Between Paladins and Assassins; Morality and alignments.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
But like I said, superheroes are not a good way to look at this. For a more comparable example to the situations PCs are usually in, I recommend Westerns. Ever seen Have Gun Will Travel? It's a classic TV Western with a protagonist who actually goes by the name of Paladin. He's a very good example of how one can be a mercenary, kill people, and remain indisputably Lawful Good and honorable. And is thus an excellent reference for most PC Paladins.
Some of the more classic definitions of the word have nothing to do with morality as much as loyalty.

Uh...okay. I have no idea how that relates to the bit of my post you quoted.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I've always been a bit leery about threads like this when they come up.

Why are these questions ONLY asked about Paladins?

Do all other Lawful Good or Good characters get free passes on conduct, because they don't have built in self destructs? If that's the case one has to wonder on the mindset of the questioner in the first place.

It basically comes down to this:

One Evil act doesn't make you Evil. Your Alignment is a result of the combination of all your behaviors. If those are almost all Good except for this one Evil act, you remain Good. That being the case, for most characters, you can just eyeball it. Have they mostly been trying to be Good? Yes? Then they're probably fine, even with one or two moral lapses. So you can sorta not worry about this sort of thing unless they're doing morally dubious stuff consistently...and if they're doing it consistently, then even if some of them weren't Evil, they're probably trending southward, Alignment-wise.

But Paladins, ah Paladins. Paladins fall if they commit even a single Evil act. So exactly where that line is, is vastly more relevant for them than it is for anyone else.

For example, I read a story a while ago on the forums about a party who short-circuited a typical 'free the village from the Evil Nobleman' plot by simply sneaking in and murdering him in his sleep. They thus saved what's probably a large number of civilian lives and freed the populace from oppression, and they certainly had proof that the guy in question deserved it. It's pretty clear that the net good of their actions and motivations (they were trying to help people) mean that this isn't gonna make anyone Evil or anything, whether murder in this circumstance is technically an Evil act or not. The Evil act is outweighed vastly by the Good ones even if it was Evil.

But what if that group had a Paladin in it? Does he fall? The question of whether a minor act of Evil was committed there in the service of Good, or not, is suddenly super relevant.


But is the act evil?

A lot depends on context.

Here's an oblique example. It's the end game of the original Avatar series where the missing Aang's friends are consulting with with Zuko's uncle Iroh. They're discussing the matter of Ozai's successor should they win.

Zuko suggests that Iroh replace his brother. There are a lot of good reasons. Iroh was the elder brother and a rightful heir to his father's throne, and he's clearly an all around good guy, who has traveled painful paths and gained wisdom, patience, knowledge, and would make a great ruler.

He declines. "If I were to assume the throne, the people would see it as another case of brother killing brother in order to assume power."

The point is that the answer to your question depends so much on context. Is this a world where it matters HOW the evil oppressor is taken down? Or how they followed up that act or failed to do so? In a camapign that's more than just taking down the Big Bad and racking up experience points, your question is at best, less than half the question, because context matters.

How does the God of Paladins run things in that world... is Procedure weighted more than Consequence? Does mindset and motive matter? Context, again, is the real question here. There may well be two Paladins in that group, each patroned by two very different powers. One might fall, the other exalted.

Liberty's Edge

Sure. And that's an interesting discussion to have. But you asked why it only comes up with Paladins, and I was answering that.

To reiterate, my point is that it usually doesn't matter if any individual act is just over the borderline to Evil...unless you're a Paladin. And then it matters very much.

Which is why discussions like this always seem to come up focused on Paladins.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure. And that's an interesting discussion to have. But you asked why it only comes up with Paladins, and I was answering that.

To reiterate, my point is that it usually doesn't matter if any individual act is just over the borderline to Evil...unless you're a Paladin. And then it matters very much.

Which is why discussions like this always seem to come up focused on Paladins.

In that case we're solidly in the territory of why people go to circuses to watch high wire acts.

Liberty's Edge

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sure. And that's an interesting discussion to have. But you asked why it only comes up with Paladins, and I was answering that.

To reiterate, my point is that it usually doesn't matter if any individual act is just over the borderline to Evil...unless you're a Paladin. And then it matters very much.

Which is why discussions like this always seem to come up focused on Paladins.

In that case we're solidly in the territory of why people go to circuses to watch high wire acts.

No. That's not it.

This is a game played for fun, using a moral system most believe isn't entirely applicable in the real world. Most people are thus only interested in the philosophy of Alignment inasmuch as it is relevant to their games.

Thus, my above point: To most characters, it doesn't matter whether an act is just this side of Evil, or just the other side, so it doesn't get discussed since it isn't relevant. It is relevant for Paladins, so it gets discussed in regards to them.

Now me, I'd happily discuss Alignment and morality in a non-Paladin context. Possibly at great length. But most people just don't care that much about it devoid of the context of a particular situation wherein it is relevant.


There is also the idea that Paladins are very powerful and they pay for this power with the restriction.


Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?

I think the biggest problem that crops up is that a player's expectation for what's evil and the DM's is sometimes very different, regardless of context and the character suffers a significant setback. Is killing a tyrant of a nobleman in his bed chamber murder if you have proof he's evil and actively causing harm? One DM might say no and the other yes. Can a Paladin torture a creature of the lower planes of hell to extract information so he can save hundreds or thousands? One DM might say yes because it's for a good cause AND because the creature is pure evil and the other DM might say No and recite old adage "road, hell, paved with good intentions" blah blah...


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Paladins have a class mechanic explicitly tied to alignment and behavior, some of which can be murky even as the best of times. It's sort of like playing baseball without any posts to differentiate between 'home run' and 'foul'. Most other characters don't get the same scrutiny because it's less relevant to them.
That's from a gamist mechanic perspective. IF they are playing characters that are supposed to be good, lawful, or at least heroic, it should. If your level of roleplay is dependent on mechanical penalty or the lack of them, then it's not really roleplaying that much.

Agreed. I get frustrated when I see these converstations too. It always boils down to 'Paladins are jerks because I can't murder around them...' When ANY Good character should be throwing a fit about that. I don't think I've EVER played a game where 'paid assassin who asks no questions' would have been an acceptable party member.

It happened once in a game of ours where the rogue and wizard threw a fit because they were stopped from killing some defenseless... goblins? Bandits? I think? It's been a few years. Something that wasn't a threat at that point.

The Paladin got all the ire thrown at her... but the monk and my cleric were standing shoulder to shoulder with her.

Evil behavior shouldn't be something that 'only' paladins oppose. ALL heroic or good characters should have there alignment 'codes'.


A lot of this goes back to earlier D&D editions, which I didn't play, but I heard that it was very difficult in 1E to be a paladin, and they were very powerful. The code stayed even when the power level dropped.


wraithstrike wrote:
A lot of this goes back to earlier D&D editions, which I didn't play, but I heard that it was very difficult in 1E to be a paladin, and they were very powerful. The code stayed even when the power level dropped.

To be fair... they REALLY are pretty powerful. I just played one up to 20 and he was consistently the most powerful character I've played. Smite is awesome... but it's those saves and healing that made him tough to deal with. Even some full powered casters were having a heck of time getting off the nasty spells to land on him.

Add in the Angelic Aspect spells and he gets some major resistences and flight...

They may not be the #1 most awesome thing EVER... but they are certainly in the top tier of powerful characters.


phantom1592 wrote:

...

They may not be the #1 most awesome thing EVER... but they are certainly in the top tier of powerful characters.

Actually, they are only a high Tier 4. Sorry, but you need to be a 9th level caster who can change their spells from day to day to hit top tier.

*yeah, lets shove some C/MD into this paladin thread - nothing bad could possibly happen*

Liberty's Edge

phantom1592 wrote:

Agreed. I get frustrated when I see these converstations too. It always boils down to 'Paladins are jerks because I can't murder around them...' When ANY Good character should be throwing a fit about that. I don't think I've EVER played a game where 'paid assassin who asks no questions' would have been an acceptable party member.

It happened once in a game of ours where the rogue and wizard threw a fit because they were stopped from killing some defenseless... goblins? Bandits? I think? It's been a few years. Something that wasn't a threat at that point.

The Paladin got all the ire thrown at her... but the monk and my cleric were standing shoulder to shoulder with her.

Evil behavior shouldn't be something that 'only' paladins oppose. ALL heroic or good characters should have there alignment 'codes'.

For the record, I agree with this entirely. Good means not doing Evil stuff, or at the very worst doing Evil things only very occasionally and at great need.

Just to be clear.


Diffan wrote:

Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?

Everyone else?

Typically best saves in the party, full BAB, good profs, nice spells, lot of nice abilities, whole lotta immunities. Lots of fun archetypes that are as powerful as baseline.

They very easily stand tall above most classes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Diffan wrote:

When I play paladins I usually defer to killing the evil subject on two merits:

1. Is it a humanoid creature? If yes, then chances are they can be redeemed or punished by some other means other than death. Subdual damage is the way to go here unless continued resistance, then kill it. Some creatures of this type are more difficult than others, like Ogres, Giants, and Trolls. These might get the sword because they're too dangerous to bring to captivity.

2. Is it a monster? Pretty much all Abberations, Chromatic Dragons, Evil Fey, evil Magical Beasts, Monstrous humanoids, Outsiders, Undead, and Vermin. If yes, smite it and hope it dies quickly.

This attitude is retty prejudiced and might (or might not, depending on circumstances) rapidly result in a Paladin in one of my games falling. A creature's species is immaterial to how evil it is and whether it can be redeemed.

Well, barring Evil Outsiders, anyway.

It's a long-term issue with the Tolkein-inspired fantasy. There are Good creatures and there are Evil creatures.

That said, as long as you're clear to the player what the expectations are of the paladins in your game, it's all fair.


Paladins are LG. So that means they need to follow that law. They don't just kill any evil they find as that would be evil and in most case unlawful. If killing a witch is legal and that witch is doing evil then apprehending the witch first for trial would what the paladin does but killing witch in self defense is fine too.

It's like police officer with warrant kicking the door to crack house down. The shooting starts and bullets fly killing drug dealers or maiming them. That's expected so shoot to kill in that threat level. Paladin is no different storming he dragon's lair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main problem people have with the paladin code and alignment system is their own unconscious bias...

It is almost unavoidable to relate the class/alignment to an archetype of a hero. Or a modern centric idea aka police officer.

The paladin is over and over put into mental straight jackets of rules created out of personal shoulds or should nots.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
voska66 wrote:
Paladins are LG. So that means they need to follow that law.

Not really. They follow the law if the law is Lawful and Good. Otherwise, they change it.

YMMV on what is Lawful.


voska66 wrote:
Paladins are LG. So that means they need to follow that law.

The law states that every Sunday, orphans are hunted like a rodeo and forced to work in the salt mines until death.

That could be the law, but its definitely not Good.


Envall wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?

Everyone else?

Typically best saves in the party, full BAB, good profs, nice spells, lot of nice abilities, whole lotta immunities. Lots of fun archetypes that are as powerful as baseline.

They very easily stand tall above most classes.

Clerics, Druids, Wizarsds, Summoners (not the Unchained one), and a few others would largely disagree.


Diffan wrote:
Envall wrote:
Diffan wrote:

Powerful compared to whom? Cleric, Druids, and Wizards?

Everyone else?

Typically best saves in the party, full BAB, good profs, nice spells, lot of nice abilities, whole lotta immunities. Lots of fun archetypes that are as powerful as baseline.

They very easily stand tall above most classes.

Clerics, Druids, Wizarsds, Summoners (not the Unchained one), and a few others would largely disagree.

Name the few others.

Because full casters are a boring cop-out in these kinds of discussions.

Shadow Lodge

I've found the party paladin more or less on par with my bloodrager. He obviously demolishes BBEG, but I do better with mobs and neutral opponents (fairly common in our group). He's got broader defenses, but I've got better touch AC, mobility, and skills.


Uh, I think everyone's confused, the guy was talking about AD&D when he said that paladins were the best class, not Pathfinder where full arcane casters are basically gods and full divine casters are basically demigods (and I say this from watching a god wizard and goddess sorcerer in action,) though they're still really good here, and absolutely delicious in the eyes of a heal/defense nut.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

No, the guy mentioned BAB which I'm pretty sure was not AD&D.


Huh, guess I misread it...or maybe that poster plays at a table where full casters are banned.


He means that of all the martials and partial classes, the Paladin is the best. He wasn't comparing to full casters at all.


I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.


Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

Put them against neutral opponents and it's another story. Or put them in a situation where they have a lot more enemies than smites available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

Put them against neutral opponents and it's another story. Or put them in a situation where they have a lot more enemies than smites available.

They can still hold their own in those situations. Sure they can't smite everything but they still get some of the best defenses in the game. As long as thy don't build themselves poorly with bad feats or take an archetype that gets rid of divine grace or lay on hands they should be able to stand up against those enemies without too much trouble.

Community Manager

Removed some unhelpful posts and responses. Be civil to each other, folks.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

Put them against neutral opponents and it's another story. Or put them in a situation where they have a lot more enemies than smites available.
They can still hold their own in those situations. Sure they can't smite everything but they still get some of the best defenses in the game. As long as thy don't build themselves poorly with bad feats or take an archetype that gets rid of divine grace or lay on hands they should be able to stand up against those enemies without too much trouble.

Indeed. Smite is nice, but it's just one of several abilities the Paladin has. A Paladin without smiting still has swift-action self healing/condition removal, some of the best saves in the game and several immunities, plus an animal companion or weapon buffing power.

At the end of the day, Smite's not even all that unique. It's just another weapon damage boosting power. I'd certainly give due consideration to an archetype that replaced Smite with Fighter Weapon Training, Barbarian Rage, Studied Target, etc.


So, guys. How about them alignment issues.


I really don't see issues with alignment. I know a lot of people feel its flawed, but these are the same people who try to follow the grey line everywhere and purposely try to bring in their college philosophy class into this. If we stick to Paladin than the real dependent on this is their God. Some God's like Sarenrae and Iomadae mention attempting and offering redemption to their enemies, not striking at defenseless ones and being Captain America/Superman.

Some like Apsu say they get one chance to be shown mercy. If they betray that chance, destroy them.

Then you have Lawful Good Torag who says kill them all if they are evil. Protect the innocent and your kin first and never stay your hand against an evil foe.

The God's right the rules for paladins and thats how that goes, your personal perception of what is Good or evil, and the perceptions of the Lich or Assassin doing evil things for what he feels are good results mean nothing to the world at large. In this fantasy world, the lines of good and evil have been drawn and the idea of twisting evil things into good means nothing to the world at large. If you want to argue a CG character can take over the world, accept it at face value and start doing it. What things he does to accomplish that will change his alignment and the truth will eventually come out.

The assassin mentioned at the beginning has a code he follows, his own personal one. He sounded far more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil than an agent of chaos. Likewise the Punisher strikes me as a Lawful Neutral. He breaks the law, takes it into his own hands and murders and tortures. But he'll never endanger the innocent. Hell, he wouldn't even fight back against Captain America in Civil War despite getting a beat down. He has rules, and he won't bend them. His target is only evil.

tl;dr over lol


Chengar Qordath wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

Put them against neutral opponents and it's another story. Or put them in a situation where they have a lot more enemies than smites available.
They can still hold their own in those situations. Sure they can't smite everything but they still get some of the best defenses in the game. As long as thy don't build themselves poorly with bad feats or take an archetype that gets rid of divine grace or lay on hands they should be able to stand up against those enemies without too much trouble.

Indeed. Smite is nice, but it's just one of several abilities the Paladin has. A Paladin without smiting still has swift-action self healing/condition removal, some of the best saves in the game and several immunities, plus an animal companion or weapon buffing power.

At the end of the day, Smite's not even all that unique. It's just another weapon damage boosting power. I'd certainly give due consideration to an archetype that replaced Smite with Fighter Weapon Training, Barbarian Rage, Studied Target, etc.

I'd give it more credit than that, adding cha to AC and ignoring DR ain't nothing to sneeze at, but still not needed in order to lay the smack down on every opponent.


Vincent Briggs wrote:

The assassin mentioned at the beginning has a code he follows, his own personal one. He sounded far more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil than an agent of chaos. Likewise the Punisher strikes me as a Lawful Neutral. He breaks the law, takes it into his own hands and murders and tortures. But he'll never endanger the innocent. Hell, he wouldn't even fight back against Captain America in Civil War despite getting a beat down. He has rules, and he won't bend them. His target is only evil.

I'd definitely put Punisher at Evil. He's too into 'results'. His first target was spider-man after all because Daily Bugle claimed he was a criminal. No research, no evidence... just pull the trigger. Not to mention the way he just blasts his way through gangs and organization... with zero knowledge who they are or if there are any undercover cops in there...

I'll give him credit that he doesn't WANT to hurt any innocents... but he's pretty lax on 'checking for sure.'


phantom1592 wrote:
Vincent Briggs wrote:

The assassin mentioned at the beginning has a code he follows, his own personal one. He sounded far more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil than an agent of chaos. Likewise the Punisher strikes me as a Lawful Neutral. He breaks the law, takes it into his own hands and murders and tortures. But he'll never endanger the innocent. Hell, he wouldn't even fight back against Captain America in Civil War despite getting a beat down. He has rules, and he won't bend them. His target is only evil.

I'd definitely put Punisher at Evil. He's too into 'results'. His first target was spider-man after all because Daily Bugle claimed he was a criminal. No research, no evidence... just pull the trigger. Not to mention the way he just blasts his way through gangs and organization... with zero knowledge who they are or if there are any undercover cops in there...

I'll give him credit that he doesn't WANT to hurt any innocents... but he's pretty lax on 'checking for sure.'

To be fair, how much he checks (and a lot of other parts of his character) are one of those things that varies a lot depending on the writer. Sometimes he's very careful to only kill people who deserve it and are 100% guilty, and sometimes he's gunning down jaywalkers.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Vincent Briggs wrote:

The assassin mentioned at the beginning has a code he follows, his own personal one. He sounded far more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil than an agent of chaos. Likewise the Punisher strikes me as a Lawful Neutral. He breaks the law, takes it into his own hands and murders and tortures. But he'll never endanger the innocent. Hell, he wouldn't even fight back against Captain America in Civil War despite getting a beat down. He has rules, and he won't bend them. His target is only evil.

I'd definitely put Punisher at Evil. He's too into 'results'. His first target was spider-man after all because Daily Bugle claimed he was a criminal. No research, no evidence... just pull the trigger. Not to mention the way he just blasts his way through gangs and organization... with zero knowledge who they are or if there are any undercover cops in there...

I'll give him credit that he doesn't WANT to hurt any innocents... but he's pretty lax on 'checking for sure.'

To be fair, how much he checks (and a lot of other parts of his character) are one of those things that varies a lot depending on the writer. Sometimes he's very careful to only kill people who deserve it and are 100% guilty, and sometimes he's gunning down jaywalkers.

When I'm driving, I find Jaywalkers evil incarnate so I can see why he guns them down.

Only last night, I was going 45 in a 45 area, and some stupid dude decides to stand (not cross) just stand in a lane. I had to drive across the yellow line to not run him over (I doubt I'd stop in time if I just braked). So yeah, gun them all down!


Paladins dont need a deity to grant them powers. They can worship one. But it does not override their code of conduct. (Archetypes not withstanding.) They recieve their powers from adhering to the code, not from adhering to the tenets of a specific deity. Heck, paladins aren't even required to worship anyone, though it is common.


Envall wrote:

I said paladins are very powerful.

And then Diffan objected with "full casters". Which is the kind of stick you easily get tired of being swung around in the forums, but I digress.

And then it fell apart from there. Maybe I should had not said "tall above other classes" as flower text, maybe it was taken too literally, fine.

The problem is that after AD&D, the alignment restrictions don't justify their perceived power level. They're no longer "Fighter plus Extra". Fighters, especially in Pathfinder, have a TON more options that also make them powerful. Especially with the myriad of options in later supplements. It's not to say that the Paladin isn't powerful, it's to point out that so are other classes that DON'T have nearly the same level of forced role-play requirements.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Between Paladins and Assassins; Morality and alignments. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion