| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One big thing - remember that the court system isn't like our modern one. Torture may be evil - summary execution for evil doers isn't evil. Holding a serial killer captive for the days needed to haul him back to town is just asking for something to go wrong.
I think of paladins this way:
(scene - paladin standing with blade drawn over an evil blackguard (or whatever) who has been disarmed, bound, and who's on his knees)
Paladin: "I find you guilty of murder, slavery, demon worship, and" he touches a cut on his face, "assault. The sentence is death."
Blackguard (or whatever): "Please forgive me!"
Paladin: *nods* "I forgive you. The count of assault is dropped. The sentence of death still stands."
Blackguard (or whatever): "But I thought you said you forgave me."
Paladin: "I do. But I can only forgive you for what you did to me. Justice must still be done for what you inflicted upon others."
*schlink* (sound of the paladin's sword coming down and decapitating the blackguard)
Ha! Very good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think paladins are the worst examples of righteous people out there. No matter how pious they are, some part of it is always to keep their powers.
You want to play a paladin-like character? Okay, play paladin the character and not paladin the class. The lowliest rogue that does right for no other reason than because it's right is, IMO, twenty times the saint that any so-called virtuous paladin. He has nothing to gain, and he's not at risk of losing anything if he refuses. The only thing at stake is his own integrity. Shouldn't that be enough?
So play a fighter or a rogue or a magus, and then just hold yourself to those high standards. Being good should not be to get new shinies. Being good should not be about avoiding the loss of your shinies. Playing a class with absolutely nothing at stake, no class abilities, no feats, no spells, makes it more worthwhile.
Heck, others have suggested Captain America as a source of inspiration. I completely agree. He's who he is because of how he acts, not what powers he has. He was a paladin when he threw his stick-figure body on top of that grenade (in the movie, anyway), not when he got the powerup. And if he were to turn evil, he would still be super strong, super fast, and super acrobatic.
There's an unarmed shield-slinger archetype in the ACG that simulates the Cap pretty well. I'd go with that, but which specific class doesn't actually matter. Keep the paladin's code if you want. Pick another code. Just keep "keeping your shinies" out of the reasons why you maintain that code.
I remember reading the qeS'A, the Klingon Art of War (yeah, someone actually translated/authored it). One thing that stuck with me was the emphasis on why a Klingon warrior should keep his word. Whether to the chancellor or emperor, or to his captain or general, or to his fellow soldiers or to the conquered peoples of the empire or an alien or hated foe or even a rock, the thing the Klingon warrior is keeping his word to is irrelevant. So far down the list of reasons why the warrior should keep his word that it's not even on the list at all. What matters is that he is a Klingon warrior and he gave his word. The buck stops there and that is all the reason he should need to keep it.
He doesn't keep his word to advance his career. Not to curry favor for his House. Not to avoid the loss of his ship or troops or lands. Getting new shinies and avoiding losing his existing shinies is not why. What matters is his integrity.
It seems to me that every bit of that also applies to a righteous person and why he does good. Class abilities and not losing them should not be a factor.
And since we're so keen to hold these fictional characters that we create for our Saturday afternoons off to such a high standard, let's do it right. Until Pathfinder makes a paladin without all those mechanical restrictions, the paladin is and remains the worst example of a "good guy" character.
I think paladins are the worst examples of righteous people out there. No matter how pious they are, some part of it is always to keep their powers.
You want to play a paladin-like character? Okay, play paladin the character and not paladin the class. The lowliest rogue that does right for no other reason than because it's right is, IMO, twenty times the saint that any so-called virtuous paladin. He has nothing to gain, and he's not at risk of losing anything if he refuses. The only thing at stake is his own integrity. Shouldn't that be enough?
So play a fighter or a rogue or a magus, and then just hold yourself to those high standards. Being good should not be to get new shinies. Being good should not be about avoiding the loss of your shinies. Playing a class with absolutely nothing at stake, no class abilities, no feats, no spells, makes it more worthwhile.
Heck, others have suggested Captain America as a source of inspiration. I completely agree. He's who he is because of how he acts, not what powers he has. He was a paladin when he threw his stick-figure body on top of that grenade (in the movie, anyway), not when he got the powerup. And if he were to turn evil, he would still be super strong, super fast, and super acrobatic.
There's an unarmed shield-slinger archetype in the ACG that simulates the Cap pretty well. I'd go with that, but which specific class doesn't actually matter. Keep the paladin's code if you want. Pick another code. Just keep "keeping your shinies" out of the reasons why you maintain that code.
Ehhh that's a bit harsh.
I see it as that weird middle ground of RP vs Mechanics. You're absolutely right that if you want to play a pious decent guy you should totally do that with any class. For the most part I do that quite often. I prefer playing 'heroes' and not 'vigilantes'.
However, the entire system IS based around the idea of leveling up and gaining shiny new toys with each level... I don't see any reason why a paladin character should feel guilty because he's being a 'good guy' AND gets shiny things as he levels.
I don't like 'because I'll fall' as a reason for not doing bad things... It's a FACT, but that isn't why a Paladin should not torture or steal...
He shouldn't do those things because of who he is... not what he'll lose. The powers are a perk for staying on the path. If he had no powers, he should STILL be on that path.
But for Game purposes, I'm glad they're there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy playing my paladin as a womanizer and totally disregards chivalry. The bit that is most important is what you consider honor to be. There are black and white scenarios, poison, cheating, attacking unarmed person. But then there are places where its more grey then that.
Chivalry? Womanizing? Reminds me of this:
http://www.redditian.com/r/standupshots/2beba9
However, the entire system IS based around the idea of leveling up and gaining shiny new toys with each level... I don't see any reason why a paladin character should feel guilty because he's being a 'good guy' AND gets shiny things as he levels.
You have the same thing with a paladin-played Fighter or a paladin-played wizard. They don 't (and shouldn't) feel guilty about their new shinies because they earn them through whatever they do to get those experience points, fighting monsters, clearing dungeons, saving the day, stealing loot, whatever. Whether good or evil, they're earning their new shinies.
But only the paladin-played Paladin is doing good (partly) to keep what he's already earned. If he earned it once and got to keep it, no questions asked, I'd be saying differently. But there's always an angle for him.
|
Talk to your GM before playing a paladin. There are a ton of different potential ways to play a paladin. Any given person/GM will accept a different subset of those ways as being a proper paladin. This thread is proof of that.
As for being a stick in the mud, the biggest thing to remember is that while a paladin wants to encourage their teammates to be Good, and preferably LG, they don't have to hold others to the same standards as they hold themselves.
@Tectorman - that is a problem inherent to a class with a fall condition. Any idea to fix it, aside from avoiding the class? phantom1592's suggestion is a decent one from an RP perspective but not perfect. And of course while you certainly can play any class and keep to the paladin code, some people do enjoy the paladin mechanics.
Agree... Pally-hood is about faith in a higher power, and Carrot hasn't really shown any. Of course this seems to be pretty standard on the Disk. There are a LOT of gods (they have a god of Hangovers for dog's sake) but the religions don't seem to have a huge impact on the day-to-day lives of the inhabitance. Then again, Carrot can be said to have faith in goodness. He seems to believe in the goodness of everyone, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Pratchett likes to play with all kinds of fantasy tropes and I feel like Carrot and Vimes are intended to explore different takes on LG. Neither of them are strictly speaking paladins but they're fine models for players of paladins - though I personally think of Vimes as an Inquisitor, not because of his behavior but because of his skill set (including stealth, knowledge local, perception, survival for tacking/traps)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish that the Paladin and Antipaladin were replaced by a more general Holy Warrior class that had different variants for each alignment. The Lawful Good variant would often happen to be called Paladins and work the same as Paladins currently do. This would allow for much more variety of Holy Warriors than what you can actually have with Paladins and Antipaladins without an awful lot of shoehorning (of which I have seen some earlier in this thread), and would mean that more deities than just those in the vicinity of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil could commission Holy Warriors; this particular polarization always seemed like a weird dichotomy, anyway. This should also include a Hellknight base class archetype (unfortunately, would have to use a different name for settings other than Golarion). After all, why is it that a Paladin who falls all the way to the ways of the Abyss can become a powerful Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin who falls to the ways of Hell? And why is it that a Paladin who falls to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good effectively gets punished worse than one who falls all the way to Chaotic Evil?
I wish that the Paladin and Antipaladin were replaced by a more general Holy Warrior class that had different variants for each alignment. The Lawful Good variant would often happen to be called Paladins and work the same as Paladins currently do. This would allow for much more variety of Holy Warriors than what you can actually have with Paladins and Antipaladins without an awful lot of shoehorning (of which I have seen some earlier in this thread), and would mean that more deities than just those in the vicinity of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil could commission Holy Warriors; this particular polarization always seemed like a weird dichotomy, anyway. This should also include a Hellknight base class archetype (unfortunately, would have to use a different name for settings other than Golarion). After all, why is it that a Paladin who falls all the way to the ways of the Abyss can become a powerful Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin who falls to the ways of Hell? And why is it that a Paladin who falls to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good effectively gets punished worse than one who falls all the way to Chaotic Evil?
Because Alignment is dumb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^I wouldn't say it is dumb, but it does suffer from some distortions. The above problem is closely related to a rotation in the alignment graph, where Lawful Neutral is most often portrayed as Lawful Good Lite, while Chaotic Neutral is most often portrayed as Chaotic Evil Lite, but not the other way, and Lawful Good is often portrayed as more Good than Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, while Chaotic Evil is often portrayed as more Evil than Neutral Evil and especially Lawful Evil. This is part of why WotC went to their weirdly-shaped (quasi-1-dimensional) Alignment system in D&D 4th Edition (which fortunately they seemed to have abandoned in 5th Edition in favor of what they used to have -- I haven't heard whether they will resurrect Planescape, though). Problem is: Not only do most people on Earth not handle a 2 dimensional Alignment system very well, they don't even handle a 1 dimensional Alignment system very well (from a recent former occupant of highest office in our land: "If you're not with us, you're against us!").
I've played Paladins extensively over the years and I can agree with many of the posts on this thread, talking with your DM is paramount in knowing how a Paladin will work in that world.
There's your standard LG Paladin, goody two-shoes, uphold honor and all that jazz, I always played them like Arthurian knights.
Now, what I've used in my settings, and the DM I play with has used, are a group of different aligned paladin variants.
The normal Paladin, LG. The Paladin of Freedom, CG. The Paladin of Tyranny, LE. The Paladin of Slaughter, CE.
The Paladin of Freedom was the one I played the most, it allows far more wiggle room in terms of what you can and can't do.
Otherwise it's in the player and the DM to figure it out. There was a campaign were my LG Paladin actually worked with a Devil for a short time because the Bard pointed out that, "Those necromancers bound him here, all he wants is to kill them. And his anchor to this world is this statue that I've got. All we have to do is let him soften them up, I smash the statue, and he bamfs back to Hell."
"And if that doesn't work?"
"Then some necromancers are dead and you attack him anyway."
However, the entire system IS based around the idea of leveling up and gaining shiny new toys with each level... I don't see any reason why a paladin character should feel guilty because he's being a 'good guy' AND gets shiny things as he levels.You have the same thing with a paladin-played Fighter or a paladin-played wizard. They don 't (and shouldn't) feel guilty about their new shinies because they earn them through whatever they do to get those experience points, fighting monsters, clearing dungeons, saving the day, stealing loot, whatever. Whether good or evil, they're earning their new shinies.
But only the paladin-played Paladin is doing good (partly) to keep what he's already earned. If he earned it once and got to keep it, no questions asked, I'd be saying differently. But there's always an angle for him.
If played correctly, Druids, monks, an especially clerics should run the same 'break alignment/upset god lose your powers...
Well, not monks... they just don't get to level any more in that class.
But anyone who gains power from an outside source... has to toe the line or LOSE that source...
Paladins have the most obvious 'walk the line or fall..' but if you have a paladin of a LG god and a Cleric of the same god... then their codes/ideals/standards should PRETTY much be the same. If one starts stealing,lying,torturing... either one should lose their powers.
Frankly I think EVERY player should have SOME kind of motivation/code that their character choses to obey... if they abuse their ideals, there should be a penalty... Perhaps not 'whole class is nerfed'... but knights and guards caught lying to officers get punished... Get caught lying to the king, you lose political influence... All actions should have consequences... It really shouldn't be a 'Paladin ONLY' issue when Good characters stop doing GOOD things...
I've really NEVER had a game where the paladin objected to some immoral behavior... that 2-3 OTHER Good characters didn't ALSO object...
I enjoy playing my paladin as a womanizer and totally disregards chivalry. The bit that is most important is what you consider honor to be. There are black and white scenarios, poison, cheating, attacking unarmed person. But then there are places where its more grey then that.
Disregarding chivalry? Engaging in womanising? Sounds like actual knights.
|
@Kydeem: I'd put a little more emphasis on the give-and-take between the player of the paladin and the other players. It doesn't all have to come from the paladin's player. If someone wants to play a paladin, I think the rest of the party should also respect that and not make heinously incompatible characters. (A bit of playful tension is entertaining of course. It's fine that the paladin sometimes feels like chiding the other PCs.) If the paladin doesn't have a greatsword stuck up his, then that shouldn't cut out too many things for the other people to play.
It's certainly true that a party with a paladin in it will be a bit more straight-laced than one with a barbarian as the primary martial. You don't need to have a paladin in every campaign.
---
I'm a bit puzzled by your "try an inquisitor instead" comment. I find them to be very different classes that do different things. If I wanted to play a paladin with a relaxed code the inquisitor would be a lackluster chassis, just because the class mechanics do quite different things. I might go for a Celestial Bloodrager instead, playing it like he carries around the Wrath of God. That bloodline is excellent for playing a holy warrior that's not actually based on divine/granted power at all, just the fire of his own beliefs.
I'm also a bit puzzled by the suggestion that a Code is a disadvantage to be avoided. I think if you play a paladin as it's meant to be (as opposed to trying to play a paladin that's going against expectations) the Code isn't really a burden. It can even be an advantage; because people know you're a Really Good Guy, you get a lot of credibility when talking to suspicious NPCs. The big strength of Lawful Good is that it makes people work together for the greater good, even if those people have personal differences.
---
With regard to establishing expectations: you should also give the player some needed information. Are evil races inherently evil, and is it okay to kill their children? Or are orcs just the product of a nasty culture with the possibility of redemption? I submit that paladins tend to flourish more in the Tolkienian black and white morality world. As I said before, they're military, not police.
This is somewhat separate from a Code; it's about establishing how (objective) morality and even genre will work in your campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the entire system IS based around the idea of leveling up and gaining shiny new toys with each level... I don't see any reason why a paladin character should feel guilty because he's being a 'good guy' AND gets shiny things as he levels.You have the same thing with a paladin-played Fighter or a paladin-played wizard. They don 't (and shouldn't) feel guilty about their new shinies because they earn them through whatever they do to get those experience points, fighting monsters, clearing dungeons, saving the day, stealing loot, whatever. Whether good or evil, they're earning their new shinies.
But only the paladin-played Paladin is doing good (partly) to keep what he's already earned. If he earned it once and got to keep it, no questions asked, I'd be saying differently. But there's always an angle for him.
By that logic - you haven't killed the mailman (partly) to not go to prison.
So - the only way to prove that you aren't really a physcho who wants to kill the mailman is if you lived in a world where there were no consequences for killing the mailman.
|
|
I enjoy playing my paladin as a womanizer and totally disregards chivalry. The bit that is most important is what you consider honor to be. There are black and white scenarios, poison, cheating, attacking unarmed person. But then there are places where its more grey then that.Disregarding chivalry? Engaging in womanising? Sounds like actual knights.
Yes - but does anyone think that most historical knights would qualify as paladins?
...
I'm a bit puzzled by your "try an inquisitor instead" comment. I find them to be very different classes that do different things. If I wanted to play a paladin with a relaxed code the inquisitor would be a lackluster chassis, just because the class mechanics do quite different things. I might go for a Celestial Bloodrager instead, playing it like he carries around the Wrath of God. That bloodline is excellent for playing a holy warrior that's not actually based on divine/granted power at all, just the fire of his own beliefs. ...
Most of the people I know that have played a paladin seem to get a bit confused on what they are actually looking for.
If you want a holy warrior dedicated to the deities ideals that is a bit more martial than a caster, I think inquisitor fits that flavor very well. There are other ways to get that flavor (your suggestion of celestial bloodrager works), but inquisitor is a fairly simple and obvious one.However, most of the ones that say they want to run a holy warrior are really just after the smite and/or great saves. You are correct that if you want those mechanics inquisitor doesn't give the same thing. But again, if you just want to nova damage against a specific foe and be hard to take out of action, inquisitor actually does do that very well.
...
I'm also a bit puzzled by the suggestion that a Code is a disadvantage to be avoided. I think if you play a paladin as it's meant to be (as opposed to trying to play a paladin that's going against expectations) the Code isn't really a burden. It can even be an advantage; because people know you're a Really Good Guy, you get a lot of credibility when talking to suspicious NPCs. The big strength of Lawful Good is that it makes people work together for the greater good, even if those people have personal differences. ...
As I said most of the players I have known in recent years, play a paladin to get the smite and/or great saves. So for most of them, the code IS a burden that they have to put up with to get the smite and saves. Some of them do actually get into the role and have fun with it, but the code was not really their goal.
I've really only known 1 player (and occasionally myself) that really was enamored of playing a dedicated holy warrior. If it had been available back then, I am quite sure he (and I) would have much preferred an inquisitor of a CG deity trying to free slaves and put down tyrants.
...
With regard to establishing expectations: you should also give the player some needed information. Are evil races inherently evil, and is it okay to kill their children? Or are orcs just the product of a nasty culture with the possibility of redemption? I submit that paladins tend to flourish more in the Tolkienian black and white morality world. As I said before, they're military, not police.This is somewhat separate from a Code; it's about establishing how (objective) morality and even genre will work in your campaign.
The usual for my campaigns is that alignment based outsiders are ‘always’ that alignment. Anything else is ‘usually’ a given alignment. Special cases are just that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I despise about paladin codes? When a clueless writer puts in something about "not having stuff for your own", that suggests you shouldn't try to get WBL. As if that's a realistic idea in PF.
I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
This is fine in a game where equipment isn't so important to the strength of your character, or where a Vow of Poverty thing really works. But that's not PF.
For my PC I use the logic that "technically all this equipment belongs to my church, who entrusts me with the use of it", but that doesn't really sound all that noble. More like a corporate tax evasion trick.
If you argue that you have a right to this equipment because you need it to survive, then the next question should be "if what I do for my faith is so important, why do I only have the stuff I looted? Why aren't I getting church sponsorship?"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think paladins are the worst examples of righteous people out there. No matter how pious they are, some part of it is always to keep their powers.
You want to play a paladin-like character? Okay, play paladin the character and not paladin the class. The lowliest rogue that does right for no other reason than because it's right is, IMO, twenty times the saint that any so-called virtuous paladin. He has nothing to gain, and he's not at risk of losing anything if he refuses. The only thing at stake is his own integrity. Shouldn't that be enough?Snip…
And since we're so keen to hold these fictional characters that we create for our Saturday afternoons off to such a high standard, let's do it right. Until Pathfinder makes a paladin without all those mechanical restrictions, the paladin is and remains the worst example of a "good guy" character.
See, I think you are confusing the player and his cynical modern sensibilities with the character. The fluff behind the mechanics is that the pally gets his powers because he is good, not that he is good to get his powers. They are a reward for him being what he IS, at his core. He isn't "so-called virtous" in order to retain his powers, he gains his powers beacuse he IS virtous. The mechanics are a benefit given to help the player keep his character on the “straight and narrow”. Basically, if a player wants to play a “paladin like character”, the mechanics give her a benefit outside pure RP. Sure a lot of players will roll one purely for the mechanical benefits, and those players are usually the ones who give the class the Lawful Stupid reputation.
|
|
Depends of course on which meaning of the word you use. The historical version was simply a title given to the Peers of Charlemagne, which interestingly enough, included two women among them. Modern media would give that name to two mercenaries, each with a very different personal code, the eponymous protagonist of "Have Gun Will Travel", and the amoral mercenary of that name in Marvel Comics. If we're talking about the D+D versions, not even the bulk of Arthur's Round Table would qualify.Yes - but does anyone think that most historical knights would qualify as paladins?I enjoy playing my paladin as a womanizer and totally disregards chivalry. The bit that is most important is what you consider honor to be. There are black and white scenarios, poison, cheating, attacking unarmed person. But then there are places where its more grey then that.Disregarding chivalry? Engaging in womanising? Sounds like actual knights.
Pretty much just Galahad. The rest were too big of jerks from time to time.
And Pathfinder paladins are what I meant. (sorry - thought it was implied in the context of this thread :P)
I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.
When you're crusading against demons, magic items are pretty necessary for survival.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're talking about the D+D versions, not even the bulk of Arthur's Round Table would qualify.Pretty much just Galahad. The rest were too big of jerks from time to time.
Er,... being a jerk does not disqualify you from paladinhood. Even acting in an evil fashion does not disqualify you from paladinhood -- it just means that you need to repent and atone.
I agree that very few actual historical knights came close to the behavior expected of Pathfinder paladins, but that's why the paladins of myth and legend were presented as a heroic ideal. (Very few actual WWII soldiers came close to the behavior of Captain America, either, and few Roman legionaries were Horatius.)
If we're looking at the Round Table, Lancelot is _the_ classic paladin, precisely because he's flawed. He's a knight without peer or equal, but his forbidden and adulterous love for Guinevere costs him his abilities, his honor, his sanity, and ultimately his chance to achieve the Grail. Only when he truly repents (after the fall of the Round Table) is he redeemed.
There's of course a parallel with Tristan as well; many scholars think that the later Lancelot stories borrowed from Tristan.
From a narrative perspective, this is to be expected. Galahad, the unflawed paladin, is a boring character who produces boring tales. Lancelot, Tristan, and Arthur are all interesting paladins precisely because of the will-they-succumb-or-won't-they tension. (That's also the reason that unresolved sexual tension is such a standard trope in so many tv shows.)
|
|
Er,... being a jerk does not disqualify you from paladinhood. Even acting in an evil fashion does not disqualify you from paladinhood -- it just means that you need to repent and atone.If we're talking about the D+D versions, not even the bulk of Arthur's Round Table would qualify.Pretty much just Galahad. The rest were too big of jerks from time to time.
I was using 'jerk' as shorthand for all of the going into murderous rages, killing the wrong people on accident, poisonings, etc that they got up to.
You know what I despise about paladin codes? When a clueless writer puts in something about "not having stuff for your own", that suggests you shouldn't try to get WBL. As if that's a realistic idea in PF.
I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.This is fine in a game where equipment isn't so important to the strength of your character, or where a Vow of Poverty thing really works. But that's not PF.
For my PC I use the logic that "technically all this equipment belongs to my church, who entrusts me with the use of it", but that doesn't really sound all that noble. More like a corporate tax evasion trick.
If you argue that you have a right to this equipment because you need it to survive, then the next question should be "if what I do for my faith is so important, why do I only have the stuff I looted? Why aren't I getting church sponsorship?"
That one... was a weird addition. That's probably the only part of the code that my paladin doesn't REALLY follow...
Admittedly, He's in Kingmaker... and is In fact the KING...
Personally, he IS a rather fair and just king. He doesn't make demands or expect catering to his wishes like most kings... but he really doesn't NEED to have a carriage or a castle or a second pair of pants....
But really, who determines what is really 'NEEDED'... Would the kingdom respect a king with holes in his pants and smelled like a horse... or do they need to prop him up with fancy clothes and gaze at the magnificent castle and thus feel a sense of national pride?
I don't know... anything involving that line feels like a loophole...
I'm sure they were trying to invoke the old 'paladins can only have 10 magic items' rule from 2E... but I don't like the vagueness of this. I would have preferred a more cut and dry 10% or 10 item magic or whatever...
As it is he spends his off time healing the sick and building cathedrals... so he doesn't take advantage of his crown or wealth :P
|
Here are two apropos Order of the Stick links:
A wonderful example of a Paladin deceiving someone with a truthful-but-misleading phrase. - "I did make that decision and it was my blade that did the deed"
|
|
The fluff behind the mechanics is that the pally gets his powers because he is good, not that he is good to get his powers. They are a reward for him being what he IS, at his core. He isn't "so-called virtous" in order to retain his powers, he gains his powers because he IS virtous.
Agreed.
The mechanics are a benefit given to help the player keep his character on the “straight and narrow”. Basically, if a player wants to play a “paladin like character”, the mechanics give her a benefit outside pure RP.
So why do you only get a mechanical benefit if you want to play a paladin-like charismatic warrior, and not a paladin-like arcane spellcaster?
Sure a lot of players will roll one purely for the mechanical benefits, and those players are usually the ones who give the class the Lawful Stupid reputation.
I don't think it's that simple. It's not just crunch fans who see paladins getting powers in exchange for rather than as a result of virtue (and the distinction between the two is complex).
I've seen people on the forum argue that a paladin must make an explicit vow to follow the paladin's code in order to formalize the exchange of powers for virtue - and that you cannot play a paladin who isn't aware of their paladin status and follows the code because it's the right thing to do.
For many people the paladin's and the world's awareness of the threat of falling is part of the mystique. Just look at the story linked on the first page. The villain says "you can't torture me because you would lose your powers" and the paladin says "If I'm going to lose my powers for torturing you, I'm going to make it worth it." "I look forward to falling," while dramatically impressive, is not the sentiment of someone who follows the paladin's code because it's the right thing to do - of someone who is the code.
|
|
You know what I despise about paladin codes? When a clueless writer puts in something about "not having stuff for your own", that suggests you shouldn't try to get WBL. As if that's a realistic idea in PF.
I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that which I need to survive.This is fine in a game where equipment isn't so important to the strength of your character, or where a Vow of Poverty thing really works. But that's not PF.
For my PC I use the logic that "technically all this equipment belongs to my church, who entrusts me with the use of it", but that doesn't really sound all that noble. More like a corporate tax evasion trick.
If you argue that you have a right to this equipment because you need it to survive, then the next question should be "if what I do for my faith is so important, why do I only have the stuff I looted? Why aren't I getting church sponsorship?"
That one... was a weird addition. That's probably the only part of the code that my paladin doesn't REALLY follow...
Admittedly, He's in Kingmaker... and is In fact the KING...
Personally, he IS a rather fair and just king. He doesn't make demands or expect catering to his wishes like most kings... but he really doesn't NEED to have a carriage or a castle or a second pair of pants....
But really, who determines what is really 'NEEDED'... Would the kingdom respect a king with holes in his pants and smelled like a horse... or do they need to prop him up with fancy clothes and gaze at the magnificent castle and thus feel a sense of national pride?
I'm sure they were trying to invoke the old 'paladins can only have 10 magic items' rule from 2E... but I don't like the vagueness of this. I would have preferred a more cut and dry 10% or 10 item magic or whatever...
As it is he spends his off time healing the sick and building cathedrals... so...
Yeah, that's what I dislike about it precisely. In order to play your character in any not-totally-absurdly-gimped or even moderately effective way, you have to weasel past that line. That's no good.
Besides Captian America, I think another good example of some one the creed of a Paladin is Eddard Stark in a Game of Throne. He has a high moral code and is willing even to tell the King he wrong like when they are talking about sending an assassin against Daenerys and he threaten to quit if they send an assasin against a child. Of course his moral code cost him his head
If we're talking about the D+D versions, not even the bulk of Arthur's Round Table would qualify.Pretty much just Galahad. The rest were too big of jerks from time to time.Er,... being a jerk does not disqualify you from paladinhood. Even acting in an evil fashion does not disqualify you from paladinhood -- it just means that you need to repent and atone.
How about this then? the bulk of Arthur's knights simply weren't Good, many of them were lawful, but very few of them embodied Good enough to be considered Paladins. In the original Deities and Demigods book, Lancelot was listed as a Fallen Paladin because he gave in to the charms of the Lady Elaine. Paladin standards were pretty strict back in the days of AD+D. Atonement wasn't an option back then either.
Not being a jerk by itself is not enough. You have to embody goodness itself.
AD+D was pretty strict in alot of ways and it had its reasons.
Paladins in general have to embody good, but as far as the OP goes I think it is up to the player to define the details of what is righteous while most people will agree on the generality of righteousness. That is where I think the beef is.
{. . .}
So why do you only get a mechanical benefit if you want to play a paladin-like charismatic warrior, and not a paladin-like arcane spellcaster?
{. . .}
Actually, if you start as an Arcane Caster, Evangelist, Mystery Cultist, and (on the Chaotic Evil side) Demoniac sort of do this, and are actually even more strict since you lose your powers if you DON'T do your Obedience each day. But these are Prestige Classes, for which you have to prove yourself (including taking up the Obedience) BEFORE you get into them. This would be a good argument for converting Paladin (and other types of Holy Warrior) into a Prestige Class. D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana actually introduced this option (along with a couple of other Base Classes converted into Prestige Classes that seemed decent although not as necessary), but I'm not sure if anyone ever used any of these. (Strangely, although also separately introduced other alignment counterparts to Paladin/Antipaladin, it only introduced these as Base Classes, without conversions into Prestige Clases.)
In addition to Holy Warriors and Holy Arcane Casters, it would be cool to have Holy Rogues (yes, I know of Sanctified Rogue, but this barely does anything different from a normal Rogue).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tectorman - that is a problem inherent to a class with a fall condition. Any idea to fix it, aside from avoiding the class? phantom1592's suggestion is a decent one from an RP perspective but not perfect. And of course while you certainly can play any class and keep to the paladin code, some people do enjoy the paladin mechanics.
I wish that the Paladin and Antipaladin were replaced by a more general Holy Warrior class that had different variants for each alignment. The Lawful Good variant would often happen to be called Paladins and work the same as Paladins currently do. This would allow for much more variety of Holy Warriors than what you can actually have with Paladins and Antipaladins without an awful lot of shoehorning (of which I have seen some earlier in this thread), and would mean that more deities than just those in the vicinity of Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil could commission Holy Warriors; this particular polarization always seemed like a weird dichotomy, anyway. This should also include a Hellknight base class archetype (unfortunately, would have to use a different name for settings other than Golarion). After all, why is it that a Paladin who falls all the way to the ways of the Abyss can become a powerful Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin who falls to the ways of Hell? And why is it that a Paladin who falls to Neutral Good or Chaotic Good effectively gets punished worse than one who falls all the way to Chaotic Evil?
This. This exactly, though it's been suggested since the Alpha playtest so likely will never happen.
I'm sorry, but I've got no answer that keeps the paladin "be good or lose shinies" mechanic in place while keeping the paladin's reason for being good where it ought to be, because it's the right thing to do.
I'm a bit puzzled by your "try an inquisitor instead" comment. I find them to be very different classes that do different things. If I wanted to play a paladin with a relaxed code the inquisitor would be a lackluster chassis, just because the class mechanics do quite different things. I might go for a Celestial Bloodrager instead, playing it like he carries around the Wrath of God. That bloodline is excellent for playing a holy warrior that's not actually based on divine/granted power at all, just the fire of his own beliefs.
...
Wow.
That's almost a perfect solution actually. Mechanically, you are full BAB, with spells that you can cast in armor (even heavy, with a certain archetype) so they're basically divine anyway, and using the Celestial bloodline keeps the "empowered by good" fluff in line. Heck, this even opens up for the "empowered by evil" fluff by using Abyssal or Infernal. Roleplaying-wise, your powers are your own and are not a factor in why you do what you do. You're good for the sake of good, shinies are an entirely separate factor.
The only disadvantage is that there's no urban barbarian equivalent for the Bloodrager.
I'm also a bit puzzled by the suggestion that a Code is a disadvantage to be avoided. I think if you play a paladin as it's meant to be (as opposed to trying to play a paladin that's going against expectations) the Code isn't really a burden. It can even be an advantage; because people know you're a Really Good Guy, you get a lot of credibility when talking to suspicious NPCs. The big strength of Lawful Good is that it makes people work together for the greater good, even if those people have personal differences.
I agree, but only as much as a paladin-played Whatever-class should have to follow the code and should want to in the first place. I think all characters should have some kinds of obligations and flaws and features, whether Rogue or Brawler or Druid or Cavalier or Fighter. Not to be a good character so much as to be a well-written character. It just needs to be separate from class.
By that logic - you haven't killed the mailman (partly) to not go to prison.
So - the only way to prove that you aren't really a physcho who wants to kill the mailman is if you lived in a world where there were no consequences for killing the mailman.
Correct. I remember one part of the fourth Harry Potter novel. Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Sirius are in a cave and at one point, they're discussing Barty Crouch's (mis-)treatment of his House Elf. Sirius remarks that Hermione's observation that Barty is a foul man because of how he abuses the Elf is correct. That a person's character is revealed not in how he treats his equals, but in how he treats those that cannot oppose him.
So yes. The fact that you haven't killed the mailman either proves you behave yourself because you exist in the society of the Panopticon, or that you don't want to kill him.
Proves. We can speculate and show faith in basic human decency all we want, but the Paladin's code is talking about being the embodiment of Goodness. If we're holding those high standards, then let's hold those high standards. Or relax them across the board.
Does the mailman ping evil?
Go over to GoG.com and buy the Quest for Glory series. Start as a Fighter, take all the good/honorable decisions in #2 so you become a Paladin, and play 3 - 5 as a Paladin. Now, play your character like the QfG Paladin.
Because the QfG Paladin is what all Paladins should be, and it disappoints me greatly that time after time WotC & Paizo refuse to acknowledge it.
For those wondering, the QfG Paladin is Neutral Good, agnostic, and always does things because they are the right thing to do, period. And he doesn't go around killing people just because they're evil. He does it because they are actively threatening the innocent. He's perfectly willing to ignore someone with an Evil alignment if that person isn't hurting anyone. He's even diplomatic with Baba Yaga!
Ha! Ignoring someone with an evil alignment because that person isn't hurting anyone that you can see, is the worst of decisions.
Let the sickos and the torturers go free, after all, you didn't see them hurt anyone.
Why do you think they are evil? Hint, it isn't because they did nice things.
Related article on hidden evil: http://www.cracked.com/article_21538_5-things-i-learned-as-sex-slave-in-mod ern-america_p2.html
Pardon me for making it real for a second, but pallies should wipe evil out so as to rid their part of the world of evil; because evil is a constant threat that simply cannot be trusted or watched all the time. If someone is alive that is evil, they can always do more evil later when the paladin moves on. Better safe than very sorry, especially when those that will feel sorry later, are unlikely to be the paladin, but are very likely to be non-combatants and children. Evil loves easy prey.
Pardon me for making it real for a second, but pallies should wipe evil out so as to rid their part of the world of evil; because evil is a constant threat that simply cannot be trusted or watched all the time. If someone is alive that is evil, they can always do more evil later when the paladin moves on. Better safe than very sorry, especially when those that will feel sorry later, are unlikely to be the paladin, but are very likely to be non-combatants and children. Evil loves easy prey.
[sarcasm]
Kill all the fanatics![/sarcasm]
Even though the Song of Roland is about holy war, I really don't like that as the only option for a paladin. What if god is on both sides, or worse yet isn't on either side? You are also assuming there is no way to redeem a certain group of people/creatures.
The 'natural solution' to prey lacking defenses is to wipe out all the prey and thus cause the predators to starve or adapt. It isn't a kind solution, and you lose something in allowing it, but is a solution that can work.
The way that societies tend to work is to try and protect their weaker members. There is plenty of history showing how might makes right causes problems. We are still working on how to balance things to that society as a whole is better.
His last phrase before he went back to the city was "The World is Gray"
I don't get this in the story from the Paladin's point of view the world seems pretty much black and white.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me for making it real for a second, but pallies should wipe evil out so as to rid their part of the world of evil; because evil is a constant threat that simply cannot be trusted or watched all the time. If someone is alive that is evil, they can always do more evil later when the paladin moves on. Better safe than very sorry, especially when those that will feel sorry later, are unlikely to be the paladin, but are very likely to be non-combatants and children. Evil loves easy prey.[sarcasm]
Kill all the fanatics!
[/sarcasm]Even though the Song of Roland is about holy war, I really don't like that as the only option for a paladin. What if god is on both sides, or worse yet isn't on either side? You are also assuming there is no way to redeem a certain group of people/creatures.
The 'natural solution' to prey lacking defenses is to wipe out all the prey and thus cause the predators to starve or adapt. It isn't a kind solution, and you lose something in allowing it, but is a solution that can work.
The way that societies tend to work is to try and protect their weaker members. There is plenty of history showing how might makes right causes problems. We are still working on how to balance things to that society as a whole is better.
That may be true in "real life", but in real life, for the most part, ethics are considered a sliding scale, and morality is a point of view. PF is not the case. With a simple casting of a spell that the weakest of casters has access to, you know, for a fact, without a doubt, whether someone is in fact evil. Not evil to your opinion. Not evil to your society. Just evil. You know for a fact at some point in time if left to their own devices and not prevented by those who stand against such actions, those people who "ping" up with detect evil are going to commit an act of evil.
It's like Minority Report, only without the skewed 1st-person perspective that has a chance of being manipulated.
The only real problem I see is a matter of how strongly you react. You don't know if this definitively evil person is going to go out and flay children alive or pop their spouse in the eye for talking back. Both ultimately deserve justice and preventative measures if at all possible, but their reactions should not be the same.
I think if detect evil actually told you WHY said person was evil, what kind of acts were brewing in their hearts, then yeah, preventative killing would at times be justified. If I cast that spell and you pinged up future murderer, well, maybe we'd have a case. But as it is you MIGHT just ping evil for being a selfish bastard who would NEVER, no matter WHAT, do anything to help anyone else without a reward, and, I don't know, a really messed up racist who withholds service from people you don't like the kind of, but doesn't actively go out and beat them, etc. That probably deserves a good @$$ whippin, but not death. Detect Evil doesn't really define between those things.
The "power level" of the aura of evil is based upon creature type, class, and level. These things are NOT "how evil am I" but more "how powerful am I, by the way, I'm evil".
|
|
That may be true in "real life", but in real life, for the most part, ethics are considered a sliding scale, and morality is a point of view. PF is not the case. With a simple casting of a spell that the weakest of casters has access to, you know, for a fact, without a doubt, whether someone is in fact evil. Not evil to your opinion. Not evil to your society. Just evil.
Unless someone used a Misdirection spell to make that orphan look evil. Or maybe someone cast Infernal Healing on the person destined to save the world. Meanwhile the brooding guy in black spiked armor that other people say is an antipaladin clearly can't be that, because then he'd have to have an evil aura, but this one has an Undetectable Alignment. So let him into the party.
You know for a fact at some point in time if left to their own devices and not prevented by those who stand against such actions, those people who "ping" up with detect evil are going to commit an act of evil.
Or maybe they won't. Just because they might want to doesn't mean they will. They could be afraid of the risks. They could have better things to do. They could have a change of heart and change alignment.
Just because people have an urge to do something doesn't mean they will. Just that they might.
It's like Minority Report, only without the skewed 1st-person perspective that has a chance of being manipulated.
Bwahahaha!
The only real problem I see is a matter of how strongly you react. You don't know if this definitively evil person is going to go out and flay children alive or pop their spouse in the eye for talking back. Both ultimately deserve justice and preventative measures if at all possible, but their reactions should not be the same.I think if detect evil actually told you WHY said person was evil, what kind of acts were brewing in their hearts, then yeah, preventative killing would at times be justified. If I cast that spell and you pinged up future murderer, well, maybe we'd have a case. But as it is you MIGHT just ping evil for being a selfish bastard who would NEVER, no matter WHAT, do anything to help anyone else without a reward, and, I don't know, a really messed up racist who withholds service from people you don't like the kind of, but doesn't actively go out and beat them, etc. That probably deserves a good @$$ whippin, but not death. Detect Evil doesn't really define between those things.
The "power level" of the aura of evil is based upon creature type, class, and level. These things are NOT "how evil am I" but more "how powerful am I, by the way, I'm evil".
Do evil intentions deserve punishment? Or just evil deeds?
If I have a bad morning and make plans to kill the guy who cut me off on the way to work, but then have a cup of coffee and forget all about it - was it okay to punish me half an hour ago, but not now, now that my intentions have changed?
---
Paladins should stick to their job: protecting people from supernatural evil menaces. They should not try to be the Thought Police.
That may be true in "real life", but in real life, for the most part, ethics are considered a sliding scale, and morality is a point of view. PF is not the case. With a simple casting of a spell that the weakest of casters has access to, you know, for a fact, without a doubt, whether someone is in fact evil. Not evil to your opinion. Not evil to your society. Just evil. You know for a fact at some point in time if left to their own devices and not prevented by those who stand against such actions, those people who "ping" up with detect evil are going to commit an act of evil.
It's like Minority Report, only without the skewed 1st-person perspective that has a chance of being
...
No, you don't.
Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
There is no guarantee they will act on those intents. If someone is so mad at another that they are thinking of killing them, that would be an evil intent. Most people do not act on said intent.
Also if you have a redeemed evil outsider, it will always detect as evil but could also detect as good. The evil can be because of the type of creature, not the way they have been acting.
So it is possible for a creature to detect as both Good and Evil at the same time.
Then you start getting into the magical methods of fooling magic such as Misdirection and it gets really bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing paladins is almost never black and white (and should not be). When your paladin lives in a world of black and white, you're playing the role of The Holy Pain.
Unfortunately, most players seem to think that this is the way a paladin must be played. This is only one option that is available to players, and while it’s a popular option, it causes a lot of conflict with other members of your group. You essentially see every non-good, non-lawful act that your companions commit as a violation of your ethics and you attempt to force your way of acting and thinking upon them, often to disastrous results.
At their worst, the Holy Pain will issue inconvenient challenges that may spoil the element of surprise, insist upon imprisoning foes who will ultimately break free from simple jails manned by careless non-player characters, or you’ll argue with your companions over minor actions all the time, particularly those of rogues or barbarians. If you really want to play this character concept, there’s nothing that stops you, but just be warned... This is going to make your paladin quite unpopular with the other characters and create disharmony in achieving your goals.
Of course, this is not limited to how you view your companions, but also how you interact with NPCs.
It is important to note that not every paladin has a moral imperative to stamp out evil wherever it lies. Various codes not only allow for acts of redemption, some even mandate that you give opponents the opportunity to do so unless there's no chance of redemption happening whatsoever.
Minority Report is one method of interacting with other players as a paladin, but it is going to create conflict, which is not the paladin's primary function. Paladins are all good for resolving conflict; that's really their role. They're not the type of character that, as a lawful good character, should be creating conflict. If you're playing your paladin like he's starring in minority report, you will actively be causing suffering in the world around you, killing not for what is or what was, but for what might be. If that's how you choose to play your paladin, you're much better suited to the role of an inquisitor instead. Sure, kneecap the chaotic evil goblin for taking part in a raid that killed the children of the orphanage, but the neutral evil naga that sat back and watched the whole thing happen? Unless your god[dess] wants you to seek out evil and extinguish it at all costs, your god[dess] isn't going to look upon slaughtering innocents (even if they ping evil) favourably.
Detect evil is not a justification for acting like a murderhobo. It's a pretty classic example of abuse of power.
----------
It's important to remember that the morality of the world of Pathfinder doesn't match with the morality of our world. Extramarital sex is taboo in certain Abrahamic religions, but is permissible (and actively encouraged) as a healthy expression of love in others. However, most westerners are generally more familiar with and/or more comfortable with those Abrahamic religions and their moral codes, and that colours our perspective of how our characters should behave, from a moral standpoint.
Pathfinder's religions are not like those of our world. Their moral codes may be similar, but none are like Christianity, Islam or Judaism. They're not like any religions that we're familiar with, and so it is not necessarily congruent with our own moral compass. If Sarenrae's moral codes do not address sexual activity, then it's not something that Sarenrae cares much about, akin to Christianity's general lack of a taboo on pork products that the other Abrahamic religions possess. Granted, if that's how you want to run your game, I'm not going to tell you that you're having badwrongfun, but I will say that there's no specific basis for running your game that way other than that's how you wish to run it.
If you do not wish to add additional moral structures into your gods' codes, then don't. It's not necessary to providing verisimilitude to your games, or to how your gods choose to behave. Jupiter certainly didn't have any moral hangups regarding screwing around; heck, he seduced, raped and slept his way into all kinds of trouble, and he was considered to be the King of the Gods. If you're a paladin follower of Jupiter (hypothetically speaking, of course), the only reason your god would have for not wanting you to sleep around is because you'd be competition. Bacchus would probably have the exact same lack of hangups regarding sexual activities and might specifically encourage his paladins to "share the love" at every possible opportunity. Then again, I'd find Bacchus far less likely to have paladins in the first place, but the point still stands.
Best wishes!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I wrote a much more comprehensive Paladin's Code for This Book, here's a much more pared down version:
1) A Paladin may not harm an innocent, nor through inaction allow an innocent to come to harm.
2) A Paladin must pursue and destroy evil, except where such activity would violate the first law.
3) A Paladin must preserve his own life and the life of his comrades in arms, except where such action would violate the first or second laws.
And of course, because it's me, I did a thing:
https://twitter.com/RobertKendzie/status/511694724731002880/photo/1
and then I just had to put it on a T-Shirt:
http://www.cafepress.com/diredestinymerch.1377647610
Enjoy!