Why are we so obsessed with Paladins falling?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
One thing I wonder about is if paladins are as likely to fall when you use the subjective morality rules from unchained. What is "Good" then changes depending on the individual, but they all still share the code the same conduct.

If morality is subjective, I would not be allowing Paladins... period. In such a world the divine warrior slot gets filled in by the warpriest.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Even in the Grail legend,... the interesting stories are the stories of the knights who failed (look at T.H. White's treatment in The Once and Future King). Galahad, the paladin who didn't fail, is superhuman and boring (or maybe superhumanly boring).

I think it's mostly that the stories generally use him as the Deus Ex Machina mechanism than him remaining pure being at the root of him being boring.

"Oh look - here comes Galahad. Let me guess... he's going to instantly beat all the bad guys and save the girl with virtually no trouble again."

There was never a story about him before he was so skilled, or up against a foe/obstacle which he can't easily take on headfirst in the most boring way possible.

Still...Classes tend to look a lot more at Sir Gawain and his antics where he had to resist the urge to sleep with his host's wife.

He proudly wears the green sash of "I didn't.... but I thought about it...."


LazarX wrote:
If morality is subjective, I would not be allowing Paladins... period. In such a world the divine warrior slot gets filled in by the warpriest.

Well that's boring. I personally prefer to actually findout the answer rather than ignore the question.

Also, paladin =! divine warrior. It is a divine warrior, but it is not Just that. Having subjective morality + paladins is allowed by the subjective morality rules, so why ignore it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because:

"Evil will sways win because good is dumb." ~ Lord Helmet


For me personally, I would never consider playing a paladin because LG is such a terrible and constricting alignment to try to play. In addition, what an evil act is varies so significantly with each GM, that paladin players are forced into playing boy scout/Dudley Do Right stereotypes. If that weren't bad enough, paladins are held accountable for what their companions do, which is even worse!

That second part is where the whole "lawful stupid" thing comes from in my opinion. Paladin players are so worried about falling, that they try to control what everyone else in the group does. That creates resentment, because people generally don't like being told what to do in games, which finally results in some players gleefully cackling when the paladin falls.

Some players love to see paladins fall because they don't feel as constrained in their character's actions once the paladin is out of the picture. A lot of GMs see it as a challenge or high drama to cause a paladin to fall.

Either way, an alignment restriction that severe on a character class is just bad game design. That's a big reason why D&D did away with the LG restriction in both 4th and 5th editions. It sucks when the paladin is seen as a wet blanket preventing the other players from having fun, and it sucks even more when that dynamic causes the other players to cheer when the paladin falls.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If morality is subjective, I would not be allowing Paladins... period. In such a world the divine warrior slot gets filled in by the warpriest.

Well that's boring. I personally prefer to actually findout the answer rather than ignore the question.

Also, paladin =! divine warrior. It is a divine warrior, but it is not Just that. Having subjective morality + paladins is allowed by the subjective morality rules, so why ignore it?

Because subjective morality and Paladins who actually have a red button doesn't make sense. If morality is subjective, the only person who decides if a Paladin falls, should be the Paladin.


LazarX wrote:
Because subjective morality and Paladins who actually have a red button doesn't make sense. If morality is subjective, the only person who decides if a Paladin falls, should be the Paladin.

The code is not subjective. The code is divine. Whether the code is Good or not is subjective. An antipaladin following his code would believe himself and the code to be Good.


In the beginning (according to Genesis), god made a beautiful garden, full of wonderful succulent fruit. He put two humans into this garden and didn't bother to teach them about morality at all. The only source for knowledge about good vs. evil was contained in the forbidden fruit of one tree. He planted this tree right smack in the center of the garden where these two innocent people might want to eat it, then told them not to but didn't tell them why. He just said "No", essentially giving them a "code" of "Don't eat the fruit of that one tree".

Of course, they fell.

In the beginning (according to D&D), Gygax made a beautiful class, full of wonderful, useful powers. He put players into this class and didn't bother to teach them about morality at all. The only source of knowledge about good vs. evil was contained in a few limited sentences about alignment. He put this class right in the center of game where the players might want to play, then told them not to break some awkward class rules but didn't tell them why. He just said "No", giving them a code of "Be lawful good or else".

Of course, they fell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

For me personally, I would never consider playing a paladin because LG is such a terrible and constricting alignment to try to play. In addition, what an evil act is varies so significantly with each GM, that paladin players are forced into playing boy scout/Dudley Do Right stereotypes. If that weren't bad enough, paladins are held accountable for what their companions do, which is even worse!

That second part is where the whole "lawful stupid" thing comes from in my opinion. Paladin players are so worried about falling, that they try to control what everyone else in the group does. That creates resentment, because people generally don't like being told what to do in games, which finally results in some players gleefully cackling when the paladin falls.

Some players love to see paladins fall because they don't feel as constrained in their character's actions once the paladin is out of the picture. A lot of GMs see it as a challenge or high drama to cause a paladin to fall.

Either way, an alignment restriction that severe on a character class is just bad game design. That's a big reason why D&D did away with the LG restriction in both 4th and 5th editions. It sucks when the paladin is seen as a wet blanket preventing the other players from having fun, and it sucks even more when that dynamic causes the other players to cheer when the paladin falls.

This looks like a table problem. It's possible to get good play (and even good conflict drama if the players don't go too far) with a good LG. But while you're not supposed to hang out with the evil biker gang, what rule says that the party's sins are held against the poor paladin?

And if the GM and other players are all working against a paladin, then there's some serious issue that needs out of game discussion. Maybe the paladin is acting like a jerk. Maybe he's doing the best he can and everyone else is a jerk. Maybe they're all jerks. Maybe they're all just afraid of jerks and pre-emptively striking. But it's serious dysfunction.


I'd never considered the Chekhov's gun perspective - I think that's probably a thing although I think there are several other factors also.

I've played with people who will go further than that - not only do they opine as to when the paladin should fall, they also mentally audit other players' characters, declare how rulings "should" go, etcetera.

For some, I think it is important that the game play out the way the rules dictate. In my opinion, the rules are ambiguous, but for those who think RAW is important, they also often think they are objectively determinable).


Is morality subjective? Can killing an innocent sometimes be 'good'? Yes and no - which, really, means that morality is at least somewhat subjective. What a GM and a paladin-playing Player need to do first is have a sit-down and determine what is moral and ethical (good and lawful) for the paladin - and essentially for the society within which the paladin grew up and the god which the paladin serves, because the subjectivity of his actions is based on the paladin and his god.

As well, the GM should have some way of being able to indicate to the player how a dubious action is going to affect him. In all honesty, there really should not be much (per se) that would cause a paladin to fall; not confronting and fighting evil at the earliest possible opportunity, passively permitting actively evil acts to take place, and personally committing those actively evil acts are just about it. But when it comes down to 'not confronting and fighting evil' - which is where the most difficult part to adjudicate is - the GM needs to be flexible.

"Whaddaya mean, flexible??" Why, Homer, I'm glad you asked that. 'Confronting and fighting evil' is not automatically with a bared sword, a lifted shield, and a blaze of smiting light. Standing there, well-defended, one's spiritual armor not permitting any evil influence (i.e. charms, compulsions, etc.) to touch their soul while they engage in a serious debate with an evil being is confronting and fighting evil. (Or at least can be interpreted as such.) Trying to persuade a demon to repent of their sinful acts and nature, and turn back to the Light of Good, is a far deeper battle than engaging them with your +5 cold iron holy avenger and your +4 defending tower shield.


The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
Is morality subjective?

No. The rules have it as objective unless you use a variant rule or houserule that changes it.


Paladin Code of Conduct wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

For reference...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
Is morality subjective?
No. The rules have it as objective unless you use a variant rule or houserule that changes it.

Yeah - Pathfinder morality is inherently objective, but our knowledge of it is imperfect. (I think that's the way it works in ours too, but that's more debatable.) However - you could easily have the gods step in to give a pali clues.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
Is morality subjective?
No. The rules have it as objective unless you use a variant rule or houserule that changes it.
Yeah - Pathfinder morality is inherently objective, but our knowledge of it is imperfect. (I think that's the way it works in ours too, but that's more debatable.) However - you could easily have the gods step in to give a pali clues.

The real problem is that we have more than 5 different tenants going into this before we even start looking at how your god sees things... which then requires in depth knowledge of Golarion or whatever homebrew world you are playing in.


When playing in Objective morality settings, I let people make Knowledge (Planes) or Knowledge (Religion) checks to be 100% certain whether a specific action will definitely be good/evil/chaotic/lawful.

Since it matters to both how outsiders work and how all the gods in objective settings seem to have ties to alignment.


Paladins like most are still people, the concept of such a character "falling" from the standpoint of a writer is one that shouldn't happen with every paladin encounter immediately.

However that's not to say it shouldn't happen, it in fact should. the base idea is that the paladins faith, honor, or what have you is being put to the test. it should be used as serious character development.

of course the concept of faith being tested can work with most divine casters, it's just in my opinion paladins are the ones who are most effected hence Anti-paladins.

The alignment system in pathfinder is weird, the way it is set up makes it difficult for their to be paladins of certain dieties Asmodeus being one example.


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:

The alignment system in pathfinder is weird, the way it is set up makes it difficult for their to be paladins of certain dieties Asmodeus being one example.

Why is that weird? Does each religion need paladins? Does any religion need paladins?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take on it? Arrogance.

People have varying opinions of what is good/right/holy. But people like being 'right'. When one person's view differs from another, each feels the need to be able to say "my morality is correct, your's isnt". They refuse to acknowledge that the other has an equally valid (or potentially more valid) point of view. Humans also have a related but separate desire to feel morally superior to others - hence why you see people jumping on board morality 'bandwagons' on matters that they did not give two hoots about a week earlier, but have suddenly become ardent champions of. On any topic of morality, a vocal minority can easily build into a vocal majority for this very reason, for good or ill (though you can be darned sure that people on the bandwagon will always believe it is for good, even if they have only the vaguest idea why). You see this in operation each time you see a person denouncing racism only to choose not to sit beside a person of colour on the bus, to champion same-sex marriage despite not knowing a single homosexual person (or knowing if anyone they know are homosexual). The irony of course is that where once causes that claimed a religious basis tended to be the bandwagons that people jumped on, it is now views that oppose religion that tend to be the bandwagon. Different actors in different roles, but the same story in the end.

Back to the present context, when you put these people into the position of GM and paladin-player, sooner or later the player is going to fall. When you put these people into the position of players, the non-paladin player is going to want the paladin to fall. Because the views of people will differ, and as soon as the paladin's player's view rubs another person the wrong way, the other person will feel that the paladin's player is not as 'righteous' as he is, and so from his perspective the paladin deserves to fall. When that person is the GM or has the GM's ear, the paladin will fall.

Because people often feel this need to be deemed morally superior to others, and don't like being judged or criticised by others (made all the worse by a paladin being sometimes shouldered with the duty of acting as the party's moral compass when the party does not want a moral compass).

At the end of the day, only play a paladin with a GM you trust not to pull antics like this on you. Or in PFS where the scenarios tend to not pose such quandries for you to tackle, and often restrict the GM from inventing such quandries willy nilly.


Milo v3 wrote:
Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:

The alignment system in pathfinder is weird, the way it is set up makes it difficult for their to be paladins of certain dieties Asmodeus being one example.

Why is that weird? Does each religion need paladins? Does any religion need paladins?

well for one paladins are an idea/ religion based class so yes at least some religions do need paladins. and no each doesn't really need it, but it should have it as an option regardless or at least make it so it's possible without gm permission. it would have been incredibly simple to just make the alignment restriction similiar to or the same as a cleric


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
well for one paladins are an idea/ religion based class so yes at least some religions do need paladins. and no each doesn't really need it, but it should have it as an option regardless or at least make it so it's possible without gm permission. it would have been incredibly simple to just make the alignment restriction similiar to or the same as a cleric

Paladins don't get their power from religion, so I see no reason to connect the two. It makes no sense for it to use a cleric style alignment restriction, since they aren't tied to a god. Also, it why Should it be an option for people who cannot associate with evil individuals, to associate with a LE god.....?


Milo v3 wrote:
Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
well for one paladins are an idea/ religion based class so yes at least some religions do need paladins. and no each doesn't really need it, but it should have it as an option regardless or at least make it so it's possible without gm permission. it would have been incredibly simple to just make the alignment restriction similiar to or the same as a cleric
Paladins don't get their power from religion, so I see no reason to connect the two. It makes no sense for it to use a cleric style alignment restriction, since they aren't tied to a god. Also, it why Should it be an option for people who cannot associate with evil individuals, to associate with a LE god.....?

Paladins get there power from a gods and faith do they not? god means religion. also i was referring more to anti-paladin with the issue or evil gods, however with what your saying someone like gods like Caydean and Desna can't have paladins when in theory and practice paladins are champions of a faith which gods represent.


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
Paladins get there power from a god do they not?

Nope. I think there is an archetype were they do. But normally they get their power from general good gods. Not a specific god. They don't even need to worship a single deity. And without worship, even if gods are involved, it is not religious. The good gods just go, "lets give this guy some power because of how good and noble he is", and you get it. This is why they use Charisma rather than wisdom for their abilities. You can break the tenants of each good aligned god in a setting and still have your powers as long as you follow your code and remain lawful good.

Quote:
however with what your saying someone like gods like Caydean and Desna can't have paladins when in theory and practice paladins are champions of a faith which gods represent.

I'd say they can have paladins, as much as they can have druids, fighters, barbarians, rogues, alchemists, sorcerers, etc. Anyone can be religious. But paladins do not get their power from being religious anymore than a rogue does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed - Paladins, basically, get power from being Good. (Capital G, objectively verifiable by the universe.)

For myself, I generally try to avoid having Paladins fall. If something, to me, seems like a blatant violation of their code... then yes, it will happen, because those're the rules. But I generally don't try to cause it (unless that's what a specific villain would be trying to do, anyway), and never force it.

Being able to resist temptation can also make for a good story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Okay, so I know, on the surface, this seems like a trolling thread to start up more nerdrage about Paladins who loose their powers,

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEAAAAAAAAAA-

VampByDay wrote:
- but it is not.

... aw, dangit.


VampByDay wrote:
In short, this is a metacognative discussion on why we TALK about paladins falling so much.

Huh. A metacognative-y kind of day, it seems.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd tend to agree most with the idea of, generally antagonistic minded GMs trying to insert their own views of morality, (possibly with a dose of modernism), into a game and Setting that probably doesn't support that subjective view so perfectly as the main one.

The other being the somewhere between the grimdark antihero prefernce and tqo dimensional shades of grey that's actually more like black vs grey only. Sort of attached to this is that it restricts the group in some ways, so again, tends to mean up front no one gets to play Evil characters that have Neutral written on the character sheet.

Another huge one I see is that the DM (or other players) is absolutely down with the idea of a chaste, spiritual, honorable, noble, shining knight beacon of righteousness, as long as that's all stuff that happens off screen. If any of that cap ever comes into actual play, or heaven forbid affects mechanics (What do you mean you will not kill them after they spill the secret. Fine, whatever, just have the Rogue do it. Wait, why are you trying to stop them. Tell me where in your Code/Alignment it says you can'take kill defenseless enemies that surrendered. They tried to kill you 5 minutes ago. Ok, well, just remember this the next time you forget to menation specifically you are using the crosswalk to cross the street, just saying.)

I've seen it though, where it's an outright punishment towards the player for not making the choice the DM would have chosen if they played in a given situation, which really had little to do with morality or intentions.


Personally i never saw a DM taking action against a paladin , but i have seen plenty of players pissed at how the paladin being there interferes on how they believe things should be done.

Problem being , a good "warrior" sometimes gives a pass to the "rogue" being an ass , a paladin wont do so.

Heh the other day i was talking with a GM about how the rogue in the party made most of the party turn good by being evil.

The PC was such a horrid ass sociopath , that the others started to take action protecting people from the rogue , buying things the rogue stole to give back to its owners... people started to overcompensate towards good in general because of the rogue.

Some PCs just dont get along well and extremes do so much more often , that rogue was an extreme , problem is paladins in general are also one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
Okay, this has ALWAYS bothered me. I don't understand people's vehement hatred of the alignment system. NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG. THE ALIGNMENT SYSTEM IS NOT PERFECT. However, people take every opportunity to dogpile and stab the crap out of that thing instead of sitting down and thinking about it.
Alzrius wrote:
I think a lot of the furor over whether or not something makes a paladin fall is from people knowing that they've got the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over their head, and they're not really getting very much for it.

This. This right here is the answer to your question.

Pathfinder is a game. It is a Saturday afternoon weekend diversion (or whenever and however long you play the game). It SHOULD be something you enjoy and look forward to, rather than something you dread and cringe at the thought of.

As such, what place do the words "Sword of Damocles hanging over [your] head" even have?

"Am I playing my character the way the DM wants me to play my character? Am I being lawful enough? The kind of lawful the DM thinks is what lawful is? Am I throwing in enough lawful acts to get him off my back so I can just play the game like everyone else sitting around this table? Is he paying enough attention to and placing enough weight on the incidental lawful acts I'm throwing in here just to avoid losing the alignment? Why should I even have to bother with maintaining a lawful alignment? Why and how does 'wanting to play an unarmed, unarmored, ki-using warrior type' somehow result in 'scrutinize my every action and prevent my BadWrongFun'?"

^Are all questions that no one should feel the need to ask. No one needs that kind of stress. No one deserves that kind of stress.

That the use of alignment is the default that a player must bribe, beg, cajole, armtwist, threaten, etc, in order to get out from under, is why alignment is so vehemently hated.

TLDR: Alignment is so vehemently hated because it deserves to be.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always had a strong belief that the Paladin should drop the Lawful part of the Alignment requirement and instead be required to be Neutral Good. That would, for one, take the whole Lawful Stupid concept out back and beat the utter shit out of it, which is worth it all on it's own.

But, if you think about it, originally they where made Lawful Good, because similar to the 4th Edition Alignment that was the best of the best for Good. Back then, when the Paladin first appeared, it was something along the lines of Lawful Good (utterly good), Good, (more similar to most peoples view of Neutral now, they will help others when they can and it's not really harmful to them), Neutral (Balance in all things, actively Neutral), Evil (savage, dark, not afraid to kill), and Chaotic Evil (psycho).

But the spectrum changed, going from a polar scale to a pair of concepts on axis Chaotic vs Lawful and not at all related Good vs Evil. In this context, Neutral Good actually fits the concept of the Paladin better, (still bound by their Code), because they only serve one master (Good, not Good and Law), and not being particularly overly bound to either order/discipline/society's ethics or personal freedom/instinct means that they can, at all times try to do the option that will bring about the most good for the most amount of people. They will not lie to do it. They will not cheat, or resort to dirty fighting. But they don't always have to use the same old tactics or worry about the what the King/Queen says vs what their faith tells them is true vs what they know is right. They still have to be respectful when they tell the legitimate-evil-as-*&^@Queen to go <bleep> herself, but there is zero risk that anyone else, DM or otherwise is going to tell them "that's a chaotic act, and even though they are going to sacrifice babies for fun, you can't do it. You are a Paladin, after all!"

A few noteworthy side effects this would have:

Firstly, it would open up Paladins to a lot more deities that probably should have them.

Secondly, Lawful Stupid would now 100% (110%???) be an Asmodeus and Abadar thing where they belong. Good riddance. Okay, Shelyn, to. I'll give you that. Anyone that thinks Goodness has anything at all to do with looking pretty deserves it.

Thirdly, it puts the Paladin vs Necromancer/Demon or Devil Summoner/Evil-but-my-character-sheet-says-neutral-wah-wah in a different light. Win/Win all around.

Forthly, Alignment debates loose a lot of traction. (See number 3 above)

Fifthly, it actually makes sense. Especially in Golarion where knighthoods are any Alignment.

Sixthly, it actually makes the Hellknights interesting outside of Judge Dredd wannabe's. "I AM,. . . THE. . ." <B~~##SLAP> "Shut the, sorry, Cap says I can't use "that kind of language" UP!!!"


I can very readily agree on the 'neutral good' point-of-view - because, as I said, morality can be subjective. (Is it good to kill a child? No. Is it good to kill a child if that is the only way to purge the curse it carries, or to put the starving, dehydrated thing out of its misery when feeding it and giving it water will only cause an agonizing death?? Weeell ...)

I seem to recall my homebrew's paladins had a certain amount of leniency on the 'lawful' part, including (especially) the hirelings, henchmen, followers, and cohorts they gained. 'Good', for a paladin, needs to be the highest service; if 'law' is ennabling evil (e.g. a lawful evil society, in which murder is perfectly fine and even admired as long as the forms are followed), then to serve good, one must violate the laws of the land. And when you get down to it, the laws the paladin is supposed to follow are the laws of their god(s), not the laws of man, elf, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:

"Am I playing my character the way the DM wants me to play my character? Am I being lawful enough? The kind of lawful the DM thinks is what lawful is? Am I throwing in enough lawful acts to get him off my back so I can just play the game like everyone else sitting around this table? Is he paying enough attention to and placing enough weight on the incidental lawful acts I'm throwing in here just to avoid losing the alignment? Why should I even have to bother with maintaining a lawful alignment? Why and how does 'wanting to play an unarmed, unarmored, ki-using warrior type' somehow result in 'scrutinize my every action and prevent my BadWrongFun'?"

^Are all questions that no one should feel the need to ask. No one needs that kind of stress. No one deserves that kind of stress.

I'll definitely second this. I recall one player with a Paladin who, despite my repeated assurances that I wasn't planning to be strict about alignment/the Paladin Code, was practically a nervous wreck the entire time he played one. All I could think was that he must have had a bad experience with another GM, because at least once a session I would have to reassure him that I wasn't going to make his Paladin fall for doing perfectly reasonable things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically it comes down to communication between the DM and the Player. I've had DMs be very lenient when it comes to the Paladin code, relying far more on what a Paladin would know in any questionable situation vs. what the Player knows. And I've had DMs just arbitrarily have Paladins fall because they didn't conform to what the DM felt/thought was within the Lawful Good code OR just to see what the Paladin does in catch-22s they were put in.

We're obsessed because it's really the ONLY class that has this particularly severe clause in it. And, frankly, not one that holds much merit when it comes to the abilities the class has access to. Lets see: Maxed out at 4th level spells, minor self-heals, some combat-effective features which cater to a very specific type, and immunity to diseases (natural or otherwise). Out of the entire list of stuff they get, really only the bonus from Charisma to all Saves and the Immunity to Diseases are the real keepers here. Everything else is just outshone by pretty much most Fighter/Cleric builds.

And that's generally the problem I have with these severe restrictions. You can have a far better, mechanically speaking, character using Cleric and Fighter multiclass AND retain the idea of a holy knight without bending your will to some code that is far too prone to being tampered with from so many different sources. I love the Paladin in 4e and 5e, but I'll not be roped into falling for the traps again and just play a strictly better Ftr/Clr or Warlord (PoW from Dreamscarred Press).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Really, if you think about it, shouldn't the Cleric have a far harsher code of conduct then a Paladin simply because 9th-level casting is so much more powerful than anything the Paladin gets?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The paladin has her code written in the CRB and added to in other books. Not so the Cleric alas. RAW vs RAI at its very worst.
Likely because paladin is LG only while Cleric runs the gamut of alignments


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another part of the issue is this: We make the bad guys too efficient. We already know the tropes regarding Evil, so we try to overcome them. For instance, we know that the Big Bad tends to wax poetic when he thinks he has victory in the bag. We know that Evil plans sacrifice efficiency in favor of theatrical flair. Their plan always has an exploitable flaw which the Good guys can use to achieve victory. They always underestimate the heroes' drive and tenacity. They always think they can prove their point that everyone has their price and that 'good' is a transient state. And we think, "If I were evil, I'd do so much better". So we take out all the tropes, and suddenly we have an unbeatable villain. We have the villain who does everything right; he actually listens to his advisers, he creates efficient plots, he doesn't explain his whole plan on the premise that, "they're about to die anyway", he kills the hero on the spot rather than by some slow, convoluted manner which he assumes worked without having seen it. There's no angle for the heroes to latch on to.

And why does Evil always do this? Because it's trying to prove a point. Evil wants you to know what its doing and wants you to be afraid. Evil wants you to suffer more than it wants victory. Just as Evil tries to manipulate Good, Good, in turn, tries to manipulate Evil. Those hand-holds in Evil's plan so conveniently put there for the heroes to overcome the challenge? That's Good at work. Good creates small openings for its forces to exploit. What we mistake for "just coincidence" or "deus ex machina" or "for the sake of the plot" is synchronicity in action; the forces behind the universe acting to set up situations for their respective champions to come out victorious.

The purpose of the Paladin's Code isn't to "limit" him, but to "focus" him. There are actions that are "off-limits" for the Paladin; so he can focus all his attention on what is allowed. Moreover, a lot of the issues regarding falling stem from the habit of the player to rationalize actions. For a character who has devoted his life to Goodness and virtue to the point of becoming a Paladin, the thought of ambiguity of action, of "gray" areas, of "no correct choice" doesn't even enter his mind. The Paladin doesn't rationalize his actions; he doesn't say, "Well, it would save a lot of other people, so it's probably OK, right?" Paladins don't think in mathematical terms of the number of people saved, they don't think in statistical terms of the likelihood of people being saved, they don't think of pragmatics in terms of how easy it is to save people; that's just not what a Paladin does. If that's how your Paladin thinks, you've failed at roleplay; it'd be like a Wizard that doesn't believe in magic, or a Fighter who has been a pacifist his whole life. You're free to create whatever character you want, but that freedom doesn't automatically make any and every character concept make sense or work. There is still a burden of reasonability on you to have a justifiable and workable concept and think in the manner that such a character would "actually" think, rather than simply superimposing your own thought process on them regardless of their background. If you cannot do that, get out of your own mind and into the mind of a character who thinks fundamentally different from you, then the responsibility falls to you to not play such a character.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Really, if you think about it, shouldn't the Cleric have a far harsher code of conduct then a Paladin simply because 9th-level casting is so much more powerful than anything the Paladin gets?

I'd say so, but more because of the flavor. A Cleric is a chosen individual that's given power above a normal priest (magic), and acts as the faith's hand and voice in the world. They are also expected to know the rights and wrongs of their faith above and beyond the simple doctrines, and also have a deeper understanding and wisdom.

Unlike the Oracle, who in a lot of senses thinks they know, the Cleric actually does know the will of their faith's patron, and is bound to follow it, (or loose favor).

So the Cleric is a mixture of leader and teacher. In Golarion, the deities usually do not act directly, but through their agents and worshipers. And while that can mean any class, it's sort of the Cleric's main job. Golarion also has a really strange (modern) separation of church and state in many cases that really doesn't make any sense, (there are a few exceptions like Cheliax where the Church is very close to or sometimes is the state). In a world where priests can actively commune with their deities and call upon miracles, how would they not be very politically active around the world, and especially fill a lot of advisor roles in government. And yet, in the setting, these spiritual leaders and mouthpieces basically have no secular or religious authority.

At the same time, many faith's have very generic and vague tenets, so while the Cleric does, on the surface, have just as strict a code as the Paladin, there is very little risk of failing, just because there are so many individual Codes, (so many deities), it's both a matter of if the Player and the DM even know of something, and it's more a guideline than a specific do or do not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB wrote:

Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

There is a similar mechanic for Clerics in PF to what paladins have to endure. I just don't think most GMs or players really follow it for some reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Otherwhere wrote:
CRB wrote:

Ex-Clerics

A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).

There is a similar mechanic for Clerics in PF to what paladins have to endure. I just don't think most GMs or players really follow it for some reason.

That is the problem.

A paladin makes 1 mistake and he is done.

A cleric has to GROSSLY violate their code. Also, clerics do not have defined codes like paladins. They don't have codified things that are "fall or not fall"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
Paladins are human. Humans are imperfect, even the chosen warriors of the gods; therefore, paladins must be capable of falling.

That's it. They must be capable of falling, not utterly condemned to sooner or later fall.

Even less suffering an extreme where they're constantly being put on a torture wheel by a GM till they lose all their powers. While perhaps there's also a double standard where other characters face minor drama at best, and don't even shift alignments after significant choices.

As in the opening message example of the Paladin attacking non-lethally, I've seen many more Paladins fall for dumb and petty reasons than for barely reasonable ones.
Provided a Paladin's player is not a mere roll-player who wants to keep his powers just to play hack & slash, but one who actually behaves like a Paladin, the fall should be somewhat agreed between player and GM to build a nice story; or at least the player must be able to trust that the GM made him fall for a good story arc of redemption, not just because he's being a jerk. I remember a guide to short and quick character backstory/concept creation through a series of questions; one of them was more or less "write down three or more things you want your character to go through or achieve". That's where a Paladin's player would put "fall and redemption", and there would be much less frustration and table arguments.
But anyway, the fact tha Paladins may fall doesn't mean every last one of them should. Nothing imposes that each Paladin one day faces a challenge that seriously puts her at risk of falling, and it's not written in stone that a fall makes a good story for every Paladin either.

In short, don't be a jerk, and don't be real-life-lawful-stupid, forcing a Paladin to fall for any minor deed.
As in many other cases, most of the problems come from people refusing to take off their blinkers, rather than from the simple rules they so fierily blame.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:
nerdrage about Paladins who loose their powers

I don't think I'm the only one here who thinks that it is a paladin's job to loose their powers... Loose your mighty smite upon all the evils and injustices in Golarion! Loose the breath of the gods upon those that would sully their name! Let loose the dogs of war, oh champion of the gods, let them loose!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Cleric really has to go out of their way to act outside their normal personality and normal character, or the player not be aware of something to fall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
VampByDay wrote:
nerdrage about Paladins who loose their powers
I don't think I'm the only one here who thinks that it is a paladin's job to loose their powers... Loose your mighty smite upon all the evils and injustices in Golarion! Loose the breath of the gods upon those that would sully their name! Let loose the dogs of war, oh champion of the gods, let them loose!

One shouldn't lose their temper about how loose some GMs get about losing powers due to loose verbiage in how palis lose their powers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins falling is a simple thing:

A Paladin should never fall, "by accident."

This is nothing more than the GM playing "gotcha" with the player. If a Paladin is about to do something that would make them fall, the GM should remind the Paladin player of it and give them a chance to do it. This makes falling a conscious action.

IE:

GM: "The enemy is down, seemingly unconscious, his magical staff shattered, he is no longer a threat, what do you do?"

Paladin: "He slew my family and friends, I will perform a coup de grace."

GM: "Such an action will make you fall."

Paladin: "I will prepare to make the blow but stay my hand. He is defeated, and I am better than he is."

or

Paladin: "I care not for his level of threat. He is a murderer and the dead demand justice. I remove his head."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

"Am I playing my character the way the DM wants me to play my character? Am I being lawful enough? The kind of lawful the DM thinks is what lawful is? Am I throwing in enough lawful acts to get him off my back so I can just play the game like everyone else sitting around this table? Is he paying enough attention to and placing enough weight on the incidental lawful acts I'm throwing in here just to avoid losing the alignment? Why should I even have to bother with maintaining a lawful alignment? Why and how does 'wanting to play an unarmed, unarmored, ki-using warrior type' somehow result in 'scrutinize my every action and prevent my BadWrongFun'?"

^Are all questions that no one should feel the need to ask. No one needs that kind of stress. No one deserves that kind of stress.

I'll definitely second this. I recall one player with a Paladin who, despite my repeated assurances that I wasn't planning to be strict about alignment/the Paladin Code, was practically a nervous wreck the entire time he played one. All I could think was that he must have had a bad experience with another GM, because at least once a session I would have to reassure him that I wasn't going to make his Paladin fall for doing perfectly reasonable things.

My current GM is totally cool this way too. There should be more GMs out there like you guys.


HeHateMe wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

"Am I playing my character the way the DM wants me to play my character? Am I being lawful enough? The kind of lawful the DM thinks is what lawful is? Am I throwing in enough lawful acts to get him off my back so I can just play the game like everyone else sitting around this table? Is he paying enough attention to and placing enough weight on the incidental lawful acts I'm throwing in here just to avoid losing the alignment? Why should I even have to bother with maintaining a lawful alignment? Why and how does 'wanting to play an unarmed, unarmored, ki-using warrior type' somehow result in 'scrutinize my every action and prevent my BadWrongFun'?"

^Are all questions that no one should feel the need to ask. No one needs that kind of stress. No one deserves that kind of stress.

I'll definitely second this. I recall one player with a Paladin who, despite my repeated assurances that I wasn't planning to be strict about alignment/the Paladin Code, was practically a nervous wreck the entire time he played one. All I could think was that he must have had a bad experience with another GM, because at least once a session I would have to reassure him that I wasn't going to make his Paladin fall for doing perfectly reasonable things.
My current GM is totally cool this way too. There should be more GMs out there like you guys.

Yeah, my general attitude on Paladin falls and alignment in general is to just let my players run their characters however they want unless they're doing something that's grossly out of step. Even I think a Paladin should fall when they're sacrificing a baby to a Demon Prince in order to get a succubus love slave.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because the existence of such self-righteous bastards is an insult and challenge to our society of self-affected cynicism.


Those f@+!ing a$*&@%+s!!!!!


Well, self-righteousness would be acceptable; it's just another variant on the sin of Pride. LG paladins are more of those who are going to kill the guys torturing you, help you to your feet, heal your wounds, wipe your tears, draw you a hot bath, get you food, and once you've recovered, kick you in the ass to get yourself into shape so you can't be grabbed and tortured again.

I honestly never understood people who thought LG meant 'Lawful Stupid' (or 'stupid good', or any other variant playing off 'stupid'). Honestly, haven't any of you read Elizabeth Moon??


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, my general attitude on Paladin falls and alignment in general is to just let my players run their characters however they want unless they're doing something that's grossly out of step. Even I think a Paladin should fall when they're sacrificing a baby to a Demon Prince in order to get a succubus love slave.

Don't you judge me!

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why are we so obsessed with Paladins falling? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.