What exactly IS the standards that Society holds Paladins to?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Truth in text:

I have not experienced this personally (yet, thankfully, in PFS!) and I was speaking hypothetically based on a pretty bad experience from a previous campaign I was affiliated with.

A lot of responses on it, and I didn't want to say anything more on it, because there wasn't much I could add or mention.

Having been 'burnt', though, it makes one sometimes look for the shiny metal headgear when there isn't a need to do so...

Thank you very much for your time and patience.

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

I will site, for the record, the issues I have had in PFS with GMs and Paladins:

1) My Paladin read some tablets which the module stated was an evil act. However, the GM did not make me get an Atonement because he forgot to warn me ahead of time that I would be committing an evil act when I read them and, indeed, I would not have read them had I known.

2) Some evil bad guys who had been sabotaging an outpost and putting everyone there at great risk, then attempted to ambush us and kill us in the jungle, and having failed that, were now being chased by the same monsters they had hoped to set upon us and begged the party for mercy. The GM specifically looked at my Paladin for a response. Since I worshipped a god of justice, my response was that their current fate seemed just. The GM was satisfied by this response.

3) The GM had us roll for initiative in an encounter but warned us that using lethal force on the target would be an evil act. Since I was already in the process of drawing my Paladin's non-lethal weapon when she called for initiative, this was not a problem.

4) The adventure required us to pretend to be wanna-be cultists for an evil cult. When it came down to swearing allegiance, my Paladin hemmed and hawed. It was clear to the GM I was having a moral dilemma with my Paladin so he said, "If you do X, it will be okay." I did, and everything was okay.

5) My paladin was flat out asked if I was a Pathfinder. My response was, "Do I look like one of those murder hoboes?" The GM found this sufficient.

6) The party had to break into a residence in order to recover evidence to free some innocent people. While I refused to participate in the break in, I also refused to abandon my comrades and stood outside the building in case my assistance was needed. Again, the GM found this sufficient.

7) I was warned by a new to PFS GM that he was a stickler on alignments and would not allow things like Paladins looting dead bodies. While I wasn't playing a Paladin at this table, I was playing a Lawful Good cleric. However, it turned out he really wasn't the stickler he claimed to be and there were no problems. This is the closest I have experienced to the Paladin hating GM trope in PFS.

8) Not my character, but in one adventure we had the option of consuming part of a human soul, and evil act that required Atonement but gave you a nice boon. The Paladin in the party, when told of the boon, stated it was worth the Atonement and committed the act. Personally I think that was pushing it, but the GM allowed it.

As you can see from the examples above, as long as you genuinely attempt to play your paladin in a paladinly manner, most PFS GMs will be fairly generous. I suspect you will find problems if you commit whatever act you want to without concern for your code and then attempt to rules-lawyer your way out of it, but since I haven't done that, I can't say for sure.

4/5 *

Well done, trollbill - good examples. Paladins are harder to play in Pathfinder Society than many other classes, but I find there are as many paladin players who want to use their code to push the other players around, as there are GMs who want to make paladins fall. By chosing to play a paladin, you are accepting the paladin's code, and that is goign to conflict with your Society orders sometimes. So, don't play a paladin unless you want that moral quandry.

I wrote a thing on paladins in PFS a few years back when Season 5's theme was set in the Worldwound and we expected a flood of aasimar paladins. May be useful for players and GMs alike.

4/5

trollbill wrote:
7) I was warned by a new to PFS GM that he was a stickler on alignments and would not allow things like Paladins looting dead bodies. While I wasn't playing a Paladin at this table, I was playing a Lawful Good cleric. However, it turned out he really wasn't the stickler he claimed to be and there were no problems. This is the closest I have experienced to the Paladin hating GM trope in PFS.

So first I'm curious as to why the GM thought that paladins couldn't loot dead bodies: was it not lawful (and under whose jurisdiction) or evil (and by which deity's definition)?

Second, I'm curious as to why the GM didn't care about a Lawful Good cleric doing something that he insisted was out of bounds for a paladin (since they both have class features tied to their alignment)?

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:
, but I find there are as many paladin players who want to use their code to push the other players around, as there are GMs who want to make paladins fall.

That would be a true statement for me as I haven't really found much of either in PFS (outside PFS is another thing entirely). What I have experienced in PFS is people with an initial negative reaction to Paladins because they have encountered the Paladin Moral Bully in the past. But it is unclear if these encounters occurred in PFS or in some other arena.

I have 2 Paladins currently in PFS. One of them does not advertise that fact, though never denies it either. I played one game where we were most of the way through an adventure before the party realized I was a paladin when I did a Smite Evil. They were surprised because I had not been spending the entire adventure preaching to them and telling them all how to behave. That was, however, a pleasant surprise to them.

Scarab Sages

trollbill wrote:
8) Not my character, but in one adventure we had the option of consuming part of a human soul, and evil act that required Atonement but gave you a nice boon. The Paladin in the party, when told of the boon, stated it was worth the Atonement and committed the act. Personally I think that was pushing it, but the GM allowed it.

I agree, this is very much pushing it.

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

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
trollbill wrote:
7) I was warned by a new to PFS GM that he was a stickler on alignments and would not allow things like Paladins looting dead bodies. While I wasn't playing a Paladin at this table, I was playing a Lawful Good cleric. However, it turned out he really wasn't the stickler he claimed to be and there were no problems. This is the closest I have experienced to the Paladin hating GM trope in PFS.
So first I'm curious as to why the GM thought that paladins couldn't loot dead bodies: was it not lawful (and under whose jurisdiction) or evil (and by which deity's definition)?

I elected to wait and see if there was a problem before I questioned the GM on this. Since it did not come up, I didn't ask. I do know he was an 'old school' GM and those are the ones I have had the most negative issues with regarding alignments as they tend to think it is their job to be moral sticklers. My guess would be that it would have to do with two things:

1) GMs who feel the goods of the dead belong to their next of kin and not the people who killed them.
2) GMs who feel taking someone's stuff after you kill them calls into question the righteousness of the kill i.e. did you kill them because it was the right thing to do or did you kill them to take their stuff?

Quote:
Second, I'm curious as to why the GM didn't care about a Lawful Good cleric doing something that he insisted was out of bounds for a paladin (since they both have class features tied to their alignment)?

Again, I didn't ask, and this guy no longer plays/GMs for PFS mostly because I couldn't get him to read the Guide to Organized Play so his characters constantly needed auditing and he got tired of me asking him to read it. It is possible he was one of those GMs has a bee in their bonnet when it comes to Paladins, or he just forgot I was Lawful Good.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
trollbill wrote:
8) Not my character, but in one adventure we had the option of consuming part of a human soul, and evil act that required Atonement but gave you a nice boon. The Paladin in the party, when told of the boon, stated it was worth the Atonement and committed the act. Personally I think that was pushing it, but the GM allowed it.
I agree, this is very much pushing it.

"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."

Yeah, this wouldn't fly at my table. You just don't permanently break a soul for more power and call it just a mistake. I mean, a warrior of pure goodness? C'mon...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
I mean, a warrior of pure goodness? C'mon...

That's a misgnomer. Paladins are warriors of half-order and half-goodness.

I'd love to see paizo make a True Good Paladin variant.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
trollbill wrote:
7) I was warned by a new to PFS GM that he was a stickler on alignments and would not allow things like Paladins looting dead bodies. While I wasn't playing a Paladin at this table, I was playing a Lawful Good cleric. However, it turned out he really wasn't the stickler he claimed to be and there were no problems. This is the closest I have experienced to the Paladin hating GM trope in PFS.
So first I'm curious as to why the GM thought that paladins couldn't loot dead bodies: was it not lawful (and under whose jurisdiction) or evil (and by which deity's definition)?

Possibly a city adventure? Its still theft, even if they're dead. I mean, there's plenty of circumstances that might warrant knifing a guy but far fewer that justify looting him afterwards.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
trollbill wrote:
8) Not my character, but in one adventure we had the option of consuming part of a human soul, and evil act that required Atonement but gave you a nice boon. The Paladin in the party, when told of the boon, stated it was worth the Atonement and committed the act. Personally I think that was pushing it, but the GM allowed it.
I agree, this is very much pushing it.

"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."

Yeah, this wouldn't fly at my table. You just don't permanently break a soul for more power and call it just a mistake. I mean, a warrior of pure goodness? C'mon...

Well, here you get into the kind of Role-playing vs. Metagaming gray areas that can cause arguments. Part of the problem here is that just because it is obvious the player may not be showing any remorse doesn't mean his character isn't, and if that is the case, then how do you tell the difference? It's kind of like that complaint that players should not be level dipping into Paladin just to get more powerful because it is somehow morally wrong and Paladins shouldn't be doing immoral things. While you can argue the morality of it as much as you want, the real problem is you are holding the player to paladinly standards, not the character, and PFS does not require people to be paladins in order to play one. It is an inherent confusion between the player and the character that both player and GM can fall victim to.

Grand Lodge 2/5

I've got a friend who GMs who is very vocal about his thoughts on Paladins. Most of what takes place in PFS would cause them to fall in his eyes. However, he doesn't do that unless the paladin is doing something extreme (aka murdering a hobo or eating babies). He will tell them his thoughts, but I've never seen him force an atonement. Basically he let's the "don't be a jerk" rule override his stringent paladin code of ethics.

Silver Crusade 4/5

trollbill wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
, but I find there are as many paladin players who want to use their code to push the other players around, as there are GMs who want to make paladins fall.
That would be a true statement for me as I haven't really found much of either in PFS (outside PFS is another thing entirely). What I have experienced in PFS is people with an initial negative reaction to Paladins because they have encountered the Paladin Moral Bully in the past. But it is unclear if these encounters occurred in PFS or in some other arena.

I've really never encountered this with a paladin in PFS. Actually, it's my lawful good cleric of Sarenrae who insists on stabilizing fallen foes and offering them a chance at redemption that causes the most arguments at the table. When I'm playing that one, I refuse to let my allies kill fallen foes, excluding pure evil beings like devils and demons, of course.

I have two paladins, and neither has ever had that kind of argument. But one of them (ironically, the sibling of the cleric of Sarenrae above) is a "smite em all, take no prisoners" type who has no problem dispensing lethal justice. The other is naive enough to just go along with the group. She won't kill fallen foes, but she won't argue (much) against others doing it if the foes seem evil and most likely irredeemable.

Scarab Sages

trollbill wrote:
Well, here you get into the kind of Role-playing vs. Metagaming gray areas that can cause arguments. Part of the problem here is that just because it is obvious the player may not be showing any remorse doesn't mean his character isn't, and if that is the case, then how do you tell the difference? It's kind of like that complaint that players should not be level dipping into Paladin just to get more powerful because it is somehow morally wrong and Paladins shouldn't be doing immoral things. While you can argue the morality of it as much as you want, the real problem is you are holding the player to paladinly standards, not the character, and PFS does not require people to be paladins in order to play one. It is an inherent confusion between the player and the character that both player and GM can fall victim to.

A good point, certainly.

I also think RPG groups often have no line drawn between what character says and what character does. Personally, I think morality applies only to actions, not to comments. Granted, there are times where the comment is an action, but most of the time, they are just thoughts given voice. Merely thinking about an evil action, or voicing the concept, doesn't translate to performing, or endorsing, an evil action.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

I absolutely love Paladins! I only have two characters with levels in the class, but even so, I always try to abide by the Paladin Code. It's not easy though, and I admit I make mistakes every once in a while. I have a few examples that hopefully shed some light on what you may be getting into by playing a Paladin.

1. I was playing my Lawful Good character Simon Charming (not an actual Paladin) on one of the many scenarios where your objective is to free slaves; at the very least one particular slave important to the Society. Another player at my table insisted to me that I have to agree with slavery and protect the rights of slavers because it is legal in the region and my alignment has "Lawful" in it. I thought that sounded really weird, and basically ignored it. YMMV.

2. This example is where I was told I was in the wrong and completely agree. Felt a bit ashamed actually. The character in this example was my Neutral Good Druid Simon Victorious.

We were investigating some items that had been stolen from the Society's vault, and entered the house of a supposed allied Cleric of Sarenrae. The Cleric insisted I leave my cat outside. Not suspicious in itself, since my cat is actually a mischievous size Large Lion. While conversing with the Cleric, we had some strange pings on Sense Motive. Also, as a fellow Follower of Sarenrae, my Druid noticed that her Holy Symbol was defaced and her windows shuttered (to block the sun).

I cast Detect Evil with my Shining Wayfinder and got a ping that she was Evil. We all entered Initiative and I went first. I did not attack her simply because she was Evil, but I did shout for my cat to aid me. My cat smashed the door and entered the house. My group proposed to me that I jumped the gun, and even if she was Evil she had not taken a hostile action. It could be argued that my Lion may have started hostilities himself. I actually completely agree and apologized. I was partially confused because I assumed Initative count meant hostilities had already begun. I apologized, and no harm came of it. We even took the Cleric alive. :)

3. Not a specific example in itself, but my Seeker character (and actual Paladin!) Venture Captain Simon Dragonar is a little unusual, being a Bard/Paladin/Ranger. Hopefully a Bard/Monk/Paladin/Ranger/Swashbuckler eventually if I ever make it to Level 20. Fingers crossed!

This is something where people differ, but as a Paladin, I usually try to redeem, well, everyone. I have used Saving Finale on Intelligent Undead. I have cast Break Enchantment on a Devil who unwittingly activated a Cursed Item on themselves. And I used Dimension Door to get an Evil Cat (Yes, really) out of danger.

All the above examples were creatures on my "team," and I would not aid anyone evil who was in the process of murdering innocents or anything. It's not that I want to associate with Evil characters. It's that I want to redeem them and help them so they are no longer Evil. I don't know if it will always work, but I always try.

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / What exactly IS the standards that Society holds Paladins to? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society