of subterfuge) where the paladin's code requires that the paladin either not take part in the mission or make the party fail. Depending on how restrictive the gm is about wealth from encounters paladins can make the party miss out on many instances of treasure.

Thus, I contend that Paladins conflict with many aspects of the campaign.

-----------------------------------

Based on the two premises above, I believe it follows logically that Paladins should be banned.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll have to tell several groups that they're doing something wrong. They each have Paladins and have absolutely no problems with them at all!

Your demnonstrated expertise proves that they MUST be doing something wrong even though they and I have completely missed on what it must be.

If you're going to make a set of assertions to alter a major aspect of the campaign. You need to follow up with DATA. Believe it or not, they're not going to scupper a class on your word alone.


You do know that you can play a good guy without being a paladin, right? Should Lawful Good be banned as well?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You do know that you can play a good guy without being a paladin, right? Should Lawful Good be banned as well?

Since we ARE a society of Murder Hobo architect theives, we should ban all Good alignments, and force all Silver Crusaders into the Scarzoni faction. Or make them Andoran. THE Murder Hobo Faction.

The Exchange 3/5

yes, you can roleplay LG, but you don't have a class restriction forcing you to do so. GM fiat is pretty much what allows paladins to be played at all. Roleplaying restrictions from other classes such as swashbuckler/gunslinger acts of derring-do are not enforced in society, are paladins meant to be hand-waved as well?

3/5

because people choose to debate and not get along we should ban paladins?

Then lets ban hardness, guns slingers, magic users, any haracter following an ethos. I am sure there are more.

We shoudl all just be rogues!

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Venture-Captain, United Kingdom—England—Coventry

The only PvP I have ever seen involving Paladins is where the paladin has accepted the surrender of an enemy and another player wants to kill him - that other player's reaction is "You can't stop me, it's PvP" - in thse cases, it isn't the Paladin being the problem, it's the murder hobo. I was once told by the GM it is PvP because I disarmed the other player.

Shadow Lodge

terry_t_uk wrote:
The only PvP I have ever seen involving Paladins is where the paladin has accepted the surrender of an enemy and another player wants to kill him - that other player's reaction is "You can't stop me, it's PvP" - in thse cases, it isn't the Paladin being the problem, it's the murder hobo. I was once told by the GM it is PvP because I disarmed the other player.
A Cavalier of the Blue Rose would have the same problem with the same situation, in fact the Cavalier of the Blue Rose specifically has to and I quote
Quote:
He must also honor quarter when he gives it, protecting captives who have surrendered from his own allies if need be.

Should the Order of the Blue Rose be banned too?

The Exchange 3/5

LazarX wrote:

I'll have to tell several groups that they're doing something wrong. They each have Paladins and have absolutely no problems with them at all!

Your demnonstrated expertise proves that they MUST be doing something wrong even though they and I have completely missed on what it must be.

If you're going to make a set of assertions to alter a major aspect of the campaign. You need to follow up with DATA. Believe it or not, they're not going to scupper a class on your word alone.

I'm not sure what sort of DATA you would like to see. so how about some missions where honestly stating you are a pathfinder hurts your team:

scars of the 3rd crusade
bloodcove disguise
shadows last stand parts 1 & 2
red harvest
you have what you hold
cultist's kiss

how a gm decides to rule whether a paladin breaks his code of honor by lying during this missions can vary pretty widely.

of course, if missions had tags such as "subterfuge" "heavy roleplay" "heavy combat" paladins could just avoid the subterfuge missions, and thus avoid creating some potential of party conflict.

The Exchange 3/5

terry_t_uk wrote:
The only PvP I have ever seen involving Paladins is where the paladin has accepted the surrender of an enemy and another player wants to kill him - that other player's reaction is "You can't stop me, it's PvP" - in thse cases, it isn't the Paladin being the problem, it's the murder hobo. I was once told by the GM it is PvP because I disarmed the other player.

i have heard this argument more than a few times. are you sure it was the murder hobo causing problems? was the paladin alone in his views? if the majority of the party didn't care, i contend it was in fact the paladin creating problems

Silver Crusade

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's just ban the murderhobos and let them have Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Direct PvP is not allowed, and neither is bullying. Those rules prevent a Paladin from taking action to 'redeem' evildoers that happen to work alongside a Paladin.

A Paladin IS still allowed however to roleplay any attempts to convince such wayward folk to the obviously superior ways of the higher moral ground. You just can't FORCE them or punish them for noncompliance. That's a roleplaying challenge that a player deliberately takes upon himself when he picks the class. There are potentially issues in a player being new to PFS not realizing this, but that can't be legislated against. The PvP and bullying rules are there up front; if you don't realize the implications, that's on you.

All that being said, passive aggressive PvP is completely legal in PFS. Does that Chelaxian spellcaster with the Imp require healing? Well, there's no rule saying YOU have to be the one to do it. You're completely in your rights to judge anything at all as being more pressing, up to and including passing on your turn while you "make sure your boots' laces are tied" while the devil-dealing evil-doer bleeds out.

"I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
terry_t_uk wrote:
The only PvP I have ever seen involving Paladins is where the paladin has accepted the surrender of an enemy and another player wants to kill him - that other player's reaction is "You can't stop me, it's PvP" - in thse cases, it isn't the Paladin being the problem, it's the murder hobo. I was once told by the GM it is PvP because I disarmed the other player.
i have heard this argument more than a few times. are you sure it was the murder hobo causing problems? was the paladin alone in his views? if the majority of the party didn't care, i contend it was in fact the paladin creating problems

The guy not playing a heartless sociopath in a non-evil campaign is causing the problem. Got it.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
terry_t_uk wrote:
The only PvP I have ever seen involving Paladins is where the paladin has accepted the surrender of an enemy and another player wants to kill him - that other player's reaction is "You can't stop me, it's PvP" - in thse cases, it isn't the Paladin being the problem, it's the murder hobo. I was once told by the GM it is PvP because I disarmed the other player.
i have heard this argument more than a few times. are you sure it was the murder hobo causing problems? was the paladin alone in his views? if the majority of the party didn't care, i contend it was in fact the paladin creating problems

As soon as the Paladin announces his intention to take the captive, it's PvP and/or bullying on behalf of the murderhobo to violate those desires. Even if it's the entire rest of the party that wants to murderhobo.

So no, it's not the Paladin that's being the problem in those examples.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh.

My Rovagug-worshipping shield basher (who constantly praises the Rough Beast and attempts to convert fellow characters) has never had any problems with any of the Lawful Good characters or paladins he's played with. In fact, he considers a Stonelord paladin of Torag his friend (which only means he'll die second-to-last when the Great Devourer arrives).

Last night, my Asmodeus-worshipping cleric just partied with a Warpriest of a good deity and a paladin of Iomedae for a 7ish hour runthrough of Crypt of the Everflame. My cleric spent half the time trying to convert the paladin. After I used my one memorized CLW, when the paladin went down (which happened several time in the last few battles), I let the player know that I couldn't heal him because all I had was wand of Infernal Healing and I didn't want him to fall...but he did enjoy when I gently cradled his body and whispered sweet Asmodean nothings until someone could hit him with cure light wounds post-battle ;)

In other instances where I played a paladin or a paladin played with me, there was no trouble. Other than the few cases with the paladin being a bit overzealous with their smites, everyone acts like an adult and we all have fun.

Scarab Sages 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iomedae Paladin Code wrote:


  • I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
  • I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
  • I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
  • I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
  • I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
  • I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
    When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
  • I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
  • I will suffer death before dishonor.
  • I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

Not only do I not see anything in Iomedae's paladin code that would stop a paladin from concealing their identity, the code also requires temperance and moderation in application of the code. Intentionally blowing your companions cover and getting them killed or captured however.....

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

If Paladins have to be played as rigidly as some GMs believe they should be then Paladins wouldn't just be unplayable in PFS, they would be unplayable in any campaign. And yet, they have been a playable class since first edition.


Sammy T wrote:

Huh.

My Rovagug-worshipping shield basher (who constantly praises the Rough Beast and attempts to convert fellow characters) has never had any problems with any of the Lawful Good characters or paladins he's played with. In fact, he considers a Stonelord paladin of Torag his friend (which only means he'll die second-to-last when the Great Devourer arrives).

Last night, my Asmodeus-worshipping cleric just partied with a Warpriest of a good deity and a paladin of Iomedae for a 7ish hour runthrough of Crypt of the Everflame. My cleric spent half the time trying to convert the paladin. After I used my one memorized CLW, when the paladin went down (which happened several time in the last few battles), I let the player know that I couldn't heal him because all I had was wand of Infernal Healing and I didn't want him to fall...but he did enjoy when I gently cradled his body and whispered sweet Asmodean nothings until someone could hit him with cure light wounds post-battle ;)

In other instances where I played a paladin or a paladin played with me, there was no trouble. Other than the few cases with the paladin being a bit overzealous with their smites, everyone acts like an adult and we all have fun.

This is just awesome.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City

I disagree with your assertion on Premise #2.

Your premise is based on the belief that paladins will cause conflict because someone/something will act non-lawful good and the paladin will have to do something about it, thus endangering the party or the mission.

The problem I have is that your premise is lacking evidence, just opinions and statements little meat to support them.

They seem to have canon issues - why are the LG holy warriors working with thieves and murderers, ahem, i mean 'a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil':
Why does 'thieves' and 'murders' end up being synonymous the Pathfinder Society? How are you playing non-paladin PCs that end up as thieves/murderers? And then to ask about canon, then what about the Silver Crusade, an organization of paladins and good PCs WITHIN the Pathfinder Society.

They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class.:
According to what? In the tables I have run, the most PvP I've seen is either from an alchemist missing with his bombs and really bad luck when a bad guy casts confusion over the party (resulting in a humorous situation where a player used a reroll to NOT confirm a crit against another PC while confused and thus not killing her).

As stated above, the PvP situations you are alluding to isn't necessarily caused by the paladin PC but the non-paladins who feel slighted that the paladin would cause them to do something they don't want to do. That isn't a paladin problem but a player-to-player problem.

Other players can put paladins in situations where they should either be breaking their code and losing their class abilities or engaging in pvp and losing their characters.:
This should be addressed in two ways. First, there's the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Trying to cause the paladin to fall would be acting like a jerk. Second, this is where the 'cooperate' portion of the Ptahfinder Soceity credo comes in. Cooperating would mean that the party takes the paladin into consideration when coming up with a plan and the paladin finding ways to be flexible and complete the mission. E.g.: I played with a group for Before the Dawn pt1: The Bloodcove Disguise that included a Stonelord paladin, probably as least stealthy/sneaky as any class would go. When coming up with a backstory, he elected to be the bodyguard to the party's casters and when asked gave that answer (being quite truthful, too, since he had the most HP and highest AC in the party. Stayed LG and we managed to get through the scenario earning both PP.

This can affect wealth for the party.:
While possibly true, this is now mitigated far less with the new standard (started in season 5) in that instead of earning gold by finding/stuff completing encounters, they party instead loses gold from the total by not completing encounters.

Honestly, the issue again isn't the paladin class, but either some of the people playing paladins not playing them well for group dynamics or others with their own flawed interpretations of what a paladin should be interfering with someone playing the paladin PC.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an interesting premise. I have seen NUMEROUS games in Pathfinder Society where the Paladin was the problem and I have never seen another legal class that caused as much friction in Organized Play. I also have never seen another class that causes so much potential for PVP. If the argument is "most players know how to handle it" then why are so many "Evil" or "creepy" options banned in PFS? Why do we trust players being paladins not to be jerks but don't trust players to be Vivisectionists, Undead Lord clerics, allowing witches to have certain hexes, allowing Blood Biography, etc.? Its public perception. Neutrality leaning towards good and banning evil will always be more accepted than true neutrality banning extremes, and that is the true bias here. Lets challenge ourselves a bit here and have a discussion, rather than throwing up hyperbole as comments to make the OP's premise look ridiculous, I think we are better than that.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:


scars of the 3rd crusade

The sheriffy guy told me that I should bring the Pathfinders headed to the village to him, and I had just brought everybody to him, so I said "Consider it done!" He seemed real happy after that too. He must have been relieved now that he knew it was already done. Yay!

That one was hard because I had orders to not say I was a Pathfinder, and lots of people asked about the Pathfinders. I told them lots of stuff, but they never actually asked me if we were, which is good because I would have had to say 'Yes'. But we still saved the day and helped lots of people and it was fun!

Grand Lodge 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
yes, you can roleplay LG, but you don't have a class restriction forcing you to do so. GM fiat is pretty much what allows paladins to be played at all. Roleplaying restrictions from other classes such as swashbuckler/gunslinger acts of derring-do are not enforced in society, are paladins meant to be hand-waved as well?

While I don't agree with your original argument, that Paladins need to be banned, I kind of agree that PFS does force both players and GMs to treat them a little differently than you would in a home game. That's just the necessary price for being able to throw together lots of random tables of different GMs, players and characters, and still get it all done in four hours.

It's a little on the player. If you want to play a Paladin in PFS, know that you will not have the time to finish (and you're not going to make many friends at your table) if you cause major drama of every possible moral issue. Pick your battles, quickly role-play your objections, and if the rest of the party wants to do it anyway, know that you can't fight them.

It's a little on the GM. Don't spend the whole game, watching the paladin and looking for an excuse to make him fall. Just as the paladin shouldn't make mountains out of molehills, neither should the GM. If you think the paladin is doing something really outrageous, let him know he's putting a foot over the line, but don't nit-pick. For example, if the paladin objects to water-boarding the prisoner, but the rogue does it anyway, don't blame the paladin for finishing out the adventurer with the rogue. It's kind of a jerk move to say "Go wait in the corner for two hours, until the next game starts, or your paladin falls."

And it's a little on the rest of the players. The paladin should make some effort not to completely de-rail your game, but you can also make some effort not to start fights with the paladin. Don't metagame the fact that you, the player, know that the paladin is not allowed to smack you in the head if you do too many whacky evil hijinks.

To me, it really all comes down to the "don't be a jerk" rule. Can you have long, game de-railing arguments about paladins? Sure, but PFS kind of assumes you will act like a reasonable, cooperative person and try not to have those arguments because you want the next four hours to actually be fun.

The Exchange 3/5

GeoffA wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
yes, you can roleplay LG, but you don't have a class restriction forcing you to do so. GM fiat is pretty much what allows paladins to be played at all. Roleplaying restrictions from other classes such as swashbuckler/gunslinger acts of derring-do are not enforced in society, are paladins meant to be hand-waved as well?

While I don't agree with your original argument, that Paladins need to be banned, I kind of agree that PFS does force both players and GMs to treat them a little differently than you would in a home game. That's just the necessary price for being able to throw together lots of random tables of different GMs, players and characters, and still get it all done in four hours.

It's a little on the player. If you want to play a Paladin in PFS, know that you will not have the time to finish (and you're not going to make many friends at your table) if you cause major drama of every possible moral issue. Pick your battles, quickly role-play your objections, and if the rest of the party wants to do it anyway, know that you can't fight them.

It's a little on the GM. Don't spend the whole game, watching the paladin and looking for an excuse to make him fall. Just as the paladin shouldn't make mountains out of molehills, neither should the GM. If you think the paladin is doing something really outrageous, let him know he's putting a foot over the line, but don't nit-pick. For example, if the paladin objects to water-boarding the prisoner, but the rogue does it anyway, don't blame the paladin for finishing out the adventurer with the rogue. It's kind of a jerk move to say "Go wait in the corner for two hours, until the next game starts, or your paladin falls."

And it's a little on the rest of the players. The paladin should make some effort not to completely de-rail your game, but you can also make some effort not to start fights with the paladin. Don't metagame the fact that you, the player, know that the paladin is not allowed to smack you in the...

so we should handwave the built in restrictions of the class because reasons.

if i argue that vivisectionists, undead lords and gravewalker witches should be allowed using this same exact argument, how does that make me look?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:

Premise #2:

I am aware of many aspects of the campaign with which paladins conflict.
They often slow down gameplay, due to arguments on how to deal with evil creatures or items, and in many of the scenarios that request that you obfuscate the truth.

Wrong. Rules debates slow down gameplay, and how to apply the paladin's code just happens to be one of them.

Quote:
They seem to have canon issues - why are the LG holy warriors working with thieves and murderers, ahem, i mean "a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil".

Wrong. In-canon, paladins also work alongside devil-worshippers and other evil people within the Hellknights (of which there are paladin members). Thus, their membership in the in-universe PFS does not create canonical conflict.

Quote:
In fact their code of honor in many instances requires them to break the code of the society. "Explore, Report, Cooperate."

Citation needed.

Quote:
A paladin's code of honor can be broken in many instances by accepting aid from people they should be cooperating with.

Wrong. The paladin's code explicitly allows working with not only neutral, but outright evil allies if it's for what the paladin believes to be the greater good. Your assertion flat-out contradicts the rules of the class.

Quote:
They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class. No other archetype/class has as much built in potential for friction.

Wrong. AoE casters, and especially alchemists' ability to miss with a bomb, are the ones with the most class-dependent tendency toward PvP. Anything else is a player/GM behavior issue, not a product of the class.

Quote:
Other players can put paladins in situations where they should either be breaking their code and losing their class abilities or engaging in pvp and losing their characters.

Wrong. Another PC's actions cannot cause a paladin to fall, and the only time a paladin is required to take action against someone is to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents". If a fellow PC is harming or threatening innocents, the GM should be intervening before the presence of a paladin even enters the equation, because PCs aren't supposed to be committing evil actions. Bad GMing does not constitute a problem with a class.

Quote:
This can affect wealth for the party. There are many missions (any missions requiring subtlety, theft, or other forms of subterfuge) where the paladin's code requires that the paladin either not take part in the mission or make the party fail.

Wrong. The paladin's code prohibits lying. It does not prohibit "subtlety, theft, or other forms of subterfuge". Paladins are allowed to be sneaky sometimes, as long as it's not so consistent as to merit an alignment shift away from lawful and does not involve any evil actions.

Quote:
Depending on how restrictive the gm is about wealth from encounters paladins can make the party miss out on many instances of treasure.

Wrong. The Guide says that if situations other than failure cause the monetary rewards to go away, the GM is supposed to give them to the party anyway. GMs who fail to abide by that rule do not indicate a problem with a class.

Quote:

Thus, I contend that Paladins conflict with many aspects of the campaign.

-----------------------------------

Based on the two premises above, I believe it follows logically that Paladins should be banned.

Since Premise #2 is entirely false, your argument is invalid. (Or is it "unsound"? I can never remember the difference...)

The Exchange 3/5

David Higaki wrote:

They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class.:

According to what? In the tables I have run, the most PvP I've seen is either from an alchemist missing with his bombs and really bad luck when a bad guy casts confusion over the party (resulting in a humorous situation where a player used a reroll to NOT confirm a crit against another PC while confused and thus not killing her).

As stated above, the PvP situations you are alluding to isn't necessarily caused by the paladin PC but the non-paladins who feel slighted that the paladin would cause them to do something they don't want to do. That isn't a paladin problem but a player-to-player problem.

it is exactly a paladin problem. a lawful good character can bend any way they want to due to moral arguments and situations with no actual repercussions. paladins do not have this flexibility. paladins must " 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..." or they lose all class abilities. the other characters are not tied down in this way, so if there is a source of conflict, it is clearly the paladin.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
if i argue that vivisectionists, undead lords and gravewalker witches should be allowed using this same exact argument, how does that make me look?

None of those are Core classes. In fact, they aren't even classes, they're just archtypes. Do you really think Paizo is going to allow PFS to ban any CORE class?

Grand Lodge 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think in order to answer this question . . .

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
if i argue that vivisectionists, undead lords and gravewalker witches should be allowed using this same exact argument, how does that make me look?

I really need to answer this question:

Tobi, The Masked One wrote:
Why do we trust players being paladins not to be jerks but don't trust players to be Vivisectionists, Undead Lord clerics, allowing witches to have certain hexes, allowing Blood Biography, etc.? Its public perception. Neutrality leaning towards good and banning evil will always be more accepted than true neutrality banning extremes, and that is the true bias here.

Tobi has hit on a key point. The campaign, and the people who have official powers to decide what is legal within PFS, is trying to be neutral, leaning towards good. When the paladin is causing trouble, it is usually because he is doing something like being honest, or trying to stop party members from killing a defenseless prisoner. If an undead lord is being disruptive is is usually because he is desecrating corpses that were "resting in peace". I think that goes deeper than just public perception. There's a significant moral difference between those two things.

Why is the campaign not "neutral, banning extremes"? I feel like the weight of precedent in Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder style games (and certainly the overwhelming majority of large, organized play campaigns) has been on playing the good guys, and going out into the world to combat evil. You can be shiny good guys (Sir Galahad, Superman, Michael Carpenter, or Ollysta Zadrian) or darker, edgier good guys (Robin Hood, Batman, Harry Dresden, or Colson Maldris) but you don't get to play the bad guys. If the campaign authors are going to write a module, with some bad guys in it for you to oppose, they want to assume you fall within some broad category of people who would oppose undead running amok in Absalom, or demons pouring out of the World Wound.

I've played in individual games that permitted evil characters. I've played in games that were entirely evil characters. Those can be quite enjoyable, but I don't think they hold up well on the scale of PFS. You want some sort of assurance that the random cast of characters that show up at your table is on the same side, and willing to work together. One way to encourage that is the "no evil" rule. Evil doesn't have to be psychopathic, I know, but it generally comes with a "doesn't play well with others" vibe. Another way to encourage that is the Pathfinder creed, "Explore, Report, Cooperate". If your paladin is so tight to the code that he can't cooperate, then he's not a good Pathfinder either. My personal opinion (and we may just have to agree to disagree if it comes down to opinion) is that a paladin is easier to make fit the system than an evil character.

5/5 5/55/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Computers getting crashy, so short version:

Logic is a opponent for experimental evidence.

We HAVE paladins in the campaign. They've been less of a problem than the rules for shield bashing.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City

Hangman Henry IX wrote:


it is exactly a paladin problem. a lawful good character can bend any way they want to due to moral arguments and situations with no actual repercussions. paladins do not have this flexibility. paladins must " 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..." or they lose all class abilities. the other characters are not tied down in this way, so if there is a source of conflict, it is clearly the paladin.

But that is not a PvP issue, that's either the GM making things tough for the paladin because the PC is a paladin (e.g., making the paladin suffer for the actions of paladin's party members) or the PCs not respecting that one of their teammates is a paladin and thus makes things tough for the paladin.

Just to ask, why were you inspired to create this thread? Do you have a problem with a paladin player or are seeing one run into problems?

Sovereign Court 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Since Premise #2 is entirely false, your argument is invalid. (Or is it "unsound"? I can never remember the difference...)

The OP argument was, logically speaking, valid. But when a premise is shown to be false, then the argument is unsound. So yeah, the second thing you said ;)

The Exchange 3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Computers getting crashy, so short version:

Logic is a opponent for experimental evidence.

We HAVE paladins in the campaign. They've been less of a problem than the rules for shield bashing.

i have never been at a table where shield bashing has been a problem. however, i can think of at least three scenarios where a paladin's code has derailed the adventure.

Cultist's Kiss
Severing Ties
Bloodcove Disguise

i have been attempting to avoid spoilers, which may be hurting my arguments.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City

I've ran the latter two with paladins. If you would, please spoiler tag what happened in those latter two games. I have a gut feeling as to what happened, but I want to know for sure before I comment.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Computers getting crashy, so short version:

Logic is a opponent for experimental evidence.

We HAVE paladins in the campaign. They've been less of a problem than the rules for shield bashing.

i have never been at a table where shield bashing has been a problem. however, i can think of at least three scenarios where a paladin's code has derailed the adventure.

Cultist's Kiss
Severing Ties
Bloodcove Disguise

i have been attempting to avoid spoilers, which may be hurting my arguments.

I haven't played at your tables (far as I know) but I have played some of those adventures. I'd disagree with your view and suggest (while remining mindful that I wasn't there) that it is more likely that it was the Paladin's player and or the Game Master who couldn't find appropriate ways to roleplay/allow roleplay to happen.

The Exchange 3/5

David Higaki wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:


it is exactly a paladin problem. a lawful good character can bend any way they want to due to moral arguments and situations with no actual repercussions. paladins do not have this flexibility. paladins must " 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..." or they lose all class abilities. the other characters are not tied down in this way, so if there is a source of conflict, it is clearly the paladin.

But that is not a PvP issue, that's either the GM making things tough for the paladin because the PC is a paladin (e.g., making the paladin suffer for the actions of paladin's party members) or the PCs not respecting that one of their teammates is a paladin and thus makes things tough for the paladin.

Just to ask, why were you inspired to create this thread? Do you have a problem with a paladin player or are seeing one run into problems?

it came up in a discussion on why certain things are banned, be they archetypes or feats.

someone was saying divine protection was most likely banned because it stepped on paladin's toes. someone else was talking about how they feel "creepy" archetypes and spells aren't allowed because of potential conflict with paladins. if these features are in fact not allowed because of paladins, it seems to me the problem lies more in the paladin than the other features.

Sovereign Court 5/5

I don't think the ACG feat that replicates the paladin class ability was banned because it replicated a class ability...

I think it's more likely it was banned because it was simply too good to not take... and/or it would prove to be so commonplace that the DCs of traps and spellcasting would have to be tweaked upwards to compensate, punishing those who don't take the feat and feeding a vicious cycle of the feat becoming more and more common.

Furthermore the creepy stuff that's banned isn't banned because Paladins would have a hard time cooperating with them.. they're banned because they're evil. More than just paladins would have a problem with witches cooking people in to potions, and etc.

Necromancers get a 'nerf' because of the rules around organized play. Doesn't do to allow them to animate dead in last week's adventure and still have those zombies and such as an available resource in this week's. It's the nature of the campaign.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Hangman wrote:
They often slow down gameplay, due to arguments on how to deal with evil creatures or items, and in many of the scenarios that request that you obfuscate the truth.

EVERYTHING slows down gameplay with arguments. Perception checks, the darkness rules, mapping, the web spell, darkness rules, weird class combinations, the darkness rules, searching, cover

Quote:
They seem to have canon issues - why are the LG holy warriors working with thieves and murderers, ahem, i mean "a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil".

And right there you've answered your own question. The society DOES have a reputation as a legendary league of a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil. THAT is certainly an organization could join. Knowledge is power. Power that can be turned against evil. Power that HAS Been turned against evil at least twice (see seasons 4 and 5)

When it comes down to it, the Pathfinder society will save the world, its where they keep all their stuff. And when they need to do that, they have paladins.

Quote:
In fact their code of honor in many instances requires them to break the code of the society. "Explore, Report, Cooperate." A paladin's code of honor can be broken in many instances by accepting aid from people they should be cooperating with.

They are allowed to work with evil against a greater evil. Since none of the PFS characters are allowed to be evil this has to be handled on a case by case basis.

Quote:
They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class.

Everyone potentially has the same amount of PVP.

Quote:
No other archetype/class has as much built in potential for friction.

Necromancers. Same in party problems, but people throw paladins parades. They throw necromancers torch and pitchfork parties.

Quote:
Other players can put paladins in situations where they should either be breaking their code and losing their class abilities or engaging in pvp and losing their characters.

No. A paladin is not the party's commanding officer. Since a paladin has absolutely no control over pathfinder agents/his fellow players, he has no responsibility for their actions.

Quote:
This can affect wealth for the party. There are many missions (any missions requiring subtlety, theft, or other forms of subterfuge) where the paladin's code requires that the paladin either not take part in the mission or make the party fail.

Paladins CAN sneak. They're just usually horrible at it. "My, what lovely peasant architecture. I think i shall examine it more closely" is an option for a paladin, and probably their best bet of helping the party too.

Quote:
Thus, I contend that Paladins conflict with many aspects of the campaign

You're talking hypotheticals. Even good arguments are really, really weak against experimental evidence and some of yours are really stretching.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
David Higaki wrote:

They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class.:

According to what? In the tables I have run, the most PvP I've seen is either from an alchemist missing with his bombs and really bad luck when a bad guy casts confusion over the party (resulting in a humorous situation where a player used a reroll to NOT confirm a crit against another PC while confused and thus not killing her).

As stated above, the PvP situations you are alluding to isn't necessarily caused by the paladin PC but the non-paladins who feel slighted that the paladin would cause them to do something they don't want to do. That isn't a paladin problem but a player-to-player problem.

it is exactly a paladin problem. a lawful good character can bend any way they want to due to moral arguments and situations with no actual repercussions. paladins do not have this flexibility. paladins must " 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..." or they lose all class abilities. the other characters are not tied down in this way, so if there is a source of conflict, it is clearly the paladin.

Using your logic, my LG Warpreist should be banned and my TN Cleric of Pharasma, and my NG Wizard/Maagambain Arcanist. All of whom have strong feelings about the Truth, Undead (and the animation there of) and other RP elements you dislike about these sorts

Sorry, I feel your premises are flawed and reflect only your outlook on the situation.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
LazarX wrote:

I'll have to tell several groups that they're doing something wrong. They each have Paladins and have absolutely no problems with them at all!

Your demnonstrated expertise proves that they MUST be doing something wrong even though they and I have completely missed on what it must be.

If you're going to make a set of assertions to alter a major aspect of the campaign. You need to follow up with DATA. Believe it or not, they're not going to scupper a class on your word alone.

I'm not sure what sort of DATA you would like to see. so how about some missions where honestly stating you are a pathfinder hurts your team:

scars of the 3rd crusade
bloodcove disguise
shadows last stand parts 1 & 2
red harvest
you have what you hold
cultist's kiss

how a gm decides to rule whether a paladin breaks his code of honor by lying during this missions can vary pretty widely.

of course, if missions had tags such as "subterfuge" "heavy roleplay" "heavy combat" paladins could just avoid the subterfuge missions, and thus avoid creating some potential of party conflict.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Computers getting crashy, so short version:

Logic is a opponent for experimental evidence.

We HAVE paladins in the campaign. They've been less of a problem than the rules for shield bashing.

i have never been at a table where shield bashing has been a problem. however, i can think of at least three scenarios where a paladin's code has derailed the adventure.

Cultist's Kiss
Severing Ties
Bloodcove Disguise

i have been attempting to avoid spoilers, which may be hurting my arguments.

Well...

The same could be said of most barbarians or "kill them all" characters in diplomacy and role-play heavy modules. I saw 1 NPC's check box not ticked off on a chronicle sheet cos that damn barb can't diplo!

What about banning all those poor 2+int mod classes from scenarios that need a ton of skill+Knowledge checks? You know how many boons were lost cos no one could make that knowledge roll?!?!

Or ban Rogues, cos you know they are just going to be a liability on any mission with golems or elementals. Missions will fail cos the party has to go and rescue those poor 2/3bab, sneak attack not working babies.

OH! And since most clerics are clearly good for healing, lets ban all negative-channel clerics. I mean, come on! The party needs heals! Not negative energy, those are just game enders.

And not to mention the TON of feats and powers that are in the grey area of table variation and "up to the GM". Those surely got to go! So much time wasted! And in the end? No 2 PP cos the game took too long!

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Let's just ban the murderhobos and let them have Aspis Consortium Organized Play.

Actually, that's a really interesting idea. The idea of an opposing faction affecting the meta plot could be interesting, especially durring some of those Con special games.

Lantern Lodge 5/5 * Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
David Higaki wrote:

Just to ask, why were you inspired to create this thread? Do you have a problem with a paladin player or are seeing one run into problems?

it came up in a discussion on why certain things are banned, be they archetypes or feats.

someone was saying divine protection was most likely banned because it stepped on paladin's toes. someone else was talking about how they feel "creepy" archetypes and spells aren't allowed because of potential conflict with paladins. if these features are in fact not allowed because of paladins, it seems to me the problem lies more in the paladin than the other features.

Paladins have a lot of cool powers (smite evil, lay on hands, auras, etc.), but the ability to cause archetypes to be banned is not one of them :P

As Mike Brock has stated, stuff like that is usually banned either: the flavor is not what they want in the Pathfinder Society, the archetypes/feats are deemed too evil for the campaign world, because it's something that the campaign leadership wants to be special chronicle sheet rewards, or because it was believed to be undercosted for its power.

While it's coincidental that paladins fight evil and undead masters work constantly with evil and the undead master got banned, paladins are not the cause. Relatedly, removing paladins from PFS play would not bring those banned options back, either.

Dark Archive

deusvult wrote:

Direct PvP is not allowed, and neither is bullying. Those rules prevent a Paladin from taking action to 'redeem' evildoers that happen to work alongside a Paladin.

A Paladin IS still allowed however to roleplay any attempts to convince such wayward folk to the obviously superior ways of the higher moral ground. You just can't FORCE them or punish them for noncompliance. That's a roleplaying challenge that a player deliberately takes upon himself when he picks the class. There are potentially issues in a player being new to PFS not realizing this, but that can't be legislated against. The PvP and bullying rules are there up front; if you don't realize the implications, that's on you.

All that being said, passive aggressive PvP is completely legal in PFS. Does that Chelaxian spellcaster with the Imp require healing? Well, there's no rule saying YOU have to be the one to do it. You're completely in your rights to judge anything at all as being more pressing, up to and including passing on your turn while you "make sure your boots' laces are tied" while the devil-dealing evil-doer bleeds out.

"I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

Yeah, if I was at a table and saw somebody pulled this crap I'd probably walk right then and there, consequences or no consequences. That's just plain unacceptable.

The Exchange 3/5

Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:

Premise #2:

I am aware of many aspects of the campaign with which paladins conflict.
They often slow down gameplay, due to arguments on how to deal with evil creatures or items, and in many of the scenarios that request that you obfuscate the truth.

Wrong. Rules debates slow down gameplay, and how to apply the paladin's code just happens to be one of them.

Quote:
They seem to have canon issues - why are the LG holy warriors working with thieves and murderers, ahem, i mean "a legendary league of explorers, archaeologists, and adventurers dedicated to discovering and chronicling the greatest mysteries and wonders of an ancient world beset by magic and evil".

Wrong. In-canon, paladins also work alongside devil-worshippers and other evil people within the Hellknights (of which there are paladin members). Thus, their membership in the in-universe PFS does not create canonical conflict.

Quote:
In fact their code of honor in many instances requires them to break the code of the society. "Explore, Report, Cooperate."

Citation needed.

Quote:
A paladin's code of honor can be broken in many instances by accepting aid from people they should be cooperating with.

Wrong. The paladin's code explicitly allows working with not only neutral, but outright evil allies if it's for what the paladin believes to be the greater good. Your assertion flat-out contradicts the rules of the class.

Quote:
They potentially lead to PvP more than any other archetype/class. No other archetype/class has as much built in potential for friction.

Wrong. AoE casters, and especially alchemists' ability to miss with a bomb, are the ones with the most class-dependent tendency toward PvP. Anything else is a player/GM behavior issue, not a product of the class.

Quote:
Other players can put paladins in situations where they should either be breaking their code and losing their class abilities or engaging in pvp and losing their characters.
Wrong....

jiggy, as happy i am that you actually replied to the topic with a reasoned argument, i feel that you are failing to grasp subtleties here.

You admit they lead to rules debates which in turn slow down gameplay, and yet you say that my argument that they potentially slow down gameplay is wrong. Are you arguing that because they are just another rules argument that somehow they aren't a problem?

True, paladins work with hellknights to combat evil in the worldwound. while the pfs did recently travel near the worldwound, its goals were to explore an ancient castle, not to combat demons. is the canon that paladins will work alongside people to combat great evils or to just gather up artifacts and explore?

i like that you ask for citation there. real funny.

if they accept infernal healing, help from evil summoned creatures, help from animated undead, help from worshipers of evil gods, in instances where such help is not in service to any particular "greater good" they break their code. seeing as how "greater good" is entirely subjective and open to GM/player interpretation, this potentially leads to more conflicts. as a gm, reading that the society is a neutral organization i would assume most of the time the missions they are sent on are not for any sort of "greater good".

as for the pvp thing, i admit you are right. i should have phrased this differently. no other class has as much of a built in roleplaying reason for friction.

for subterfuge. i don't know how to argue this point. this is one of those points of gm/player contention. there are more than a few missions where the players are pointedly told to not admit they are pathfinders, and are later asked if they are pathfinders. perhaps you haven't played them?

as far as gm rulings about money, i'm pretty sure you will find a lot of table variance for this. i know we would all love it if all gms ruled the same way, but they don't, and to blame the variance on the gms instead of the source of the problem (people correctly roleplaying characters who do not wish to break apart all objects, cut up all corpses, and smash and grab in order to get all loot) is just irresponsible.

also, i like how sure of yourself you are. you slew my arguments with such gusto! and yet, like much gusto, your arguments are at least as invalid as you claim mine to be.

Sovereign Court 5/5

BlackOuroboros wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Direct PvP is not allowed, and neither is bullying. Those rules prevent a Paladin from taking action to 'redeem' evildoers that happen to work alongside a Paladin.

A Paladin IS still allowed however to roleplay any attempts to convince such wayward folk to the obviously superior ways of the higher moral ground. You just can't FORCE them or punish them for noncompliance. That's a roleplaying challenge that a player deliberately takes upon himself when he picks the class. There are potentially issues in a player being new to PFS not realizing this, but that can't be legislated against. The PvP and bullying rules are there up front; if you don't realize the implications, that's on you.

All that being said, passive aggressive PvP is completely legal in PFS. Does that Chelaxian spellcaster with the Imp require healing? Well, there's no rule saying YOU have to be the one to do it. You're completely in your rights to judge anything at all as being more pressing, up to and including passing on your turn while you "make sure your boots' laces are tied" while the devil-dealing evil-doer bleeds out.

"I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

Yeah, if I was at a table and saw somebody pulled this crap I'd probably walk right then and there, consequences or no consequences. That's just plain unacceptable.

I hope you'd do the same then if people are pulling the "I'm gonna act out against your interests, Mr Paladin, and you can't stop me because then it'd be PVP!" act. I was just illustrating what a Paladin could do back to such a jerk-hole while still remaining legal. Assuming of course the PFS GM didn't shut it down in the bud to begin with.

Sovereign Court 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
if they accept infernal healing, help from evil summoned creatures, help from animated undead, help from worshipers of evil gods, in instances where such help is not in service to any particular "greater good" they break their code. seeing as how "greater good" is entirely subjective and open to GM/player interpretation, this potentially leads to more conflicts. as a gm, reading that the society is a neutral organization i would assume most of the time the missions they are sent on are not for any sort of "greater good".

Actually that's not true.

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an evil act, so benefitting from it certainly can't be.

A paladin won't fall from getting an infernal healing, either. He "should" roleplay not wanting it/feeling dirty for having received it, but mechanically there is no consequence.

The Exchange 3/5

since this page has mostly just been people telling me i am wrong and that their experiences somehow invalidate my own, i will just shift the argument myself.

hey guys, people have problems with paladins! what can be done to assuage the issues people have with them?

make the pfs actually good aligned, and no longer having missions of questionable morality. the upside here would be paladins get to always be in the right, which is what they want to be anyways. the downside of this solution is that it is boring and makes the story less interesting. people like subterfuge and morally grey objectives. the world has established paladins will work with fiends if it is for the sake of the whole. while i do not personally see any connection between what the society does as a neutral organization and the greater good, the silver crusade is trying to change that. mebbe they could win?

have tags for adventures. not knowing what sort of mission you are doing is probably the biggest reason paladins mess up the mission. why would the venture captains or whatever send a paladin on a mission where they will be doing evil rituals in order to infiltrate a cult? or on a mission to pretend to be aspis consortium? tagging adventures as "deadly", "social", "subterfuge" wouldn't take a ton of work to implement, and would allow players to know beforehand what kind of characters are expected. the downside of this is that in small groups where there aren't a lot of characters paladins cold be potentially excluded from games.

for a lot of people with multiple gm stars, i don't see a lot of problem solving going on here on the boards. at the table do you guys try to find ways to let the players do what they want? or do you just argue that they are wrong?

The Exchange 3/5

deusvult wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
if they accept infernal healing, help from evil summoned creatures, help from animated undead, help from worshipers of evil gods, in instances where such help is not in service to any particular "greater good" they break their code. seeing as how "greater good" is entirely subjective and open to GM/player interpretation, this potentially leads to more conflicts. as a gm, reading that the society is a neutral organization i would assume most of the time the missions they are sent on are not for any sort of "greater good".

Actually that's not true.

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not an evil act, so benefitting from it certainly can't be.

A paladin won't fall from getting an infernal healing, either. He "should" roleplay not wanting it/feeling dirty for having received it, but mechanically there is no consequence.

i actually agree with you on this, but have been at tables where the gm ruled otherwise. can we at least agree that there isn't a class with as much table variance for whether they actually get to use their class abilities as paladins?

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having a Paladin at a table is as simple as the GM or player makes it.

Here are some simple solutions to the problems with the paladin code:

Don't expect the paladin to be held responsible for the conduct of other players, as that is outside the realm of the player's control. Don't let the paladin act as the party police because there's nothing in the paladin code of conduct that requires that, and it just makes everyone else mad. Don't subject the paladin to overzealous or extreme interpretations of the code of conduct, as those rules are ambiguous and the more forgiving interpretations are just as valid. Don't hold the code of conduct over the Paladin's head unless they're actively going out of their way to violate it. Do have the paladin tolerate other characters. Do make sure that the paladin's independent decisions adhere to their code. Do make sure that the paladin is playing nice with everyone else.

The campaign has been running a long time with Paladins as a legal class and most people seem to get along just fine.

Sammy put it nicely.

Quote:
everyone acts like an adult and we all have fun.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, to be honest it sounds like your problems you've observed have been through overly-narrow interpretations of what is and what is not a code violation for a Paladin.

Once you (or the problem GMs you've observed) get past the notion that a paladin's code of conduct does not prohibit things like chicanery and subterfuge and cooperation with unpleasant allies, I think the problem resolves itself.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Casting it is not an evil act, but

Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Linky

emphasis mine. If there's really only one "the code" in the game and it belongs to the dentine brigade. He really should avoid that unless its DIRE circumstances. (having to spend an extra 1.2 gold per point of healing is NOT dire circumstance)

well, you at least need to use bluff the second time...

Dark Archive

deusvult wrote:
BlackOuroboros wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Direct PvP is not allowed, and neither is bullying. Those rules prevent a Paladin from taking action to 'redeem' evildoers that happen to work alongside a Paladin.

A Paladin IS still allowed however to roleplay any attempts to convince such wayward folk to the obviously superior ways of the higher moral ground. You just can't FORCE them or punish them for noncompliance. That's a roleplaying challenge that a player deliberately takes upon himself when he picks the class. There are potentially issues in a player being new to PFS not realizing this, but that can't be legislated against. The PvP and bullying rules are there up front; if you don't realize the implications, that's on you.

All that being said, passive aggressive PvP is completely legal in PFS. Does that Chelaxian spellcaster with the Imp require healing? Well, there's no rule saying YOU have to be the one to do it. You're completely in your rights to judge anything at all as being more pressing, up to and including passing on your turn while you "make sure your boots' laces are tied" while the devil-dealing evil-doer bleeds out.

"I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

Yeah, if I was at a table and saw somebody pulled this crap I'd probably walk right then and there, consequences or no consequences. That's just plain unacceptable.
I hope you'd do the same then if people are pulling the "I'm gonna act out against your interests, Mr Paladin, and you can't stop me because then it'd be PVP!" act. I was just illustrating what a Paladin could do back to such a jerk-hole while still remaining legal. Assuming of course the PFS GM didn't shut it down in the bud to begin with.

Yeah, your hypothetical paladin sounds like a prima donna jerk, full stop. This kind of behavior is exactly WHY the paladin class has such a bad rap in the first place; it grants the players who want to exert an undue level of control over the game the bludgeon required to allow it. "We have to do things my way or the high way" carries more clout when you have a built-in class feature that allows for it. Now, in a close knit group this is okay; after all they know who they're gaming with so it is on them. However, in PFS you're in a group of semi-strangers that needs to work together to get through a module in a limited amount of time. You're members of a team that needs to accomplish a goal; if you have an ethical problem with a situation then you say "I have a problem with this, here's another solution." If the rest of the group votes to overrule you then you suck it up and move on. If you have a character that can't suck it up and move on then it's time to make a character who can because that that point you are being disruptive. Note that letting NPCs die in PFS is substantially different than letting players die; you are costing that real, living person resources because of your temper-tantrum.

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / An argument for why paladins should be banned All Messageboards