How to play a Paladin?


Advice

151 to 200 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Wolfsnap wrote:

Although I wrote a much more comprehensive Paladin's Code for This Book, here's a much more pared down version:

Quote:

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.

I like it - though I'd like to suggest that "destroy evil" could also refer to redemptive actions - destroying the evil in a person rather than simply destroying an evil person.

Sovereign Court

Wolfsnap wrote:

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

I actually disagree pretty strongly. Switch up #1 & #2, or at least remove the inaction part, or you're just screaming for bad guys to put you in hostage situations. By your rules - you'd have to do whatever anyone with an innocent hostage tells you to do or you'd be breaking your oath.

Scarab Sages

Honestly, it's more of a joke: mashing up the Paladin code with Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.

Sovereign Court

Wolfsnap wrote:
Honestly, it's more of a joke: mashing up the Paladin code with Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.

And we all saw how that turned out! :P


Mado the intriguing paladin continues, with relevance on how to lie as a paladin. So I was watching another ep of Tokyo ghoul and it had a flashback of ol' Mado (how are they tailoring this perfectly to my interests?). He manages to trick a ghoul, bluffing to its face without lying.

He suspects an elderly lady is actually a ghoul that has killed 11 people. She has been interviewed before by Mado and he asked for a certificate from a doctor. Taking along his newbie partner, whom he tells it is most certainly her, they talk to her while she sits like an innocent old woman on a park bench (feeding pigeons even, so auntie).

Mado thanks her for her doctor's report and analyses it, saying according to it, that it would be plainly obvious whether or not you were a ghoul. By the numbers on the report, it proves she is human. If you were a ghoul that would be impossible. He apologises for casting his suspicions upon her. Bows and leaves.

So the ghoul thinks they are in the clear, attacks his subordinate when an opportunity presents itself (the subordinate, alone, tries to help the old auntie lady, believing they are helpless) and Mado brutally kills it. Leaving wise words for his subordinate, he highly regards his zeal and commitment, but says that "once the foe is before you, then even if it costs your arms and legs, you fight. That's what it is to be an investigator."

This pursuer of evil is quite amusing for me. Unpredictable, and capable of pretending to buy their lies and express apologies for pursuing them to get the ghouls into the spot where they reveal their true monstrous natures. Accepting the forgeries as obviously proving they aren't ghouls was a nice touch.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:


Why do you think they are evil? Hint, it isn't because they did nice things.

Well, there's evil, and there's evil. Did you do the "detect evil" on that merchant over there? Did he come up "faint evil," well, that could mean he's secretly a low-level priest of Asmodeous. It could also mean that he's a level 6 expert and a front for the Chelaxian slave trade. Or course, he could also "ping" as a faint as evil because while he honors his word, he has no concept of mercy and maliciously drafts his contracts such that they benefit him and screw his customers. Or maybe he's actually cheated a customer.

Oh, and by the way, your god may have something to say about how to fight evil. One god might command that you slay the slave-keepers and set their slaves free. Another god might command that you simply see to it the slaves can earn freedom through manumission.

A lot of shades of gray out there, even for a paladin.


BretI wrote:


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?

In the classic tales, the assumption is that war between knights is the flower of chivalry. If knights on all sides of the war are good, true, and honorable, then God will see to it that the proper side wins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:

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

I actually disagree pretty strongly. Switch up #1 & #2, or at least remove the inaction part, or you're just screaming for bad guys to put you in hostage situations. By your rules - you'd have to do whatever anyone with an innocent hostage tells you to do or you'd be breaking your oath.

Acknowledging that this is more an Asimov parody than a serious proposal,... I disagree with your disagreement.

There are literally thousands if not millions of things you can do in a hostage situation. The first rule blocks two of them. The first is hurting the hostage yourself, the second is "nothing at all."

Nothing suggests you can't attempt to rescue the hostage -- even if the hostage is hurt in the process, he's not being hurt "through inaction." Nothing says you can't intimidate the perp into letting the hostage go free.

It's perfectly paladinlike (and within that version of the code) to say "All right, you have a hostage. In thirty seconds I'm going to walk into the building and take you out of the building. If the hostage is injured in any way, you will not be alive when I do so. Twenty-nine. Twenty-eight. Twenty-seven...."

Sovereign Court

There will always be disagreements on what any given paladin code is and how it should be followed, just like you might find disagreements inside any given church on how to follow/adhere to/present/live their god's beliefs. Even in "the real world" we have disagreements within churches on how that church's religion should be lived:

There are some Christians who are pretty mellow, they practice love and tolerance and acceptance above all else (Unitarian Universalists). There are some Christians who believe the mass should still be in Latin and women shouldn't be allowed to take place in the sacrements (traditionalist/pre-Vatican II Catholics). Most Muslims believe in love, service, duty, and piety. Unfortunately there are extreme Islamists who believe killing others/blowing people up is the way to go.

I have 2 paladins in PFS, one is a halfling mounted paladin with a low Wisdom - I play him as dedicated and determined but rather naive. For example, he sees a lot of things in black and white, but won't take aggressive action unless he's absolutely sure he's in the right (I.E. he sees illegal oppression, evil outsiders, undead). He's also forthright to a fault, and tends to not activate his brain-to-mouth filter.

I have another human paladin who is a strict lawful type - he's less willing to break the law than he is to smite evil, therefore he'll consider legal ramifications before running in to smite a devil or demon. He tends to silently observe before acting.

Ultimately there are some things you just can't do as a paladin that are pretty clear. You can't attack a helpless creature who has surrendered to you. You can't engage in wanton destruction. You can't lie or cheat and must be mindful of the law. Using poison or other means of combat that bring about suffering is bad. You must protect the innocent at all costs.

Being lawful good doesn't mean you have to be stupid, just means you have to work within a set of rules.

Shadow Lodge

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:
Honestly, it's more of a joke: mashing up the Paladin code with Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.
And we all saw how that turned out! :P

Pretty well, actually. Three-laws compatible robots are much better behaved than their scientific predecessors, which tended to turn on humanity. While simple 3-laws models might have malfunctioned due to unusual pressures from these laws, sophisticated robots like R Daneel Olivaw navigated them as well as any human holding to a moral code. R Daneel (programmed with an additional desire for justice) is in fact a decent model for an android paladin.

The Will Smith movie unfortunately took a step backwards in the "destroying humanity" department. Asimov did actually address robots taking control of humanity for their own good in The Evitable Conflict - but it was more subtle guiding than police state and arguably desirable for the kind of LG person who is willing to accept a wise and genuinely benevolent dictatorship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Human Diversion wrote:
You can't attack a helpless creature who has surrendered to you.

Sorry, that isn't correct. They don't have to accept the surrender of an evil foe, or stop attacking if they are helpless. That is 3.5 knights.

What they should do in their code is however quite clear "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." So them surrendering doesn't mean you can't punish them, or that they are "safe" from harm by you.

You could argue that isn't acting with honour, but being restricted from attacking those that surrender isn't stipulated, and could get in the way of punishment, which is part of their code. Likewise if a shady chap is threatening innocents, if, when you move to punish them they immediately surrender, that doesn't mean they are protected.

Crying uncle, it does nothing!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say honorable surrender is only available to those who have, or might have, honor. If a bad guy has proven himself dishonorable, he forfeits that right.

Although I'd start by assuming that even common criminals will honor the terms of surrender, until proven otherwise. But it might be different for always evil/chaotic races. Those might have to first prove they have honor, rather than being presumed honorable until proven otherwise.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Mado the intriguing paladin continues, with relevance on how to lie as a paladin. So I was watching another ep of Tokyo ghoul and it had a flashback of ol' Mado (how are they tailoring this perfectly to my interests?). He manages to trick a ghoul, bluffing to its face without lying.

He suspects an elderly lady is actually a ghoul that has killed 11 people. She has been interviewed before by Mado and he asked for a certificate from a doctor. Taking along his newbie partner, whom he tells it is most certainly her, they talk to her while she sits like an innocent old woman on a park bench (feeding pigeons even, so auntie).

Mado thanks her for her doctor's report and analyses it, saying according to it, that it would be plainly obvious whether or not you were a ghoul. By the numbers on the report, it proves she is human. If you were a ghoul that would be impossible. He apologises for casting his suspicions upon her. Bows and leaves.

So the ghoul thinks they are in the clear, attacks his subordinate when an opportunity presents itself (the subordinate, alone, tries to help the old auntie lady, believing they are helpless) and Mado brutally kills it. Leaving wise words for his subordinate, he highly regards his zeal and commitment, but says that "once the foe is before you, then even if it costs your arms and legs, you fight. That's what it is to be an investigator."

This pursuer of evil is quite amusing for me. Unpredictable, and capable of pretending to buy their lies and express apologies for pursuing them to get the ghouls into the spot where they reveal their true monstrous natures. Accepting the forgeries as obviously proving they aren't ghouls was a nice touch.

Say what you want; Mado is no Paladin. I'm truly shocked that someone can view him as one. An unrepentant sadic can never be a Paladin. He loves to kill Ghouls, be they evil or not. Mado could be an excellent Inquisitor, an is a really interesting character, but in no way Paladin. Amon could be an interesting Paladin.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I'd say honorable surrender is only available to those who have, or might have, honor. If a bad guy has proven himself dishonorable, he forfeits that right.

Although I'd start by assuming that even common criminals will honor the terms of surrender, until proven otherwise. But it might be different for always evil/chaotic races. Those might have to first prove they have honor, rather than being presumed honorable until proven otherwise.

If you've captured people guilty of capital offenses, like say bandits, wouldn't it be your duty to carry out their swift, painless lawful execution? Or is that bad, so you have to take them to the nearest town so that they can do it as soon as you are done explaining how you captured them?

Sovereign Court

chaoseffect wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'd say honorable surrender is only available to those who have, or might have, honor. If a bad guy has proven himself dishonorable, he forfeits that right.

Although I'd start by assuming that even common criminals will honor the terms of surrender, until proven otherwise. But it might be different for always evil/chaotic races. Those might have to first prove they have honor, rather than being presumed honorable until proven otherwise.

If you've captured people guilty of capital offenses, like say bandits, wouldn't it be your duty to carry out their swift, painless lawful execution? Or is that bad, so you have to take them to the nearest town so that they can do it as soon as you are done explaining how you captured them?

Delaying their execution like that would be stupid. You'd simply be giving them the opportunity to escape. Pali should just do a nice summary execution. (different if captured within a city or something where guards are right around the corner)

Sovereign Court

Well, first you take a few minutes to make sure you've actually captured the right people. We don't want any miscarriages of justice after all. Then, it comes down to a question of jurisdiction. Are you empowered to enforce the law locally? In that case I guess it's time for a lawful execution.

However, a paladin adventuring in a foreign land might hesitate to execute prisoners. Killing in self-defence is acceptable; usurping the role of local law enforcement not so much.

I think it's quite plausible that a paladin has certain legal powers to try, convict and execute people, within some jurisdiction. But that's definitely you should clear beforehand with the GM.


Raphael Valen wrote:
hey all i love the idea of the Paladin but i just have no idea how to roleplay one, i looked at a guide but it ended up just making me a bit confused. what i would love is some useful advice on how far you can strecth Lawful Good and still have a fun character thats not a stick in the mud Lawful stupid character. the only idea i can think of is playing a agathion blooded aasimar and taking the trait to play NG or N wich opens it up alot but im still very curious on how folks portray their paladins and what Lawful good means to you all :)

There are two paladins from fiction who, IMO, are the best examples of paladins that don't make the game hurt.

Paladin #1: Michael Carpenter from the Harry Dresden novels
Paladin #1: The Tick

Experience both and choose your choice.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Well, first you take a few minutes to make sure you've actually captured the right people. We don't want any miscarriages of justice after all. Then, it comes down to a question of jurisdiction. Are you empowered to enforce the law locally? In that case I guess it's time for a lawful execution.

However, a paladin adventuring in a foreign land might hesitate to execute prisoners. Killing in self-defence is acceptable; usurping the role of local law enforcement not so much.

I think it's quite plausible that a paladin has certain legal powers to try, convict and execute people, within some jurisdiction. But that's definitely you should clear beforehand with the GM.

See - I'm gonna have to disagree with you. To me - Lawful Good doesn't necessarily mean that you follow the laws of the land - it means that you follow a code. If the law is going to let murderers go - or force you to risk their escape - why would you - as a paladin - follow it?

And I also think that you're trying to apply a modern justice system to a medieval world.


Alaryth wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Mado the intriguing paladin continues, with relevance on how to lie as a paladin. So I was watching another ep of Tokyo ghoul and it had a flashback of ol' Mado (how are they tailoring this perfectly to my interests?). He manages to trick a ghoul, bluffing to its face without lying.

He suspects an elderly lady is actually a ghoul that has killed 11 people. She has been interviewed before by Mado and he asked for a certificate from a doctor. Taking along his newbie partner, whom he tells it is most certainly her, they talk to her while she sits like an innocent old woman on a park bench (feeding pigeons even, so auntie).

Mado thanks her for her doctor's report and analyses it, saying according to it, that it would be plainly obvious whether or not you were a ghoul. By the numbers on the report, it proves she is human. If you were a ghoul that would be impossible. He apologises for casting his suspicions upon her. Bows and leaves.

So the ghoul thinks they are in the clear, attacks his subordinate when an opportunity presents itself (the subordinate, alone, tries to help the old auntie lady, believing they are helpless) and Mado brutally kills it. Leaving wise words for his subordinate, he highly regards his zeal and commitment, but says that "once the foe is before you, then even if it costs your arms and legs, you fight. That's what it is to be an investigator."

This pursuer of evil is quite amusing for me. Unpredictable, and capable of pretending to buy their lies and express apologies for pursuing them to get the ghouls into the spot where they reveal their true monstrous natures. Accepting the forgeries as obviously proving they aren't ghouls was a nice touch.

Say what you want; Mado is no Paladin. I'm truly shocked that someone can view him as one. An unrepentant sadic can never be a Paladin. He loves to kill Ghouls, be they evil or not. Mado could be an excellent Inquisitor, an is a really interesting character, but in no way Paladin. Amon could be an...

Not sure what a sadic is (a sad person?), but not every paladin has to be a shiny knight on a steed. Mado got his hands dirty, investigating and questioning, rooting and out and destroying ghouls (closer to masquerade vampires in this mythos). He backed his allies and treated his subordinated with kindness and wise words to help them hunt evil better. Total dedication (with the old paladin staple implied backstory of evil harming his family), implacable drive, totally fearless and capable of deceiving evil without lying. 5/5 Paladin, would rp.

Sovereign Court

@Charon: because the standard paladin code requires you to respect legitimate authority. That includes respecting their jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction is actually a very medieval concept. Overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions were pretty common; many people were covered by Personal rather than Territorial law. Meaning, if you're from City X, you're bound by the laws of City X wherever you are. If you get into a fight with someone from City Y, he's bound by his laws. Then the court gets into the difficult area of figuring out what legal system(s) would apply here. Often this was something that was arranged by treaties; for example, Hanseatic German merchants in Bruges were covered by their home laws in disputes with other Hanseatics, but in conflicts with other people or in violent disputes the Flemish law would apply. And added to that you've got class-based exemptions; like clergy being immune to prosecution under secular law except in the most extreme circumstances. That's where the whole concept of trial by a jury of your peers comes from - from the time when not everyone was your peer.

Also, the law might be going to let murderers go due to lack of evidence, or failure to convince a jury to convict. That's just too bad for a paladin - he still needs to respect legitimate authority, even if sometimes bad guys get away with murder. That only goes out of the window if the law or government is actually so corrupt as to lose its legitimacy. He doesn't have to like it, but he'll have to live with it.

Sovereign Court

Ascalaphus wrote:

@Charon: because the standard paladin code requires you to respect legitimate authority. That includes respecting their jurisdictions.

Yes - they do have to respect legitimate authority - but I'm not sure if respecting it necessarily means that you have to follow every rule of it.

As an extreme example - should the paladin not jaywalk and let some evil cultist get away? Of course not. It then becomes a matter of WHICH rules he needs to follow.

Sovereign Court

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
You can't attack a helpless creature who has surrendered to you.

Sorry, that isn't correct. They don't have to accept the surrender of an evil foe, or stop attacking if they are helpless. That is 3.5 knights.

What they should do in their code is however quite clear "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." So them surrendering doesn't mean you can't punish them, or that they are "safe" from harm by you.

You could argue that isn't acting with honour, but being restricted from attacking those that surrender isn't stipulated, and could get in the way of punishment, which is part of their code. Likewise if a shady chap is threatening innocents, if, when you move to punish them they immediately surrender, that doesn't mean they are protected.

Crying uncle, it does nothing!

Is this a black and white issue? It certainly varies by GM, if said paladin is truly righteous, just how far of a shade of grey is he/she allowed to push?

Sovereign Court

I don't think you can both respect a (legitimate) authority and take matters into your own hands by executing people you have no legal right to kill.

Now, if the law or jurisprudence gives you some leeway to stop a crime in progress, that's something a paladin can work with. Or if you can reasonably claim that the law is no longer capable of doing its job (because the bandits murdered the sheriff and all his deputies), that'd also make sense.

But if you think "well, they're just going to hang them, so I'm gonna save myself the inconvenience of a detour to drop them off", that's crossing the line.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a couple posts. If what you're posting isn't advice, please keep it out of the Advice Forum. Also, I'm not sure that referencing contentious current events in these threads is all that helpful either.


Sam Vimes, Carrot Ironfounderson, Michael Carpenter, and Steve Rogers all make excellent examples of Lawful Good characters. Michael essentially is a paladin, on top of that.

I'd be really tempted to add Spock and Picard to that list, too.

If there's anyone in Discworld that qualifies as a paladin - not just LG, but actually powered by holy power - it'd be Brother Mightily Oats.

Discworld Spoilers:
Brother Oats initially shows up in the books, like many others, as a minor joke character. In Carpe Jugulum, he's one of the major characters (most notably co-starring with Esmerelda Weatherwax) and has an epiphany, realizing that existence in of itself was a miracle, and concluding that the world and everything in it was holy - including the battle axe he was wielding against a vampire lord.

Existence agreed with him. That vampire had a very bad evening.

After Carpe Jugulum, Brother Oats is only mentioned in passing in later works, but the mentions make it clear that he's now wandering the worst parts of the world, righting wrongs, defending the weak, and speaking up for the voiceless.

Carpe Jugulum wrote:
Bringing light into dark places.

I've played a number of paladins in my group's games, and never had issues. (I do seem to be the only member of my group that DOES play paladins, though. I think I'm the only person in the group who actually prefers LG.)

One thing I did do on my Kingmaker paladin was write down her code right on the character sheet. If in doubt on what you should do, check it.

Use your head. Like for that bandit stuff being discussed above? Just ask ahead of time. Seriously. Either the town's okay with the risk of captured bandits escaping (and thus is asking you to bring them in), or (far more likely) you'll be given authorization to execute in the field.

Don't be a troll. Stabbing anyone and everyone who pings as evil falls under this. (Being a jerk is not a capital offense.)

Respect the rest of the party, but they should respect you in turn. The vast majority of problems I see raised about paladins have nothing to do with the class and everything to do with the players being jerks to each other.

A good paladin keeps an eye on the big picture, and doesn't place her own needs above it.

Spock phrased it as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but when Spock said "the few" he always clearly meant "me."


chaoseffect wrote:


If you've captured people guilty of capital offenses, like say bandits, wouldn't it be your duty to carry out their swift, painless lawful execution?

Well, that's one of the problems.

Traditional (e.g. historical) paladins were part of the noble class in a feudal society, and so they often had the personal authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner. If you want to read more about this, look up "high and low justice" sometime. More commonly, especially as the late Middle Ages shifted into the Rennaisance, the right of high justice (including the right to impose capital punishment) was restricted to the sovereign and his designated agents.

A random paladin may or may not be committing murder by executing a group of bandits, depending upon the local laws. I'd not recommend that as either lawful or good behavior.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adding to Orfamay's points; while Count von Overthere may have the right of high justice in his own county, that doesn't mean he can try people in the county of Duke von Next Door.

Sovereign Court

And in large part I suppose it depends upon what the general feeling towards paladins is in your game world. If people consider them to be righteous warriors who are out for justice - people (and the local government) in general will probably be okay with summary execution.

If they just think of them as yet another type of murder hobo - probably not.


Congratulations sophists, the ability of the paladin to fight evil has been restricted to being at the mercy of popular opinion and government approval.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Congratulations sophists, the ability of the paladin to fight evil has been restricted to being at the mercy of popular opinion and government approval.

Is it sophistry to recognize that having an evil alignment does not give someone else the right to murder the person? No.

Let's take a merchant for example. This merchant does kill people. He's not brutalizing or assaulting people. He's not attempting to take over the world with a scheme that would mean the deaths of thousands. He's not sacrificing babies to evil gods. He doesn't practice slavery.

So why is he evil? Because he practices shady business deals meant to screw over his partners or customers so that he always profits the most. He gleefully bankrupts others if he means more money in his pocket. He has no problem with having families tossed out onto the streets if they can't pay him on time. He's Scrooge before the ghosts came.

And you, the big bad Paladin, detect his alignment as evil and kill him on the spot. Do you know what happens next? You get put on trial for murder, and rightfully so.

There are different kinds of evil, and there are different ways to deal with each one. Acting like there is only one way to deal with every single ping on the detectometer is not acting like a Paladin; it's being a sociopath.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Wolfsnap wrote:
Honestly, it's more of a joke: mashing up the Paladin code with Asimov's 3 laws of robotics.
And we all saw how that turned out! :P

Pretty well, actually. Three-laws compatible robots are much better behaved than their scientific predecessors, which tended to turn on humanity. While simple 3-laws models might have malfunctioned due to unusual pressures from these laws, sophisticated robots like R Daneel Olivaw navigated them as well as any human holding to a moral code. R Daneel (programmed with an additional desire for justice) is in fact a decent model for an android paladin.

The Will Smith movie unfortunately took a step backwards in the "destroying humanity" department. Asimov did actually address robots taking control of humanity for their own good in The Evitable Conflict - but it was more subtle guiding than police state and arguably desirable for the kind of LG person who is willing to accept a wise and genuinely benevolent dictatorship.

The antagonist AI in the Will Smith movie was going for more along the lines of the short story "With Folded Hands".


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Congratulations sophists, the ability of the paladin to fight evil has been restricted to being at the mercy of popular opinion and government approval.

Kinda how a Sorcerer's ability to cast is dependent on economic factors; that ball of bat guano suddenly worth at least 1 gold, 1 copper due to shortages? Goodbye Eschew Materials'd Fireball.

Scarab Sages

Not every paladin code allows for you to harm those who you "capture".

The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include:
• 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.

Bolded the part that matters in that discussion. My paladin is more of the holy warrior of Iomedae. The personification of her glory. Detect Evil isn't my probable cause, it's my additional evidence. But the last tenet is important as well. Moderate.


All good, being responsible for their lives doesn't mean you aren't responsible for dishing out the punishment.

Sounds a little bit like ownership of those captured actually, as in the pally wants to hold them rather than give them over to the next lawful authority. If you solemnly swear you are responsible for them, you can't just hand them off to another.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Congratulations sophists, the ability of the paladin to fight evil has been restricted to being at the mercy of popular opinion and government approval.

Yes, it's terrible how your freedom to behave lawfully is hindered by the actual conduct the law demands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Peperic Timarson wrote:

Not every paladin code allows for you to harm those who you "capture".

When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.

Bolded the part that matters in that discussion. My paladin is more of the holy warrior of Iomedae. The personification of her glory. Detect Evil isn't my probable cause, it's my additional evidence. But the last tenet is important as well. Moderate.

You have that exactly backwards. If you don't kill them you're responsible for what they do with their lives. If they commit an evil act you fall. If you accept the surrender of someone who later escapes or is freed by the authorities who goes on to do enough evil Iomedae will treat you as having shifted alignment.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting, I read it that you were responsible for their lives as in they were under your protection until handed over to the legal authorities. As in, you wouldn't let the party kill them after they talked. Coupled with everything else, I think my interpretation fits better, that the paladin of Iomedae is concerned with the root of evil, not the actual symptoms.

Up to now, he's captured an assassin in a failed attempt, made her talk and then handed her over to the government. Not sure he's really had a quandary yet.


Yeah, I'd go with Peperic's reading over Atarlost's (which, while I might be mistaken, seems a lot like a willful misinterpretation).

You have a duty to treat your prisoners appropriately and honorably (for example, you don't leave the room so the rest of the party can torture a dude who surrendered to you).

I would think that once you've turned them over to what you accept as proper authority, you're no longer responsible. (However, you also have a duty to turn them over what you consider a REAL authority. I can picture a paladin who captured an enemy in Galt carting that person back to Taldor or Andoran!)

(Aside: I can picture a Paladin in Cheliax turning a prisoner over to the Hellknights instead of the actual Chelexian authorities. The Hellknights are probably more trustworthy and more likely to reach an honest verdict. Which is pretty screwed up. Though in Cheliax, the paladin probably IS a Hellknight.)

Heck, the Iomedaen paladin archetype from Inner Sea Magic gets abilities for compelling surrender. I don't think they would receive those if Iomedae punished taking prisoners.

Silver Crusade

It depends on in order of importance in my mind

1) God- a paladin of Lymnieris is going to act very different than a paladin of Abadar, and a paladin of Korada is going to act different than either of them. This also includes the alignment of their god.

2) Archetype- There are some very different paladin archetypes if the paladin as any archetype on them they may act quite differently from a paladin with a different archetype

3) Oaths- Oaths also modify a paladin's behavior. A paladin with oath against fiends may temporarily ignore a green dragon who's minding his own buisness if there's a fiend that's hanging about. But a paladin with oath against wyrms would attack that same green dragon, even though it's minding its own business.

4) Race/Culture- This will have results on how any creature acts, no matter what their class. With some races (such as races seen as more often chaotic or evil) this may be more pronounced.

5) Age- Older paladins may be more cranky, or grumpy (this is not always the case) as opposed to a younger paladin who is all gung-ho and hasn't just spent half their life in the world-wound fighting fiends.

6) History- as above, what happened to them. This will have bearing on how they act

7) Gender- Maybe they go with their cultures gender roles (like a female paladin focusing more on healing and a male more on smashing) sometimes they rebel against them.

Of course, with all this in mind a paladin will always pick good above lawful, when push comes to shove. In non life of death situations paladins of LG deities will be rather balanced on the Law vs Good scale. Paladins of NG deities will slightly favour good, but not ignore law completely. Paladins of LN deities will be harsher, and favour law more often, as long as the law is just.


Peperic Timarson wrote:

Interesting, I read it that you were responsible for their lives as in they were under your protection until handed over to the legal authorities. As in, you wouldn't let the party kill them after they talked. Coupled with everything else, I think my interpretation fits better, that the paladin of Iomedae is concerned with the root of evil, not the actual symptoms.

Up to now, he's captured an assassin in a failed attempt, made her talk and then handed her over to the government. Not sure he's really had a quandary yet.

An agent of evil is not a symptom, they are a cause of it and a source.

The paladin, if they win and prevail, is the cure. The cure being massive damage and a one-way ticket to the lower planes (where their filthy souls belong).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Peperic Timarson wrote:

Interesting, I read it that you were responsible for their lives as in they were under your protection until handed over to the legal authorities. As in, you wouldn't let the party kill them after they talked. Coupled with everything else, I think my interpretation fits better, that the paladin of Iomedae is concerned with the root of evil, not the actual symptoms.

Up to now, he's captured an assassin in a failed attempt, made her talk and then handed her over to the government. Not sure he's really had a quandary yet.

An agent of evil is not a symptom, they are a cause of it and a source.

The paladin, if they win and prevail, is the cure. The cure being massive damage and a one-way ticket to the lower planes (where their filthy souls belong).

This is the line of thinking that enabled the "witch"-hunters and other atrocities of the Third Mendevian Crusade.

That is not the outlook of any paladin I know.

We kill when we must. Redemption is always a greater victory than vengeance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Peperic Timarson wrote:

Not every paladin code allows for you to harm those who you "capture".

When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.

Bolded the part that matters in that discussion. My paladin is more of the holy warrior of Iomedae. The personification of her glory. Detect Evil isn't my probable cause, it's my additional evidence. But the last tenet is important as well. Moderate.

You have that exactly backwards. If you don't kill them you're responsible for what they do with their lives. If they commit an evil act you fall. If you accept the surrender of someone who later escapes or is freed by the authorities who goes on to do enough evil Iomedae will treat you as having shifted alignment.

I am sorry, Atarlost, but you are misinterpreting that portion of Iomedae's code. There is nothing else in her code that would lead one to believe that she holds her paladins responsible for every evil committed by anyone they may have had the power to prevent from committing their misdeeds.

A paladin player at your table would universally fall due to GM fiat for allowing an enemy to surrender and not killing them, because the GM could easily turn around and say, "Well, the bad guy killed three orphans after escaping from prison, so Iomedae sends a servitor to your paladin to tell you that you have lost Her grace. You must seek atonement, and until you do, you're no longer a paladin. Sorry, sucker. Guess you should have played another class. Muahahahaha!" This would be a clear-cut case of a GM abusing the fall conditions for paladins, since that premise is not written into Iomedae's code (and therefore cannot be interpreted to be so unless the GM is out to punish paladins or turn them into murderhobos). Of course, the paladin can also be punished by the GM-as-Iomedae for failing to be temperate and moderate, and for dishonorable actions after creating this Catch-22 situation.

----------

Now it is important to note that the lawful in Lawful Good does not mean that paladins are bound to follow the law as determined by the geographical-political situation. They are bound to follow the law of their deity's code, and then so long as the law as determined by the geographical-political situation does not conflict with the law of their deity's code, they follow the law as determined by the geographical-political situation (unless, of course, the laws would force the paladin to commit an evil act). If King Ethelred the Unready creates a law that states that all followers of paladins are subject to conscription into the kingdom's army upon setting foot in the kingdom and must be surrendered immediately, the paladin of Iomedae will refuse to follow that "law", and will not suffer a fall condition for doing so.


chaoseffect wrote:


{. . .}
Kinda how a Sorcerer's ability to cast is dependent on economic factors; that ball of bat guano suddenly worth at least 1 gold, 1 copper due to shortages? Goodbye Eschew Materials'd Fireball.

I have to say that's an interesting concept, inserting echoes of Mage the Ascension into Pathfinder. This merits further exploration.

Silver Crusade

Liath Samathran wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Peperic Timarson wrote:

Interesting, I read it that you were responsible for their lives as in they were under your protection until handed over to the legal authorities. As in, you wouldn't let the party kill them after they talked. Coupled with everything else, I think my interpretation fits better, that the paladin of Iomedae is concerned with the root of evil, not the actual symptoms.

Up to now, he's captured an assassin in a failed attempt, made her talk and then handed her over to the government. Not sure he's really had a quandary yet.

An agent of evil is not a symptom, they are a cause of it and a source.

The paladin, if they win and prevail, is the cure. The cure being massive damage and a one-way ticket to the lower planes (where their filthy souls belong).

This is the line of thinking that enabled the "witch"-hunters and other atrocities of the Third Mendevian Crusade.

That is not the outlook of any paladin I know.

We kill when we must. Redemption is always a greater victory than vengeance.

Not to mention that line of thinking is rather against some paladin archetypes, and some gods too.

A paladin of Serenre is not going to be like that (unless confronted with a worshiper of Rovagug)

A paladin of Korada is going to be about love and mercy, and enlightenment

Hospitalers are more about healing than finding and destroying evil.

There's a whole half-orc archetype that's called a Redeemer

Aasimar have Trainquil Guardian who are are "missionaries of peace and tranquility"


Is there anything more peaceful than taking all your enemies to -10+?

- Just paladin things.

Silver Crusade

Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
There's a whole half-orc archetype that's called a Redeemer

I have to thank my WotR GM again for letting me play Liath, a tiefling, as a Redeemer. It's awesome. :)


Mmmh.. As anyone suggested that he should ask his DM how the DM view a Pal ?

Because this is the really important thing, unless your playing PFS the most important thing when playing a character is having a common point of view of how this kind of character should be played...

As a DM myself I always take half a day before the campaign begins to discuss haow they want to play thier character with regards of class/alignement/background.

Depending on the DM a Paladin alignement is different... Don't forget that some DM will view a Pal to be Lawful Stupid and if you don't act accordingly will punish you for it... But if you discuss your point of view with the DM he can let it slide because even if he thinks that pal are usuallly Lawful Stupid your Pal is different...
So always ask your DM and, better, discuss your character with your DM... That's my rule as a DM myself... ;)


Kind of strange that they made the Redeemer archetype Half-Orc-only (and Human if you do the appropriate Racial Heritage cheese). Should at least be open to other traditionally monstrous races, including full-blooded Orcs (even though they be suboptimal for this mechanically due to the Ability Score adjustments being unfavorable for everything except Strength).

151 to 200 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to play a Paladin? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.