they are just saying they don't purposely give gifts to Paladin because of the code. The class might end being more powerful or less powerful than others, due to the general difficulty to balance thibgs, just like the magus and the monk might not be balanced either, but it is not a reward. Just like monks aren't explicitly made more powerful for being L only
But the monk does have narrative options for becoming more powerful based off of lawful based choices. This is exactly what the different monk vows represent.
I am suggesting that paladins could have a similar model.
But the monk vows always (almost) also gave a mechanical disadvantage
But the monk vows always (almost) also gave a mechanical disadvantage
I think that we are getting into nebulous territory if we try to decide that refusing to lie or choosing not to speak is a mechanical disadvantage for the monk, but living according to a strict code is not for paladin. If the Paladin had a similarly constructed code, then choosing not to use poison in combat could be a specific code that granted a specific benefit. Choosing not to lie would be another very sensible one. Choosing to never allow an innocent to come to harm could be another. The codes could be self contained and contain their own benefit and the required absolution for atonement. Worst case scenario, the paladin with a lot of codes finds themselves in a situation where 2 codes are in conflict and has to violate one. Instead of falling completely, they lose that one ability and have a specific course of action necessary to regain the ability.
In addition to allowing characters to adopt their own specific code of the paladin, or for gods to have their own set of codes for their chosen paladins, this would otherwise absolve paladins from having to be one alignment, but still give the "best" mechanical advantages to paladins that choose to uphold the strictest or most challenging codes of conduct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to allowing characters to adopt their own specific code of the paladin, or for gods to have their own set of codes for their chosen paladins, this would otherwise absolve paladins from having to be one alignment, but still give the "best" mechanical advantages to paladins that choose to uphold the strictest or most challenging codes of conduct.
Been proposed. When I brought it up, I was asked "Why do you hate paladins?", which gives you a reference point for how the LG-only side would see any backsliding on the alignment restriction.
I don't want to turn this into an outright general ethics discussion but a lot of the arguments against the removal of poison that "paladins aren't supposed to be 'ends justify the means' people and therefore poison should be forbidden" feel disingenuous.
As someone who agrees to a degree that ends justify the means, I usually get ridiculous questions when I express this belief along the lines of "oh so you'd kill nine million people to save an orphan instead of pressing a button that does so instantly with zero risk??". Well no, but if I had to lie to save an orphan or let him die I'd choose to lie and have no guilt doing so. Of course I'm exaggerating with the example, but this applies even if the two outcomes come scarily close - I'd rather actively do 'evil' than let a slightly worse evil happen and say "oh but it's not my fault" (it's important to note things like death vs murder, intent, and incomparable situations especially involving murder of A vs murder of B making things complicated but that's for another thread). This is one of the highest forms of 'honour' imo.
But more on point, the fact that paladins have a hierarchy in code already shows that PF2e wants to make paladins closer to adhering to this belief (but maybe not to such an extreme degree). Especially with something with such a big gap in how good it is as using poison dishonourably vs. saving lives. And it makes sense, plenty of paladins aren't supposed to be naive and focus on doing the right thing instead of sitting around saying "but no that's wrong!". And poison isn't inherently dishonourable as others have pointed out, especially since honour is really hard to define and could mean that you're not even allowed to have a better sword/armour/magic, or give your all vs. someone who has had less training but is a serial killer.
That doesn't mean I'm completely on either side though, there is a very, very important sentiment that I think should always be preserved for paladins. They're meant to strictly follow a code, some no-win situations should be possible, and taking the right choice in these extreme situations should still take your powers away. But it shouldn't be with poison. It should be a huge plot important event, like someone kidnaps four people and he literally can't be stopped, and tells you to kill three randomly chosen by him so the fourth can live, not "I tranquilize him before he harms anyone else without killing him" - "oh sorry that's poison you lose your powers". It reinforces the idea LG gods act like tough enforcers and must reluctantly punish the paladin to a degree that isn't permanently crippling, while the paladin must realize his powers are in the end not as important as the good of all. Of course the god sends a cleric on a mission for that atonement ritual ASAP.
But I think "bad DMs" just kinda have to ruin it for everyone and will aim to screw over paladin PCs at level 1 so good DMs can't sparingly put in these interesting situations and the rules are made stricter for something that relies purely on DM story.
Keep in mind I have no problems with poison being an anathema - and I'm actually a bit annoyed that gods have a complete exception clause, like Shelyn lets you destroy art if it stops harm on other (being required to destroy art as part of a normal non plot related action is REALLY hard, anti poison gods are opt-in, so that's why I'm specifically okay with these). But at the same time it's better than a no exception ruleset, which screws you over. Maybe there should be a sort-of-penalty until the situation is fixed (you destroyed this painting to convince the rich kidnapper to go shopping for one and expose himself early, before he kills someone... but until you actually save the kidnapped you'll be penalized)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I think this argument largely merits a mild reframe in that roleplaying is largely a) A game (therefore meant to be fun) and b) A storytelling tool.
In both lines of inquiry, I can see reasons to say a Paladin is typically banned from poisons (see the code heirarchy) but contrastingly, there are definite situations where it seems ridiculous to insist it's never OK.
Does it make for a fun game to say the player can't use substances to knock someone out instead of killing them? Maybe I run with too many paranoid murderhobos but that'd be a spark of originality. Not executing the veritable loose end. Plus, as a resolution to a situation where it looks like the only functional choice - because the notion of only doing such a thing when all other options are exhausted is nigh-explicitly in there - is (somewhat) clever. It's problem solving.
Secondarily, does it make for an interesting story/character arc that the Paladin falls and has to be redeemed because they used chloroform instead of knocking someone out (and possibly causing brain damage at that) or killing them? F*#* no does it. That's dull. That smacks of a "good is stupid" message, and frankly makes anything moving forward vastly uncompelling. Now, falling for reckless endangerment, neglectful action, or unnecessary use related to using such a weapon? Sure. Fits the entire character trope perfectly. "You're not good because you don't actually think about honour/collateral". Heck, "You fell because you value your honour over protecting people" fits the conventional tropes.
Onto something I always find annoying in "Does the Paladin fall" threads:
The problem is that these arguments seem to view ethics as being purely from either a deontological or concequentialist perspective is a false dichotomy. It's not either the Paladin always obeys the Kantian categorical imperitive or is Machiavelli on crack. Judging choices, situation by situation, is a thing.
|
Poisons were specifically excluded from the things explicitly forbidden by any tenet, unlike lying for example
I feel that in trying to erase the usual causes for Gotcha, we end up with nothing really differentiating the champion of Law and Good from the casual murderhobo
Or maybe that will cause even more arguments between GM and players about what is truly cause for a fall. Thereby defeating the entire purpose of the code's redesign
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way I see it, the question of poison is just a matter of heirarchy.
You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.
no evil: does not speak of poisons
no harming an innocent: Based on my reading of this, if poison would reasonably improve your chances of saving the innocent - knock out a serial killer, or more quickly stop some brigands who are raiding a caravan, just to name the first two options to come to mind, then it would be virtually REQUIRED not just allowed. If it wouldn't, then the code is silent in this tenet.
act with honor: well, as poison was specifically called out as being REMOVED from the list, it's not inherently a violation. Which means, it's no different from other weapon enhancements, and not dishonorable - unless it violates the rules of a contest, in which case it's cheating and thus forbidden. I'd like to note that open battle does not generally count as a contest, or the like.
Finally, the law: if it's illegal and not required by the second, then forbidden. If either it's legal or it's necessary to greatly improve the chances to save an innocent, then the exception to this tenet makes this part silent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they are just saying they don't purposely give gifts to Paladin because of the code.And I'm asking if WotC did? Because the PF Paladin is built on the template of the 3.5 Paladin.
How do people claim the opposite then (that the class is more powerful because the code, hence the code is needed to balance out an otherwise more powerful class)?1) In 1st AD&D, classes had to meet Stat minimums. The Paladins were probably the highest, which means the base character was getting more stat bonuses than others.
2) In 1st AD&D, balance wasn't really a thing like it is now. The class got a host of special abilities (Lay on Hands, Mounts, immunity to fear) that were really beyond anything anyone else was getting. You didn't make builds in 1e, so everyone was essentially playing the same class with the same bare minimum key stats.
Truthfully, however, I think the question of "balance" is misguided. We can't know if something is "balanced" or not. The question is whether we perceive it as fair and fun? Does it trivialize other classes or playstyles?
Requiring to put a high roll in a particular ability is a drawback, not a benefit. If you rolled a 18 and a 14, as a paladin you had to put 18 in Charisma, while fighter (or anyone else) could put the 18 wherever they wanted.
Paladins had lay on hands, which nobody else had, just like fighters had specialization, which nobody else had, and thieves had backstab, rangers had two weapon fighting, and so on. "Paladin had unique class abilities" is not something unique to the paladin class. Every class have those, that's the point of having classes.The debate here was if paladins were given "gifts" because they had a code, or were specially powerful because of said code, which would mean making the code more relaxed would made them "unbalanced" because they'd get "free stuff without a counterpart". They didn't, and they don't. The code is part of the class flavor, and has no bearing on the class abilities. Paladins get class abilities like brawlers, magus, witches and occultists do.
Do you have an actual quote from TSR or Gary Gygax? If not, you're talking out of your nether region.
The debate here was if paladins were given "gifts" because they had a code, or were specially powerful because of said code, which would mean making the code more relaxed would made them "unbalanced" because they'd get "free stuff without a counterpart". They didn't, and they don't.
Search: N N 959. No citations found.
Do you have an actual quote from TSR or Gary Gygax? If not, you're talking out of your nether region.
The debate here was if paladins were given "gifts" because they had a code, or were specially powerful because of said code, which would mean making the code more relaxed would made them "unbalanced" because they'd get "free stuff without a counterpart". They didn't, and they don't.
someone gave them from the PF guys. You have none.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't whether the class is balanced without the code, we can never know the answer to the question, the issue is you have a class that doesn't make sense.
That's cool!. I agree!
I hope we never, ever, hear again the argument that the class "needs" the code because it gets "too much better things" and the code is there to pay for them.
|
|
Personally I find the idea that poison = bad/honourless to be mildly insulting considering the number of real life cultural groups that use poison on a regular basis for hunting/fishing and yes, occasionally war.
My own peoples culture included.I mean, what is or is not honourable is entirely culturally driven.
Keeping the 'universal' rules in paladin codes as few as possible leaves much greater room for variants in cultural/religious mores across Golarion, imho.
Which ,I feel, will lead to a richer game world and more rp opportunities.
Also, as a side note, the costs of poison in PF are ridiculous. IRL with sap from a tree and a days work over a campfire I could easily make enough poison to go hunting with for a week. Meanwhile, in golarion just gathering enough hemlock for a single dose is going to cost more than most people make in a year.
What would be best IMO is a clear description of Lawful that highlights strict adherence to the rules and traditions of the character's culture as a litmus test for Lawful
This way the LG Paladin will still have to fight for both honor and Good
The burden will then fall on the GM to clarify what honor means to the cultures in the setting
|
If 2 warriors duel, using the same armour, weaponry, and both their weapons are poisoned, both are in full awareness of said poison and both have agreed to the terms of said duel, is that dishonourable? If so why?Yes, and because an honor culture says it is.Honor has different definitions depending on the context it's used.
For example, there is an Honor clause for my own code of conduct from back when I was in the army. It was defined as the following: "Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do."
That is not the same version of honor that you seem to be using.
I doubt that people using poisons are looked upon as people of integrity. Poison use is about duplicity, deception and skullduggery for humans in our world. You seem to be trying to stretch your own personal definition of honor as I doubt your superiors in the army would agree that poison use by the army would be honorable
|
|
If you're going to argue that the Paladin stems from Judeo-Christian values/ideals, you still need to explain how literally shoving a longsword up a living creature's backside and out his gut is honorable, but using poison is not. AND you have to do it using scripture of all things.When have I ever advocated paladins backstabbing people as honorable combat? I never said any such thing. I don't think a paladin should have any levels of rogue unless he is repentant or on a batman theme. Even on a batman theme he should take monk as that makes sense. Paladins wouldn't take advantage of foes and stab them at a weak spot. They don't value "Sweep the leg. No Mercy" Cobra Kai school of thoughtOh, okay. Well, if facing rules matter, then the Paladin runs his opponent through the chest, slicing ribs and puncturing a lung, causing his opponent to slowly drown in his own blood.
Apparently still very honorable. Remember, EVERY spot is a weak spot. It just depends on how hard you hit.
Yes, warriors expect to receive wounds in combat. Most warriors consider scars to be quite honorable. Using poison to kill a foe, attacking a foe's loved ones and innocents is not honorable.
I would assume that MOST paladins after seeing a foe incapacitated and bleeding out would give them a Coup De Grace to put them out of their misery instead of just watching them slowly choke to death on their own blood. If you play paladins differently then you are definitely in need of the paladin's code to help guide you on heroic combat.
|
|
I hope the paladin isn't taking too many notes from Lancelot and Arthur. They are not exactly paragons of virtue as far as I can remember.LOL Yep, Lancelot, accused of treason for both his affair with Guinevere and for the homicide of his fellow knights during his escape from the court... SUPER honorable... Nothing says 'paladin' like several counts of TREASON... :P
Yes, Lancelot is a perfect example of a paladin because he illustrates a fallen paladin better than anyone with the possible exception of Lord Soth!
Quite a few Arthurian tales suggest that Guinevere and Lancelot were destined to fall in love and Arthur meddled with destiny by having Merlin charm her.
Arthur was a shining example of a paladin. He blessed the Round Table that Merlin advised so that all of his knights could sit with him as an equal and that no man could appear above the other. That is paladinhood at its highest. He also allowed Guinevere to be tried in court when any other King would just ignore the court because he was the King. Arthur has tremendous respect for the rule of law and even allowed Mordred, his bastard son, to be seated at the court. Arthur championed the concepts of forgiveness and mercy. He is an excellent role model for a paladin. In fact, when Britain needs him the most he is prophecised to return to aid her!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The debate here was if paladins were given "gifts" because they had a code, or were specially powerful because of said code, which would mean making the code more relaxed would made them "unbalanced" because they'd get "free stuff without a counterpart".Nobody knows if any class is "balanced." There is no formula or equation that designers can use that tells them a class is "balanced." The term is a misnomer.
What is unequivocal is that since its inception, the class was intended to do and operate in a specific manner, to achieve certain types of outcomes. The Paladin Code is a part of that experience and the class abilities and feats given to it where in concert with the Code. Once you remove the code, then you've got class that was engineered to uphold a code that is no longer required to do so.
Paizo's Paladin comes nearly verbatim from 3.5. Whatever mindset WotC used in creating the class for 3.x was transferred to Paizo's version. Do you have quotes from WotC?
The issue isn't whether the class is balanced without the code, we can never know the answer to the question, the issue is you have a class that doesn't make sense.
There's some pretty obvious situations in which we can clearly apply the term balance, and we can make a lot of educated estimates in other areas. A number of 3.5 gish PrCs grant full BaB and full spellcasting, along with a host of other abilities. We can suggest that those are unbalanced when held up against Pathfinder PrCs like the Eldritch Knight, where you trade a spellcasting level to get that BaB (not to mention generally taking a hit in saves and not getting as many crazy powers). If I invent a class that gets +2 BaB per level, we could probably agree that's a balance issue without even looking at its other abilities.
We don't need a mathematical code to debate balance issues and develop consensus. Demanding one is absolutism taken to silly extremes. It's a card played to shut down discussion.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt that people using poisons are looked upon as people of integrity. Poison use is about duplicity, deception and skullduggery for humans in our world. You seem to be trying to stretch your own personal definition of honor as I doubt your superiors in the army would agree that poison use by the army would be honorable
IMO, this is a lack of vision on your part: you are stuck on one single POV and it's medieval one on one trial by combat dueling rules. In North America, South America, Africa and Asia poison has been used in combat/war as an expected factor from both sides. Even in Europe you have Gauls, ancient Romans, and the nomadic Scythians and Soanes using it. Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Caribs of the Caribbean, Java, ect.
From ancient Greek and Roman sources, archers who steeped their arrows in viper or snake venom included the Gauls, Dalmatians, and Dacians of the Balkans; the Sarmatians of Persia (Iran); the Getae of Thrace; the Slavs, Armenians, and Parthians, who lived between the Indus and Euphrates rivers; Indians; North Africans; and the Scythian nomads of the Black Sea region and the Central Asian steppes. The Roman historian Silius Italicus (Punica 1.320–415) described envenomed arrows used by the archers of Morocco, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan.
Why would a paladin from a culture that uses poison in normal warfare as an expected element find it dishonorable? We aren't talking assassination 'kill you in your sleep poison': instead it's using the weapon available to you. It seem disingenuous IMO to say 'using flaming from divine bond for +1d6 damage is good' but 'using a poison that does 1d6 damage is bad'. Or it's fine for a paladin to cast Challenge Evil to sicken a random evil guy if he doesn't fight you is 'good' while sickening that same evil guy with poison is 'bad'. It's a clear double standard IMO.
"duplicity, deception and skullduggery": just because a tool can be used with "duplicity, deception and skullduggery" doesn't make it dishonorable or evil. Invisibility and stealth can be used with "duplicity, deception and skullduggery" but that doesn't make them automatically dishonorable or evil. Paladin spells like Blinding Ray, Planned Assault and Archon's Trumpet could ALL be used for "duplicity, deception and skullduggery"...
SO in conclusion, you stance means paralyzing with a paladin spell = good and a poison that requires multiple failed saves to create the same effect is bad... Total double standard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arthur was a shining example of a paladin. He blessed the Round Table that Merlin advised so that all of his knights could sit with him as an equal and that no man could appear above the other. That is paladinhood at its highest.I hope the paladin isn't taking too many notes from Lancelot and Arthur. They are not exactly paragons of virtue as far as I can remember.LOL Yep, Lancelot, accused of treason for both his affair with Guinevere and for the homicide of his fellow knights during his escape from the court... SUPER honorable... Nothing says 'paladin' like several counts of TREASON... :P
Is it? It's a great and wonderful thing to do, sure, but that's a *very* chaotic sentiment, and arguably at odds with a Paladin's concern for legitimate authority.
Code against poisons would be OK against real life poisons.
Against PF - you get -4 to Str poisons... not really.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, warriors expect to receive wounds in combat. Most warriors consider scars to be quite honorable. Using poison to kill a foe, attacking a foe's loved ones and innocents is not honorable.I would assume that MOST paladins after seeing a foe incapacitated and bleeding out would give them a Coup De Grace to put them out of their misery instead of just watching them slowly choke to death on their own blood. If you play paladins differently then you are definitely in need of the paladin's code to help guide you on heroic combat.
I never advocated killing innocents. I don't know how you even thought that was a thing.
The thing you seem to not be comprehending is that, functionally, using poison and ramming a spear through someone's throat aren't really different. That isn't an "ends justify the means" thing, it's a "the means aren't really different" thing. If you're going to claim that, objectively, using poison is dishonorable, then you need to define what honor is on objective terms, why it is that way, and whether or not that matters to the Pathfinder version of what a Paladin is, i.e. a champion of Law and Good. Otherwise it's arbitrary, and therefore meaningless.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So did you guys go through "What about races with natural poisons or whose culture wouldn't consider use of poison dishonorable?" thing yet?
I mean, it is certainly good question why vishkanya paladin would fall in combat doing what they usually do :P Or heck, Coatl paladin, that could definitely be a thing
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never advocated killing innocents. I don't know how you even thought that was a thing.
Yes, warriors expect to receive wounds in combat. Most warriors consider scars to be quite honorable. Using poison to kill a foe, attacking a foe's loved ones and innocents is not honorable.I would assume that MOST paladins after seeing a foe incapacitated and bleeding out would give them a Coup De Grace to put them out of their misery instead of just watching them slowly choke to death on their own blood. If you play paladins differently then you are definitely in need of the paladin's code to help guide you on heroic combat.
Because if you once allow Paladins to use poison, what's to stop them from dousing a city in nerve gas? /s
PF2 Paladins should be prohibited from using daggers, because of their traditional association with duplicity, deception, and skullduggery, not to mention their association with cultish ritual.
|
|
It seems to me that we will need specific restrictions, maybe anathema, to justify a PF2 Paladin not using poison in their unending fight against Evil
Which means that most Paladins in Golarion casually use poison whenever it does not contradict the tenets
That is actually a pretty big change from PF1 Paladins in Golarion
So did you guys go through "What about races with natural poisons or whose culture wouldn't consider use of poison dishonorable?" thing yet?
I mean, it is certainly good question why vishkanya paladin would fall in combat doing what they usually do :P Or heck, Coatl paladin, that could definitely be a thing
Just PC's and just innate poisons: Gripplis with Toxic Skin, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Half-elves, Half-orcs, Humans, Drow and Wayangs with poison minion, Vine leshys with Poisonous.
Poison use: Deep Jungle halflings, Darkborn 1/2 elves, or Nagaji with the Spit Venom feat + the above. Or 'monsters' with poison.
And this is just with a quick search.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen this mindset/argument used in trying to rationalize/open up the Paladin to various behavior types. This argument fails for a couple of reasons:
1) Alignments are not subjective in Pathfinder. There's a lot of debate of where certain acts or fictional OOC characters fit in the alignment spectrum. And while rationale minds may disagree on these topics, whether an NPC is or is not a given alignment is something that can be determined objectively. We know this because of spells/abilities which specifically target alignments. Either Protection from Law works against a creature, or it doesn't. There is no debate on whether the spell works.
2) Because alignments are fixed, culture is irrelevant. Unlike in the real world, good/evil, law/chaos, are not debatable in Pathfinder. This means that regardless of what your culture or customs are, you must act in accordance with the objective alignment values to be part of that alignment. In 1e, your background is irrelevant to whether or not you can commit acts.
I am not trying to disagree with you about there being certain objective realities to the good and evil in Golarion, but I still don't see where poison fits into a decidedly evil objective position. For that to be true, it would have to have an alignment tag next to it and no good creatures would have [poison] abilities.
Since that is not the case, it really seems like the morality of poison use would be determined by the specific deity granting the paladin's powers and not a universal application of good or evil, as is present in the greater pathfinder megaverse.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So did you guys go through "What about races with natural poisons or whose culture wouldn't consider use of poison dishonorable?" thing yet?
I mean, it is certainly good question why vishkanya paladin would fall in combat doing what they usually do :P Or heck, Coatl paladin, that could definitely be a thing
I've seen this mindset/argument used in trying to rationalize/open up the Paladin to various behavior types. This argument fails for a couple of reasons:
1) Alignments are not subjective in Pathfinder. There's a lot of debate of where certain acts or fictional OOC characters fit in the alignment spectrum. And while rationale minds may disagree on these topics, whether an NPC is or is not a given alignment is something that can be determined objectively. We know this because of spells/abilities which specifically target alignments. Either Protection from Law works against a creature, or it doesn't. There is no debate on whether the spell works.
2) Because alignments are fixed, culture is irrelevant. Unlike in the real world, good/evil, law/chaos, are not debatable in Pathfinder. This means that regardless of what your culture or customs are, you must act in accordance with the objective alignment values to be part of that alignment. In 1e, your background is irrelevant to whether or not you can commit acts.
Honor /= Good
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honor /= Good
I've brought up the different versions of honor, using my own code of honor, several times in this thread. It's been ignored every single time.
The people trying to shoehorn honor into their own very specific version (vague definition, nothing concrete or actually defined with words). They don't want to recognize that other versions exist. Like mine, which is actually defined with words.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.
Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
The real complication here is that a paladin does not get her powers bestowed upon her from any nation, yet they could lose their powers if they do not follow the proper hierarchy and thus they need to pay attention to local customs, but not be defined by them. Technically there is a "higher court" for every paladin in the form of the deity they worship and they should have a pretty strong moral compass as far as what that deity has to say about what defines honorable combat.
Something I would like to see spelled out very clearly is whether it is the gods that are holding paladins to every aspect of the code, even the ones that fall outside of their own anathema, or is their some special council of divine beings or other force responsible for investing the paladin with most of their supernatural powers and the gods are only responsible for their own little part in it? If it is the 1st, then it is entirely going to be on a god by god basis as to whether and how using poison fits into the paladin's code and it doesn't make any sense to attempt to universalize a concept like honor, beyond how the deity defines it.
|
|
So did you guys go through "What about races with natural poisons or whose culture wouldn't consider use of poison dishonorable?" thing yet?
I mean, it is certainly good question why vishkanya paladin would fall in combat doing what they usually do :P Or heck, Coatl paladin, that could definitely be a thing
I did not bite :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
Yes, that's MY POINT. Poison is NEITHER good or evil, hence you have to look at culture to see if it's honorable as there is NO universal constent for honor in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
The question of poison use is not a question of good and evil. Since it's been specifically removed from the code, it's now outside of whether it is not Good as defined by the universe. And the devs have strictly stated that it's now ok to use in some situations.
This means that the only clause in the paladin code which could prevent poison use is the Honor clause. Ergo, this entire discussion is based around Honor.
If you're going to ignore that and try and make an argument about Good and Evil, you can quit now. The Devs have already spoke and stated that some poison use is not a violation of the Good clause for a paladin.
So let's drop the Good and Evil conversation and talk Honor. We know culture doesn't dictate Good and Evil, as you correctly mention - it's the universe that dictates it. So that leaves honor. Since honor is not defined by the game, that leaves it to the culture to define it (or the player and GM). Which culture? Could be any: deity, religious organization, people, kingdom, country, etc... Pikc one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A drow Paladin does not get to commit acts that are deemed dishonorable by humans.
So does this mean a human paladin can't commit acts a drow would deem dishonorable? Or naga? Or dragons? Or oni? Or... Who/what gets to pick who is right? Does the paladin have to follow the code of 'honorable' ninja's?
|
|
Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
No. But it pretty much does chaos or law.
And once again poison was not given in PF1 as an example of an Evil Act, but as an example of a dishonorable act which is a Lawful notion
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game obviously uses a human centric view on honor and good and law and chaos, as there are no drow writers currently employed by Paizo, which, as it happens, is the same for all creatures throughout the D&D/PF world. In-game, alignments are universal constants, they are not a matter of perspective.A drow Paladin does not get to commit acts that are deemed dishonorable by humans.So does this mean a human paladin can't commit acts a drow would deem dishonorable? Or naga? Or dragons? Or oni? Or... Who/what gets to pick who is right? Does the paladin have to follow the code of 'honorable' ninja's?
Cool. Which human culture? Which time period?
And in a fictional world, why would anyone expect a non-human to abide by a a perspective of honor they have NEVER encountered? How does an isolated elf KNOW what human honor is? Why is an android forced to learn human honor to play a paladin? Why is a ninja's honor inferior to 'european' trial by combat honor? Even if we agree on human, WHICH human?