So, there's a paladin thread again. No surprise, but it got me thinking.
One thing I've heard people saying is that a Paladin's powers are counterbalanced by the RP aspects of their code of conduct. Shouldn't that also be true of Clerics, who receive arguably greater divine powers that Paladins do?
Should Good Clerics, for example, need to follow the custom Paladin codes printed in several player companion supplements (and Evil clerics, likewise, need to follow custom Antipaladin codes)? And should there be more codes for the other deities that a cleric can follow.
Should a cleric's code of conduct (mentioned in the Ex-Cleric section of the class) be as detailed as a Paladin's, in other words.
That would make a lot of sense. It isn't the tradition, unfortunately.
It is a little weird that (for example) Paladins of Torag have a very strict code of conduct, but Clerics, Warpriests and Inquisitors of Torag do not.
It seems like religious classes should have some sort of deity-specific rules to follow, even if they are not as strict as the Paladin's.
I think the closest things that exist in the system right now are probably Deific Obediences.
At the very least loose guidelines. It depends on the church.
For example, a LG Church of Iomedae may have text around laws very specifically. You may not kill unless it is self-defense, defending another, they have been lawfully proven as guilty and their existence can only bring further harm, etc.
A church of Cayden Cailean may just say, you may not kill others. But, you know, common sense.
Of course, at some point the deities will draw the line. Like with Cayden Cailean, he isn't cool with mass murderers, or alcohol is poison fanatics. Easiest might just be staying within a step of the alignment (using core rulebook descriptions), and then not violating any concepts.
A god of chaotic alignment having a code of conduct? That's pretty funny.
Even neutral gods with codes of conduct sound kinda weird.
Code of conduct is for Lawful folk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A god of chaotic alignment having a code of conduct? That's pretty funny.
Even neutral gods with codes of conduct sound kinda weird.
Code of conduct is for Lawful folk.
Antipaladins do have individualized codes of conduct depending on which evil deity they worship.
For example, did you know that Antipaladins of Gorum will fall if they use poison or if they try to ambush their enemies? Antipaladins of Rovagug who destroy tools of destruction before they have destroyed everything also fall (Did you sunder your enemy's greataxe? Too bad!). And Antipaladins who worship Demon Lords will lose their powers if they attempt to carry out petty grudges rather than work tirelessly to empower their patron.
So, yeah, Chaotic people absolutely have codes of conduct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.
I personally was fond of the way 4e handled clerics/paladins who had fallen from the right path.
You kept your powers, but all of a sudden you might expect to run into agents of your church who wanted to have strong words with you. And if you were high enough level, your deity might respond by sending angels to hunt you down.
Most of the religious source material list dogmas, taboos and general attitudes toward certain activities and actions. That should be enough to get the feel of the deity's 'code'.
I'd rather not have a system that would lead to a dozen, "Why does everyone hate Clerics?" threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been using 'CoC' for Druids, Clerics, Rangers and Paladins since 1st ed. Even the Thief had a set of guild rules.
Every time individual CoC were drawn up between Player and GM working together with the RP aspect of the Code being first and foremost and the game restrictions secondary.
No one opted out, people found it useful for RPing their PC and eliminated 'GOTCHA!' moments.
Using a CoC for RPing and adding depth to a PC is good.
Using a CoC for restricting a PC's choices in a negative/d**k way is bad.
Everyone must be involved from the get-go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely they should.
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons.
Since there is already a mechanical effect for violating a code of conduct we should know what those codes are.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A god of chaotic alignment having a code of conduct? That's pretty funny.
Even neutral gods with codes of conduct sound kinda weird.
Code of conduct is for Lawful folk.
Pharasma's stricter than Irori, so that doesn't really follow.
Cayden and Desna are so anti-slavery (which is perfectly legal, in some places) that they sponsor Prestige Classes devoted to liberating slaves, so they definitely have a code, and one that can restrict choices just as powerfully as someone devoted to Torag.
Even pure CN folk like Gorum have a code, even if it boils down to; Don't run away from a fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.
That's fair to think that way. I personally disagree, and think that any character class who gets their powers from an outside source needs to think carefully about whether or not what they're doing might make that source want to remove their abilities.
I also don't need it written out in the Core book, and if anything, wish that the Paladin's code (as written in the Core book) was less rigid (so we could avoid the "Hey, the Paladin handed his friend an ale. That's poison. He falls." discussions), and then let the various softcovers provide more detail the various classes and specific codes of conduct that are available.
I'd argue no to this, the Paladin's code of honor is enough of a problem for people who want to play it as is, adding it to other classes would just be irritating for people who play those classes as well. Paladin's code of conduct and falling from it is just too easy to abuse and can make you question why you even chose the class if you keep losing the abilities because the DM is tossing in situations where you can't keep up the code.
Now if we're talking about this as balancing on class abilities, I'd be happy to go along with that if it's that every full caster gets the vow of poverty and pacifism :)
Even pure CN folk like Gorum have a code, even if it boils down to; Don't run away from a fight.
In some campaigns, that code would be a guaranteed death sentence. That's why I don't like anything too specific and restrictive.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread is proof positive that codes of conduct more defined than we currently have would be a bad idea.
Home campaigns will gravitate towards whatever the players are comfortable with. In some, Clerics have a Code that is every bit as strong (albeit different) as a Paladins. In others, they'll pretty much have latitude to do what they want within some very vague limits.
Even in PFS I already have the tools required to control a player who is egregiously breaking his deities code. And I certainly do NOT want that control to be more strongly defined NOR do I want it to apply in any but the most egregious of cases.
It ain't broken. Lets not "fix" it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any class should have power-loss mechanics.While I agree in general, I think it fits divine powered classes.
After all, clerics and paladins get their abilities, spells and powers from their deity/divine source. It's not their own power, it's borrowed.
So if your power comes from a deity in exchange for worship and following their rules, it's makes sense that if you don't uphold your end of the bargain, they take away what they're providing. ie Divine power.
If your power comes from your fundamental belief in/worship of a philosophical position, then if you aren't following the tenets of that philosophy, you likely don't believe in it as strongly any more. So your ability to generate power from that belief is also compromised.
as always ymmv
The issue is as you say, YMMV. GM's and layer's can have wildly divergent views on what fits the codes of conduct or not, and some GM's see stretching codes of conduct as a way of storytelling. While falling certainly fits from a fluff perspective, from an OOC perspective it's always a risk to put ways to strip class abilities from a character into a game.
|
non lawful things can have a code of conduct, they can be simple or complex codes and following them doesn't make them lawfulA god of chaotic alignment having a code of conduct? That's pretty funny.
Even neutral gods with codes of conduct sound kinda weird.
Code of conduct is for Lawful folk.
The CRB uses codes of conduct to describe the nature of lawfulness. Having one and following it does make you lawful, fundamentally so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The CRB uses codes of conduct to describe the nature of lawfulness. Having one and following it does make you lawful, fundamentally so.non lawful things can have a code of conduct, they can be simple or complex codes and following them doesn't make them lawfulA god of chaotic alignment having a code of conduct? That's pretty funny.
Even neutral gods with codes of conduct sound kinda weird.
Code of conduct is for Lawful folk.
I will reiterate again, that in Golarion an Antipaladin who ignores his Chaotic God's code of conduct will fall and lose his powers.
An antipaladin of Gorum who tries to circumvent a glorious battle by poisoning his foe, or simply by ambushing them without issuing a challenge, will lose his god-given powers right there. Such restrictions may also be upon his Clerics, since the intent seems to be that one who has to resort to trickery to win battles is one whom Gorum scorns.
I mean you can play it however you want in house-rules.
Pharasma definitely doesn't want you to create undead with her powers. BUT there is no as written game mechanic for what to do if you do, technically but RAW nothing happens, Pharasma sits on her grey hands and watches you spit in her face.
BUT, would I be okay with the GM working a system where you "fall" andd need to atone or something...maybe. Does some higher up church people or servitor races show up to talk with you...maybe. It would just have to be discussed before hand with the players and GM, be reasonable, but I could see it.
As always, your table, your fun, your rules.
It is interesting nothing happens RAW for this instance.
|
|
The CRB uses codes of conduct to describe the nature of lawfulness.Where? Clerics also have to follow their gods code and can be lawful, neutral, or chaotic.
p.167. "Code of conduct" is used in the LE description, "code or standard" is used in the LN description, and the LG description could double as a definition of the term "code of conduct."
So, there's a paladin thread again. No surprise, but it got me thinking.
One thing I've heard people saying is that a Paladin's powers are counterbalanced by the RP aspects of their code of conduct. Shouldn't that also be true of Clerics, who receive arguably greater divine powers that Paladins do?
Should Good Clerics, for example, need to follow the custom Paladin codes printed in several player companion supplements (and Evil clerics, likewise, need to follow custom Antipaladin codes)? And should there be more codes for the other deities that a cleric can follow.
Should a cleric's code of conduct (mentioned in the Ex-Cleric section of the class) be as detailed as a Paladin's, in other words.
Paladin powers are not countered by the code. It's just flavor that has impact on the rules. Most players who play good characters dont even break the paladin code so its not like a lot of extra work unless you have a "gotcha" GM.
Edit: No, clerics don't need a code. If codes are there to limit power then all full casters would need a code, but they're not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
This has always been enough for me.
The inner sea gods has added lots of extra content for the gods, the individual paladin and anti-paladin codes are great. I do wish they would have created a list of tenets for the other gods, but only to inform role-playing not to enforce behavior.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all are 9th level casters, right? That's good enough for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all like to fight, right? That's good enough for me.
Y'all can keep a secret, right? That's good enough for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, there's a paladin thread again. No surprise, but it got me thinking.
One thing I've heard people saying is that a Paladin's powers are counterbalanced by the RP aspects of their code of conduct. Shouldn't that also be true of Clerics, who receive arguably greater divine powers that Paladins do?
Should Good Clerics, for example, need to follow the custom Paladin codes printed in several player companion supplements (and Evil clerics, likewise, need to follow custom Antipaladin codes)? And should there be more codes for the other deities that a cleric can follow.
Should a cleric's code of conduct (mentioned in the Ex-Cleric section of the class) be as detailed as a Paladin's, in other words.
Paladin powers are not countered by the code. It's just flavor that has impact on the rules. Most players who play good characters dont even break the paladin code so its not like a lot of extra work unless you have a "gotcha" GM.
Edit: No, clerics don't need a code. If codes are there to limit power then all full casters would need a code, but they're not.
I agree that it wasn't written as a counter, but I disagree that it doesn't complicate the game, or that it's merely "flavor text."
There are several spells (no, they aren't [Evil] spells) and options we can't take simply because our Paladin PC would fall for condoning the act of using such spells. For example, our Wizard can't use Fire spells indoors because it would burn stuff down and he'd be held accountable for the things we destroy. Similarly, we can't execute detained enemies, even if they could pose a problem later down the road that may end up making things worse because "it's not right." To say that the code doesn't pose some sort of problem or conflict in-game that requires ingenuity to overcome is just outright false.
That being said, they might as well not further give Clerics codes for two reasons. The first is for legacy purposes; only Paladins and Druids have a "code of conduct," and this was holdover from 3.x days. Adding them to other original classes breaks that sacred cow.
The second is because, like everyone else stated, the Code of Conduct for a Paladin is a subject of extreme contention (seriously or not), and adding more of that stuff to other popular classes will make the game more into a hassle than an enjoyment.
So, while it might make sense for Clerics to have a "code of conduct," for everyone's sanity and peace of mind, it's best you don't fabricate this can of worms.
Yeah, as people have quoted already, Clerics already do have Deity Code of Conduct by RAW.
Obviously in a general sense this will be looser than the Paladin's over-all terms of restrictions,
because Paladins have Code + LG requirement, while Clerics have Code + 1 step requirement.
I would welcome Paizo stepping up and detailing codes for Deities, ESPECIALLY ones that don't have Paladin/Anti-Paladin codes,
although even there, there is probably room for Codes taking into account less strict Alignment assumption (1-step) and less martial focus,
and given Pal/Anti-Pal are more exemplars of their alignment than they are empowered servants of deity.
Maybe even neater, once that basic level is taken care of, would be variant Codes of Conduct,
perhaps tied to PrCs or even Feats, that emphasize one aspect of deity over another, this would make sense for
sects or sub-groups who really focus on one aspect of Deity above all else, I'm thinking of Sarenrae internal politics.
Or perhaps to bring variety to ALL Clerics and divine practioners, the Code of Conduct could be broken up into pieces,
perhaps have a 'universal' aspect applicable to all practitioners, and then have sub-elements which
are tied to each of the Deities Domains, so depending which you choose will determine your Code requirements.
(these would still be Deity specific, LE god with Fire domain may have different Fire code than CG with Fire domain)
Anyhow, the existing RAW should definitely be fleshed out more completely, which I think would
lend more suppleness to the roleplay aspect of serving a deity, for which 1-step alignment requirement is pretty thin,
thinking specifically of Sarenrae, where the broadness in alignment wings isn't so much the problem,
as that there remains very little substance for SPECIFIC common qualities of the deity's community.
That being said, they might as well not further give Clerics codes for two reasons. The first is for legacy purposes; only Paladins and Druids have a "code of conduct," and this was holdover from 3.x days. Adding them to other original classes breaks that sacred cow.
So, while it might make sense for Clerics to have a "code of conduct," for everyone's sanity and peace of mind, it's best you don't fabricate this can of worms.
Seriously... WTF? At least 2 people have quoted the exact line of Cleric rules (under 'Ex-Clerics') explicitly stating they are subject to Code of Conduct. Claiming such a rule doesn't exist is the only "fabrication" going on here.
If you don't like that rule, if you don't want to use it in play, if you don't want Paizo to flesh that out for their deities, those are legitimate personal opinions. Accusing people of fabrications for acknowledging what the rules do say is just fraud and libel. I get it if you don't like that rule you may have so long ignored it that you forgot it existed. But given more than 2 people have directly quoted it here in the thread discussing the topic, there isn't a real justification for feigning ignorance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They already have a CoC. However, since they aren't limited to one alignment, they can pick the god that best matches what they want to do.
This. The code of conduct for a cleric is to act within their god/philosophy's tenets. How strict that code of conduct is depends on the god/philosophy and ultimately (as with paladins, druids, and the like) the GM adjudicating it. If you want something more specifically codified, IIRC, a bunch of splatbooks have codes of conduct for deities that make it easier for players and GMs to figure out the bounds of divinely acceptable behavior. Otherwise, work with your GM ahead of time to figure it out. (I highly suggest doing this anyway.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, they might as well not further give Clerics codes for two reasons. The first is for legacy purposes; only Paladins and Druids have a "code of conduct," and this was holdover from 3.x days. Adding them to other original classes breaks that sacred cow.
So, while it might make sense for Clerics to have a "code of conduct," for everyone's sanity and peace of mind, it's best you don't fabricate this can of worms.
Seriously... WTF? At least 2 people have quoted the exact line of Cleric rules (under 'Ex-Clerics') explicitly stating they are subject to Code of Conduct. Claiming such a rule doesn't exist is the only "fabrication" going on here.
If you don't like that rule, if you don't want to use it in play, if you don't want Paizo to flesh that out for their deities, those are legitimate personal opinions. Accusing people of fabrications for acknowledging what the rules do say is just fraud and libel. I get it if you don't like that rule you may have so long ignored it that you forgot it existed. But given more than 2 people have directly quoted it here in the thread discussing the topic, there isn't a real justification for feigning ignorance
For some, at least, the difference might be in whether once considers the cleric code of conduct "codified". I wouldn't consider the CRB version explicitly codified (in that the details are left to the table), but it is certainly present and expected. The various religion-based books do have explicitly codified codes of conduct, so there's that.
But yeah, a few posters appear to have completely glossed over the Ex-Clerics block, intended or otherwise. Clerics have baggage.* Deal with it.
*Exceptions may apply for clerics who worship Winjit, Patron Deity of Packing Light.
You know, I would be OK with more concrete codes of conduct associated with the domains that a cleric has taken. Has anyone done any work on something like this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several spells (no, they aren't [Evil] spells) and options we can't take simply because our Paladin PC would fall for condoning the act of using such spells. For example, our Wizard can't use Fire spells indoors because it would burn stuff down and he'd be held accountable for the things we destroy. Similarly, we can't execute detained enemies, even if they could pose a problem later down the road that may end up making things worse because "it's not right." To say that the code doesn't pose some sort of problem or conflict in-game that requires ingenuity to overcome is just outright false.
I'll be level with you. Who actually does that? Even in the grand tradition of people just making up the worst case stick-up-the-butt paladin stories, I've never seen anyone argue against fireball throwing.
That aside, if someone wants to be a disruptive jerk at the table (aka what was described), they don't need a code to do that. Some LG Fighter can pull that same nonsense just like the CN rogue can decide to just crossbow the king in the face cuz lolborednow. "I'm just playing my alignment guys!"
Majority of people get by fine with the written paladin code. It's not some arcane wet blanket that everyone needs to figure out how to work around unless either the GM or any of the varying PCs make it their personal problem.
The idea is that the foundation is part of the city, and if we burn it down we'd be considered arsonists, as well as inadvertently murder several innocents in said foundation, both of which is illegal and immoral.
So, yeah, no Fireballs in city-sanctioned areas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, they might as well not further give Clerics codes for two reasons. The first is for legacy purposes; only Paladins and Druids have a "code of conduct," and this was holdover from 3.x days. Adding them to other original classes breaks that sacred cow.
So, while it might make sense for Clerics to have a "code of conduct," for everyone's sanity and peace of mind, it's best you don't fabricate this can of worms.
Seriously... WTF? At least 2 people have quoted the exact line of Cleric rules (under 'Ex-Clerics') explicitly stating they are subject to Code of Conduct. Claiming such a rule doesn't exist is the only "fabrication" going on here.
If you don't like that rule, if you don't want to use it in play, if you don't want Paizo to flesh that out for their deities, those are legitimate personal opinions. Accusing people of fabrications for acknowledging what the rules do say is just fraud and libel. I get it if you don't like that rule you may have so long ignored it that you forgot it existed. But given more than 2 people have directly quoted it here in the thread discussing the topic, there isn't a real justification for feigning ignorance.
Show me where in the rules a given Cleric's Code of Conduct is.