Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Why all the Paladin hate?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 250 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, honor is mostly the easy-reader version of decency for the empathetically and socially challenged, a far more common condition than is healthy for society. It curbs the excesses of those powerful enough to damage society who lack the basics to be able to work out right and wrong for themselves. If you add codified punishments for "falls" then what it has become is a system of laws. It is the basis of society. It is often ignored, or even twisted, by the powerful, but is still an improvement over having nothing at all to rein in the worst of behaviors.

Now, there is a portion of the public, also represented here in the forums, that only rein in their impulses due to fear of punishment, which is stressful for them. They want their gameworld to be a consequence free place where they can relieve this stress. This is merely a matter of degree and balance for many if not most. The balance point in game is where the stress relief of acting on "darker" urges is not overwhelmed by the "Ick Factor" of the actions being portrayed. People at the extremes, especially those who are empathetically challenged, have a difficult time recognizing that, what is simply stress relief for them, is actually adding to the stress of other players. It can effectively be an attack on what they understand to be right and decent behavior, and a warning of what a person might really do if they thought they could get away with it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ouachitonian wrote:
Seems like banning paladins could be just as disruptive if you have someone who really wants to play a paladin. I mean, I can see it for certain games; S&S and HV both seem like games where a paladin would be a wildly inappropriate choice, but I can’t imagine a blanket ban of a core class sitting well with a lot of people.

We actually have a Paladin of Milani as our pirate captain in S&S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Catch 22's are not a good enough argument. The rules are based off intent, as previously cited. If the player intends to do evil, then they fall. If the player intends to be dishonorable, then they fall. Sadistic choices cannot, by definition, ruin a player's character.

Polarizing views on alignment ruin the game for everyone, not just paladin players. This is why there are also so many threads on why CN doesn't actually exist.


TheNine wrote:
Man i hope some day y'all get to play with a good paladin.

I've seen them. They DO exist, like those cute panda's at the zoo. I just expect to run into them as often as I do those cute panda's...

Philippe Lam wrote:
If the player wants to be of any other alignment than Lawful Good, either it's Gray Paladin with the disadvantages it entails, or playing DnD 5.

Oh... I think I threw up in my mouth a little. Might as well suggest someone play a 0 point buy commoner... Actually, I think I might enjoy the commoner more than either of those options...

Soulgear wrote:
Do the poorly played paladins so overshadow the memories of a well played paladin because a well played paladin is semi-invisible?

Not really invisible but less important. Usually when a non-well played creates an issue, it's a BIG issue that completely disrupts a game. After enough scenes heated debates halting games for hours, you get to the point where you don't want the trouble.

I've met some really nice dogs and I've also been bitten by them: It's let me conclude I should not walk up and pet random dogs...

AaronUnicorn wrote:
A bad experience with a Paladin can leave long-lasting vile tastes in people's mouths.

Yep. A paladin played well is like any other well played player. The black sheep/problem child just make you gun shy.


Daw wrote:

Actually, honor is mostly the easy-reader version of decency for the empathetically and socially challenged, a far more common condition than is healthy for society. It curbs the excesses of those powerful enough to damage society who lack the basics to be able to work out right and wrong for themselves. If you add codified punishments for "falls" then what it has become is a system of laws. It is the basis of society. It is often ignored, or even twisted, by the powerful, but is still an improvement over having nothing at all to rein in the worst of behaviors.

Now, there is a portion of the public, also represented here in the forums, that only rein in their impulses due to fear of punishment, which is stressful for them. They want their gameworld to be a consequence free place where they can relieve this stress. This is merely a matter of degree and balance for many if not most. The balance point in game is where the stress relief of acting on "darker" urges is not overwhelmed by the "Ick Factor" of the actions being portrayed. People at the extremes, especially those who are empathetically challenged, have a difficult time recognizing that, what is simply stress relief for them, is actually adding to the stress of other players. It can effectively be an attack on what they understand to be right and decent behavior, and a warning of what a person might really do if they thought they could get away with it.

Or maybe, you know, it just an implicit code of behaviour(s) that outline the duties of the individual (or individuals) in a social group.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Catch 22's are not a good enough argument.

They are good enough for a certain slice of DM's. YOUR interpretation of what needs to done to fall isn't in the book, so it's up to the individual DM's. There is also the debate over what actions are evil: a player intends a non-evil action while the DM decides that act is evil...

master_marshmallow wrote:
Polarizing views on alignment ruin the game for everyone, not just paladin players.

Oh alignment is awful [polarizing or not]. With pazio nuking options from orbit more and more, I hoping alignment gets hit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, the thing that continues to baffle me about these debates is the question of why Lawful Good is such a hard concept for people to wrap their brain around.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I tend to think that most people are good at heart. I tend to think that most people follow the rules - not just because they're scared of the consequences, but because they understand that the rules are there for a reason.

Now, I don't think most people have the will to live under that code all the time. We're all human, and susceptible to moments of jealousy or anger or frustration. And we have our own minor slips and falls, but I think they're usually just that - minor.

And when I think of heroes, I think of people who aren't just powerful, but who use that power to help people. I think of people who hold themselves to a moral code. I think of people who could break all the rules and get away with, but who don't, because they understand how that harms society and other people.

Paladins aren't hard for me to wrap my head around.

Choosing to play an Evil Character for anything other than a one-off? That's hard for me.


Bodhi's paladin guide covers this pretty well. Some Paladins don't impose as much as others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AaronUnicorn wrote:
Ultimately, the thing that continues to baffle me about these debates is the question of why Lawful Good is such a hard concept for people to wrap their brain around.

Why are completely subjective and overly simplistic moral/ethical archetypes at odds with complex and multilayered characters?

People realistically can't be boiled down to a simplistic 9 point alignment, especially across every possible set of circumstances. Then add in cultural bias and religious beliefs and it leads to different conclusions as to what is moral and ethical: For players, characters and the DM.


People's beliefs are certainly more complicated than just those two axis, absolutely. And if you consider the alignments absolutes instead of simply being about where a person's tendencies are, then they absolutely fall short.

But in a game system where Good and Evil and Law and Chaos aren't just concepts, but are concrete forces that are detectable via magic? I don't see them going away. They're just too baked into the system.

There are plenty of game systems that have done away with alignment. But I don't think that Pathfinder is going to do so anytime soon.


AaronUnicorn wrote:
But in a game system where Good and Evil and Law and Chaos aren't just concepts, but are concrete forces that are detectable via magic? I don't see them going away. They're just too baked into the system.

They could stay for creatures with alignment subtypes, those with auras[ie, deity's alignment] and generic things like settlements or entire races. Those spells keep working on outsiders and divine casters. it just stops being a noose around players necks.

PS: and the parts of alignment that cause issues aren't those "concrete forces" but the subjective actions of players/characters.

AaronUnicorn wrote:
There are plenty of game systems that have done away with alignment. But I don't think that Pathfinder is going to do so anytime soon.

Sadly I agree, but I can dream. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ouachitonian wrote:
Seems like banning paladins could be just as disruptive if you have someone who really wants to play a paladin. I mean, I can see it for certain games; S&S and HV both seem like games where a paladin would be a wildly inappropriate choice, but I can’t imagine a blanket ban of a core class sitting well with a lot of people.

Not really. The reason why I ban Paladins as a PC option (which is different from banning them outright) is to foster a table that doesn't contain outlets for blatant disruption, on both sides of the spectrum. The PC has a different view of a Paladin from myself, and I'd rather not risk upsetting the player or myself by throwing gasoline (AKA the Paladin class) onto an obviously flammable subject (code of conduct and alignment concepts) which can escalate to unfair and un-fun times had by all involved.

Could I houserule Paladins to be less disruptive? Absolutely. But I wouldn't expect a player to know or follow that houserule, and if I was asked to permit a Standard Paladin instead, I'd tell that player, kindly, to find another table, because the risk isn't worth the apparent reward.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
freedom fighter - doesn't conflict with Paladin
If you're going all John Brown you're going to conflict with a paladins desire if not requirement to change the system from the inside rather than vigilante justice.
If the system is evil, the paladin has no requirement to work within it.

They do. They have to respect legitimate authority. I don't think that that means non evil authority, or good authority (since plenty of non evil governments have slavery- Osirion clocks in at LN) I believe that means a government providing laws, a system, and services as opposed to someone shouting "i am kiiing of the forest...)

Or they can find some other socially acceptable method of changing it. (Like joining the andoran government and getting a war going: Lincoln anyone?) but galavanting about the country randomly loopping the heads off of slavers on your own initiative is pretty much the definition of chaotic good. A paladin isn't going to fall for one act of that, but as an MO is is going to bump their alignment over to NG or CG eventually.

exactly


Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.

no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same


Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
a mercenary - doesn't conflict with Paladin

..until someone makes you a better offer. Or makes you a good offer to do a bad thing.

What? Mercenaries can't be honorable, keeping their word as their bond until they fulfill the terms of the contract? They very well can be.

the definition of a mercenary is offering your services to the highest bidder, if there happens to be a higher bidder your loyalty goes away if the person your currently working for doesn't up the bid the perfect example of a mercenary is Sivir from league of legends the person with the biggest coin purse gets her loyalty


Ventnor wrote:
gnoams wrote:
AaronUnicorn wrote:

I think there are two elements to it.

The first is an external bias. As a society, we generally don't like seeing characters who live according to high moral codes. Americans tend to prefer the scrappy underdog, the rebel, the loner who goes their own way, the cop who breaks the rules in order to get real justice.

We have a bias against characters like Superman and Luke Skywalker and towards characters like Batman and Han Solo.

Paladins live by that strong moral code, and remind most of us that in the real world? We fall very short. Most of us consider ourselves "good" people. But we'll tell a white lie, or break a minor law. And we're still good. The Paladin holds themselves above that. And that makes us question if we're as good as we think we are. Which immediately lends to people looking at the rules and seeing how they can make a Paladin fall.

The other part is one or two bad Paladin players, who let their characters be zealots and overbearing and squash the other party members. And that can be a hard taste to get out of one's mouth. Not all, or even most Paladin players do that. But enough do that we all remember "that guy."

This^^

If you are interested in real world analogies, I suggest reading some academic papers on understanding antisemitism. Basically, we have a certain moral code that defines what good is in our society. For the society of fantasy world, a paladin embodies that goodness. A paladin is an icon for morality; a living embodiment of how we think a moral person should be. Even if they don't do or say anything, their very presence makes us feel like we are being judged, and are found wanting. These feelings are of personal guilt, but since we have a representation of that which is making us feel guilty, we direct our anger to it.

My beef with the Code of Conduct is that it talks about Honor as if it is the most good way to live your life. All Honor is is a series of social rules designed to keep a few rich men in power while repressing and abusing those not lucky enough to be born into privilege and every woman in society. Oh, and if you feel that your honor has been impugned, you are social obligated to murder the crap out of the person you feel has done so or else you are a bad person.

Honor is evil.

this is also a good point


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Players pick and define their alignment. No other RAW interpretation is consistent when it comes to alignment.

The paladin's code on the other hand can be argued to be broken by any action because of vague requirements like "act with honor"..."and so forth" and how the paladin can forced to break their code with compulsion spells per atonement spell.

The GM is well within her rights to consider breathing dishonorable. Because it can be in certain societies and from certain perspectives. For example, an underwater race of sea people could consider breathing surface air similar to how Dragon Age dwarves considered walking on the surface. A great dishonor from a society with legitimate authority. The Paladin's code is objective not subjective. The GM can easily rule that the paladin is bound by all concepts of honor and therefore auto falls.

She doesn't have to rule it that way but your class features are at the mercy of her whims. And you have no right to complain because you decided to play a class with broken mechanics.

As a player, whenever a paladin wants to join the party, I implore the GM to make up their own code of conduct because the code is not playable as written and will only cause future problems. This tends to always be changed to acting with intent of good or basically an alignment requirement. Which means the player can do whatever they want.

Thus I tend to see Paladins as muchkins who couldn't be bothered to just play a Warpriest. Because they need houserules to function, and no GM I play with has ever pulled their class features. It doesn't help that one Guy in one of my groups only plays paladins and wizards and mysteriously rolls high all the time.


Rhedyn wrote:

Players pick and define their alignment. No other RAW interpretation is consistent when it comes to alignment.

The paladin's code on the other hand can be argued to be broken by any action because of vague requirements like "act with honor"..."and so forth" and how the paladin can forced to break their code with compulsion spells per atonement spell.

The GM is well within her rights to consider breathing dishonorable. Because it can be in certain societies and from certain perspectives. For example, an underwater race of sea people could consider breathing surface air similar to how Dragon Age dwarves considered walking on the surface. A great dishonor from a society with legitimate authority. The Paladin's code is objective not subjective. The GM can easily rule that the paladin is bound by all concepts of honor and therefore auto falls.

She doesn't have to rule it that way but your class features are at the mercy of her whims. And you have no right to complain because you decided to play a class with broken mechanics.

As a player, whenever a paladin wants to join the party, I implore the GM to make up their own code of conduct because the code is not playable as written and will only cause future problems. This tends to always be changed to acting with intent of good or basically an alignment requirement. Which means the player can do whatever they want.

Thus I tend to see Paladins as muchkins who couldn't be bothered to just play a Warpriest. Because they need houserules to function, and no GM I play with has ever pulled their class features. It doesn't help that one Guy in one of my groups only plays paladins and wizards and mysteriously rolls high all the time.

Technically true, but that GM is a douchebag.

I still don’t get the “just use a warpriest” argument. First off, it depends on a GM allowing the ACG, which not all do (and is certainly more frequent than disallowing something from the Core Rulebook, in my experience). The Warpriest is also a very different class, and pretty inferior at doing Paladin things. I mean, sure, it’s better at spellcasting, but who plays a martial class for the casting?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
@ BigNorseWolf - would you consider Treerazer or Razmir (or hell, Baba Yaga) to be legitimate authorities?

No, yes, (yes).

Treerazer doesn't have any kind of system beyond "do what treerazer says and he might not eat you. Babayaga and Razmir are both effectively heads of government that run functioning societies.

I've had this come up in a pfs game. You can't kill the troll, he's wearing a badger.*

*keeping the typo. Badgers are now marks of office in irisen.

Quote:
There are many rulers who are pretty much just bandits who successfully took over a country.

I'm pretty sure if you go back far enough that's how every country got started.

Quote:
I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

comedy=tragedy+time

country= banditry+time

Quote:


*Now, I can totally see paladins who do recognize House Thrune as a legitimate authority, but Cheliax is a deliberately weird situation where the state religion is a LE deity whose servants ended a horrible civil war, but the most popular religion is a LG deity who's the heir to the prior state religion.

and whos churches and followers aren't burned at the stake because their representatives aren't roaving the countryside lopping off heads. If the basements however just happen to have old storage units who's contents the priests have no idea of, thats different.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same

That’s blatantly not true, Illeosa is not a legitimate ruler of Korvosa, an if the PCs are picked by the people at the end of the AP to lead they are now the legitimate rulers.

Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years? Then those rebels will become “legitimate” eventually. Do you have to have “royal” blood or something? That doesn’t matter at all to Paladins.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
a mercenary - doesn't conflict with Paladin

..until someone makes you a better offer. Or makes you a good offer to do a bad thing.

What? Mercenaries can't be honorable, keeping their word as their bond until they fulfill the terms of the contract? They very well can be.
the definition of a mercenary is offering your services to the highest bidder, if there happens to be a higher bidder your loyalty goes away if the person your currently working for doesn't up the bid the perfect example of a mercenary is Sivir from league of legends the person with the biggest coin purse gets her loyalty

No mercenaries do not just abandon their contract because they got a better offer as per their definition. There are some who would do that just as there are some who would abandon all their oaths and obligations because of 30 pieces of silver. However there are many, many examples of mercenaries who once the contract is agreed upon and signed fulfill it to the best of their ability. Whether that is because of their own personal honor or simply common sense in that if you keep tossing over the people who hire you for a better offer people will stop hiring you and you wont make any money.

Some interesting examples include the swiss guard who were originally a mercenary company that did such a good job they remained as the vatican guard even after the swiss were banned from acting as mercenaries. The flying tigers who while extremely well paid originated from a desire by the US to oppose the Japanese while remaining "neutral" and the varangian guard who were hired to begin with because they were less corruptable than the native country men they replaced.

In fact for a vast majority of our history mercenary companies where the main method of forming an army rather than having a standing one as we do today. If we move out of history into fantassy then it goes even further. There are novels of mercenary companies who fought and died to the last man AFTER the person who hired them had already fallen because that is what they contracted to do.

For that matter nearly EVERY SINGLE PC is a mercenary as you are being paid to do a job. If you accept 1 gold to kill the warg of ice peak mountain you're a mercenary, if you accept a magical armour of the first paladin of Ioamade to stop the mysterious foes attacking her temple your a mercenary. You can claim it was a "reward" for the job but technically it payment for goods and services as a mercenary. I freely admit my alchemist is a mage for hire as a mercenary but that doesn't mean she's going to take a job to kidnap young dragons so they can be killed for their blood and body parts or turn around and leave the evil murdering bandit lord alive because he makes a better offer.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
a mercenary - doesn't conflict with Paladin

..until someone makes you a better offer. Or makes you a good offer to do a bad thing.

What? Mercenaries can't be honorable, keeping their word as their bond until they fulfill the terms of the contract? They very well can be.
the definition of a mercenary is offering your services to the highest bidder, if there happens to be a higher bidder your loyalty goes away if the person your currently working for doesn't up the bid the perfect example of a mercenary is Sivir from league of legends the person with the biggest coin purse gets her loyalty

That is not the definition of a mercenary. If you call yourself a Mercenary you don’t automatically function a certain way that’s different from adventures. The closest thing You have for a concrete definition for mercenerey is someone who is hired to join one side of a conflict when they are not part of the conflict.

That’s it. You can have unscrupulous mercenaries that go with the highest bidder, but that’s not all mercenaries, you can have some with morals, your interpretation that mercenaries go to the highest bidder is, aside from your interpretation, about as valid as claiming that all Rogues are thieves.


Zhangar wrote:

I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

if paladins existed in the one piece universe they would most definitely have to recognize the world government as a legitimate authority, they are also the bad guys who won and they won 800 years b4 the main story takes place


I think this is the Honor the paladin is supposed to have:

http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-knights/code-of-chivalry.h tm wrote:

Code of Chivalry - The Song of Roland

A Code of Chivalry was documented in an epic poem called 'The Song of Roland'. The 'Song of Roland' describes the 8th century Knights of the Dark Ages and the battles fought by the Emperor Charlemagne. The code has since been described as Charlemagne's Code of Chivalry. The Song of Roland was written between 1098-1100 and described the betrayal of Count Roland at the hand of Ganelon. Roland was a loyal defender of his liege Lord Charlemagne and his code of conduct became understood as a code of chivalry. The Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valor and faith
To protect the weak and defenseless
To give succor to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offense
To live by honor and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honor of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honor of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

This isn't a samurai type of honor, where getting a funny look means you can kill peasants. This looks to be pretty much where most of the Paladin's code of conduct was derived.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think this is the Honor the paladin is supposed to have:

http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-knights/code-of-chivalry.h tm wrote:

Code of Chivalry - The Song of Roland

A Code of Chivalry was documented in an epic poem called 'The Song of Roland'. The 'Song of Roland' describes the 8th century Knights of the Dark Ages and the battles fought by the Emperor Charlemagne. The code has since been described as Charlemagne's Code of Chivalry. The Song of Roland was written between 1098-1100 and described the betrayal of Count Roland at the hand of Ganelon. Roland was a loyal defender of his liege Lord Charlemagne and his code of conduct became understood as a code of chivalry. The Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valor and faith
To protect the weak and defenseless
To give succor to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offense
To live by honor and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honor of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honor of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

This isn't a samurai type of honor, where getting a funny look means you can kill peasants. This looks to be pretty much where most of the Paladin's code of conduct was derived.

The 47 Ronin would disagree with you about what constitutes samurai honour.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?

exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

if paladins existed in the one piece universe they would most definitely have to recognize the world government as a legitimate authority, they are also the bad guys who won and they won 800 years b4 the main story takes place

No they wouldn’t.

A Paladin does not have to recognize Evil as a legitimate authority, especially if doing so would be detrimental to the citizens of the country. To claim otherwise, that Paladins can only go hunt for lesser evil out in the wilds and can not stand against organized Evil is to completely undercut the class and those who play it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?
exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities

This is beyond absurd, you realize this right?


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

if paladins existed in the one piece universe they would most definitely have to recognize the world government as a legitimate authority, they are also the bad guys who won and they won 800 years b4 the main story takes place

No they wouldn’t.

A Paladin does not have to recognize Evil as a legitimate authority, especially if doing so would be detrimental to the citizens of the country. To claim otherwise, that Paladins can only go hunt for lesser evil out in the wilds and can not stand against organized Evil is to completely undercut the class and those who play it.

the three admirals of the navy are basically the paladins of their universe so yes they would


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?
exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities
This is beyond absurd, you realize this right?

that's how its always been no matter who wins a war the losing side always is the bad guy in the eyes of history

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

if paladins existed in the one piece universe they would most definitely have to recognize the world government as a legitimate authority, they are also the bad guys who won and they won 800 years b4 the main story takes place

No they wouldn’t.

A Paladin does not have to recognize Evil as a legitimate authority, especially if doing so would be detrimental to the citizens of the country. To claim otherwise, that Paladins can only go hunt for lesser evil out in the wilds and can not stand against organized Evil is to completely undercut the class and those who play it.

the three admirals of the navy are basically the paladins of their universe so yes they would

One Piece isn’t DND or Pathfinder so you calling the main villains (not antagonists but the villains) Paladins is odd and questionable. And I’m talking about actual Paladins per Pathfinder. Not a houseruled Paladin or historical figure called a Paladin or something similar.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?
exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities
This is beyond absurd, you realize this right?
that's how its always been no matter who wins a war the losing side always is the bad guy in the eyes of history

You are 100% wrong on this.

Scarab Sages

Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?
exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities

By that argument then Baba Yaga is most definately a legitimate authority. She won her country a LONG time ago and indeeed has had generations of her daughters. She even honours her word as long as your polite and careful its just that alignment wise she's also evil and tends to use said daughters to power her own immortality for fun (I'm sure someone of her power could find another way to live forever).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years? Then those rebels will become “legitimate” eventually. Do you have to have “royal” blood or something? That doesn’t matter at all to Paladins.

Yes. That matters a great deal to paladins. Because that is how their society functions.

If it's stupid, arbitrary, or leads to things that are less than 100% absolutely good sometimes then that is inevitable. If you have any concern other than good it's going to be in the way of doing good sometimes. Upholding the lawful part is going to cause you problems sometimes. If you're just doing the good thing then you're by definition neutral good.

Lawful good is not best good. It is not double plus good, it is not gooder than the other goods. It is the belief that maintaining social order is the best way to maintain good and that taking easy shortcuts now will bite you or someone else on the rump down the road. Thats particularly hard for an adventurer because they are very. very good at shortcuts and don't benefit nearly as much from the structure that society provides.


@ Senko

Not necessarily.
The 47 ronin were upset because they believed their lord was asked to commit sepukku because of dishonorable actions of another lord, on a technicality, no less. They chose to disregard portions of their code of conduct that prevented them from taking action, and took revenge on the subject of their ire.
It was for the sake of the injsutice they felt their Lord faced that caused them to act as they did.

They could very well have also executed peasants for looking at them funny. These actions were not mutually exclusive for a Samurai.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

I don't think a paladin is obligated to recognize a bad guy who won as a legitimate authority.*

if paladins existed in the one piece universe they would most definitely have to recognize the world government as a legitimate authority, they are also the bad guys who won and they won 800 years b4 the main story takes place

No they wouldn’t.

A Paladin does not have to recognize Evil as a legitimate authority, especially if doing so would be detrimental to the citizens of the country. To claim otherwise, that Paladins can only go hunt for lesser evil out in the wilds and can not stand against organized Evil is to completely undercut the class and those who play it.

the three admirals of the navy are basically the paladins of their universe so yes they would
One Piece isn’t DND or Pathfinder so you calling the main villains (not antagonists but the villains) Paladins is odd and questionable. And I’m talking about actual Paladins per Pathfinder. Not a houseruled Paladin or historical figure called a Paladin or something similar.

because they believe that they are doing the right thing fighting for justice and killing pirates(those who oppose their legitimate authority) that is by base nature what paladins are in pathfinder and 90+% of other media


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TOZ wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
They do. They have to respect legitimate authority.
Evil authorities are not legitimate.
This wouldn't even be a thing then. Why not just say that all authorities that don't agree with me are illegitimate?
That is exactly what that section is saying.
no its not, illegitimate authority would be a band of rebels who other threw the king recently or a bandit lord who "rules" over an area, an evil king who has been ruling over their kingdom for decades is just as legitimate as a good king who has done the same
Otherwise, how is “legitmate” determined? You have been ruler for x number of years?
exactly the winners of war get to write the rules and rewrite history, if they have been in power for long enough they are then the legitimate authorities
This is beyond absurd, you realize this right?
that's how its always been no matter who wins a war the losing side always is the bad guy in the eyes of history
You are 100% wrong on this.

no its not if hitler won world war 2 the allied forces would be the bad guys and they would be the good guys, same thing with gangus kahn if he hadn't died and managed to keep his kingdom together history would be looking at him very differently right now same as if the british won the war of independence the liberation fighters for the usa would be in a vastly different light

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Oh joy, Godwin.

Well this has gone beyond absurd at this point, but I can’t help but add that, no, absolutely not, would Paladins ever consider Nazi’s legimate or the good guys.

And with that I am out of this madness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ladyj wrote:


no its not if hitler won world war 2 the allied forces would be the bad guys and they would be the good guys, same thing with gangus kahn if he hadn't died and managed to keep his kingdom together history would be looking at him very differently right now same as if the british won the war of independence the liberation fighters for the usa would be in a vastly different light

How does history view the rise of communism in Russia via a revolution?

Are those victors seen as the good guys, historically?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I've had this come up in a pfs game. You can't kill the troll, he's wearing a badger.*

*keeping the typo. Badgers are now marks of office in irisen.

WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' BADGERS!

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"In Irrisen and the Land of the Linnorm Kings, if one can wear a badger it is a sign of great fortitude and inherent strength. Sort of a poor persons's 'Head of a Linnorm' they keep on their body."


Senko wrote:

No mercenaries do not just abandon their contract because they got a better offer as per their definition. There are some who would do that just as there are some who would abandon all their oaths and obligations because of 30 pieces of silver. However there are many, many examples of mercenaries who once the contract is agreed upon and signed fulfill it to the best of their ability. Whether that is because of their own personal honor or simply common sense in that if you keep tossing over the people who hire you for a better offer people will stop hiring you and you wont make any money.

Some interesting examples include the swiss guard who were originally a mercenary company that did such a good job they remained as the vatican guard even after the swiss were banned from acting as mercenaries. The flying tigers who while extremely well paid originated from a desire by the US to oppose the Japanese while remaining "neutral" and the varangian guard who were hired to begin with because they were less corruptable than the native country men they replaced.

In fact for a vast majority of our history mercenary companies where the main method of forming an army rather than having a standing one as we do today. If we move out of history into fantassy then it goes even further. There are novels of mercenary companies who fought and died to the last man AFTER the person who hired them had already fallen because that is what they contracted to do...

I think you may need to revisit your "Mercenary History", Particularly from the 11th century to the 17th century.

Wiki can help you out, here's two links:
Routiers.
Condottieri.
Now don't get me wrong, some of what you've said is true (mercenaries forming the core of armies etc.), but some of the other stuff is rather rose-tinted. A Goodly mercenary was very seldom a common sight, and that goes for most ages.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Ladyj wrote:


no its not if hitler won world war 2 the allied forces would be the bad guys and they would be the good guys, same thing with gangus kahn if he hadn't died and managed to keep his kingdom together history would be looking at him very differently right now same as if the british won the war of independence the liberation fighters for the usa would be in a vastly different light

How does history view the rise of communism in Russia via a revolution?

Are those victors seen as the good guys, historically?

at the time they were in power yes communism was viewed as the right way and capitalism was on par with satan much like how capitalism was the right way in the usa and communism was on par with satan then some one else took over and rewrote history


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Denying the validity and reality of the Paladin, is at its core denying the validity and reality of simple decency. Why people do this may be anything from insensitivity, ignorance, disillusionment or just justifying ones worst impulses. If you have no sense of the existence or value of decency, you are not going to be able to see the classic Paladin as anything but an interfering and ridiculous figure. You will also not be able to see the fundemental difference between a Tyrant and a True Hero.

I should point out that there is some seriously different views on what honor means. My take on this is that Honor is the act behaving honorably. Being honorable tends to be rewarded with respect and trust, and the advantages of being respected and trusted. Many people fail to see that behaving honorably is, in itself, more important than the rewards for behaving honorably. Many of those entirely divorce the rewards, respect and trust, from the behavior that earned it. So, these people define honor as only respect and standing. This flawed reasoning is essentially narcicism, of varying degrees of malignancy, and is the source of such horrible perversions such as "honor driven" murders, rapes, torture .............


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I've had this come up in a pfs game. You can't kill the troll, he's wearing a badger.

I'm curious HOW you wear it. As a hat? Strapped to your chest? Tied to a leg?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I had always read the "legitimate authority" clause to explicitly be the wiggle room a Paladin has in order to oppose a system that happens to be evil, unjust, corrupt, oppressive, etc., provided that the Paladin player is willing to RP justifying and explaining their actions. Opposing the existing government because they are evil shouldn't be an easy choice for a Paladin, but it's one that the Paladin should be able to make if they can justify it in character.

I specifically like the Paladin because playing it properly requires you to think about ethics and morality in a way that other classes do not, and that's fun for me. I guess I've always played alignment (and transmitted this to other tables) as "explain why what you did is not a violation of your beliefs" not "what you did is a violation of your alignment, so I'm going to punish you", which is how I would recommend handling Paladins in practice.

Spoiler:
As an aside, I did have a Paladin in 3.0 game who, at the culmination of her career, killed her deity (with help), because she felt this deity had fallen from his true purpose and was corrupting the things that the Paladin cared most deeply about. So I guess I'm pretty much on the side of "Paladins can overthrow governments if it makes sense."

Shadow Lodge

Bjarn Frostmane wrote:
"In Irrisen and the Land of the Linnorm Kings, if one can wear a badger it is a sign of great fortitude and inherent strength. Sort of a poor persons's 'Head of a Linnorm' they keep on their body."

...who is that guy?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.

For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.

So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.

Dark Archive

"...someone that doesn't wear a badger because they are not enduring enough to pull it off.. .. yet."


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.

For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.

So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.

if overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?

201 to 250 of 693 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why all the Paladin hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.