The church of Asmodeus would have so much fun with this it isn't even funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warcraft Paladin is pretty fun; while generally good people in reality the Light is powered by fanaticism rather than a commitment to goodness. As long as you believe your cause to be just then you can be a Paladin. Thus the Scarlet Crusade getting to keep their Paladin powers while they're murdering everyone in anti-Scourge witch hunts.All this thread tells me is the D&D Paladin is probably the worst iteration of Holy Warrior that has ever existed.
Gods be praised there are better options for building "Paladins" out there like "Rogues."
The Iomedaen Paladin who refuses the challenge could do so for many reasons. Gods are reasonable nearly omnipotent beings. If the duel doesn't further the God's goals, why in the damn hells would the God strip the Paladin of powers for refusing?
Darn it, Arachnofiend how many things can we both like before we become one entity!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... Lets say we have three characters with the title of Paladin...
Here is where confusion would hit:
Paladin A is a Warpriest.
Paladin B is a Fighter.
Paladin C is a Paladin.Paladin C: "I cannot ever break my code, if I do, I lose all of my Holy powers."
Paladin B: "I don't. I've had to break it on occasion."
Paladin A: "So have I. I told a lie the other day, I told a noblewoman that she wasn't bothering me, when she was."
Paladin C: "Well I can't."
Paladin B: "You must be cursed because you are a terrible person!"
And now a wrench in the works: can the player of a character have that character do certain things without that character knowing? And is that considered a house rule?
Ex: I have a denizen of a desert environment with a very good Strength score. He has never in his life seen a body of water big enough to immerse a human body (he has no ranks in Swim). The first time he has to try to Swim, I (the player) describe my character's attempt to Swim as involving the rigid holding of his arms and his legs as still as he can and the immediate expulsion of all the air in his lungs (because, again, he has no idea that these are all bad things to do when trying to Swim). The character, of course, wishes to all of his patron gods he could do it right. As far as I'm concerned, there's not a d20 roll in the universe that can save that situation, no matter the modifier. Is that a house rule, or just part and parcel of what a player can do?
Next ex: I'm playing a Rogue. He has a target lacking a Dex bonus to AC and Sneak Attack. He attacks and hits. Can I decide to forgo the Sneak Attack dice or not? Independent of how much my character wishes he was shanking this guy, I mean.
Next ex: I'm playing a Wizard who has sworn an Paladin's oath. Later in his life, he falls. The next day, the character tries his damnedest to study his spells. I, the player, decide "No". Can I, or does my character study his spells completely independent of my input? And if he doesn't get his spells (due to a player-elected fall rather than a class rule-imposed fall, neither of which would be apparent to anyone in-universe), how does he know he's not a Paladin? Especially if this sort of thing has happened before with countless NPCs that the GM in this scenario, also utilizing this player-elected falling rather than a class-imposed fall, has had experience this same setback.
...
I.e., Paladin A has all of his spells and other magical abilities because of his adherence to his oath, and violating that oath loses him his abilities (or can players not do that?).
Paladin B thanks his adherence to the forces of Good for his natural (that is, not magical) talent at warfare, and should he ever fall, his natural talent evaporates entirely (or can players not do that?)
Paladin C has the same situation, except the mechanics of his fall is pre-engineered into the system (not that this registers to anyone in-universe).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The church of Asmodeus would have so much fun with this it isn't even funny.Indeed they'd take great pleasure in sowing even more confusion.
Indeed. And going off the word of mouth that you've posted above I'm relatively sure that no one would know for certain what a paladin was or wasn't. And that is one set of followers sowing doubt. Again, in a world where someone is managing to con everyone that he is a God I daresay that manipulating what people who cannot read and don't have TV know is child's play.
People today barely know things; expecting that just because you are a noble paladin that everyone would know and bow to that isn't reasonable. A town with a large church presence, where paladins might frequent? Sure. A large city? Sure. Ten miles from the middle of nowhere village? Quite possibly not.
And of any of those, will they have a score card of what a paladin can and cannot do, given archetypes, VMC and so on?
... A level 5 inquisitor with a high will save matches your description pretty closely.
...Nobody is saying they couldn't fake it. They totally could. A rogue can fake being a priest or a Wizard with the right prep.
However, that would be one of the reasons why the LEARNED people (those with Knowledge Religion) would know the difference.
...
Woah, Woah, Woah.
Hold up...
Because that is pretty much the impression you have been giving me.
Let me get this straight. After saying all of this:
It is interesting...Usually you can "feel it" due to auras. Other times you see it when they Lay on Hands or Smite Evil. Without casting a spell their touch can heal.
When a Paladin speaks, he speaks the truth, there is no question. If people question it then they are idiots and fools.
There HAS TO BE an in-universe way to spot those with the Paladin class.
Why? There are things like Atonement spells that are designed for Paladins and Clerics. There are Paladin-only spells. There are Paladin-only items.
Those are Paladins.
A non-Paladin calling himself a Paladin, getting the same social benefit from the work that real Paladins have to do, that is wrong. Not just wrong, it is borderline on an abomination for not only modern Paladins but also Paladins of the past.
Literally - If a Paladin is found in the town square standing over a dead body and says, "He was a vile cultist who attacked me."
Then he was. No questions asked.
Then if a group of people got "more" respected for being "Paladins" that sooner or later some of them would fall. Heck Paladins fall.
The difference is when a Pallie falls you know it. A non-pallies can break the code all the time and it may never even cause an alignment shift.
...However Tronan is a non-archetyped Paladin (or one that didn't give up Aura of Courage or Aura of Resolve) and ther Sheriff knows something is wrong. You know when you are affected by a spell or spell-like ability{side note, No you don't unless you pass a save} and no longer is bravery and clarity eminating from Tronan
...
The second they made an accusation against someone they knew was innocent, they fall. And, with few exceptions, anyone near the Paladin would know it due to the missing auras.
...you are taking the position that it is difficult to tell whether or not someone is a Paladin without a non-trivial knowledge check? That the signs of being a Paladin aren't obvious and well known enough to be observed by looking at the paladin and making a DC10 Knowledge(Religion) check(or even a DC15 check, since most places will have someone with a point in Knowledge(Religion))? Am I actually understanding your position yet?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organizations of paladins may have the resources to select for members of the paladin class, thus preventing members of other classes from assuming the title. However, their methods of selection might exclude unusual paladins. There is some debate over whether such selection is ultimately desirable.I doubt they would, since we know that you don't have to be a capital C Cleric to be a little c cleric, per Inner Sea Gods (Shelyn, for example, employs about as many bards in her clergy as she does clerics).
Well, the Paladins of my sun god are picky about it for exactly the reason that HWalsh describes (and which I did approach a little earlier) - PR. Though the paladins themselves aren't primarily motivated by the powers, they do recognize that the narrative of trading restrictions for power is easier for the populace to understand (it's certainly a common enough conception of paladins among RPG players). The idea that the paladin has to act a certain way and will be punished for violating a trust gives them added authority in the mind of the common folk, and the order banks pretty heavily on this organizational reputation. If they let members of other classes in, they'd have to keep a keener eye on them to make sure they didn't sully the organization's honour, and that extra hassle isn't really worth it to the paladins compared to diverting such individuals to auxilary organizations. (Some of them do get a bit arrogant about being favoured by their god but overall they understand that the less glamourous role the auxilaries play isn't less important or necessarily less worthy.) The order's particular symbols of authority make them identifiable, and as one of the top five religions in the setting, the group has enough power to make impersonating a member not worth the risk.
Conversely, the followers of my earth mother goddess tend to be much more closely associated with their local communities and rely on long-term direct relationships to establish individual reputations within the communities they serve. Since they don't rely on an organizational reputation in the way the sun god's followers do, the earth mother's paladins are rarely distinguished from the rest of her clergy.
Because, also, the first thing a conman is going to tell you is how honest and noble they are.
In my experience as someone who has been conned, they tend to go with a sob story and the subtle suggestion that you can help them while also making a personal profit. You get both the kind-hearted and the greedy that way.
|
The problem isn't about deserving it...
The problem is that if Paladin is ONLY an in-universe title, that those restrictions DO NOT exist for the vast majority. There would be crazy amounts of misinformation going around in-universe.
Well, there are crazy amounts of misinformation going around in-universe. It's probably not as worse as in our own universe, but it's not much better either. From Ed Greenwood to the designers of Golarion, there has been stated more than once that information presented in the books must not necessarily be totally accurate, because like Herodot, the author of said book could have fallen prey to misinformation.
"I lied to save my friends from certain death and I retained my holy powers, and I am a Paladin." (Paladin is a Warpriest)
"Be it be openly known that you are hereby stripped of your title of paladin and banned from our Holy Order of Light for the sin of lying." (His Excellence Ario Dertharsi, First Light).
Suddenly, word gets around that (insert God/ess here) doesn't care if people tell little white lies, if they are trying to save someone's life. Then 4/5 "Paladins" confirm that, in fact, there are extenuating circumstances to certain parts of the code.
No one said that suddenly the number of paladins would explode, if you count non-class members adhering to the same strict code. I highly doubt it because it still would be damned hard to follow the code. Yeah, there might be black sheep (if they dare to face the wrath of true paladins) but those are already here anyway (I mean come on, there are humans in this setting).
|
|
I.e., Paladin A has all of his spells and other magical abilities because of his adherence to his oath, and violating that oath loses him his abilities (or can players not do that?).Not really no. That is the sole ability of the GM not the player.
So the GM could say "having violated his sacred oath, your warpriest finds himself unable to draw on the divine source of his power"?
Cuz if the player wants to fall I'm totally willing to push that button on the character.
I.e., Paladin A has all of his spells and other magical abilities because of his adherence to his oath, and violating that oath loses him his abilities (or can players not do that?).Not really no. That is the sole ability of the GM not the player.So the GM could say "having violated his sacred oath, your warpriest finds himself unable to draw on the divine source of his power"?
Cuz if the player wants to fall I'm totally willing to push that button on the character.
...You know it's not just Paladins that can fall and lose their abilities, right? If a Warpriest decides to take on an extra set of codes to keep himself on the straight and narrow and then proceeds to break that code then you'd be damn sure that Torag is gonna be pissed about that.
|
|
And now a wrench in the works: can the player of a character have that character do certain things without that character knowing? And is that considered a house rule?
I'm not quite sure if I get what you said there so correct me if I'm wrong.
Why should this be even necessary? What we're talking about here is about people who, though not belonging to the paladin class strife to adhere to the ideals of a paladin. No, they won't lose their class abilities if they fail. They may decide not to use them to punish themselves for their failure. But as they didn't belong to the paladin class, there's no mechanical reason to strip them of their powers. So yeah, house rule.
The other thing we talk about is, how such people would be considered by the common people, who may not be able to differentiate between a true paladin and someone living like a paladin. Chances are they would also be called paladins. But that clearly depends on your GM powers to decide so and is nothing advocated for in the rulebooks themselves. And if you don't like it just don't do it.
And just because I allow one player to play a character like a paladin without actually being one doesn't make my world explode with non-paladiny paladins. Though I still think it's possible that the Holy Order of Life may have members who are not paladins who are called that out in the world for the lack of better knowledge.
There's one thing I keep thinking about: Where I live we yearly celebrate Saint Martin's Day. Martin of Tours was a catholic bishop and is one of the best-known catholic saints. To get elevated to this rank you must have done(I think at least three) wonders accepted as such by the catholic church. But you know why St. Martin is as famous and popular as he is today? Because he did the simple act of cutting his coat in half and sharing it with a naked poor sitting at the street in mid-winter. That's why common people consider him to be a holy man, not because the catholic church says so or because of the powers he got.
And that's kind of my approach when it comes to the second part of this topic
I know I may have misremembered the book (been a long time since I've read it), but would Don Quixote be considered a Paladin in name only? He had no specific training or divine acknowledgement, fought tirelessly against the forces of evil, fought for the poor and downtrodden, and if asked he considered himself a Knight.
The problem isn't about deserving it...
The problem is that if Paladin is ONLY an in-universe title, that those restrictions DO NOT exist for the vast majority. There would be crazy amounts of misinformation going around in-universe.
"I lied to save my friends from certain death and I retained my holy powers, and I am a Paladin." (Paladin is a Warpriest)
Suddenly, word gets around that (insert God/ess here) doesn't care if people tell little white lies, if they are trying to save someone's life. Then 4/5 "Paladins" confirm that, in fact, there are extenuating circumstances to certain parts of the code.
However 1/5 this can lead to disaster and with no way, not even for the character himself, to know who is and isn't a Class Paladin then nobody is going to understand these codes.
The crazy part is that a lot of these codes DO leave wiggle room that are totally open to interpretation.
One of Iomedae's codes prevents a Paladin from refusing a challenge from a worthy enemy.
Define worthy? Heck, define challenge.
Someone in this thread, when I used the example of a Paladin being challenged to a dual using no special abilities, said it was okay for a Paladin to refuse the challenge under those stipulations because those powers are given by their Goddess and so they must always be allowed in any duel.
You also pointed out, yourself, that anyone worthy of the title would never break their code. How do you know? Class Paladins do this occasionally, but how would anyone know if a Paladin deserved the title? I mean, under the established pretenses, there is no way to judge criteria and as such a high enough bluff score and a backstabbing rogue can pass himself off as a titled Paladin.
I'm actually more and more okay with that. The way I think about it since the misinformation actually protects paladins more than it hurt's them.. If a bunch of 'Paladins' don't fall when they break the code then you won't have villains setting up campy comic book style DIYD-DIYD situations.. Seems better then sheriff gomer not always believing it wasn't self defense since things like being arrested are usually Gm plot devices and sometimes it's just better to roll with them then fight them.
I actually think Dragonheart is one of the best redeeming a fallen paladin stories there is out there.. I single manly tear almost every time the knight recites the old code and regains his strength when he recites the code on Avalon.
I'm going to go watch it now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If by that you mean that they can kill or even simply depose such a character, and have their actions be accepted purely on the strength of saying "I'm a paladin," then that is the sorry of weapon my paladin wants no part of. Because that is the kind of thinking that leads to your Order of Light.
To my mind, the person most critical of a paladin often is--and I would argue, should be--the paladin themselves. White they certainly strive to set a good example, I think many or most paladins would be very concerned at the thought of being put on a pedestal as an infallible paragon.
Each paladin group has a different code, for one, for two... Nothing hurts a paladin worse than not having the public trust.
Decapitation and being raised as a zombie or something, chain lightning and getting stuffed in a handy haversack that's cut open, helm of opposite alignment, having a horrible player behind them, the way you really hurt a paladin is to make them unable to paladin anymore...or you could always go for the loved ones but that tends to make them really motivated to kill you.
A distrusted paladin should just train enough to be able storm the fortress and beat up the charismatic villain. They can still smite, lay on hands, use spells, and all those paladin goodies. It's not a smart idea sure, but most paladins lack wisdom, intelligence, or sometimes both anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assume the average person knows the basics of what a Paladin can do.
What, from Paladin class in high school? We have actually mandatory civics classes and most people don't know basic information about how their government works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most people don't know the basic information about how their law enforcement or firefighter units work :P
|
|
...You know it's not just Paladins that can fall and lose their abilities, right? If a Warpriest decides to take on an extra set of codes to keep himself on the straight and narrow and then proceeds to break that code then you'd be damn sure that Torag is gonna be pissed about that.
I am aware, I just hadn't re-read the specific clause for clerics and warpriests in a while and remembered it using the term "grossly violates" which would not include falling for a minor transgression like the paladin's code does. The actual wording is "violates the code of conduct required by their deity" which could include any violation of the paladin's code.
Also Tectorman's original post includes wizards, which can't normally fall - HWalsh just quoted the section on warpriests so I thought I'd be consistent. The same sentiment applies - if the wizard's player thinks he shouldn't get spells after violating a code of conduct I'm personally happy to enforce that as GM.
Druids, monks, barbarians, inquisitors, and possibly hunters can also fall. How they do depends on the class though.
But as far as title and classes go
I would say in most worlds 90% of those who call themselves Bard might(we hope) know how to sing but casting spells is far beyond them.
Well not every bard sings. Some tell stories, some dance, ect. ect. What every bard does do is perform.
ect. ect.
etc.
Short for et cetera -- "and so on."In a lot of older documents you'll even see it written as "&c" -- the ampersand symbol itself is derived from superimposing the letters E and T for "et."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what Touch of Truthtelling is for. 1st level spell available to multiple classes that clearly visually confirms whether the target (whether accuser or accused) is telling the truth.
Druids, monks, barbarians, inquisitors, and possibly hunters can also fall. How they do depends on the class though.
Again, aware.
Druids lose powers temporarily for wearing metal armour, or permanently for changing to a corner alignment, teaching a nondruid Druidic, or "ceasing to revere nature," which is super vague.
Inquisitors fall for alignment change (like clerics) or for "slipping into corruption," which is also super vague.
Monks can no longer take monk levels if they become nonlawful, but keep existing abilities.
Barbarians cannot Rage (and thus use Rage Powers) if they turn Lawful, but keep uncanny dodge, fast movement, and DR.
Hunters, like rangers, cannot fall.
Because alignment change is super subjective (where exactly is the border between LG and LN?) it's pretty common for most non-paladin classes to get a pass on the falling thing unless they take a flying leap over the grey area in acceptable behavior or unless more specific guidelines are agreed on ahead of time (eg druids must not kill an animal or plant they don't eat or otherwise use).
Paladins are much more likely to be put on a hair trigger, which is why it's much more likely to not only be discussed among RPG fans but to be part of an in-world narrative.
YMMV on whether this is a good thing. I wouldn't mind establishing more specific guidelines for falling for other classes, but I think like hammering out the ambiguities in the paladin's code it's best done at each individual table. Personally I've found that players in my group are much more vigilant about their codes of conduct than the GM is, meaning that no one falls unless the player intends to do so.
ect. ect.etc.
Short for et cetera -- "and so on."In a lot of older documents you'll even see it written as "&c" -- the ampersand symbol itself is derived from superimposing the letters E and T for "et."
There I go with the typos again.
Take the typical "smart villain" as it were.So the "Smart Villain" finally gets caught. Lex Luthor gets hauled before the public. It should be all over, the heroes defeated his giant golem monster and thwarted his plans for the city.
Then... The Villain lies:
"I did no such thing!" He exclaims. "I am innocent. I am a pillar of this community, I help the poor, you all know me. This is an attempt by these men to hurt me, any evidence that is in there was planted, by them. Anyone can see that... It is obvious... They are outsiders, come to sow chaos and strife!"
And this has a chance of working, a pretty good chance... Unless one of the party is a Paladin and others know it.
"Believe this man not." The Paladin calls. "I am Sir Dyne, Paladin of Iomedae. This man's crimes are real, he plotted to use a golem to take over the city, and I swear it by the Goddess Iomedae." Sir Dyne then gestures and glows as a veil of positive energy envelopes him.
-----
Assuming Paladins are recognized. This just kicks Xanatos in the jibbly bits. This is a Paladin. Paladins cannot lie. This is a Paladin who just said, "No. This man is a liar." Then demonstrated that he was still a Paladin by casting Veil of Positive energy (a Paladin only spell).
Xanatos is done. He loses. His lies don't work and realistically can't.
The people know that no matter how good of a person Xanatos seems, he can lie. The people also know that Sir Dyne, a Paladin, cannot lie, lest he loses his divine abilities, which he just demonstrated.
Nothing in this scenario besides the spell strictly requires that the person in question is a Paladin. Take this same story, but replace Sir Dyne with the Nameless Knight of Alcrest, who pays neither homage nor fealty to any god or lord save his own conscience (but pays due respect both to the houses of gods and houses of lords), who cast out the demons that plagued his homeland, who slew the evil witch queen terrorizing the neighboring municipalities and gave her wealth back to her downtrodden land's people, who accepted no rewards and no titles for either, who is always the first to lower his head in humility, who has stood fast against both corrupt lord and cunning devil, who has provided solace to the just and redemption for the wicked, who would not denounce his faith in justice and virtue even under the threat of death, who the bards say has never lied and who has kept his word to a thousand people across a dozen lands, even promises made under duress.
Is this person any easier to discredit? Do their words hold less weight just because they don't have a badge and a title? Is a hero any less a hero just because his heroic deeds lack the dispensation of a formal organization? Is a hero a hero by the banner over his head and the crest on his cape, or is a hero a hero by his deeds? Because by the time a part is ready to take down a Xanatos or a Luthor, they've probably got a caravan's worth of ethos backing up their words.
Exactly.
Having paladins auto-identified and held up as a paragon of unfailing truth sounds like we're giving paladins an extra ability that I don't see listed for them -- the ability to say "paladin" and win.
when a Paladin walks up to another Paladin they can detect good on each other, and see each others auras of good. Because they are chosen of their gods
But Paladins detect evil, not good.
In a world where Paladins are known and their mechanics are known, it is a given.
Let me put it a different way. I have two materials, one is absolutely unbreakable by all physics. It is literally made of unbreakable somehow.
The other is Adamantine.
Which would you want to make your wall out of?
Yes, Adamantine is strong, essentially unbreakable, and 99.99999999% of the time you can count on it to remain standing. Its likely that in a thousand lifetimes no one will ever break the wall of adamantine. But it could happen.
Not so with the wall of "Unbreakable"
So to with the virtuous fighter and the Paladin. The fighter may be the most virtuous person ever, he makes Paladins look like dirt, the gods come to him for advice on goodness, but hes still capable of evil. Its a physical possibility. The Paladin cant and still remain a Paladin. Thus if you suspect a Paladin of doing something evil and he proves hes still a Paladin, youre wrong.
We keep running into this: known by whom? By the common folk, I assume, since we keep coming back to trying to persuade them. This has been asked before by myself and others, and I'll bold it so that it can be seen a little clearer.
How are these common folk automagically knowing that a paladin is a paladin? How do these common folk know what a paladin can and cannot do? Is there a class? Is it at a local community college?
As for your second comment, a paladin is capable of doing wrong by mistake, by over zealousness, by hubris and more. Being a paladin isn't an automatic path to being free of temptation and sin. These are not a perfect amalgamation of Superman and Captain America taken to an absurd level; they are men and women who were selected, for whatever reason, to represent their God or ideal in a battle against evil.
Some are picked to die, frankly, in that battle. Those few that survive not only their code but the problems that a guy like that gets sent into become the heroes of legend and earn the respect of the people. Their names get know -- like other characters who do such deeds -- and the fact that their word is backed by a God in many cases carries weight.
But just saying "Sorry, I'm a paladin and always right" is, at least for me, trying to game the system. Trying to say that because you cannot lie you cannot be wrong. That your word carries more weight than someone else's -- and we haven't even gotten into the fun of rolling dice and skill levels yet, mind you -- and that isn't covered by what that character can do.
when a Paladin walks up to another Paladin they can detect good on each other, and see each others auras of good. Because they are chosen of their godsBut Paladins detect evil, not good.
In any case, pinging as good does not tell you that a paladin has not fallen. It is quite possible for a paladin to fall and remain good aligned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This just kicks Xanatos in the jibbly bits. This is a Paladin. Paladins cannot lie. This is a Paladin who just said, "No. This man is a liar."
I'm interested in this Negate Bluff (Su) ability that paladins apparently get. Does it only work within their aura? Or within hearing? On the same plane? Does it have the [language-dependent] descriptor? Does it automatically overcome a glibness spell, or do I need to make an opposed check or something?
I feel like I should be using it more often, but I can't seem to find it in the rules.
Yeah I know, I was under the impression they had the detect good spell.when a Paladin walks up to another Paladin they can detect good on each other, and see each others auras of good. Because they are chosen of their godsBut Paladins detect evil, not good.
Yeah but they have more important things to prepare than detect good in most cases.
So the answer is
"in a world where Paladins and their mechanics are known"
But .. and correct me if I'm wrong .. that isn't the common world? That is a house rule/GM interpretation of the world at large. IF you have a world where everyone is sat down and taught that if someone says they are a paladin then they cannot lie then yes, his words might have some weight. It still doesn't negate Bluff and other skills, but it might give you a small bonus.
Yes, but Paladins have a class ability called "Aura of Good" that causes them to not just ping good, but overwhelmingly good.So do clerics.
"But cleircs also have auras of law!"
Not if they worship an NG deity!