|
This is my experience. In the last 30 odd years, every group we've had that included a Paladin ended up with interparty conflict (and no, I never started it, so I'm not the cause of the problem, despite being present in every instance).
'You killed my prisoner!' 'I should get one of those magic rings!' 'We can't sneak up and kill the Hobgoblin chief, we have to announce ourselves and charge in!' 'No, we have to go back to town and turn them over to the law!' 'The Rogue stole something, he must face justice!' 'That was supposed to be an honorable fight, you dishonored me by attacking my target!'
I've seen Paladins stab party members in the back (and kill them) because they didn't feel like the treasure distribution was fair. I've seen them attack party members for not destroying treasure taken off of an evil foe (the treasure itself was not evil). I've seen them attack party members for violating *their* codes of conduct (despite the fact that none of the other party members get kewl Paladin powers, and shouldn't have to follow Sparky's Code of Conduct). I've seen, too many times in college particularly, Paladins get entire parties killed by refusing to retreat (and, in one memorable case, cutting down a fleeing party member for 'cowardice,' during a rout against Mind Flayers), or refusing to allow the party (who was perfectly willing to allow the Paladin to sit this fight out, or ride up and serve as a distraction) to ambush a larger force of bad-guys or even follow a module-requisite use of some evil McGuffin...
Sounds to me like you've seen a bunch of pricks.
What do those freaks have to do with the Paladin class?
What I would do in that situation? I wouldn't tell him. Here is the mistake most people make: They think they can be held responsible for anothers actions. But you are not. What the villian does is what the villian is going to do, I can only control me. If the villian kills/rapes/etc the little girl then he is committing evil. I will try and stop him, with violence if need be, but I will not give him information to be used for evil. I do not even know if telling him will actually stop him from hurting the little girl or if he is lying to me. In the D&D setting it will be ashame if the girl dies, but I can get her brought back to life.
Archangel:
The problem is that not donating is part of the code. And the Paladin won't abide folks who continually disregard his code. And won't stay with 'em.
Therefore, if the (insert CG person here) continually donates to (insert CG temple/ organization/or whatever) then that -person- is going against the Code.. presumably more than once- especially if the person is a cleric or lay person of the CG temple. They therefore are "continually" more or less going against the code. The paladin has to ditch group.
".. nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.""
And the moral code includes not donating to causes that support chaos or evil..
""provided they do not use it for chaotic or evil ends"
A CG temple is presumably going to use funds towards both chaotic and good ends. (an assumption I know, but- a fairly solid one I would think).
The Code needs to be changed to allow the Paladin to consort with any *good* creature.
-S
Of course part of the issue with the donations to a CG temple is "Does the paladin know?" If the paladin doesn't know about then he is not violating his code. And a CG person would certainly go for a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in this regard.
Therefore, if the (insert CG person here) continually donates to (insert CG temple/ organization/or whatever) then that -person- is going against the Code..
And wherever in the Paladin code is freedom of worship forbidden? Fascism and zealotry don't sound like a good-aligned thing to me. I don't remember anywhere in the timeline the church or Iomedae being at war with that of Calistria, nor Old Deadeye's with the church of Desna.
However, come to think about it, 'offeding his moral code' is a line that SHOULD go away from the Paladin's description, a Paladin should be someone who predicts by example, anything else is intending the class to be meant as disruptive by definition.
I'd rather change the code to something like this:
A Paladin will always protect the innocent and do what’s best for the greater good. This paragraph is the most important in the code, and when two or more paragraphs come into conflict due to circumstances, this one’s the Paladin’s bottom line. A Paladin won’t accept the surrender pleas of a murdering aristocrat knowing he’ll bribe his way back home in time for dinner (lest he becomes guilty by omission of any further deaths and suffering that ensue after he’s back in the streets).
A Paladin will honor his deity and will never do anything that would dishonor his deity’s name. Different deities, however, have different criteria of what behaviors they consider ‘dishonoring’. Likewise, Golarion is a high-fantasy world free of the influence of real life controlling, mysoginistic religions. Sex is just one of many things which are NOT a sin in this world, regardless of alignment.
A Paladin honors the land that saw him born, as well as any foreign land he is visiting. This includes respecting authorities, local customs and people. Note that while different places have different customs, paragraph one (protect the innocent) still has priority, and a Paladin won’t hesitate in dethroning a tyrant or protecting an innocent from being brutalized if it is in his power.
A Paladin will not let any evil deed go unpunished as long as it is in his power to do something about it. While dethroning an evil tyrant or Great Wyrm will still likely be beyond his abilities, he won’t stand still while more localized acts of injustice happen.
A Paladin won’t knowingly associate with evil characters unless he has the means of keeping their behavior in check as long as said association lasts, lest he becomes guilty by association of whatever crimes they commit. Likewise, a Paladin will only take into his service henchmen and hirelings of Lawful Good alignment.
I'd rather change the code to something like this:
A Paladin will always protect the innocent and do what’s best for the greater good. This paragraph is the most important in the code, and when two or more paragraphs come into conflict due to circumstances, this one’s the Paladin’s bottom line. A Paladin won’t accept the surrender pleas of a murdering aristocrat knowing he’ll bribe his way back home in time for dinner (lest he becomes guilty by omission of any further deaths and suffering that ensue after he’s back in the streets).
A Paladin will honor his deity and will never do anything that would dishonor his deity’s name. Different deities, however, have different criteria of what behaviors they consider ‘dishonoring’. Likewise, Golarion is a high-fantasy world free of the influence of real life controlling, mysoginistic religions. Sex is just one of many things which are NOT a sin in this world, regardless of alignment.
A Paladin honors the land that saw him born, as well as any foreign land he is visiting. This includes respecting authorities, local customs and people. Note that while different places have different customs, paragraph one (protect the innocent) still has priority, and a Paladin won’t hesitate in dethroning a tyrant or protecting...
While I don't particularly like the Code of Conduct being more than an in-game thing, if we must have one, I think this is a step in the right direction.
The problem with the Code of Conduct is that it is ill-defined with well-defined consequences of not following it. Conversely, the Knight's Code from the PHBII was a much much better. It told you exactly what it entailed (sp?) and what it did not. It gave very clear instructions in out-of-game terms about how to follow it (not to mention it had a more forgiving penalty for not being followed).
So I like Dogbert's idea, mostly the part about the first part being Priority #1. Something like the 3 Laws from "I, Robot", where the rules had a very clear hierarchy and where two parts clash, you know exactly which one takes precedent.
Pathfinder Beta: page 34. lefthand column.
read "CODE OF CONDUCT"
then read "ASSOCIATES".
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
"ASSOCIATES"
"while she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code..."
emphasis:
Help those in need (provided they do not use help for evil or chaotic ends"
and
"nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code"
Now the player can go behind the paladin's back and do as he wishes- certainly. The same goes for any part of the code, actually.
The paladin can not condone donation to those in need who will use it for chaotic or evil ends. Nor can they associate with those who continually do so.
This should not be so. The Paladin is the only one who should be held to his/her code. The only other requirement should be that the others generally respect life, and be neutral or good aligned. The other party members shouldn't be forced into a life of paladin-hood just because a paladin joins the party- anymore than they are forced into being barbarians because one joins the group.. or CG because a priest of a CG religion joins the group.
I am not being intentionally thick, I'm just reading the rules as they wrote them. And they suck. And seriously should be changed.
-S
Something like the 3 Laws from "I, Robot", where the rules had a very clear hierarchy and where two parts clash, you know exactly which one takes precedent.
Heh, How did you guess? =)
Aasimov's laws of Robotics were actually the base model I took for that version of the code, something simple and with little room for ambiguities in order to avoid contradictions or missinterpretations. From where I see it, a code that can easily be used against you is flawed logic.
I am not being intentionally thick, I'm just reading the rules as they wrote them. And they suck. And seriously should be changed.
-S
Amen! Glad we agree. Alas, I wouldn't recommend basing the Paladin code on any real-life chivalric codes as Chivalry orders, being product of an institution back then devoted to the amassing and perpetuation of their own power (the Catholic church), have all their codes written in an intentionally flawed way that makes the knight easy to manipulate and control by the higher ups, so we'd end up right were we began.
What I would do in that situation? I wouldn't tell him. Here is the mistake most people make: They think they can be held responsible for anothers actions. But you are not. What the villian does is what the villian is going to do, I can only control me. If the villian kills/rapes/etc the little girl then he is committing evil. I will try and stop him, with violence if need be, but I will not give him information to be used for evil. I do not even know if telling him will actually stop him from hurting the little girl or if he is lying to me. In the D&D setting it will be ashame if the girl dies, but I can get her brought back to life.
Ok, now lets present the next situation (you kind of got out from that one with a explanation that I did not expect):
You paladin has in front of him an innocent child that was unwillingly possessed by an evil spirit. He is alone there and far away from any civilization or help and has no quick mode of transport.The child is at the moment being used as a conduit for some terrible evil power by the possessing spirit that is killing 100s of people at the moment in a near-by town (the paladin has seen some other people die some time before same way and found out in the meanwhile that this spirit inside this body was responsible for that). Long story short he can only stop these people from dying by killing this unwilling host of the evil spirit.
Case1: But he knows that if he does not kill the host he can take her to a friend of his that will get the spirit out while saving the innocent girl's life, mind and soul. The people will be dead for sure by then.
Case2: The girl-host will die by herself after these people die. He can either kill the girl himself or not and she and the people will die by the evil spirit.
So what does the paladin do in Case1 and in Case2 without losing his paladinhood?
Why does he choose what he chooses?
Pathfinder Beta: page 34. lefthand column.
read "CODE OF CONDUCT"
then read "ASSOCIATES".
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
"ASSOCIATES"
"while she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code..."emphasis:
Help those in need (provided they do not use help for evil or chaotic ends"
and
"nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code"Now the player can go behind the paladin's back and do as he wishes- certainly. The same goes for any part of the code, actually.
The paladin can not condone donation to those in need who will use it for chaotic or evil ends. Nor can they associate with those who continually do so.
This should not be so. The Paladin is the only one who should be held to his/her code. The only other requirement should be that the others generally respect life, and be neutral or good aligned. The other party members shouldn't be forced into a life of paladin-hood just because a paladin joins the party- anymore than they are forced into being barbarians because one joins the group.. or CG because a priest of a CG religion joins the group.
I am not being intentionally thick, I'm just reading the rules as they wrote them. And they suck. And seriously should be changed.
-S
I still do not agree with you except that the Code needs to change and be better explained.
For your case, I see the same problem that a lot of players ignore when playing paladins. This is the same case as paladins that go around detecting evil and then attacking anyone they see is radiating evil without any proof or real reason.
Paladins are also Lawful, so they believe in evidence and reasonable doubt before acting. Same as they should not attack any evil person without proof of their evil deeds, they should not automatically stop associating with chaotic companions that donate to CG churches without any proof that church is actively promoting Chaos in action.
err
So if the Paladin finds a CG person donating to a CG temple, wouldn't it behoove the paladin to find out if they were furthering Chaotic ends?
I mean- this isn't just some personal choice here. The Paladin is answering to a higher power. I don't believe intentional ignorance will suffice. (if it IS, then the paladin can just cover his ears while the party lies, or leave the room while they torture someone..)
while I assume a CG temple to a CG god will further both Chaotic and Evil goals- the paladin should certainly investigate. And on finding that the church is as its advertised- the paladin is in the aforementioned pickle.
Convince the member to stop contributing to his/her church, or the paladin(or that member) has to leave the group.
While I have no problem with teh Paladin's *followers* having the said restrictions (since they are basically folk the paladin gather, to do what he says to do) the regular *company* he keeps should not be held to such a standard, as a prerequiste of him keeping his powers or hanging around. He should instead be allowed to hang around, teach and preach and try to educate them. The rules, sadly, do not allow for such RP to take place. Instead he (the paladin) has to take the "my way or the highway" approach. -this should not be-
I will of course grant that most DM's gloss over this. And rightly so. But shouldn't the rules reflect it as well?
-S
err
So if the Paladin finds a CG person donating to a CG temple, wouldn't it behoove the paladin to find out if they were furthering Chaotic ends?
I mean- this isn't just some personal choice here. The Paladin is answering to a higher power. I don't believe intentional ignorance will suffice. (if it IS, then the paladin can just cover his ears while the party lies, or leave the room while they torture someone..)
while I assume a CG temple to a CG god will further both Chaotic and Evil goals- the paladin should certainly investigate. And on finding that the church is as its advertised- the paladin is in the aforementioned pickle.
Convince the member to stop contributing to his/her church, or the paladin(or that member) has to leave the group.While I have no problem with teh Paladin's *followers* having the said restrictions (since they are basically folk the paladin gather, to do what he says to do) the regular *company* he keeps should not be held to such a standard, as a prerequiste of him keeping his powers or hanging around. He should instead be allowed to hang around, teach and preach and try to educate them. The rules, sadly, do not allow for such RP to take place. Instead he (the paladin) has to take the "my way or the highway" approach. -this should not be-
I will of course grant that most DM's gloss over this. And rightly so. But shouldn't the rules reflect it as well?
-S
Well on that I agree. That paladin has to find evidence that temple is promoting Chaos (and under that I mean real chaos, not lets let woman choose their husbands instead of arranged marriages kind of chaos) before confronting his teammate. And maybe that teammate will also find that strange. Not every person with chaotic alignment is a total prick that only enjoys when people run around with torches trying to burn down every government building.
|
Ok, now lets present the next situation (you kind of got out from that one with a explanation that I did not expect):
You paladin has in front of him an innocent child that was unwillingly possessed by an evil spirit. He is alone there and far away from any civilization or help and has no quick mode of transport.The child is at the moment being used as a conduit for some terrible evil power by the possessing spirit that is killing 100s of people at the moment in a near-by town (the paladin has seen some other people die some time before same way and found out in the meanwhile that this spirit inside this body was responsible for that). Long story short he can only stop these people from dying by killing this unwilling host of the evil spirit.
Case1: But he knows that if he does not kill the host he can take her to a friend of his that will get the spirit out while saving the innocent girl's life, mind and soul. The people will be dead for sure by then.
Case2: The girl-host will die by herself after these people die. He can either kill the girl himself or not and she and the people will die by the evil spirit.
So what does the paladin do in Case1 and in Case2 without losing his paladinhood?
Why does he choose what he chooses?
Not directed at me, but I hope that I can play too :)
Either case : Kills the girl quickly and painlessly. Sees to her proper burial. Willingly and humbly submits to whatever punishment his god sees fit to bestow. Most importantly, willingly sacrifices his paladin-hood (his most treasured 'possession') since it was necessary to do so for good to be done, because it is his duty to serve and self-sacrifice.
|
|
However, come to think about it, 'offeding his moral code' is a line that SHOULD go away from the Paladin's description, a Paladin should be someone who predicts by example, anything else is intending the class to be meant as disruptive by definition.
I'd rather change the code to something like this:
... much good stuff omitted ...
I think that a Paladin would remove himself from the presence of one who repeatedly offended his values, but that would be the last resort after much leading by example and lecturing because the paladin should be a tolerant person.
I like the idea of a reworked standard code for Pathfinder. At the very least there should be something like "Players are encouraged to come up with a code of their own for their Paladins, in keeping with the ideas presented above and with the agreement of their DMs." There are so many good ways to play the classic knight of chivalry that it's almost a shame to limit players to the one standard code.
With respect to working with stiff-necked Paladins in a party situation, the scene from Dragonlance where the Paladin refuses to flee from combat until he is reminded that there is a non-combatant woman in the party and then happily 'retreats' to protect her jumps to mind.
It's presumed that the party are friends. They will work around the Paladins quirks and he will be exceptionally tolerant of their poor behaviour - excusable since they are not Paladins.
Sacrificing one's paladinhood has more reprecussions that just giving up one's life or gold or honor. When someone falls from being a paladin they are dragging people's hopes down with them which hurts the cause of good, afterall, "If gold rusts what shall iron do?"
You also deal a double blow to the side of good: Good loses another warrior and Evil has lost nothing.
The correct answer is to drive the evil from her body with your channel positive energy ability. As put forth in the book of exalted deeds if you can turn undead you can turn possession too.
Beyond that you get the girl saved, turn around and pay to have the people ressurrected as nothing has told you so far that their souls are going to suffer only that they are going to die, death in D&D is fixable. Again you are not responsible for the actions of the demon: It is going to do what it is going to do regardless.
Also Planar travel, anything equipped on your mount goes back with your mount when it crosses planes, Summon Mount, "equipped" girl by tying her on, send mount and girl back to celestial planes. Most magics don't work across the planes so the people are safe and the good creatures of the celestial realms will pull the demon out and dispose of it in a goodly manner leaving the girl unharmed.
|
|
Sacrificing one's paladinhood has more reprecussions that just giving up one's life or gold or honor. When someone falls from being a paladin they are dragging people's hopes down with them which hurts the cause of good, afterall, "If gold rusts what shall iron do?"
That's a very interesting point that I hadn't considered. Is the Paladin responsible for the change in attitude of others due to his actions or is he just required to always promote good? Could it be seen as arrogant to presume that others will reject 'good' if you fall? Not sure... will ponder.
You also deal a double blow to the side of good: Good loses another warrior and Evil has lost nothing.
Good has lost a Paladin, but he would still see himself as a warrior for good. Evil has had its plan foiled.
The correct answer is to drive the evil from her body with your channel positive energy ability. As put forth in the book of exalted deeds if you can turn undead you can turn possession too.
I didn't know that - I DM more than I play. I was just going on the options laid out in the dilemma.
Beyond that you get the girl saved, turn around and pay to have the people ressurrected as nothing has told you so far that their souls are going to suffer only that they are going to die, death in D&D is fixable. Again you are not responsible for the actions of the demon: It is going to do what it is going to do regardless.
Resurrection in my games is limited to those who have a burning reason to return. Most souls are so happy with the afterlife they don't want to return.
If a Paladin isn't required to act to foil evil because evil will do what it is going to do anyway, then they can stand on the sidelines at any event. I think that the Paladin has a duty to act to prevent the deaths of the villagers in some manner.
Also Planar travel, anything equipped on your mount goes back with your mount when it crosses planes, Summon Mount, "equipped" girl by tying her on, send mount and girl back to celestial planes. Most magics don't work across the planes so the people are safe and the good creatures of the celestial realms will pull the demon out and dispose of it in a goodly manner leaving the girl unharmed.
Nice solution. You'd get some serious XPs in one of my games for coming up with that one. You'd also get a visit from a servant of your god : 'We've had a complaint from someone about you dumping trash in their yard...' ;-)
Good has lost a Paladin, but he would still see himself as a warrior for good. Evil has had its plan foiled.Resurrection in my games is limited to those who have a burning reason to return. Most souls are so happy with the afterlife they don't want to return.
If a Paladin isn't required to act to foil evil because evil will do what it is going to do anyway, then they can stand on the sidelines at any event. I think that the Paladin has a duty to act to prevent the deaths of the villagers in some manner.
Nice solution. You'd get some serious XPs in one of my games for coming up with that one. You'd also get a visit from a servant of your god : 'We've had a complaint from someone about you dumping trash in their yard...' ;-)
On the first part, you didn't foil evil's plan, their plan was to make you perform evil (if the paladin did it, it's ok for me right?) and lost your paladinhood, which was what evil wanted.
On the second I would need to take that into account, but if they are so happy in the afterlife (and probably with all their friends and family that lived in the same village, and probably practiced the same faith) why is them dying a bad thing again?
However we know the paladin cannot kill the girl, if he has a mount and it's only 100 miles he could try and run it into the ground to save both the girl and the citizens...
On the last part: Wow you had me and my wife rolling with that one!
Finally the paladin could offer themself up as a host, relying on their great saves to keep them from being forced into doing something (being host means allowing it in, not allowing it control), then running like heck for to his friend and see if they can help him. Not a great idea, but a couple of low wisdom fair intelligence paladins I've seen would have come up with this.
LAST NOTE: Protection from evil focused inwards will keep the spirit from leaving the girl meaning it can't harm the villagers keeping it stuck until you can safely dispose of it.
|
|
Nice solution. You'd get some serious XPs in one of my games for coming up with that one. You'd also get a visit from a servant of your god : 'We've had a complaint from someone about you dumping trash in their yard...' ;-)
On the last part: Wow you had me and my wife rolling with that one!
I run a lot of Planescape and I've had to use consequences like that to discourage the party from just dumping every Devil and Demon they find into the heavens for the celestials to sort out for them.
Finally the paladin could offer themself up as a host, relying on their great saves to keep them from being forced into doing something (being host means allowing it in, not allowing it control), then running like heck for to his friend and see if they can help him. Not a great idea, but a couple of low wisdom fair intelligence paladins I've seen would have come up with this.LAST NOTE: Protection from evil focused inwards will keep the spirit from leaving the girl meaning it can't harm the villagers keeping it stuck until you can safely dispose of it.
The 'take me instead' solution is very Paladin like, in my opinion.
Hmm, think I'm going to roll myself up a Paladin for the Savage Tide that I'm going to be playing starting this weekend. Should provide some interesting situations from what I've read of the background.
Sacrificing one's paladinhood has more reprecussions that just giving up one's life or gold or honor. When someone falls from being a paladin they are dragging people's hopes down with them which hurts the cause of good, afterall, "If gold rusts what shall iron do?"
You also deal a double blow to the side of good: Good loses another warrior and Evil has lost nothing.
The correct answer is to drive the evil from her body with your channel positive energy ability. As put forth in the book of exalted deeds if you can turn undead you can turn possession too.
Beyond that you get the girl saved, turn around and pay to have the people ressurrected as nothing has told you so far that their souls are going to suffer only that they are going to die, death in D&D is fixable. Again you are not responsible for the actions of the demon: It is going to do what it is going to do regardless.
Also Planar travel, anything equipped on your mount goes back with your mount when it crosses planes, Summon Mount, "equipped" girl by tying her on, send mount and girl back to celestial planes. Most magics don't work across the planes so the people are safe and the good creatures of the celestial realms will pull the demon out and dispose of it in a goodly manner leaving the girl unharmed.
OK, I didn't know about the channeling thing, but for the discussion this did not work - the demon is just too powerful.
Ok, so it is as I thought, paladins cannot sacrifice even one innocent person to save 1000s and keep their paladinhood.
As for the last part, no, paladin's mount does not take other people back with him, only the equipment. This girl is not equipment, unless you stuff her inside a Bag of Holding or she is a corpse. I would not allow such an abuse of an ability.
On the first part, you didn't foil evil's plan, their plan was to make you perform evil (if the paladin did it, it's ok for me right?) and lost your paladinhood, which was what evil wanted.
On the second I would need to take that into account, but if they are so happy in the afterlife (and probably with all their friends and family that lived in the same village, and probably practiced the same faith) why is them dying a bad thing again?
However we know the paladin cannot kill the girl, if he has a mount and it's only 100 miles he could try and run it into the ground to save both the girl and the citizens...
Finally the paladin could offer themself up as a host, relying on their great saves to keep them from being forced into doing something (being host means allowing it in, not allowing it control), then running like heck for to his friend and see if they can help him. Not a great idea, but a couple of low wisdom fair intelligence paladins I've seen would have come up with this.
LAST NOTE: Protection from evil focused inwards will keep the spirit from leaving the girl meaning it can't harm the villagers keeping it stuck until you can safely dispose of it.
I agree on the first part, paladin falling would be the more important goal of the evil demon then killing some peasants, even more important if that paladin was a renown one.
Why is dying a bad thing in this case? We do not know, ask AO (or whoever is a the OverGod of your setting)? :D
Trying to bring the girl back in time to save all would be a good choice for the paladin although by my scenario he would only save the girl.
Offering themselves would also be a good choice but that choice would left him without his paladinhood if the demon would do evil while in his body (but that would be a act that would eventually be atoneable).
The Protection from Evil while would keep the demon from exiting the body but would not keep his magic from doing the same.
You also didn't tell me what you would do in the Case2? Just look as the demon kills the villagers and then the girl dies right there? Even after the demon ignores your pleads of possessing you and your celestial horse trick and inward protection from evil didn't work? :)
|
|
I agree on the first part, paladin falling would be the more important goal of the evil demon then killing some peasants, even more important if that paladin was a renown one.
Which would be more important to the Paladin? I've realized that I didn't express myself well above: I intended to say that a Paladin would do what he thought right and place himself in the hands of his god as to whether his Paladinhood was lost.
I've just re-read the Beta rules. There are lots of interesting 'weasel words' in there:
A paladin ... who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code...
So, can a Paladin :
a) Put down a sick puppy
b) Euthanize a sick human
c) Kill someone who is attacking innocents due to to a psychosis
d) Kill the girl mentioned above
All presuming no other solutions like cure disease can be used.
Interestingly, under the code of conduct is says 'willingly' rather than 'willfully'. This discrepancy is interesting since you can willingly commit an act that is evil without it being willful, since willful means that committing the act was specifically directed towards achieving the evil outcome.
So, if killing the girl is an evil act (probably, but debatable), to do so would be a willingly evil act, but not necessarily a willfully evil act, since the intent behind doing so was not to kill the girl but to save the villagers.
|
|
I'd rather change the code to something like this:
A Paladin will always protect the innocent and do what’s best for the greater good.
This is good stuff.
It would be interesting to re-write it making sure that there were no 'and's etc. in the rules. For each rule above, I can think of a case where the sub-clauses (is that the right term?) of the rule could conflict.
For example, the only way to do what is best for the greater good is to leave an innocent unprotected or, a social situation where publicly honoring his deity would break a local taboo and cause his deity to be dishonored.
|
I sometimes with that every Paladin's code included a Rule Zero, that precedes and stands above all others.
Thou Shalt Not use the following code to justify being a dick or acting stupidly.
If you have to kill a possessed kid, who is going to die anyway, and have no other options, to save a thousand innocents, that's why I gave you a sword and not a plowshare.
Tend to thine own soul first. I'm the god, I'll worry about the rest.
If allies behave dishonorably, that's sad, but not your problem, unless you're their mother. Be a shining example, a beacon of hope and an inspiration to others, not a nagging finger-wagging pain in the butt.
Which would be more important to the Paladin? I've realized that I didn't express myself well above: I intended to say that a Paladin would do what he thought right and place himself in the hands of his god as to whether his Paladinhood was lost.So, can a Paladin :
a) Put down a sick puppy
b) Euthanize a sick human
c) Kill someone who is attacking innocents due to to a psychosis
d) Kill the girl mentioned aboveAll presuming no other solutions like cure disease can be used.
Well, a paladin should at least have a slight idea what is going to cost him his paladinhood and what is not. I am sure in those Paladin schools they have told him "Thou shall not kill little girls." :D
The paladin can do what HE thinks is a best thing to do and not what HIS GOD and ORDER thinks, but that does not mean that is the right thing.But that is a good way to play an arrogant person that prepares to fall from grace.
As for your 4 questions I would say it depends on the DM.
I think in the paladin code should be a note that says: "Discuss details around paladins code with your DM before playing this class."
|
|
I sometimes with that every Paladin's code included a Rule Zero, that precedes and stands above all others.
Thou Shalt Not use the following code to justify being a dick or acting stupidly.
If you have to kill a possessed kid, who is going to die anyway, and have no other options, to save a thousand innocents, that's why I gave you a sword and not a plowshare.
Tend to thine own soul first. I'm the god, I'll worry about the rest.
If allies behave dishonorably, that's sad, but not your problem, unless you're their mother. Be a shining example, a beacon of hope and an inspiration to others, not a nagging finger-wagging pain in the butt.
Ok, so now I'm really lucky that big grins and muffled chuckling for no apparent reason aren't uncommon in our office.
You've managed to crystallize some of my own thoughts in two statements there.
I think that the Paladin would kill the girl. I think that he would be in floods of tears over it, guilt-ridden etc. but I'm not convinced that he would lose his Paladin status over it.
Well then here's my final question: Why are you as a DM putting the paladin up against a challenge you clearly have not given him the correct powers, level, and items he needs to defeat by any means other than to compromise his code of conduct? That's bad DMing not bad playing.
THAT's PALADINIST!
Beyond that, the paladin could probably kill the girl with little fear for his code or paladinship. He is putting an evil beyond the pale out of commission and the girl is lost to him anyways at this point. After the demon/devil is gone he could probably find a way to get the girl ress'ed if she wanted it without the entity being a problem anymore.
|
|
The paladin can do what HE thinks is a best thing to do and not what HIS GOD and ORDER thinks, but that does not mean that is the right thing.
But that is a good way to play an arrogant person that prepares to fall from grace.
A gods mind can't be known by a mortal. The teachings of an order can become rigid over time reflecting more the order than the god. A paladin can't presume to be right, that's true, but he does have to follow his heart. It could be seen as arrogance to presume that the order is always right.
I think a Paladins lawfulness comes from his adherence to the teachings of his order and his good from listening to his heart.
Then again, my primary reference for a good paladin is Sturm from Dragonlance.
Well then here's my final question: Why are you as a DM putting the paladin up against a challenge you clearly have not given him the correct powers, level, and items he needs to defeat by any means other than to compromise his code of conduct? That's bad DMing not bad playing.
THAT's PALADINIST!
Beyond that, the paladin could probably kill the girl with little fear for his code or paladinship. He is putting an evil beyond the pale out of commission and the girl is lost to him anyways at this point. After the demon/devil is gone he could probably find a way to get the girl ress'ed if she wanted it without the entity being a problem anymore.
Well, the point of this was to see what people think about paladin restrictions, not what I give to paladin players.
But if such a situation arose, the point of it would be to get the player to make a serious decision that could cost him his/her paladinhood. Sometimes D&D is more then just killing a few Orcs.
absolutely, and that was said a bit tongue in cheek too.
However if a DM is going to allow a paladin in the game the DM shouldn't set it up so the paladin is going to lose his paladin abilities. The player takes a class with the idea that as long as they are faithful to character concept and class flavor they will get the goodies of the class. To me the DM that actively sets up catch 22's for a paladin is just as cruddy as the one that only allows fights against golems or in anti-magic areas to gimp the wizard/spellcasters. Sometimes it's ok to put them in a tight spot, but that's not all the game is about.
(not accusing, just pointing my opinion out. This has been fun.)
|
|
However if a DM is going to allow a paladin in the game the DM shouldn't set it up so the paladin is going to lose his paladin abilities.
While we haven't had a Paladin for the last decade or so, after a lot of bad experiences with them in the past, if a player wanted to play one, I would allow it, and make sure that the 'don't be a dick' rule applied to myself as ST and to the player as well.
Too many times, I've seen an entire group of people who sat down to have a good time, *punished* and even killed, because of one players choice at character creation. If a Paladin can be included in a game without making the game less fun for everyone, I'm all for it.
The same DMing rules apply as would apply if my players had their hearts set on an all-monster campaign or a political game or a hack-n-slash monster-bash or an 'evil PCs' game (all of which we've done). Try to make sure the characters have fun. Unless the player *wants* to explore a Paladin fall-from-grace situation, I won't be making his life any harder than I would for the Monk or the Sorcerer. The 'Code of Conduct,' IMO, is *not* there for balance reasons, at least not in 3E, where a 4th level Paladin is no more 'special' or 'uber' than a 4th level Ranger, 4th level Fighter or 4th level Barbarian, and it's certainly not a license for me to be a dick to one of my friends nor is it a justification for them to be dicks to the rest of us.
Unfortunately, that seems to be how it's been used, in the past, as justification for causing TPKs and attacking fellow party members and even killing town guards or merchants, and getting the party run out of town, because 'they were disrespectful, don't they know that I'm a knight and outrank them?'
absolutely, and that was said a bit tongue in cheek too.
However if a DM is going to allow a paladin in the game the DM shouldn't set it up so the paladin is going to lose his paladin abilities. The player takes a class with the idea that as long as they are faithful to character concept and class flavor they will get the goodies of the class. To me the DM that actively sets up catch 22's for a paladin is just as cruddy as the one that only allows fights against golems or in anti-magic areas to gimp the wizard/spellcasters. Sometimes it's ok to put them in a tight spot, but that's not all the game is about.
(not accusing, just pointing my opinion out. This has been fun.)
Well, the situations we were discussing were not "lose if you do, lose if you do not" situations. Once choice was OK, and one would cost paladin powers. If the DM and the paladin player talked before about what that DM expects the paladin to do to not lose his powers these situations should not result in that players losing anything that he did not want to.
Now if the DM did not explain anything and the player chose to keep the paladinhood but the DM says he loses it anyway then this is the problem.
I am a DM and my biggest problem with Paladins has nothing to do with the class itself it's the kind of people it attracts.
When people go off and decide there roles in a group at the very start of the campagin they choose there whatever and there is clashing but only to a degree enough to make interesting role playing moments where they play off one another.
Last campagin I had a mix of alignments and it created some great role playing situations where there they clashed and clashed alot.
Not going to go into detail it would take to long but.
I have had one player from a couple years back now that choose to a Paladin and he seemed to hog the spot light.
It caused a level of distress in the players which was unnessary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the class as a DM however it's generally (note: generally not always) the kind of player that chooses it that makes it a problem.
So I think we are all agreed it really comes down to trust between the various players at the table and the DM. Everyone needs to communicate clearly what they do and don't expect from the class and to remember the basic tenets of role playing.
It's not the class it's bad communication/players/dms.
I totally agree.
Some people say tha paladin players or the paladin is a clas for some people to order others around or to destroy their RP. I think that on mature group everyone knows what kind of experience they want, and what kind of experience the dm will give them, and they will immerse in it with an open heart.
In a game that everyone (including the dm)wants to play characters that are morally questionable but good or anything like that, a player that simply says "cool, them I'll make a paladin" is simply looking to have fun at the cost of the other players's fun.
It's no the paladin, it's the player. That's the same player who plays a rogue that steals from the party, or a cleric that only heals those of his faith. They do it because they know most groups won't "dump" their characters mainly because they are the PCs.
This is a problem of the DM, actually. If a player wnats one character like this it's because he wants to use the abilities. If the thief player is stealing the other pcs, USUALLY it's because he's bored and can't steal from anyone else.
Of course, there's alwas the bad players that just want to ruin other's fun. But this is the problem of the player, not of the paladin.
As for the fall from grace, I would only use it if the player wants it. And wanting it for me is not the player saying that he wants this kind of thing. It's the player liking psychodrama and moral questions. I wouldn't just dump a fall from grace on a paladin's player because I have a rebelious personality and think that heroes and knights are suckers, since chaotic neutrals tiefling warlocks anti-heroes are the way to go. As I wouldn't make the mentioned anti-hero suffer because I think that justice, honor and all are good qualities of decent people.
In the end that's the way I think of things. You, the dm, should always see what your players want, and you should strive to make the game better to anyone. You should find ways to say Yes to your players, not ways to say NO. If in the example of anti-hero game the player wants to make a paladin, you should explain the things to him, say what you expect and see what he wants. Maybe he will make a ex-villain paladin that still wears his black armor as a mark that in his mind he still had not attoned for his sins.
Then, if he just wants to ruin the other's fun, just say a big NO.
The paladin is a great RP experience for the player and a wonderful exercise of drama for the DM. They should be encouraged.
Pathfinder Beta: page 34. lefthand column.
"CODE OF CONDUCT"
"...Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
"ASSOCIATES"
"while she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code..."(bold emphasis mine)
To me, the wording here is indicative of a separation of meanings, especially given the fact that in the ex-Paladins block below the text specifically references the "code of conduct" and that the Code of Conduct is a class feature delineated in bold with it's own paragraph. It seems to me, therefore, that the "moral code" the ASSOCIATES block mentions is a separate concept from the "CODE OF CONDUCT". It strikes me that "moral code" could be replaced (without significant semantic change) by "life guidelines," "worldview concept," or "behavioral belief structure." This, to me, represents the alignment choice and other personal choices in a looser manner than the stringent Code of Conduct, and speaks to the Paladin's preference for companions and associates, not to absolutes engraved in stone. Requiring the Paladin's associates to subscribe to the same code of conduct as the Paladin seems like an unreasonable, irrational requirement, and entirely out of character for most of the published LG religions.
Also, the phrasing stipulates "will not continue..." if an associate "continually offends" the moral code. This seems to me to give plenty of leeway. I would presume that a putative adventuring companion wouldn't be continually donating to Chaotic temples - otherwise said companion would have no time to adventure! Further, I would think that acts in serious accord with the Paladin's morals could offset the onus of conflicting acts, certainly in the Law/Chaos aspect.
Just my 2 cents on what seems to be nothing more than a matter of semantics. Semantic issues always make me itch! ^__^
~Doskious Steele