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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

If a major church gets sacked and burned (or is part of an organized campaign against the god) and the god does nothing, then that makes the god look weak and ineffective. If it s a world where gods actively manifest, then that's even worse for the god because the god is permitting it to happen.

If the GM auto-smites any large scale threat to the faith, then hey we can't argue with that. However, it will mean a lot of changes for the setting. For example, rampaging monster armies with any intelligence will always leave churches alone, and therefore, holy ground will be effective safe zones, which will in turn affect how the world is built). The faith will also have no inquisitors, because the god deals with all the heresy/blasphemy such that it's not needed.

If the GM doesn't account for the above, then we're getting into questions of consistency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

You know, it strikes me the mythological response is to give them a curse that can be removed with a quest or penance. Like, if the character devotes themselves and becomes a paladin, or does something for the church.

One possibility, make it like a Curse Mark, that has no mechnical effect but marks someone as having blasphemed in Pelor's eyes to those who see it.

Or having the paladins themselves deal with the troublemaker- either insisting they recount their words, prove themselves worthy, or pay with blood.

Gods just killing people- rather than sending someone to do it, or remotely sending a curse, or you somehow reaching their presence, their home or such, and *then* causing trouble- strikes me as off, since D&D gods rarely seem to act so freely, as they have high priorities. Especially smiting a non-evil person seems a waste of time when there's real villains. Manifesting an avatar is a Big Deal, and if one manifests for you and you're not evil, you may be roped into some task, but a LG isn't normally the type to do so. *Maybe* a LN, but it seems like pretending to serve them would be a good way for their enemy gods to divert their attention or lure them into a trap...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
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.

I think you mean a world where the gods are petty and small.


Davia D wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

You know, it strikes me the mythological response is to give them a curse that can be removed with a quest or penance. Like, if the character devotes themselves and becomes a paladin, or does something for the church.

One possibility, make it like a Curse Mark, that has no mechnical effect but marks someone as having blasphemed in Pelor's eyes to those who see it.

Or having the paladins themselves deal with the troublemaker- either insisting they recount their words, prove themselves worthy, or pay with blood.

Gods just killing people- rather than sending someone to do it, or remotely sending a curse, or you somehow reaching their presence, their home or such, and *then* causing trouble- strikes me as off, since D&D gods rarely seem to act so freely, as they have high priorities. Especially smiting a non-evil person seems a waste of time when there's real villains. Manifesting an avatar is a Big Deal, and if one manifests for you and you're not evil, you may be roped into some task, but a LG isn't normally the type to do so. *Maybe* a LN, but it seems like pretending to serve them would be a good way for their enemy gods to divert their attention or lure them into a trap...

*shrug* Odin, Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena, et al had no problems doing this on the regular. In fact each of the gods I named has an associated story where they take an active personal and petty hand in punishing a mortal that pissed them off.

You got a problem with that, take it up with the antiquity that lead to this game in the first place.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
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.
I think you mean a world where the gods are petty and small.

removing someone acting in your name and doing nonsense isn't petty or small.

Turning someone who pisses you off into an animal to be torn apart is.

Given a choice between the two, I'll take painless death. You?

Shadow Lodge

False dichotomy.


Pedantic Pundit, The wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

If a major church gets sacked and burned (or is part of an organized campaign against the god) and the god does nothing, then that makes the god look weak and ineffective. If it s a world where gods actively manifest, then that's even worse for the god because the god is permitting it to happen.

If the GM auto-smites any large scale threat to the faith, then hey we can't argue with that. However, it will mean a lot of changes for the setting. For example, rampaging monster armies with any intelligence will always leave churches alone, and therefore, holy ground will be effective safe zones, which will in turn affect how the world is built). The faith will also have no inquisitors, because the god deals with all the heresy/blasphemy such that it's not needed.

If the GM doesn't account for the above, then we're getting into questions of consistency.

you are confusing a great number of things here to the point that it would take a great deal of time and effort to extract one concept from another. Suffice it to say that second edition tsr campaign settings and pathfinder's golarion are two very, very different places and leave it there.


TOZ wrote:
False dichotomy.

more like "don't piss off gods idly after they have actively warned you not to", but whatevs.


Davia D wrote:


You know, it strikes me the mythological response is to give them a curse that can be removed with a quest or penance. Like, if the character devotes themselves and becomes a paladin, or does something for the church.

Not really. Not based on real world mythology. Remember Medusa? She was cursed, permanently, because she once dared to compare her beauty to that of Aphrodite. BAM. Instant, permanent, snake hair, stone gaze, and permanent sorrow.

Quote:
One possibility, make it like a Curse Mark, that has no mechnical effect but marks someone as having blasphemed in Pelor's eyes to those who see it.

No quest to get rid of it. No redemption. No chance of redemption. Beautiful one moment, hideous danger to all life the next. For having the stones to simply insinuate that you might be more beautiful than a Goddess... Of love... Did I note that she was one of the most merciful Goddesses ever?

She didn't send someone to politely say, "Hey, you need not to do that." Then watch them continue doing it for months. Oh no, it was one and done. Bam! Pow! Zap!

Goddess of Love.

Quote:
Or having the paladins themselves deal with the troublemaker- either insisting they recount their words, prove themselves worthy, or pay with blood.

Wasn't the job of the Paladins at the time. The God had already tried sending a direct messenger. You don't poke a hornet's nest then complain about getting stung.

Quote:
Gods just killing people- rather than sending someone to do it, or remotely sending a curse, or you somehow reaching their presence, their home or such, and *then* causing trouble- strikes me as off, since D&D gods rarely seem to act so freely, as they have high priorities. Especially smiting a non-evil person seems a waste of time when there's real villains. Manifesting an avatar is a Big Deal, and if one manifests for you and you're not evil, you may be roped into some task, but a LG isn't normally the type to do so. *Maybe* a LN, but it seems like pretending to serve them would be a good way for their enemy gods to divert their attention or lure them into a trap...

Actually there are a number of D&D stories about the Gods doing things exactly like I described. Good Gods, Evil Gods, Gods in general actually. They tend not to take this level of blasphemy lightly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

Oh that was the best part... He actually *was* a servant of Pelor. He was a Fighter. Very devout.

It was very much a personal matter. Something akin to, "You worship me, you lie about what you are, then when someone tells you I say to knock it off you keep doing it? Nope. Not gonna happen."

Dark Archive

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The big surprise to me is that the article needed to be written at all.

Is it that common for players to think that because they're Paladins, they're agents of the law by default?

That happened a lot when I was younger, particularly after the first Unearthed Arcana was released with the Cavalier class, which was automatically 'higher status' than everyone else. Some Paladin players had already had a sort of 'I am the law, filthy peasant' mentality, conflating Paladin-hood with knighthood, but the Cavalier-Paladin made it explicitly part of the game.

Not so much, lately, although I admittedly haven't played with a bunch of Paladins in recent years, the ones I have trended more towards humility and leading-by-example than attacking NPCs who weren't sufficiently respectful or trying to boss around local guardsmen (things that actually happened, more than once...).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The big surprise to me is that the article needed to be written at all.

Is it that common for players to think that because they're Paladins, they're agents of the law by default?

That happened a lot when I was younger, particularly after the first Unearthed Arcana was released with the Cavalier class, which was automatically 'higher status' than everyone else. Some Paladin players had already had a sort of 'I am the law, filthy peasant' mentality, conflating Paladin-hood with knighthood, but the Cavalier-Paladin made it explicitly part of the game.

Not so much, lately, although I admittedly haven't played with a bunch of Paladins in recent years, the ones I have trended more towards humility and leading-by-example than attacking NPCs who weren't sufficiently respectful or trying to boss around local guardsmen (things that actually happened, more than once...).

In my experience it isn't the Paladin or the Cavalier that are the cause of most of the problems. Usually it is a Fighter or Barbarian who get competitive more than anything else.

Heck, the phenomenon of the non-Paladin claiming to be a Paladin is basically when players of one class hate what another class has so badly that they make something to intentionally troll it.

Well played Paladins don't boss people around... They don't need to. Do they have special status? Yes. Yes they do. More than other classes? Yes.

There have always been trade offs for that though.

The fact is a Paladin has a special bond with their power source. Call it a God, call it the force of Good in the world, or whatever but the Paladin makes a promise to it, "If I step out of line, even once. If I screw up. If I make a mistake. You can take from me that which I have."

And try as they might, no other class has that same bond, has the commitment to make that same deal.

This grants Paladins special authority in a lot of situations. When a Paladin steps into a situation they don't automatically have legal authority, they do, however have moral authority.

A Fighter can be corrupt. They can be genuinely good, but can do small evil acts. The same can be said of every class... But the Paladin.

Therefore when it comes to any kind of situation (such as law enforcement) where corruption is possible you have two choices. Either go with the person who can be corrupt or go with the person who can't be corrupt. It is a zero sum game.

That is not to say that, for example, a Fighter, or a Barbarian, or a Ranger, or any other class cannot do the job. They certainly can. It just means that, at the end of the day, they can't make the claim of being incorruptible.

When the "Paladin" suddenly loses their divine powers, starts getting sick, can't heal, can't resist attacks as easily, and begins to show fear... Then you have a problem. You know he did something wrong. You know it is time to remove him.

When a Fighter gives in to one evil act... You can't tell, certainly not as easily.

Then, there is the matter of the sheer political suicide opposing a Paladin would be.

Look at things from a political standpoint:

Everyone pretty much knows what a Paladin is. At the most you'd be looking at a DC 10 roll. They are the stuff of legend. They are literally the Knight in Shining Armor. They are as close as we get to a living embodiment of Good and the symbol of Justice.

Now, you are a Sheriff in a place... Over looking justice... You do something bad to this person. You belittle him in some way. You arrest him. You call him a liar or besmirch his honor in any way...

You have better pray to whatever Deity that you worship that you don't have a democratic society. Your opponent has the ultimate attack ad. They can hit you so hard, so nasty, come campaign time, that you'll never recover.

Ahem:

"Sheriff Karl claims to be on the side of law and order. When the Paladin Sir Arthur offered his aid he told him that he was a liar and dared to lock him up for trying to help. Why? Was there something Sheriff Karl didn't want him to find out? Was Sheriff Karl in on it? Can we really trust a man who doesn't trust a Paladin? Vote for Sheriff Lian...

I'm Sheriff Lian and I approve this message."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
As to your assumption of what a "Good" God would do... You're simply wrong.
Pathfinder alignment section wrote:

Good Alignments

The good alignments are shorthand codes indicating that characters generally have some of the following characteristics: they oppose evil, respect life, defend the innocent, and sometimes make personal sacrifices to aid others.

Killing someone perma-dead when there were other options is not respecting life. The deity as you've played them is not good by the rulebook definition.

If you want to run "good" deities like they're mob bosses and kill over "disrespect", that's your business. But understand that it's a house rule. Also understand that you should have mentioned said house rule to players before starting.


Freehold DM wrote:
*shrug* Odin, Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena,

You realise though, none of them really meet pathfinder's book standards of "good"? Athena's probably the nicest, but she's still petty and vain in some stories.


You have to remember that gods are, well, gods and they don't have time to waste on low level fakers. Hell even mid level fakes would probably fly under the radar. Now nothing stops a clergy member from stopping them in the meantime if they manage to figure it out, but until the threat reaches around level 15, maybe lower for certain threats, before a god starts to take action.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
As to your assumption of what a "Good" God would do... You're simply wrong.
Pathfinder alignment section wrote:

Good Alignments

The good alignments are shorthand codes indicating that characters generally have some of the following characteristics: they oppose evil, respect life, defend the innocent, and sometimes make personal sacrifices to aid others.

Killing someone perma-dead when there were other options is not respecting life. The deity as you've played them is not good by the rulebook definition.

If you want to run "good" deities like they're mob bosses and kill over "disrespect", that's your business. But understand that it's a house rule. Also understand that you should have mentioned said house rule to players before starting.

As noted above, this was second ed, NOT pathfinder.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
*shrug* Odin, Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena,
You realise though, none of them really meet pathfinder's book standards of "good"? Athena's probably the nicest, but she's still petty and vain in some stories.

See above.


HWalsh wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

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.

Oh that was the best part... He actually *was* a servant of Pelor. He was a Fighter. Very devout.

It was very much a personal matter. Something akin to, "You worship me, you lie about what you are, then when someone tells you I say to knock it off you keep doing it? Nope. Not gonna happen."

Indeed, this is the worst kind of blasphemy.


Freehold DM wrote:
*shrug* Odin, Zeus, Hercules, Thor, Athena, et al had no problems doing this on the regular. In fact each of the gods I...

Punishing, sure, but personally going to them to kill them is a whoooole lot rarer.

And generally the things the people do to get cursed is a lot more personal. Like Arachne, the best weaver in the world, challenging Athene to a weaving contest, and then in the contest choosing 'Here's how the gods suck,' as a weaving subject.

It's almost never random people (especially not for stuff as minor as 'pretending to be a priest/servant of the god'). It's either exceptional people who directly go after the god, or someone the god in question personally knows / fell in love with / hated / was rebuked by in a time of need.

HWalsh wrote:


Not really. Not based on real world mythology. Remember Medusa? She was cursed, permanently, because she once dared to compare her beauty to that of Aphrodite. BAM. Instant, permanent, snake hair, stone gaze, and permanent sorrow.

You may be thinking of a different one- Medusa was, depending on version, either Athene's high priestess who had sex with or was raped (again, depending on version/reading) in Athene's own temple, and messing with a God's temple is a big no-no, doing so while high priestess doubly so. Or sometimes just born a monster in older myths.

Now, Aphrodite did curse some people, but they usually were *much* more direct in insulting or denying her. Like the King who asked for her help in exchange for sacrifice, she gave help, then he denied her the sacrifice (punishment- Convinced his wife to elope).

Hm, there is the Women of Lemnos, who scored Aphrodite and in return, she made them smell bad....

Even that is not 'strike dead,' it's laying a curse.

Generally speaking the best way to deal with a God's curse is to turn to a rival god for help, who'll sometimes help alleviate it or such... like the whole Odyssey thing, where different gods alternatively helped or hurt Odysseus.

Quote:


Wasn't the job of the Paladins at the time. The God had already tried sending a direct messenger. You don't poke a hornet's nest then complain about getting stung.

The job of Paladins and Clerics is to carry out a God's will so the God doesn't have to purposefully do everything. Which, btw, *is* being stung.

It's just... really odd to escalate direct to God-killing and pretty high-end even by Greek God standards, which is a standard known for arbitrary punishments (Unlike Pelor, who's generally depicted as more reasonable). Less 'poke a hornet's nest, get stung,' more, 'talk loudly near a hornet's nest, tree with nest falls on them.'


In the wake of Ultimate Intrigue, it seems like a nice way to split the difference is that those who falsely claim paladinhood, undermining real paladins of that faith, get a warning to stop from the god they are offending.

If they persist, the god puts a Conditional Curse on them, and the liar understands that given the gods' caster level is going to be way higher than any mortal's could be, the ONLY way they are ever getting uncursed is if they fulfill the condition; discard their lie and never again impersonate a paladin.

I have to admit, I really don't understand why people are so dead set on paladins with these things. Nobody ever asks "well how do we KNOW that cleric's not just a sorcerer serving a false god" or "how do we know that caster isn't one of the many rogue archetypes that pretends to be a caster" or "how do we know you're REALLY a member of the Order of the Sword, huh?" It's the same as this asinine notion that LG really means Lawful Stupid or Lawful Intolerant while at the same time holding up Lawful Evil as reasonable and cool, another trend I hate seeing in threads that discuss alignment.


I prefer to think of Lawful Evil as just being really good at talking and temptation (as in "he was a silver-tongued devil"). That is, they deliberately try to come across as reasonable, even when they're busy totally screwing you over. XD


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
I have to admit, I really don't understand why people are so dead set on paladins with these things. Nobody ever asks "well how do we KNOW that cleric's not just a sorcerer serving a false god" or "how do we know that caster isn't one of the many rogue archetypes that pretends to be a caster" or "how do we know you're REALLY a member of the Order of the Sword, huh?" It's the same as this asinine notion that LG really means Lawful Stupid or Lawful Intolerant while at the same time holding up Lawful Evil as reasonable and cool, another trend I hate seeing in threads that discuss alignment.

It's more I think that we're talking about "Everyone trusts a paladin", so the question of whether they actually know you're a paladin comes up.

In most cases, the rogue archetypes might be pretending to be casters, but they're not getting that kind of social benefit out of it. If they are, then I'd expect similar checking. A society ruled by mages, where being an arcane caster conferred status, would likely have ways to check for imposters.


GM Rednal wrote:
I prefer to think of Lawful Evil as just being really good at talking and temptation (as in "he was a silver-tongued devil"). That is, they deliberately try to come across as reasonable, even when they're busy totally screwing you over. XD

Lawful Evils honestly believe in the law, and will reasonably both argue that to you and abide by it, *but* also view screwing you over within the law as not only fine, but fair, if you fall for it it's your own fault :)


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Nobody ever asks "well how do we KNOW that cleric's not just a sorcerer serving a false god" or "how do we know that caster isn't one of the many rogue archetypes that pretends to be a caster" or "how do we know you're REALLY a member of the Order of the Sword, huh?"

I haven't asked the third. The first one I have done, and the second kind of came up and I was going to but then it didn't matter. But I did think about it and ended up planning around it. :)

GM Rednal wrote:
I prefer to think of Lawful Evil as just being really good at talking and temptation (as in "he was a silver-tongued devil"). That is, they deliberately try to come across as reasonable, even when they're busy totally screwing you over. XD

Well yeah. I mean, a little effort with being polite and friendly can pay huge dividends in people helping you. Investing in your relationships is rational for someone selfish... as long as the investments are paying off. :)


As a few other have said , how much authority a Paladin has would depend on the World and country. Its going to vary from game to game.
First thing is how powerful and efficient is local law enforcement. If like most Medieval countries its fairly weak and often absent, a Paladin might have more authority . If the Paladin Church is part of the local power structure even more so. Or if the Paladin is considered a Knight. In Medieval Europe a Knight had the DUTY to enforce the Kings law, although they did not have the right to perform capital punishment.
A local Noble or town council might also grant a Paladin a writ to enforce law if they know them and trust them.
Also ask if being a bounty hunter legal in your game? If so then what ever powers a bounty hunter has a Paladin can have.
On the other hand if local law enforcement is powerful, they might not like other doing their job and other could get in big trouble for trying to enforce the law. And this would go double if Local law enforcement was powerful, inefficient and not good. And if in an evil align area the Paladin will have zero authority.


Davia D wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
I prefer to think of Lawful Evil as just being really good at talking and temptation (as in "he was a silver-tongued devil"). That is, they deliberately try to come across as reasonable, even when they're busy totally screwing you over. XD
Lawful Evils honestly believe in the law, and will reasonably both argue that to you and abide by it, *but* also view screwing you over within the law as not only fine, but fair, if you fall for it it's your own fault :)

Well, Lawful Evil also tends to twist the rules to screw other people over. They make a big point about playing fair while actually leveraging every unfair advantage they can lay their mitts on unless the rules explicitly say in no uncertain terms they can't do that.


Also, someone being a fake-(whatever) is a *great* roleplaying hook when they deal with someone of that group, who knows that group... or where they're forced to really step up and act the role in a serious situation, and live up to it or not.

Ever seen 'The Three Amigos' (or A Bug's Life, or heck, The Force Awakens)? It's a classic scenario ^^

Perform well enough, and someone could *earn* being an 'honorary X'. Perform poorly, and word gets out everywhere what a fake they are.

Community Manager

Removed some posts and their responses. Please be civil!


I told you guys not to go with that whole you don't have any actual authority just because your a community manager thing, and look what happened!

251 to 280 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.