You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Tacticslion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:
[citation needed] <roll eyes>
First page, my dude.

Repeating a wrong statement will not make it less wrong. As you yourself pointed out -- "To be sure, the class features and mechanics don't really have anything like that associated with it."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why is this even still a topic?!
It LITERALLY is whatever the GM envisions. If the GM is super into historical accuracy then it will be that way... Not a game I would enjoy, history wasn't kind to women. If the GM is into modern police forces then that is what it will be. If the GM is using the Golarion setting then well you can see the trend here; it is what the GM wants, period. At this point it is just people talking past each other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a topic because people like to think they are correct.

If you want to play historically based games you can, if you don't then don't bother.

No one needs references and citations to figure out whether or not your doing it right. The way you want to do it is right.

The problem is the only right answer is player DM collaboration.....otherwise two opinions collided in great sound and fury, signifing nothing.

So what view is right.
Historical....no it is missing magic so grossly inaccurate
Social ...
Fantasy no, too varied no consistent cannon...

#BadWrongFun

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's hysterical how a couple folks here don't understand that authority means bunk if it isn't recognized. If Paladin Jim walks into an area and starts trying to dole out justice without authority being recognized or granted by the local governance, then he is quite literally a vigilante. Whether that term exists or not is irrelevant. Lord Michael has a particular set of rules, holds significant contempt for the Church that Jim belongs to and doesn't want Jim running around enforcing the law for him, so he dispatches a section of troops to arrest the Paladin for attempting to usurp his authority.

Doesn't matter if your Church says you have the authority to dole out justice as you see fit if the local Lord doesn't agree, and while you might be compelled to deliver your justice anyways... you may find yourself on the wrong end of local law... with a bag over your head as it rests on a stone plinth.

Authority and a commitment to bringing law and justice are entirely different things. I reiterate, you can have authority granted by your god/church/home country/etc which is great if the local governance wants to recognize you as an authority figure... but it doesn't mean bunk if you go somewhere that doesn't recognize you as an authority. A Paladin of any variety isn't going to be respected in Rahadoum, Razmiran, etc etc. For starters. There are some areas you would likely have authority as a Paladin such as Lastwall or Mendev, given their extreme religious leanings. But authority has to be granted by whatever happens to have rule over an area, it is never inherent or implicit. Nobody is saying you CAN'T have authority as a Paladin, but rather that whether or not you have authority is dependent on your back story or what has taken place within the campaign.

There are certain classes that might have certain kinds of authority in certain areas, such as Purity Legion prestige would have in Rahadoum. But there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in the Paladin class that states you are automatically granted authority, but rather that you are committed to a particular set of ethics. If you want authority it has to be granted in your backstory, or through the course of play. And even then it is doubtful your authority would always be respected, or even recognized wherever you go. This is ESPECIALLY significant in ANY setting (Golarion or otherwise) with a pantheon of gods, as not every country follows the same religion and not every religion agrees on ethical and legal issues.


KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:
[citation needed] <roll eyes>
Tacticslion wrote:
First page, my dude.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Repeating a wrong statement will not make it less wrong. As you yourself pointed out -- "To be sure, the class features and mechanics don't really have anything like that associated with it."

First, I didn't repeat a wrong statement. You asked for citation of an argument - that of, "If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace" - and I provided one in the first page.

Second, I think you read an argument about class mechanics into a post I made that wasn't about class mechanics. Kenderkin said "if we want to use history" and in history people called "paladin" were known and respected among the general populace (by virtue of holding a political office). That statement isn't about mechanics.

I mean, the exact same guy noted,

KenderKin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"The Sword wrote:
Stuff
But is that how the fantasy world works? Strict historical simulation this game is not.
That's what I said!

Beyond that, I just checked: this isn't a Rules thread. If it were, the answer would be clear: no, a paladin doesn't have authority just by virtue of being a paladin. That's not difficult. As this is a General Discussion, however, the question is able to persist because reading into concepts, historical associations, and individual play-styles (and assumptions about how absolutist mechanics and fluff are in any given table situation) all have variable answers.

That paladins mechanically have no automatic authority has no bearing on whether or not paladins have automatic authority in a game, because fluff-wise they are imbued with a moral authority (which, dependent upon GM, location, and many other factors) may or may not translate into enforceable (beyond typical PC-prone violent lives) legal or social authority in a local area.

The answer to the Thread Title is, "You are correct, unless the GM deems otherwise; or the GM and player work together to make a coherent narrative that demands otherwise."

That is, a player can't universally expect that they are granted authority. There are reasonable elements out there in the world and game writing whereby a player can reasonably come to the conclusion that they could, however.

EDIT: For fixing quote boxes to look less like a pyramid and more like a series of quotes. Also to add an important note. Then, while I was adding, I expanded a bunch. Whoops! I do that. Sorry.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:
[citation needed] <roll eyes>
First page, my dude.
Repeating a wrong statement will not make it less wrong. As you yourself pointed out -- "To be sure, the class features and mechanics don't really have anything like that associated with it."

I think you read an argument about class mechanics in a post I made that wasn't about class mechanics.

He said "if we want to use history" and in history people called "paladin" we're known and respected among the general populace. That one isn't about mechanics.

Actually it varies significantly depending on region, organization, and time period.

Examples:

  • In the middle ages, Judices Palatini were administrative officers in the Pope's household.
  • In Ancient Rome, Palatinus were the Imperial Guard
  • The Holy Roman Empire applied to various officials (mostly judicial)
  • In Early Modern Britain, Palatine were local lords with powers usually reserved for the Crown.
  • In 19th Century Germany a Paladin was a high ranking military officer recognized for service to the Emperor. Basically a knight with extra honors.
  • In Imperial France, The Paladins were the top warriors of Charlemagne's court.

Then you have the dictionary definitions which include the last example above, as well as

  • any knightly or heroic champion.
  • any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

We know that the Paladins in Pathfinder are inspired by historical Paladins. But that doesn't mean they are strictly based on any of them, especially since they varied significantly. They had differing levels of authority and recognition, differing levels of respect. So historical Paladin absolutely cannot be seen as providing a strict way to interpret Paladins in Pathfinder as a class. In Pathfinder the Paladin class (along with the Inquisitor, Investigator, even the Cavalier archetype, etc) grant abilities, some flavor to suggest motivation, and a suggested role... but none of these grant inherent authority. You may have authority, or you may not. The Cavalier Constable has abilities that certainly facilitate working as law enforcement, but is neither predicated on BEING an authority figure nor does it grant any authority (and even if you had authority, you could lose it without losing your class/archetype).

But just having abilities which lend themselves to or facilitate a certain role do not inherently mean you are granted that role. Likewise, just having leadership qualities doesn't make your party respect you as a leader. That is RP stuff that is separate. No sane GM is going to deny you any kind of authority in most of these cases unless there is a story reason not to. But no sane GM should let you automatically have authority if you didn't show up with a back story. And just having authority doesn't mean everyone respects it, it also doesn't mean nobody is going to hold you accountable for overreaching.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

If we want to use history as an example them the paladin is known and respected among the general populace

Orfamay Quest wrote:
[citation needed] <roll eyes>
First page, my dude.
Repeating a wrong statement will not make it less wrong. As you yourself pointed out -- "To be sure, the class features and mechanics don't really have anything like that associated with it."

I think you read an argument about class mechanics in a post I made that wasn't about class mechanics.

He said "if we want to use history" and in history people called "paladin" we're known and respected among the general populace. That one isn't about mechanics.

Definitely known and respected.


hasteroth wrote:
<stuff>

Heh, ninja'd while editing.

If you read my edit, I think you'll find that my opinion is not so different from your own.

However, the point I was making was that neither KenderKin nor I made a consistent claim about what was or was not able to be expected.

The fact that Orfamay felt he had to quote me at myself to "prove" that I was wrong by pointing out the thing that I said that he thought was correct might indicate that he was seeing an argument that I wasn't making.

Again, look at my first post.

Look at the link I made therein.

Look at the arguments I made there.

My position hasn't changed.

thejeff wrote:
Definitely known and respected.

Hah! Awesome. :D


Orfamay Quest wrote:
The Sword wrote:
There have always been magistrates - call they sheriffs, magistrates, reeves, justices of peace whatever. However while they may be able to pass judgement they are only one person. They rely on other people to enforce/investigate/bring to justice the people they seek.

Actually,.... no, the sheriffs and reeves were not the magistrates. They were the official, authorized, appointed -- did I say official yet? -- people upon whom the actual magistrates relied.

And the reeves got really annoyed when civilians started taking matters into their own hands -- as, of course, is only human.

Quote:


In Sandpoint the sheriff is under resourced and under equipped to deal with the problems he faces. That's why he needs the party to do the investigations and bring the perpetrators to justice. Historically local constables would sometimes be appointed against there will and would be fined for not keeping the peace. Sometimes they would need to pay people to help them rather than them be fined.

Right. It's the sheriff's decision to bring people in and to appoint them to work, under his authority and supervision. That's entirely different from a paladin rolling in and setting himself up as a cop.

Quote:


I take issue with this idea that adventuring parties can't act because they might step on the authority's toes - they may have no more authority than any other citizen - but they are filling a void, not stepping on someone else's toes.
Not when there's an actual reeve or sheriff doing his job.

Reeves were originally magistrates and the role changed over time to land management. I think you need to go back and re-examine the reeves responsibilities.

As I have said - private citizens were required to bring perpetrators to justice themselves unless the person had already been apprehended for other crimes or suspicious circumstances. The case files are full of them.

Anyway I have already made the point that you can run it however you want on your game so we are talking past each other now. You clearly have your opinion that is unwavering so I say good day sir.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Paladin Thread Train (PTT)(TM) is just getting warmed up! Lets get this party really going. Time to crack open a dictionary!

Define Authority: 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

It seems some are sticking to the latter portion of this definition, claiming that only official recognition by existing authority figures grants one authority. This is not the case.

A Balor can teleport into a small town and say "I'm in charge". Was he elected Mayor of this boondock town? Nope. Is some ignorant yokel going to brazenly stroll up to him, point his crooked finger at the Balor and say. "Now wait juuust a cotton pickin second, mister. Y'all gotta be a citizen of this here small town for a minimum of ten years an then run fer public office before y'all can start barkin orders at us town folk."? Maybe. Does that stop the Balor from using his power to enforce his will? NOPE. Thus, he has authority over the town by virtue of having the power to wipe it off the map with insignificant effort on his part.

By the same logic, a Paladin, who is likely more powerful than 99% of people in the known world even at low levels, DOES have the power to exert his will on others. He just doesn't do it in the same way a Balor would. A Paladin is a righteous harbinger of truth and justice. He is humble and tries to work WITH existing authority if their goals and his don't outright clash. He's not out to conquer and pillage, but to defend the weak against evil. The moral authority he possesses as a result of the lifestyle he chooses gives him power and respect, even if he isn't mayor of every town he strolls into.

The fact that 'ACTUAL' authority was used as a qualifier means nothing as I have now defined what authority ACTUALLY means. As for the "Well it depends on what your definition of 'Paladin' is.." argument...

In fantasy realms, words have definitions.. A Paladin isn't some rare sight that you only behold once every five hundred years when the planets align. They are everywhere and the DC to know what a Paladin is can easily be made untrained. If you want to re-define what a Paladin is in your game, then by all means do so. As is, there are definitions for things in Pathfinder. Paladin is one such word that has a specific definition. We're not in Europe during the middle ages. We're in a fantasy setting with magic missiles and goblins and such. If you need your game to be different in that respect to have fun, then do it. Lord knows the games I play have about 500 house rules and tweaks.


The Sword wrote:

Reeves were originally magistrates and the role changed over time to land management. I think you need to go back and re-examine the reeves responsibilities.

As I have said - private citizens were required to bring perpetrators to justice themselves unless the person had already been apprehended for other crimes or suspicious circumstances. The case files are full of them.

I could be wrong here, but near as I can tell, while the reeves were magistrates, magistrate didn't originally mean "judge" or "law enforcement" or any of the legal system interpretations you're implying. Just "guy in charge". So, power of judgement, sure, but also land management and whatever else he needed to take care of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BackHandOfFate wrote:

The Paladin Thread Train (PTT)(TM) is just getting warmed up! Lets get this party really going. Time to crack open a dictionary!

Define Authority: 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

It seems some are sticking to the latter portion of this definition, claiming that only official recognition by existing authority figures grants one authority. This is not the case.

A Balor can teleport into a small town and say "I'm in charge". Was he elected Mayor of this boondock town? Nope. Is some ignorant yokel going to brazenly stroll up to him, point his crooked finger at the Balor and say. "Now wait juuust a cotton pickin second, mister. Y'all gotta be a citizen of this here small town for a minimum of ten years an then run fer public office before y'all can start barkin orders at us town folk."? Maybe. Does that stop the Balor from using his power to enforce his will? NOPE. Thus, he has authority over the town by virtue of having the power to wipe it off the map with insignificant effort on his part.

By the same logic, a Paladin, who is likely more powerful than 99% of people in the known world even at low levels, DOES have the power to exert his will on others. He just doesn't do it in the same way a Balor would. A Paladin is a righteous harbinger of truth and justice. He is humble and tries to work WITH existing authority if their goals and his don't outright clash. He's not out to conquer and pillage, but to defend the weak against evil. The moral authority he possesses as a result of the lifestyle he chooses gives him power and respect, even if he isn't mayor of every town he strolls into.

The fact that 'ACTUAL' authority was used as a qualifier means nothing as I have now defined what authority ACTUALLY means. As for the "Well it depends on what your definition of 'Paladin' is.." argument...

In fantasy realms, words have definitions.. A Paladin isn't some rare sight that you only behold once every...

But in that sense, the paladin has authority, but no more than any other PC.

The moral authority is closer to what we're talking about, but in many ways that only exists to the extent that people recognise it.

It's also worth pointing out that for all her moral righteousness, the paladin is Lawful. While she can, she'll work through channels, not usurp and defy local authority. That may change if the local authorities are incompetent and almost certainly will if they're corrupt or oppressive.

Also, while you may be more powerful than 99% of the people around, throwing your weight around in towns larger than 100 starts to get dicey fast.
Rules-default settings have plenty of moderately high level people around. Cause too much trouble, even in a good cause and you may wind up being taken care of.

Liberty's Edge

BackHandOfFate wrote:

The Paladin Thread Train (PTT)(TM) is just getting warmed up! Lets get this party really going. Time to crack open a dictionary!

Define Authority: 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

It seems some are sticking to the latter portion of this definition, claiming that only official recognition by existing authority figures grants one authority. This is not the case.

A Balor can teleport into a small town and say "I'm in charge". Was he elected Mayor of this boondock town? Nope. Is some ignorant yokel going to brazenly stroll up to him, point his crooked finger at the Balor and say. "Now wait juuust a cotton pickin second, mister. Y'all gotta be a citizen of this here small town for a minimum of ten years an then run fer public office before y'all can start barkin orders at us town folk."? Maybe. Does that stop the Balor from using his power to enforce his will? NOPE. Thus, he has authority over the town by virtue of having the power to wipe it off the map with insignificant effort on his part.

By the same logic, a Paladin, who is likely more powerful than 99% of people in the known world even at low levels, DOES have the power to exert his will on others. He just doesn't do it in the same way a Balor would. A Paladin is a righteous harbinger of truth and justice. He is humble and tries to work WITH existing authority if their goals and his don't outright clash. He's not out to conquer and pillage, but to defend the weak against evil. The moral authority he possesses as a result of the lifestyle he chooses gives him power and respect, even if he isn't mayor of every town he strolls into.

The fact that 'ACTUAL' authority was used as a qualifier means nothing as I have now defined what authority ACTUALLY means. As for the "Well it depends on what your definition of 'Paladin' is.." argument...

In fantasy realms, words have definitions.. A Paladin isn't some rare sight that you only behold once every five hundred years when the planets align. They are everywhere and the DC to know what a Paladin is can easily be made untrained. If you want to re-define what a Paladin is in your game, then by all means do so. As is, there are definitions for things in Pathfinder. Paladin is one such word that has a specific definition. We're not in Europe during the middle ages. We're in a fantasy setting with magic missiles and goblins and such. If you need your game to be different in that respect to have fun, then do it. Lord knows the games I play have about 500 house rules and tweaks.

Congrats on missing the point. The argument was over whether a Paladin could have authority over and above what other PC classes would have by virtue of being a Paladin.

Also the argument I made was that authority has to be granted in some way, this can be forced or otherwise. The Balor you mention has authority because the populace fears him and obeys his authority. Thus he has authority granted by the populace which he used force and intimidation to obtain.

A Paladin on the other hand isn't going to strike down anyone who disobeys him, as that would be evil. A level 1 Paladin likely wouldn't have the power to force everyone to bend to his will. But that still doesn't change that rule by intimidation is something ANYBODY sufficiently powerful can do, and still doesn't mean that a Paladin has implicit authority.


KenderKin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
"The Sword wrote:
Stuff
But is that how the fantasy world works? Strict historical simulation this game is not.
That's what I said!

Saying stuff is too anime.


Neal Litherland wrote:

A few things before I start off. One, this isn't JUST a post about paladins; they just happen to be the class this happens with the most. And Two, the main thrust of this post is questioning the assumptions that we make as gamers, and getting us to hold them at arm's length to get a better look at them.

(huge snip)

The other point, and one that's gotten lost in the cross-talk up until now, is that because secular authority in the game world is granted through your story (for the most part), you don't have to have it if you don't want to. If you want to play a paladin who's just a lone adventurer, with no ties to a church or to a nation, you can do that. It's kind of like the lawful good rogue... we overlook it so often that we eventually forget it's something we can make, if we want...

From the original post. And this I think is also key to remember. Some game systems will codify this kind of authority, but Pathfinder doesn't have the option to take 15 points of Legal Enforcement Powers. It's determined by backstory ('I am Countess Alexandra of House Nagano. This town, and quite a few surrounding it, are under my command by birthright.') or by storyline and roleplay ('Today we add West Fenreach, as its leaders have petitioned me for annexation in recognition of the great deeds I and my companions have done for them.'). And not class levels! ('Please excuse me, after ripping the monster's throat out with my teeth, I may have a scale or two stuck ... ')


Lucy_Valentine wrote:


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?

Yes. You can feel any 3rd level or higher Paladin (who didn't give up their Aura of Courage) just by getting within 10 feet.


R_Chance wrote:
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.

I have made Paladins who would be royally cheesed off if a non-Paladin made the claim. Imagine, in real life, what would have happened if a non-knight ran around calling himself a knight.

Doing so undermines all Paladins and actively hampers their work. Characters that do this are intentionally doing it to tweak Paladins and players do it for similar reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Amusing side note...

Many years ago I was running a D&D game and a player thought it'd be funny to tweak Paladins by claiming to be one when he wasn't. He was pretty good, but not a Paladin. He kept making the claim publicly though.

A Cleric, who knew he was full of it, warned him that he was playing a dangerous game.

He kept doing it.

Every time he did I rolled percentile dice. Eventually they came up 01. The next day a Cleric of Pelor arrived with a message, "Stop."

The guy kept doing it.

Several in game weeks passed. I rolled again after more claims. Another 01 eventually came up.

The party was traveling when they came across a figure in shining armor. He asked, "Are you Salus, Paladin of Pelor?"

Salus responded, "Yes."

Then I said, "Save vs Death."

He failed. Salus fell to the ground, stone dead, and not even a Wish could revive him. When the party looked up the man was gone.


HWalsh wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
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.

I have made Paladins who would be royally cheesed off if a non-Paladin made the claim. Imagine, in real life, what would have happened if a non-knight ran around calling himself a knight.

Doing so undermines all Paladins and actively hampers their work. Characters that do this are intentionally doing it to tweak Paladins and players do it for similar reasons.

Except "knight" is an title and a rank. "Paladin" isn't, at least in the default rules.

There may be organizations of paladins and such a group could be upset with someone pretending to be a member, but there's nothing that says every paladin has to belong to one - or that every member needs to be of the paladin class.

Do the real fighters get upset when some barbarian runs around calling himself a fighter?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Yes. You can feel any 3rd level or higher Paladin (who didn't give up their Aura of Courage) just by getting within 10 feet.

About that... do you have an FAQ or anything declaring that the effect is noticeable? Because certainty would be nice.

HWalsh wrote:

Then I said, "Save vs Death."

He failed. Salus fell to the ground, stone dead, and not even a Wish could revive him. When the party looked up the man was gone.

So a player did a thing, you didn't like it, so rather than talk about it OOC you used GM godpower to kill their character.

That's not a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Yes. You can feel any 3rd level or higher Paladin (who didn't give up their Aura of Courage) just by getting within 10 feet.

About that... do you have an FAQ or anything declaring that the effect is noticeable? Because certainty would be nice.

HWalsh wrote:

Then I said, "Save vs Death."

He failed. Salus fell to the ground, stone dead, and not even a Wish could revive him. When the party looked up the man was gone.

So a player did a thing, you didn't like it, so rather than talk about it OOC you used GM godpower to kill their character.

That's not a good thing.

It's a fine thing.

Trying to talk the player into doing what you think is right removes player agency. Having consequences for their actions retains it.


It still falls to the DM unless the DM is fine with the PC making assumptions, to really clarify and communicate with the player.

For example not just asking for a backstory, but maybe asking for the player to answer specific questions, for example:

What does the code of conduct mean to you point by point (in other words how do you interpret it)?

What is your paladin's basic philosophy of life?

Has he sworn an oath/selected an archetype? or is he familiar with an oath, but decided not to take the oath for other reasons?

What does he champion? What does he oppose?

How do you picture him/her interacting with NPCs?

And most importantly (for this thread anyway) Do you feel your PC is any type of authority figure? (legal, spiritual, moral, other?)
How do people recognize your authority?


KK here:

Which looks something like this!

Philopsophy:
Believes most Paladins talk too much and work too hard at getting along with or trying to change others too quickly...as redemption is a path that takes time.

There is the hard way (intimidate) and the easy way (diplomacy), which he uses often.

Detecting evil is not the way to know whether or not one's strike is true. Redeemer paladins do not have the ability to detect evil.

Quotes:
"I do not answer to you!"
"I am confused!"
"Explain yourself!"
"What is the meaning of this!"
"I do not recognize the legitimacy of your authority!"

Questions and answers with SCG:

Q: How do the monsterous races become so well monsterous?

A: Those of good heart and character are so hurt that they can not continue to live goodly lives in their own homes, in their tribes nor in their nations.....
"To weep, is to make less the depth of grief; Tears, then, for babes; blows and revenge for me.”

Q: How then can they be redeemed?
By choice and opportunity....
“I’ll redeem myself by paying that which is owed when men think least I will”

Justice is bringing the sword to the oppressors.....
Saving the oppressed and blocking the way of the wicked.
Redemption is offering the oppressors a new path to atone for their past.....

Though the oath against fiends is passingly familiar to SCG, he can not follow that oath and stead fast to being a redeemer.....
A paladin who takes an oath against demons, devils, daemons, and other evil outsiders is constantly on the lookout for malicious fiendish insurgence into the world, and faces it with swift and unwavering defiance. Often she works closely with inquisitors, searching for signs of outsider manipulation and possession.....

Signs he looks for
Blame, guilt, shame, worthlessness, discouragement, despair....or one attempting to make others feel such.

VS. Hope, encouragement, redemption, righteousness

Traits:
Eternal Understanding (religion)*
Though you haven't been traditionally educated, you're blessed with potent observation and discernment.
Benefit(s) You can attempt Knowledge checks with a DC of 15 or lower untrained.

Justicar - regional trait

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

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

Associates A redeemer may ally with an evil creature as long as she feels the creature is capable of redemption. A redeemer may accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are not lawful good provided they demonstrate they are willing to follow her and seek betterment under her tutelage.

A point by point perspective:
#1. Respect legitimate authority ie follow those placed above him/her in the paladin heiarchy. Often the paladin is the legitimate authority and conducts himself as judge, jury and punisher (executioner if needed). Though the orders should never endanger lives.

act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)...in no way does this prevent the use of solid tactics such as sneaking/ambushing or creating distractions....nor does this mean that the paladin can not simply refuse to answer questions rather than lie.

help those in need....to provide for actual needs/necessities not just wants and desires. Safety being the foremost among those.

and punish .... or redeem (see above acting as judge)

Path to Redemption....from wrath of righteous AP


Freehold DM wrote:
Trying to talk the player into doing what you think is right removes player agency. Having consequences for their actions retains it.

The choice here was either to stop doing something or carry on.

The consequences if they chose to carry on were to cease playing the character, because death with no res.
The consequence if they chose to stop was to stop playing the character as conceived.
So either way they had to stop playing the character as conceived, because you chose not to allow that sort of character within the game world.
The dice rolls and clerics are just an illusion. The player had no meaningful choice here - they were inevitably going to cease playing the character they had conceived, because you decided that in your game the use of the word "paladin" is enforced by deities themselves - the word is magic or something! And you didn't bother telling the player that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Trying to talk the player into doing what you think is right removes player agency. Having consequences for their actions retains it.

The choice here was either to stop doing something or carry on.

The consequences if they chose to carry on were to cease playing the character, because death with no res.
The consequence if they chose to stop was to stop playing the character as conceived.
So either way they had to stop playing the character as conceived, because you chose not to allow that sort of character within the game world.
The dice rolls and clerics are just an illusion. The player had no meaningful choice here - they were inevitably going to cease playing the character they had conceived, because you decided that in your game the use of the word "paladin" is enforced by deities themselves - the word is magic or something! And you didn't bother telling the player that.

Tough.

People in game directly associated with the organization that was being besmirched told the to stop. On multiple occasions.

The character didn't. The character paid the price.


I doubt that Lucy.
It is far more likely that this GM just runs a setting where the gods take a FAR more active hand in the affairs of mortals. Heresy is actively punished by divine agents. I myself probably wouldn't enjoy such a setting, but there are players who enjoy all manner of different settings.


So I just finished reading many many responses to this post, Several links to various other notable people and then your own blog. Thinking about this for several minutes I think that while I understand what you are trying to say I think that you are missing several fundamental concepts here.

Starting with your own example. Two Child Thieves steal in your sight. You chase them down and go to turn them into the guard. The Guard is angry at you and arrest you. Not very likely to happen EVER in real life or fantasy. First off you did not kill the kids. Second off you brought them to the authority who would finish judging and dealing with their crimes so you did not actually try to usurp their authority in the first place and you probably very well had the cart owner chasing along with you to file charges against the little brats. The only way the guards are going to give you grief is if they were on the take for the thieves guild and the kids were high enough in the guild to get its protection for stealing bread?(Not Very Likely...stupid enough to be seen and caught...stupid enough to get left to rot). Most Likely the guards are going to thank you for nabbing the little buggers. Sure there can be story line reasons like one of the two kids is the Son of a Higher ranking noble so his kleptomania get ignored by the guards but I think my 3rd point will cover that.

The Next point to make is historical precepts that people have in regards to Knights and Paladins(Knights Templar). Knights under almost all situations were landed Nobles and did in fact wield Authority as a knighted agent of the King and could make decisions as needed. All a paladin was in historical Context of the Knights Templar Was landed Knights who owed a fierce Loyalty to BOTH the church and the King and anything that did not fall into the kings Direct Pervue fell to the church and then to the Paladin. So Historically and common culturally speaking people have a reasonable expectation that a Knight/Paladin wields authority over commoners ANY WHERE, Guards and other non Noble authorities or nobles lesser then him in his sphere of influence. If the guards did not believe his credentials they could ASK the Paladin to come with them to prove his credentials and if he refused they could try to force him to come but if they harmed him and his story proved true they were going to jail for Harming a noble. Given the cost of a Paladin/Knights Various Arms and Armour a common city guard is going to look at him and know he comes from either money or authority (and money = authority try pissing off a non landed knights benefactor).Also Historically it most countries for ages have been theocracies and the king/queen themselves crowned by the most power religion in the area which gives reasonable expectation that a paladin would wield some authority.

3rd and final point. As a DM it is YOUR world. YOU can make changes to any of this to suit your whim as it is YOUR story, But it is also YOUR JOB as DM to inform people of their standings and authorities if they are different from common cultural expectations. Having the guards arrest a Paladin for running down a thief that they did not even kill is way outside of common cultural expectations. If I saw a man snatch a woman's purse and ran him and and held him for/took him to the police they would take him into custody, Take my information from me. Check out the purse or talk to the woman...Not arbitrarily arrest me. It is also your job to Tell people the story of your world. You should tell your players within reason a Paladin/Knight or what ever other class with a reasonable expectation of authority what and where their common scope of authority is. IN their own area it is a given. IN the lands near their it would depends on their relationship with the noble in that area. I am pretty sure they will know if they are on good terms, neutral terms or bad terms with their local peer group. Now if you are 150+ miles from home then yes a good knowledge local or history check is in order or Maybe a really high knowledge Geography check is in order but it is still YOUR job to to inform your players not just go *BOOM* The guards just arrested you for being too full of your self for chasing down the kid that they would have cut the hands off of if they caught him themselves. Leaving the player going...WTF just happened I thought I was playing XYZ. Good DM'ing Can fix a new or poor player, Bad DM'ing can ruin the best player and the best story ever told.

Neal Litherland wrote:

A few things before I start off. One, this isn't JUST a post about paladins; they just happen to be the class this happens with the most. And Two, the main thrust of this post is questioning the assumptions that we make as gamers, and getting us to hold them at arm's length to get a better look at them.

Cool? Cool.

Anyway, this week I put together a fluff post titled You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin, and there has been a lot of popular support for it. So I wanted to share it with the folks here, and hope that I could get some reasoned thoughts, and if any of my statements are incorrect, to get a page number with the rulings so I can alter what I said.

In short, I feel that too often we, as players, forget that having PC levels doesn't give our characters legitimate authority in the game world. Having levels of Inquisitor doesn't give you the ability to walk onto a murder scene and start ordering around NPCs like you're a watch detective, for example. Being a paladin doesn't automatically make you a recognized secular authority like a sheriff. If you do have that kind of authority, it typically comes as a part of your character's story, which includes membership in a law enforcement organization. Sometimes you might get limited authority as part of a prestige class (Grand Marshal, Hellknight, Eagle Knight, etc.), but if you're level one, it's probably because you and your DM agreed on a certain background.

The other point, and one that's gotten lost in the cross-talk up until now, is that because secular authority in the game world is granted through your story (for the most part), you don't have to have it if you don't want to. If you want to play a paladin who's just a lone adventurer, with no ties to a church or to a nation, you can do that. It's kind of like the lawful good rogue... we overlook it so often that we eventually forget it's something we can make, if we want...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Trying to talk the player into doing what you think is right removes player agency. Having consequences for their actions retains it.

The choice here was either to stop doing something or carry on.

The consequences if they chose to carry on were to cease playing the character, because death with no res.
The consequence if they chose to stop was to stop playing the character as conceived.
So either way they had to stop playing the character as conceived, because you chose not to allow that sort of character within the game world.
The dice rolls and clerics are just an illusion. The player had no meaningful choice here - they were inevitably going to cease playing the character they had conceived, because you decided that in your game the use of the word "paladin" is enforced by deities themselves - the word is magic or something! And you didn't bother telling the player that.

Oh give me a break.

Player agency doesn't mean that players get to do whatever they like with no consequences for their actions. In this case there are in a setting where Paladins (This was back in AD&D 2E mind you) were a much more sacred thing than they are in Pathfinder (depending on the GM, I'm still really strict with Paladins) and in this case the character had been warned by ANOTHER PLAYER CHARACTER to stop doing it, and had been told, "What you are doing is blasphemy. You are claiming to be a chosen empowered agent of Pelor and you aren't."

Then, months and months down the road, a CLERIC of Pelor shows up, out of the blue, as if by magic, and informs the PC, "I come from the followers of Pelor. You are not an evil person, however your blasphemy has been noted, we are here to warn you to stop laying claim to a title that you do not bear."

The PC kept doing it... Then they ran into Pelor... Who asked him. He lied, directly lied, to Pelor himself, about being a chosen being who was empowered by Pelor.

Pelor smited him.

Look at how Gods act in D&D and Pathfinder. Look at what the BOOKS even say they do. According to Cayden, for example, if you get drunk and become a violent drunk and inflict harm, then Cayden may make it so that any alcohol you drink turns to sewage in your mouth. Iomedae, canonically, will PERMANENTLY deafen and/or mute PC's who mock her in her presence. So... Imagine how much any of those Gods would take it, if you did something, after they had sent messengers telling you to stop doing it, directly to their face.

Not pretty. I can promise you. I guarantee if you claimed to be a Paladin of Iomedae, to Iomedae, when you weren't then Iomedae, who was once a Paladin of Aroden himself, would take issue with it and you wouldn't get away clean.

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
About that... do you have an FAQ or anything declaring that the effect is noticeable? Because certainty would be nice.

Not specifically no. However, and correct me if I am wrong, but characters are aware of mechanical effects on them. IE if you put on a cloak of resistance then you are aware that you're getting an enhancement. Since that aura grants a mechanical bonus you should be aware of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"You are not an evil person, but our God is going to murder you for using a word, even though there are roughly an infinite number of non-lethal ways he could punish you, ore even simply force you to stop using the word. Look how Lawful Good we are."

Even accepting the entirely irrational, unjustified, and evil actions of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous into evidence (and you are in the considerable minority in doing so), she didn't *kill* the characters for displeasing her. That was your big argument for why dealing as much damage as dropping a character from 50 feet, then 100 feet, and then 200 feet (or stabbing them with five short swords at once, than 10, then 20) for answering random questions incorrectly wasn't evil, as I recall--that despite the considerable objective magnitude of the damage, it had no chance of killing characters of that level, so it was all fine and dandy. She specifically doesn't kill characters who outright attack her. Whereas here, Pelor murders a guy who is specifically *not evil* for making a group of his followers feel less super special awesome and unique.

We clearly have very different ideas what the word 'Good' means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hasteroth wrote:
Congrats on missing the point. The argument was over whether a Paladin could have authority over and above what other PC classes would have by virtue of being a Paladin.

If you read my previous post, I DID address this. I would argue that people most certainly WOULD be more likely to respect their word, seek their council and heed their advice BECAUSE they know the person they are dealing with IS good and trustworthy by virtue of his/her profession. I labeled that as Moral Authority earlier on. Yes, other characters can be good aligned. Yes, other characters can be trustworthy. But even other good and trustworthy characters don't ALWAYS have to behave in a good and trustworthy manner. So yes, this does set them apart from other classes in that respect.

I'm not saying that a Paladin can walk up to any stranger and expect them to obey his orders. I'm saying a Paladins' reputation is such that you can expect people to trust his judgement a bit more quickly and be cooperative because they know he isn't out to screw them. Existing authority figures (The generally well meaning kind) are far more likely to trust a Paladin, who is always honest in his dealings, because they know he doesn't have some kind of hidden agenda. A Paladin doesn't have to DEMAND authority. He gets it by behaving as he should, by being good and humble, asking for people to work with him for the greater good.

A DM certainly doesn't have to go by this logic. They can have commoners be skeptical of any stranger until they are blue in the face just because if that is how they want to run the game. I'm simply making the argument from my standpoint.

hasteroth wrote:
Also the argument I made was that authority has to be granted in some way, this can be forced or otherwise. The Balor you mention has authority because the populace fears him and obeys his authority. Thus he has authority granted by the populace which he used force and intimidation to obtain.

I don't think I was disagreeing with you on that. I also specifically brought up the point that authority can be obtained in a number of ways by DEFINING authority.

hasteroth wrote:
A Paladin on the other hand isn't going to strike down anyone who disobeys him, as that would be evil. A level 1 Paladin likely wouldn't have the power to force everyone to bend to his will. But that still doesn't change that rule by intimidation is something ANYBODY sufficiently powerful can do, and still doesn't mean that a Paladin has implicit authority.

Again, you're echoing my exact sentiments. I never said a Paladin would try to impose his will on others in a way similar to a warlord or a Balor. Yes a Paladin could use intimidation. But he doesn't make threats without good and righteous cause.


HWalsh wrote:
Pelor smited him.

No. The DM smited him, because the DM didn't like his use of language.

There are three problems with the scenario: one being that a notionally good deity would do that. It's really messed up when you think about it - a notionally good deity needs earthly agents to do their bidding when it comes to saving lives and stopping evil, but if someone commits blasphemy, they'll show up in person to smite them! Yeah, because that's sensible prioritisation. A good person doing good in your name but using the wrong word to describe themselves is apparently worth said deity's personal attention, whereas an orphanage burning down or an evil cult murdering people isn't.

The second problem is one of IC proportionate response. A god doesn't just punish, no, they destroy absolutely. And that's a "good" god? Best not to do good, then, you don't want that deity gaining any power.

The third is that the whole saga doesn't come from IC reasons - it's an OOC disagreement played out IC. The DM decided that the word "paladin" was all sacred like, and that said sacredness would be enforced by DM godpower. It's in the first sentence of the post that started this subtopic - the DM saying that the character existed to mock paladins, and decides that that's not okay within their game. But instead of talking about it like adults, they go on with the game and then do the murder thing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

From another view, though, deities could have reason to safeguard their faith and reject people who claim to be chosen but weren't. If people got the idea that supposed followers of such-and-such deity could be lying, they might be less inclined to trust them, which reduces the deity's influence and ability to act across-the-board. That one person's lies could have a ripple effect that ultimately caused harm to a whole lot of other people, and I can see how even good deities might have a problem with that... especially when they already went the nice route and sent a message (via personal courier) to try and resolve it peacefully.

Disrespecting deities of any alignment is not wise. Disrespecting them after they tell you to stop is just outright stupid. In my main roleplay, we refer to this as the "Stupidity Clause", which basically means that your characters are protected from arbitrary death at the hands of the GM unless they do something really, really dumb. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:

From another view, though, deities could have reason to safeguard their faith and reject people who claim to be chosen but weren't. If people got the idea that supposed followers of such-and-such deity could be lying, they might be less inclined to trust them, which reduces the deity's influence and ability to act across-the-board. That one person's lies could have a ripple effect that ultimately caused harm to a whole lot of other people, and I can see how even good deities might have a problem with that... especially when they already went the nice route and sent a message (via personal courier) to try and resolve it peacefully.

Disrespecting deities of any alignment is not wise. Disrespecting them after they tell you to stop is just outright stupid. In my main roleplay, we refer to this as the "Stupidity Clause", which basically means that your characters are protected from arbitrary death at the hands of the GM unless they do something really, really dumb. XD

Yeah, but...

Sure, seek the gods out and do it to their face and you'll be in trouble. But deity's taking time and effort to smite one blasphemer down when there are so many worse people and problems out there.

A good deity could also be subtler - afflict him with some minor, but unremovable curse whenever he says he's a paladin.

But really, player problem. Deal with it there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:

From another view, though, deities could have reason to safeguard their faith and reject people who claim to be chosen but weren't. If people got the idea that supposed followers of such-and-such deity could be lying, they might be less inclined to trust them, which reduces the deity's influence and ability to act across-the-board. That one person's lies could have a ripple effect that ultimately caused harm to a whole lot of other people, and I can see how even good deities might have a problem with that... especially when they already went the nice route and sent a message (via personal courier) to try and resolve it peacefully.

Disrespecting deities of any alignment is not wise. Disrespecting them after they tell you to stop is just outright stupid. In my main roleplay, we refer to this as the "Stupidity Clause", which basically means that your characters are protected from arbitrary death at the hands of the GM unless they do something really, really dumb. XD

Yeah, but...

Sure, seek the gods out and do it to their face and you'll be in trouble. But deity's taking time and effort to smite one blasphemer down when there are so many worse people and problems out there.

A good deity could also be subtler - afflict him with some minor, but unremovable curse whenever he says he's a paladin.

But really, player problem. Deal with it there.

It dealt with the problem. The PLAYER knew it would cause the CHARACTER problems and chose to do it anyway. The CHARACTER was warned, once by a PC and again by an agent who showed up and told him, "Hey, the God you're claiming to be a Paladin of is tired of you lying, knock it off." After that? Fair game. At that point you're asking for it.

As to your assumption of what a "Good" God would do... You're simply wrong. Even the most goody good fluffy bunny Gods will bring the wrath for blasphemy *especially* after they sent a hand delivered message telling you, "Yo, not cool bro."

That you'd try to demonize such a thing is simply baffling. Gods aren't something you trifle with. Especially old school AD&D deities.

The issue is: Paladins *are* given special respect and privileges simply for being Paladins. The Code's a class feature, it's a double edged sword.

Some people don't like that and instead think of classes as just a collection of powers, abilities, and skills. So they come up with, "Well there are tons of non-Paladins that call themselves Paladins! Nobody can possibly know!"

First off... There isn't. There has been TWO Pathfinder/D&D books that had a Paladin as a main character. She was a CLASS Paladin.

Paladins have authority because: They're known to be honest and true, protectors of the weak and helpless, and trusted by the Gods in a way beyond even Clerics or Warpriests.

In your home games... Sure, they can be scrubs, that nobody can identify or respect.

If youre using any official fluff? No. Paladins are Paladins.


Maybe they're an adherent of Pelor, the Burning Hate? It's certainly an amusing theory.

As for the original topic, I feel like it's just a lead-in to doing Monty Python bits. "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!"

Honestly, I wouldn't expect any adventurer (murderhobo) to hold some sort of authority. Too much traveling to reliably handle their responsibilities. Maybe if they build it themselves.

Now, for historical context, in AD&D some characters totally did get authority as they leveled up. Barbarians got a tribe, fighters got a castle and men-at-arms, thieves may have gotten a guild, I don't know if Paladins got anything though. The point being, if classes were meant to get something, even something esoteric or intangible, they could give it to them. They did not, so I can only assume Paladins are not automatically sheriffs of every frontier town. If specific towns/countries/whatever treat them that way, sure, but again, I don't see that in any of the write-ups. Maybe the Worldwound? And entirely beside the point, which is that "Paladin" isn't where the authority derives from. "Local customs of <village>" is, and can include plenty of other stuff (like nonevil Monks, clerics of LG gods, things like that).


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Maybe they're an adherent of Pelor, the Burning Hate? It's certainly an amusing theory.

As for the original topic, I feel like it's just a lead-in to doing Monty Python bits. "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!"

Honestly, I wouldn't expect any adventurer (murderhobo) to hold some sort of authority. Too much traveling to reliably handle their responsibilities. Maybe if they build it themselves.

Now, for historical context, in AD&D some characters totally did get authority as they leveled up. Barbarians got a tribe, fighters got a castle and men-at-arms, thieves may have gotten a guild, I don't know if Paladins got anything though. The point being, if classes were meant to get something, even something esoteric or intangible, they could give it to them. They did not, so I can only assume Paladins are not automatically sheriffs of every frontier town. If specific towns/countries/whatever treat them that way, sure, but again, I don't see that in any of the write-ups. Maybe the Worldwound? And entirely beside the point, which is that "Paladin" isn't where the authority derives from. "Local customs of <village>" is, and can include plenty of other stuff (like nonevil Monks, clerics of LG gods, things like that).

Paladins got a Keep, pretty much exactly like Fighter.

Liberty's Edge

HWalsh wrote:

First off... There isn't. There has been TWO Pathfinder/D&D books that had a Paladin as a main character. She was a CLASS Paladin.

Paladins have authority because: They're known to be honest and true, protectors of the weak and helpless, and trusted by the Gods in a way beyond even Clerics or Warpriests.

So, of the 2 pathfinder tales novels I've read, fully 50% of them have a (not)Paladin pretending to be a Paladin. They also occupied a position of authority by pretending to be a Paladin, and brought disaster and ruin upon a number of good people. No deity interfered with their blasphemy, they never sent a messenger, never warned their followers, never smote him for his blasphemy. And this was a character with evil and malicious intent. Certainly someone who's doing good, but claiming to be a Paladin isn't worth more concern than the one who's looking to do incredible evil.

Edit - Divine intervention will vary according to setting, naturally.


Revan wrote:

"You are not an evil person, but our God is going to murder you for using a word, even though there are roughly an infinite number of non-lethal ways he could punish you, ore even simply force you to stop using the word. Look how Lawful Good we are."

Even accepting the entirely irrational, unjustified, and evil actions of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous into evidence (and you are in the considerable minority in doing so), she didn't *kill* the characters for displeasing her. That was your big argument for why dealing as much damage as dropping a character from 50 feet, then 100 feet, and then 200 feet (or stabbing them with five short swords at once, than 10, then 20) for answering random questions incorrectly wasn't evil, as I recall--that despite the considerable objective magnitude of the damage, it had no chance of killing characters of that level, so it was all fine and dandy. She specifically doesn't kill characters who outright attack her. Whereas here, Pelor murders a guy who is specifically *not evil* for making a group of his followers feel less super special awesome and unique.

We clearly have very different ideas what the word 'Good' means.

good does not mean you do not get punished for actions when told to stop by a party.

Good also does not mean you get to insult a god as a mortal. The consequences for that tend to be dire, regardless of alignment.


Freehold DM wrote:
Revan wrote:

"You are not an evil person, but our God is going to murder you for using a word, even though there are roughly an infinite number of non-lethal ways he could punish you, ore even simply force you to stop using the word. Look how Lawful Good we are."

Even accepting the entirely irrational, unjustified, and evil actions of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous into evidence (and you are in the considerable minority in doing so), she didn't *kill* the characters for displeasing her. That was your big argument for why dealing as much damage as dropping a character from 50 feet, then 100 feet, and then 200 feet (or stabbing them with five short swords at once, than 10, then 20) for answering random questions incorrectly wasn't evil, as I recall--that despite the considerable objective magnitude of the damage, it had no chance of killing characters of that level, so it was all fine and dandy. She specifically doesn't kill characters who outright attack her. Whereas here, Pelor murders a guy who is specifically *not evil* for making a group of his followers feel less super special awesome and unique.

We clearly have very different ideas what the word 'Good' means.

good does not mean you do not get punished for actions when told to stop by a party.

Good also does not mean you get to insult a god as a mortal. The consequences for that tend to be dire, regardless of alignment.

I take it you agree with the death penalty for blasphemy then? Plenty of historical precedence, I suppose.

It would be a Good thing, right? Especially if you've been told to stop first.

Actually mouthing off to a god is likely to get you in trouble, though if it's a good god, probably not instantly fatal trouble. More like "learn your lesson" trouble. And in this case it wasn't directly to the god until the god sought him out.

There's also a question of priorities as I said before. If Pelor can seek out and destroy pretenders, what about those actually doing evil? Why does he leave that up to his followers and random adventurers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys realize you are reading WAY too much into plotlines written by disparate writers with wildly differing ideas and wildly differing life experiences. Best to look to the individual GM for the way things TRULY ARE. If gods in this GMs writing are vengeful and seek out blasphemers then that IS WHAT THEY ARE. Live with it or move on to a new GM.

Liberty's Edge

To the OP no not at all. Even though some play them like Dirty Harry with a sword and shield. Assuming that because they are playing a Paladin that it somehow comes with a default seal of authority. Possibly in some homebrew games or campaign worlds. Standard D&D I never saw and still don't. A Paladin could be deputized by the local authority and therby have some kind of authority. Simply strutting up to the nearest evil/neutral npc and trying to smite or simply arrest one without a good reason. At least in my games won't end well.


@TheJeff: I believe the traditional response is "Because there are evil deities who support evil characters in a similar way, and if the gods started smiting everyone they didn't like, other deities would try to stop it, and pretty soon you have a full-on god war and everything gets blown to pieces and everyone loses". On the other hand, if this guy is specifically lying about a deity's faith, the deity has an accepted reason to step in. ("I get to deal with matters involving my church. You get to deal with matters involving yours. If we wish to deal with each other's churches, we use mortal intermediaries.")


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Revan wrote:

"You are not an evil person, but our God is going to murder you for using a word, even though there are roughly an infinite number of non-lethal ways he could punish you, ore even simply force you to stop using the word. Look how Lawful Good we are."

Even accepting the entirely irrational, unjustified, and evil actions of Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous into evidence (and you are in the considerable minority in doing so), she didn't *kill* the characters for displeasing her. That was your big argument for why dealing as much damage as dropping a character from 50 feet, then 100 feet, and then 200 feet (or stabbing them with five short swords at once, than 10, then 20) for answering random questions incorrectly wasn't evil, as I recall--that despite the considerable objective magnitude of the damage, it had no chance of killing characters of that level, so it was all fine and dandy. She specifically doesn't kill characters who outright attack her. Whereas here, Pelor murders a guy who is specifically *not evil* for making a group of his followers feel less super special awesome and unique.

We clearly have very different ideas what the word 'Good' means.

good does not mean you do not get punished for actions when told to stop by a party.

Good also does not mean you get to insult a god as a mortal. The consequences for that tend to be dire, regardless of alignment.

I take it you agree with the death penalty for blasphemy then? Plenty of historical precedence, I suppose.

It would be a Good thing, right? Especially if you've been told to stop first.

Actually mouthing off to a god is likely to get you in trouble, though if it's a good god, probably not instantly fatal trouble. More like "learn your lesson" trouble. And in this case it wasn't directly to the god until the god sought him out.

There's also a question of priorities as I said before. If Pelor can seek out and destroy pretenders, what about those actually doing evil? Why does he...

depends on the blasphemy.

I would say this counts.

Good gods also tell you to "please stop" first, which this one did. Mocking evil deities often results in bring a chew toy for their clergy(which happened in a game I was in once, although not one I ran- a jumping off point for a new adventure with a side group- Worked out well).

Moreover, at least in my games with the people I played with in second edition, a permanent curse with no way of removing it would be seen as tyrannical. Most would prefer death.

3.0.and up? They probably would have taken the curse. Death became worse in later editions in my experience. Still, that's just me.


HWalsh wrote:


It dealt with the problem. The PLAYER knew it would cause the CHARACTER problems and chose to do it anyway. The CHARACTER was warned, once by a PC and again by an agent who showed up and told him, "Hey, the God you're claiming to be a Paladin of is tired of you lying, knock it off." After that? Fair game. At that point you're asking for it.

As to your assumption of what a "Good" God would do... You're simply wrong. Even the most goody good fluffy bunny Gods will bring the wrath for blasphemy *especially* after they sent a hand delivered message telling you, "Yo, not cool bro."

That you'd try...

My biggest question here would be about consistency. If an NPC did this, would you auto smite them?

And what about villain, monsters, etc. that sack and burn churches, desecrate holy ground, kill the servants of a faith, etc? Those are equal or worse crimes, so they should all be auto smote too, right?


Pedantic Pundit, The wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


It dealt with the problem. The PLAYER knew it would cause the CHARACTER problems and chose to do it anyway. The CHARACTER was warned, once by a PC and again by an agent who showed up and told him, "Hey, the God you're claiming to be a Paladin of is tired of you lying, knock it off." After that? Fair game. At that point you're asking for it.

As to your assumption of what a "Good" God would do... You're simply wrong. Even the most goody good fluffy bunny Gods will bring the wrath for blasphemy *especially* after they sent a hand delivered message telling you, "Yo, not cool bro."

That you'd try...

My biggest question here would be about consistency. If an NPC did this, would you auto smite them?

And what about villain, monsters, etc. that sack and burn churches, desecrate holy ground, kill the servants of a faith, etc? Those are equal or worse crimes, so they should all be auto smote too, right?

IF they were doing it in the name of the good faith they are not a part of? Probably. If not then true agents of that faith are aware and they are at the top of the s%$~ list.


Freehold DM wrote:

Moreover, at least in my games with the people I played with in second edition, a permanent curse with no way of removing it would be seen as tyrannical. Most would prefer death.

3.0.and up? They probably would have taken the curse. Death became worse in later editions in my experience. Still, that's just me.

I was envisioning it just applying when and if you claimed to be that god's paladin. Avoid that and you can go about your life never noticing the curse.

Still I'm actually surprised you agreed on the blasphemy? Is this only for the gods themselves to deal out or can they let the priesthood handle it?


Freehold DM wrote:
]IF they were doing it in the name of the good faith they are not a part of? Probably. If not then true agents of that faith are aware and they are at the top of the s@$% list.

How would that make a different? Somebody desecrating your altar and vandalizing your church is also blasphemy just as much as somebody who does it covertly. You're messing with the deity either way. And in this case we have the agents of the church warning the smote PC beforehand, so it's not a question if the agents not knowing and thus not being able to handle it themselves.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Moreover, at least in my games with the people I played with in second edition, a permanent curse with no way of removing it would be seen as tyrannical. Most would prefer death.

3.0.and up? They probably would have taken the curse. Death became worse in later editions in my experience. Still, that's just me.

I was envisioning it just applying when and if you claimed to be that god's paladin. Avoid that and you can go about your life never noticing the curse.

Still I'm actually surprised you agreed on the blasphemy? Is this only for the gods themselves to deal out or can they let the priesthood handle it?

there is usually a hierarchy of sins when it comes to blasphemy. Pretending to be a gods chosen agent is close to the top, if not right there. The gods would have a hand picked agent deal with such an individual, or deal with them themselves.


Pedantic Pundit, The wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
]IF they were doing it in the name of the good faith they are not a part of? Probably. If not then true agents of that faith are aware and they are at the top of the s@$% list.
How would that make a different? Somebody desecrating your altar and vandalizing your church is also blasphemy just as much as somebody who does it covertly. You're messing with the deity either way. And in this case we have the agents of the church warning the smote PC beforehand, so it's not a question if the agents not knowing and thus not being able to handle it themselves.

because one is private and relatively small scale.

The other is going throughout the setting, actively performing deeds that can damage not just the gods name but their church as a whole- spreading heresy, in essence.

In a world where the gods are indisputably real and active in the world to the point that they manifest in it regularly, that's not a good idea.

201 to 250 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.