SquirrelyOgre |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladins
Nice. That's a more proactive take on them than I have seen in a while. Good to hear from Gygax in this area.
The Sword |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it isn't possible to usurp authority if there isn't any to start with. In medieval Europe the were several laws protecting crime and property but almost no method of enforcing them. Town watches, rural constables and thief takers were usually private individuals acting as law-for-hire, paid for by local landowners/merchants & businesses/lords for their own benefit.
While you may have been entitled to redress if someone stole your property, unless you were able to apprehend and drag the offender before a magistrate/lord there was no practical way of seeing justice done. There was no consistent law enforcement beyond what lords, guilds and churches could enact on an individual, local basis.
This meant that judgement was usually summary, quick and bloody. Jails were only used for holding people until trial and little else. In England in the 1600's these would happen quarterly in bulk so the majority of the accused would be held for less than three months. They were then usually executed, fined, flogged and/or released.
As a result it is not a great leap to see adventuring bands as just another private group assisting the populace gain access to justice that they are entitled to but have no way of accessing unaided. Recovering stolen property, tracking down murderers, finding missing relatives (typical fare for adventurers) would all be typically undertaken by private individuals. That said there would still need to be evidence that crimes have been committed by the accused and awkward questions could be asked. However such evidence was often based on a persons word and reputation rather than modern systems of evidence. It also came down to the opinion and attitude of the individual sitting in judgement who had could largely dispense this as they saw fit (provided the accused wasn't powerful or influential).
Most western countries did not have anything even recognizably like a police force until at least the 18th C if not later, well beyond the period D&D reflects. Neither were there the same rights and redress against unfair judgement that there is now.
thejeff |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
But how do you know she's a Paladin? She could be lying. She could be some other kind of warrior-priest type, not bound by the same restrictions.
HyperMissingno |
HWalsh wrote:It's fine, generally, for the Sheriff to ignore the Paladin or refuse him/her access to a crime scene.
The Paladin, also, should ignore the authority of the Sheriff if the Sheriff can't or won't do the job.
Any Sheriff who has half a brain would never dismiss a Paladin though. To do so could easily equate to political suicide.
That's assuming the Sheriff & the town agree with the Paladin's position. If it's a petty crime, sure. If the Paladin's harassing a prominent, popular local figure with accusations he's involved in some mysterious plot, then it might be a different story.
Especially if the town isn't particularly Lawful Good.
Obviously, if the Sheriff is himself corrupt, he's going to try to dismiss the Paladin - or worse.
There's also the possibility that the sheriff is mind controlled or that someone nefarious has him by the balls so even though he wants to side with the paladin but doing so would mean the death of is loved ones.
thejeff |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladins
It's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
Charon's Little Helper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:But how do you know she's a Paladin? She could be lying. She could be some other kind of warrior-priest type, not bound by the same restrictions.Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
Cast a paladin only spell. Admittedly - it only works if they have sufficient Spellcraft. Lay on Hands also works, though some paladins trade it away.
Claxon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ElyasRavenwood wrote:It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladinsIt's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
It's a valid view on being Paladin, but not the only possible view on being Paladin. It sounds very much the Paladin code of Torag.
Veilgn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Veilgn wrote:But his weapon have authority.Righteous Authority
For sake of greater food.
Qaianna |
thejeff wrote:Cast a paladin only spell. Admittedly - it only works if they have sufficient Spellcraft. Lay on Hands also works, though some paladins trade it away.Charon's Little Helper wrote:But how do you know she's a Paladin? She could be lying. She could be some other kind of warrior-priest type, not bound by the same restrictions.Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
Yum, Spellcraft check to determine what it is. And then Bluff to lie about it. 'Oh, I'm sorry, that's just a mundane Cure Light Wounds. Executioner, please?' And if the Spellcraft check is blown badly enough, the inquisitor isn't even lying!
That said, I think one common trope is to just deputise the adventurers to some extent, especially if they've already shown interest in not pillaging the town; we're at this stage in Rise of the Runelords ourselves, as far as Sandpoint's concerned. (And, as our barbarian reminded our cleric, this doesn't quite extend to OTHER towns!)
Charon's Little Helper |
And then Bluff to lie about it. 'Oh, I'm sorry, that's just a mundane Cure Light Wounds. Executioner, please?' And if the Spellcraft check is blown badly enough, the inquisitor isn't even lying!
That has to do with others lying - which is an entirely different ball of wax, and not a paladin specific issue.
And it would still be a lie. There are no rules I'm aware of where a failed Spellcraft check makes you think it's something else; you just have no clue.
Qaianna |
Qaianna wrote:And then Bluff to lie about it. 'Oh, I'm sorry, that's just a mundane Cure Light Wounds. Executioner, please?' And if the Spellcraft check is blown badly enough, the inquisitor isn't even lying!That has to do with others lying - which is an entirely different ball of wax, and not a paladin specific issue.
And it would still be a lie. There are no rules I'm aware of where a failed Spellcraft check makes you think it's something else; you just have no clue.
True, aside from 'Nope, doesn't look like a pally spell. Zeke, get the diesel fuel'. Now would be a good time to admit meeting Duane ...
TriOmegaZero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ElyasRavenwood wrote:It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladinsIt's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
I also wonder which meaning of 'eye for an eye' he was using.
Charon's Little Helper |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:I also wonder which meaning of 'eye for an eye' he was using.ElyasRavenwood wrote:It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladinsIt's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
I doubt that he was talking about potatoes.
Qaianna |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TriOmegaZero wrote:I doubt that he was talking about potatoes.thejeff wrote:I also wonder which meaning of 'eye for an eye' he was using.ElyasRavenwood wrote:It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladinsIt's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
Well, when typesetters raid each others' font bins ...
TriOmegaZero |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt that he was talking about potatoes.
My question is if he meant the historical 'you cannot take more than was taken from you' or if he meant the modern 'I will take my revenge'.
Charon's Little Helper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:I doubt that he was talking about potatoes.My question is if he meant the historical 'you cannot take more than was taken from you' or if he meant the modern 'I will take my revenge'.
Sorry for my silliness.
But yes, it is interesting how that phrase has come to mean an exceptionally harsh revenge/punishment, when originally it was actually a sign of moderation.
hasteroth |
Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
I always wondered if it was possible (I haven't looked closely at all the different Paladin codes) to be kind of tricky with the Paladin's honesty. A couple of things that come to mind are if there's any way to make a Paladin that can make the truth dance, in other words he makes you hear a different truth than the one he told you by exploiting linguistic and semantic technicalities to never really lie but bluff you with double-meanings and unspoken implications (that you assume are implied but never actually were).
Also, what's stopping a Rogue with excellent disguise from impersonating a Paladin? If nobody around can magically expose him, would the citizenry (especially those who worship the impersonated Paladin's deity) trust this Rogue implicitly?
Charon's Little Helper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:I always wondered if it was possible (I haven't looked closely at all the different Paladin codes) to be kind of tricky with the Paladin's honesty. A couple of things that come to mind are if there's any way to make a Paladin that can make the truth dance, in other words he makes you hear a different truth than the one he told you by exploiting linguistic and semantic technicalities to never really lie but bluff you with double-meanings and unspoken implications (that you assume are implied but never actually were).Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
No, I don't think that they could. While it wouldn't technically be lying, it would certainly not be 'acting with honor' - of which lying is just an explained example. It's probably be better to say 'deceive' as it's a more general term, since I also doubt that a paladin would fall for being sarcastic (which - from the absolute strictest definition is a lie).
That isn't to say that paladins always need to spill their guts, but they can't get around their code by 'lies of omission'.
Also, what's stopping a Rogue with excellent disguise from impersonating a Paladin? If nobody around can magically expose him, would the citizenry (especially those who worship the impersonated Paladin's deity) trust this Rogue implicitly?
Nothing is stopping them. But if their Bluff is high enough to pull it off - why bother? They can just say whatever lies they want directly and people will believe them. Adding the paladin lie to it is just adding another roll that they could flub, and the first time someone catches them in a lie no one will believe that they are a paladin any longer.
Plus - pretending to be a paladin while doing it is more likely to pique the interest of any real paladins who hear about it, and that sounds like all sorts of bad news for said rogue.
Auxavier Atredies |
This authority is something comes from role playing. You can start off with a good background story for a character and role play the connections. Then you can use that authority or earn it and have it given to you.
I agree an the notion of a great backstory for a paladin, and I agree on the contacts and who you know in town or the campaign world.
This paladin for example hails from Falcon's Hollow and he considers the local cleric to be his "aunt", anyone who knows falcon's hollow knows that is zero in terms of authority. But he has come to be on good terms with the sheriff a duly elected official.
The DM knows I am building towards the prestige class justicar....
Lucy_Valentine |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While you might not have official authority (depending upon the world) - as a paladin, everyone will trust you. Why? Because you're a paladin. That is why the Paladin Code isn't a drawback; it's a class feature. As soon as someone knows that you're a paladin, they know that they can trust you.
I agree, with two caveats/questions, the first being how do they know you're a Paladin? Anyone can buy a holy symbol. Are the various aura effects things people can feel?
The other being the perennial question of how well class mechanics are understood to exist by the population at large. I mean, it's reasonable to play that nobody understands those.
Edited to add:
Wow, Gygax's paladins are really the old-school, crusading, "kill them all, god will surely know his own", monsters-that-look-like-humans type, aren't they. Thinking about that is really putting me off them.
*shudders*
Charon's Little Helper |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:While you might not have official authority (depending upon the world) - as a paladin, everyone will trust you. Why? Because you're a paladin. That is why the Paladin Code isn't a drawback; it's a class feature. As soon as someone knows that you're a paladin, they know that they can trust you.I agree, with two caveats/questions, the first being how do they know you're a Paladin? Anyone can buy a holy symbol. Are the various aura effects things people can feel?
The other being the perennial question of how well class mechanics are understood to exist by the population at large. I mean, it's reasonable to play that nobody understands those.
1. Asked & answered above.
2. Perhaps not EVERYONE will know the paladin code. However, assuming that there is at least one active paladin order (seems to be strongly implied) then it's likely that most will. Not only would be in stories about paladins (at least the generalities) the basics would also likely be taught along with many religions.
Charon's Little Helper |
Wow, Gygax's paladins are really the old-school, crusading, "kill them all, god will surely know his own", monsters-that-look-like-humans type, aren't they. Thinking about that is really putting me off them.
*shudders*
The nits/lice thing is a bit creepy, but I don't have a problem with a paladin who executes a murderer who claims to be turning over a new leaf. They're still a murderer.
After all; they don't let people out of prison because they show remorse. Some crimes that we punish for in the modern day are even inherently accidental and therefore the perpetrator is almost inherently remorseful. (manslaughter/vehicular homicide etc.)
thejeff |
Kryzbyn wrote:A Paladin of Sarenrae might let them go. Redemption, and all that.True - if he truly believed them. I'm not saying that a paladin HAS to execute them. But he certainly can and retain his paladin status.
As long as they surrendered unconditionally - or were captured while helpless one way or another. If they surrender under conditions that they be allowed to live, the Paladin can't change those terms after the fact. Honor, lying, etc.
It's also worth noting that the Code for paladins isn't quite the same in PF as it was in Gary's day.
R_Chance |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several people up-thread have mentioned variations on "How do they know you're really a Paladin?". Probably because the real Paladins are going to cut you into little pieces if you're not... I doubt fake Paladins are going to get off easy. So, for awhile you fake it, word gets around and your head leaves your shoulders. And the next would be fake "paladin" considers a new scam.
thejeff |
Several people up-thread have mentioned variations on "How do they know you're really a Paladin?". Probably because the real Paladins are going to cut you into little pieces if you're not... I doubt fake Paladins are going to get off easy. So, for awhile you fake it, word gets around and your head leaves your shoulders. And the next would be fake "paladin" considers a new scam.
Why? Is calling yourself a paladin evil? Is it a crime? Is it sufficiently horrible to warrant summary execution?
More practically though, is Paladin actually a thing in the game world?
Does a Paladin serving a particular deity realize that she's actually somehow closer akin to paladins of a different deity than to even the more warlike priests of her own god? A paladin belonging to some particular organization may likely take offence at someone impersonating a member of that order, but that doesn't mean she'll care about impersonating paladins in general. Nor that everyone in her order is actually a paladin.
Do people know and discuss character classes?
Just Paladins or do we also know about all the other classes and probably multiclassing and all the other mechanical stuff?
Claxon |
There are possibly orders of paladins, in much the same way there were orders of knights (which were the inspiration for the class).
Actually, there's probably like some sort of signifier for each religious order's paladins when they go through paladin school. Paladins do require some training after all, don't they?
hasteroth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Razmiran being a country that exists suggests it is possible to pull off long term lies about one's religious significance... Without ever being held accountable.
Also its not unreasonable to think that a false-Paladin, false-Prophet, etc might go unnoticed for a long period of time regardless of which religion they claim to represent.
GM Rednal |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Tempering Hall in Absalom trains Paladins of Iomedae, Abadar, Irori, and Shelyn (per Guide to Absalom). Mostly Iomedae. XD So there's definitely a formal education available for some of them. Presumably, other churches that have Paladins have something similar in place.
Of course, Paladins are not required to follow a deity, but presumably those who don't still find some way to get training in order to master the use of their chosen weapon(s) and armor.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are possibly orders of paladins, in much the same way there were orders of knights (which were the inspiration for the class).
Actually, there's probably like some sort of signifier for each religious order's paladins when they go through paladin school. Paladins do require some training after all, don't they?
Officially Paladins are a self-taught class. Even trained classes don't have to be taught in formal schools - apprenticeships and other more or less formal arrangements may well exist.
Orders of paladins may well exist, but there's no requirement that all paladins belong to one. Or that Paladins belong to an actual religious order or even follow a particular deity. And, unless you're very hung up on the metagame idea of class, those orders are likely to include other "holy warrior" types - martially oriented clerics and oracles of that particular deity, even particularly devout fighter and other non-divine casters. They'd need to live up to the order's Code to remain in good standing of course.
Mind you, going back to the original question - membership in some order of paladins may well confer some level of authority, probably linked to rank within the order, which may be loosely linked to level. But that's a political thing, not a game thing.
Deighton Thrane |
Cast a paladin only spell. Admittedly - it only works if they have sufficient Spellcraft. Lay on Hands also works, though some paladins trade it away.
Paladins don't cast til level 4, and some don't cast at all. Some don't use lay on hands either. It's entirely possible to bluff that you don't have those abilities while still being a Paladin.
You can't (or at least really shouldn't) have a system of authority that just relies on your ability to tell whether someone is lying to you. Much in the same way that city guards shouldn't let the average adventurer into the palace treasury because when they say they're agents of the king, they sound believable, you shouldn't give a paladin any authority just because they tell you they are. You might view them in a better light, but any special privilege should still require some badge of office, special writ or the like. Otherwise you're basically working under a system where lying can get you anywhere.
Lucy_Valentine |
Probably because the real Paladins are going to cut you into little pieces if you're not...
But how do the real paladins know who the fake ones are? They have auras of good but they detect evil. Do they hire wizards?
(My aura question earlier was serious, btw. Can a person in receipt of an aura feel it? It seems plausible, especially for fear.)
And even if they knew a person were wrong about being the chosen of deity X, is making that claim either falsely or inaccurately an act so wrong it deserves death? Or as a separate question, illegal?
Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
I really don't think that a servant of good should be hacking people to death without thinking really carefully about it. And then probably not doing it. Respect for life implies not using lethal violence as a first solution.
There are possibly orders of paladins, in much the same way there were orders of knights (which were the inspiration for the class).
The Tempering Hall in Absalom trains Paladins...
Well, yes. But being in an order doesn't necessarily imply class levels. Unless they have some way of testing for that, and turn away honest, dedicated, and willing volunteers because they lack the spark?
I suppose they might. But it seems more plausible to me that they train martial skills, ethics, and religion, and that some or maybe even most of their trainees don't actually have paladin class levels.
Claxon |
Claxon wrote:There are possibly orders of paladins, in much the same way there were orders of knights (which were the inspiration for the class).
Actually, there's probably like some sort of signifier for each religious order's paladins when they go through paladin school. Paladins do require some training after all, don't they?
Officially Paladins are a self-taught class. Even trained classes don't have to be taught in formal schools - apprenticeships and other more or less formal arrangements may well exist.
Orders of paladins may well exist, but there's no requirement that all paladins belong to one. Or that Paladins belong to an actual religious order or even follow a particular deity. And, unless you're very hung up on the metagame idea of class, those orders are likely to include other "holy warrior" types - martially oriented clerics and oracles of that particular deity, even particularly devout fighter and other non-divine casters. They'd need to live up to the order's Code to remain in good standing of course.
Mind you, going back to the original question - membership in some order of paladins may well confer some level of authority, probably linked to rank within the order, which may be loosely linked to level. But that's a political thing, not a game thing.
I agree. You posed the question of "are paladins a thing within the game setting itself" to which the answer is probably. Though these groups may include people who are not mechanically paladins. Whether that is relevant to the answer...I'm not sure.
Some people had a tangent earlier trying to use paladin-hood as irrefutable proof of righteous authority, but since most people would be incapable of observing any differences if there actually enough (at low enough levels) to discern it is probable that someone would find a way to replicate them enough to trick people.
GM Rednal |
@Lucy: To put it in game terms, I suppose the majority of applicants have one or more levels in Warrior (the NPC class), and retrain into Paladin after they've learned enough to do so. The exact process by which one becomes a Paladin isn't really detailed, and rightfully so - that allows GMs and players to create their own story, after all. XD
Charon's Little Helper |
You can't (or at least really shouldn't) have a system of authority that just relies on your ability to tell whether someone is lying to you. Much in the same way that city guards shouldn't let the average adventurer into the palace treasury because when they say they're agents of the king, they sound believable, you shouldn't give a paladin any authority just because they tell you they are. You might view them in a better light, but any special privilege should still require some badge of office, special writ or the like. Otherwise you're basically working under a system where lying can get you anywhere.
Please actually read my posts before telling me I'm wrong.
I never said that they would have official authority. I literally opened my first post in this thread with "While you might not have official authority..."
Don't straw-man me.
Though of note: all systems are, at their core, reliant upon people telling the truth to some degree. Justice systems in particular. Especially in an era before forensics. (though even that relies upon the truthfulness of experts)
Revan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
Even were one to assume that the Chelaxian authorities were 100% certain they were dealing with a paladin, I imagine many of them might be of the opinion that the whole 'Paladin's Code' business is just good propaganda. Believing that someone *really* never lies might be too absurd for many evil characters.
Agrippa01 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:I also wonder which meaning of 'eye for an eye' he was using.ElyasRavenwood wrote:It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladinsIt's really hard for me to accept anything that uses "nits become lice" approvingly.
That was never about surrendered enemies reverting to their old ways, but about killing the children of racial or ethnic enemies. I also find his claim about harsh punishments deterring rape and making women safe highly suspect.All in all, whatever Gary thinks, not a paladin I'd want to play.
The historical one I assume. Proportional punishment as opposed to blind and disproportionate vengeance.
hasteroth |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:Even were one to assume that the Chelaxian authorities were 100% certain they were dealing with a paladin, I imagine many of them might be of the opinion that the whole 'Paladin's Code' business is just good propaganda. Believing that someone *really* never lies might be too absurd for many evil characters.Claxon wrote:But this proves the point being made. A paladin in Cheliax is treated with mistrust and suspicion, as the government knows he is opposed to their purpose at some point. Maybe not in the exact action they're doing now (because they're both lawful) but at some point they're going to be opposed to one another.Yes and no.
The Cheliax government will be wary of the paladin, but that's not the same as mistrust.
If the paladin straight-up vows that he is not there to mess with the government or its citizens while he is visiting their nation, they will believe him despite being opposed to him. Why? Because he's a paladin.
Paladins are so trustworthy that both their allies and enemies trust them. Now, their enemies will also trust that the paladin will oppose them; but they will still trust his word.
Makes me think of the Aes Sedai from Wheel of Time. It was common knowledge that they could not tell a lie, could not create weapons, and could not use their power as weapons except to defend themselves and others. But not everyone completely believed this, many were rather skeptical of these oaths, some believed the oaths were just myths... Some in small towns believed the Aes Sedai were just myths...
Oykiv |
Some random Paladin wandering into Cheliax and attacking people for consorting with devils isn't likely to fare well. :)
I was missing someone stating that. Yeh i know some people before ma had wrotten about that
Being a Paladin and expect to have authority in Nidal, Razmiran, Rahadoum, or Geb has is completely unreasonable to say the least.Quandary |
Even were one to assume that the Chelaxian authorities were 100% certain they were dealing with a paladin, I imagine many of them might be of the opinion that the whole 'Paladin's Code' business is just good propaganda. Believing that someone *really* never lies might be too absurd for many evil characters.
That's an appropriate rationale on it's own... But IMHO, real issue is whether it is advantageous to them to publicly admit the Paladin will not lie. They can internally recognize the vast unlikeliness of the Paladin lying, but if doing that doesn't help their cause, they are not going to give the Paladin an inch. On the other hand, LN characters (who are just as important to Chelish narrative as LE) are going to be more open to recognizing the Paladin's status, because even if they don't care for the Good agenda, the near-perfect truthfulness would often be conducive/helpful to their world view... After all, pure truthfulness may not even best facilitate Good in every case.
I generally don't give much weight to in-game-world recognition of classes as such, but applicable in this case is in-game-world recognition of shared abilities/limitations. Paladin Abilities like Detect Evil, Aura of Truth, etc, are certainly able to be noted in-game-world, independent of correlation with in-game-world organizations e.g. "Orders". Of course, major Archetypes that change those certainly may be unrecognized as belonging to that group anymore... And nobody need literally believe in "mechanics as truth", after all there may always be "some mechanic" which subverts Paladin game mechanics.
coldvictim |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several people up-thread have mentioned variations on "How do they know you're really a Paladin?". Probably because the real Paladins are going to cut you into little pieces if you're not... I doubt fake Paladins are going to get off easy. So, for awhile you fake it, word gets around and your head leaves your shoulders. And the next would be fake "paladin" considers a new scam.
If an order of Paladins was willing to slice and dice someone for wearing paladin armour and doing good deeds without the direct ascent of god, I don't think I'd consider them the good guys.