If used right, alignment is a great tool. You have to remember it's a slave to you.
As for paladins: It is, sadly, true that many people use it as an excuse to be a pain in the butt.
Do you mean Awful Good or Lawful Stupid Paladins?
Or both...
Is it just me, or does after looking at the "Associates" part of the class after so long, does it start to sound like a dodgy nature documentary? It's just the wording really about how they "Never" associate with evil, but not really explaining that they'll be punished if they do, as if paladins have a sort of in-built system that causes them to be telekinetically pushed away from evil to avoid assocaiting with it.
"Here, in the vast grasslands of Golarian, we witness the quintessienal adventuring party...but whats this? It seems we are lucky today. For we are seeing the rare and elusive Paladin, a creature not common to this area.
See how it moves majestically with it's divine grace, but of course it gains it as a class feature.
Oh no! It seems like trouble for our little friend, for with us we also find another creature common to this area, a common fighter, but this one is different. See the rare markings on it? Those indicate it as an evil fighter. No other creature in these parts would pick it up, but nothing escapes the Paladin's sharp sense.
And there they go, the inevitable fight, both struggiling to prove who is the "Alpha" party member. Ah yes, with the paladin as the victor, the fighter is forced to leave, because paladins do not assocaite with evil. Not that they can't or will be punished if they do, they just simply cannot. It's instinctive".
Is it just me, or does after looking at the "Associates" part of the class after so long, does it start to sound like a dodgy nature documentary? It's just the wording really about how they "Never" associate with evil, but not really explaining that they'll be punished if they do, as if paladins have a sort of in-built system that causes them to be telekinetically pushed away from evil to avoid assocaiting with it.
"Here, in the vast grasslands of Golarian, we witness the quintessienal adventuring party...but whats this? It seems we are lucky today. For we are seeing the rare and elusive Paladin, a creature not common to this area.
See how it moves majestically with it's divine grace, but of course it gains it as a class feature.
Oh no! It seems like trouble for our little friend, for with us we also find another creature common to this area, a common fighter, but this one is different. See the rare markings on it? Those indicate it as an evil fighter. No other creature in these parts would pick it up, but nothing escapes the Paladin's sharp sense.
And there they go, the inevitable fight, both struggiling to prove who is the "Alpha" party member. Ah yes, with the paladin as the victor, the fighter is forced to leave, because paladins do not assocaite with evil. Not that they can't or will be punished if they do, they just simply cannot. It's instinctive".
I was thinking of trying to push two magnets together, with their North sides facing each other, but this works also.
The gods are a part of everyday life in D&D and every character should, IMHO, follow a deities teachings. They should strive to act like that deity or suffer what ever ill the GM could think of.
Statements like this are hard to parse for me. It's like saying "In my humble opinion, you should eat more ketchup and less mustard". =p
I think that, in a certain old-school way, what you describe could be cool. Some players would love that sort of game. Others, however, would want to tear their hair out because they would feel like the DM was trying to make all their decisions for them, and I think they would have a damn good point.
I couldn't stand a game like that, no matter how good the DM was, because D&D for is so much about freedom and about confronting new situations in your own creative way. But, again, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun for anyone. :)
All in all alignment has nothing really to offer the game, it is artifical, other than to stop immature play and prevent schizoid PCs being good one minute and bad the next.
The obvious thing that alignment adds is that it lets you have spells which hurt badguys and not goodguys or vice-versa. This is VERY iconic to the fantasy genre- it's pretty hard to name a S&S series that doesn't have some spell/place/artifact affecting people based on how pure-hearted they are (or aren't).
Alignment actually does jack-absolutely nothing to prevent "schizoid PCs being good one minute and bad the next". The alignment rules explicitly say that such a character is neutral, and "neutral" is even listed as a standard PC alignment.
Which they are since they do not have any consequences to violating them.
There are no consequences laid out for violating any of the rules in D&D. The rulebooks don't say "if a player lies to you about a die roll he should be suspended for X sessions". They just assume that you will follow the rules.
Because you've gotten used to how free-form this game is (and recognize how out of place such a "hard stop" is), you couldn't possibly read a behavioral constraint as a hard rule; as such, you parse it as "flavor text".
If you were a new player, however, then "Paladins don't associate with evil" would simply be a fact of the game, just like "you must have a strength score of 13 or higher to take Power Attack", or "roll a d20 and add your strength bonus when trying to kick in a door".
Since we're on the topic...
Batman is Chaotic Good.
Han Solo is Chaotic Neutral.
James Bond is Neutral.
Captain Kirk is Neutral Good.
Superman is Lawful Good.
Dirty Harry is Lawful Neutral.
Darth Vader is Neutral Evil.
The Joker is Chaotic Evil.
Lex Luthor is Lawful Evil.Discuss.
For all of Han's "roguish" behavior he was a sucker for hard luck cases and doing what was right even if it cost him. He was also loyal to a fault and kept his word. I would say he was CG prehaps even NG.
Batman's willingness to kill at times could push him to CN, his quest for vengence often when way past righting wrongs.
Vader ... His training would put him at LN, his actions at LE. He seemed to truly believe in might makes right. Might makes right is LE at it's very core, he serves the Emporer because he is stronger than Vader. Nearly every choice he makes is to bring order to the galaxy, that really feels to me like LE.
A) Again, CG and NG characters do not smuggle drugs for huts. I think he changed by the end of the trilogy, but at the start, he was a drug runner and smuggler (Han Solo).
B) Nothing about being willing to kill makes you chaotic (Batman). Paladin's are all too happy to kill evil or neutral characters who perform evil acts.
C) Training makes him LN with G tendencies, I'd agree (Vader). Decisions turn him to LE or NE.
Is it just me, or does after looking at the "Associates" part of the class after so long, does it start to sound like a dodgy nature documentary? It's just the wording really about how they "Never" associate with evil, but not really explaining that they'll be punished if they do, as if paladins have a sort of in-built system that causes them to be telekinetically pushed away from evil to avoid assocaiting with it.
"Here, in the vast grasslands of Golarian, we witness the quintessienal adventuring party...but whats this? It seems we are lucky today. For we are seeing the rare and elusive Paladin, a creature not common to this area.
See how it moves majestically with it's divine grace, but of course it gains it as a class feature.
Oh no! It seems like trouble for our little friend, for with us we also find another creature common to this area, a common fighter, but this one is different. See the rare markings on it? Those indicate it as an evil fighter. No other creature in these parts would pick it up, but nothing escapes the Paladin's sharp sense.
And there they go, the inevitable fight, both struggiling to prove who is the "Alpha" party member. Ah yes, with the paladin as the victor, the fighter is forced to leave, because paladins do not assocaite with evil. Not that they can't or will be punished if they do, they just simply cannot. It's instinctive".
Now that's comedy!
Which they are since they do not have any consequences to violating them.There are no consequences laid out for violating any of the rules in D&D. The rulebooks don't say "if a player lies to you about a die roll he should be suspended for X sessions". They just assume that you will follow the rules.
If you were a new player, however, then "Paladins don't associate with evil" would simply be a fact of the game, just like "you must have a strength score of 13 or higher to take Power Attack", or "roll a d20 and add your strength bonus when trying to kick in a door".
Actually there are clear rules and consequences for things like feats.
A) Don't meet the prerequisites, then you can't take a feat.B) If you did meet them and did take the feat, but no longer meet them, you can't use the feat.
C) If you did meet them and did take the feat, and still meet them, you can use the feat.
Pretty clear rules with the consequences laid out. That is the difference between flavor text and actual rules.
Because you've gotten used to how free-form this game is (and recognize how out of place such a "hard stop" is), you couldn't possibly read a behavioral constraint as a hard rule; as such, you parse it as "flavor text".
Except you'll notice I am not saying a paladin can do an evil act (behavioral constraint) or a paladin can grossly violate his code (behavioral constraint) with no consequences. Why? Because those behavioral constraints have stated consequences in the rules for them, that is why they are rules.
The association clause is like me saying, "Elves can't eat meat." What happens if they do? Do they die? Do they become drow? If it is after midnight do they become gremlins? "They can't eat it." Is not a logical answer to those questions.
ok, I'm sure I'm going to get slammed here by all the new-agey touchy-feely sorts, but (in my mind) Paladins do not convert evil, they destroy it. Paladins are classically depicted as the swords of justice and righteousness not proselytizing evangelists. They exist to destroy evil, converting evil is the job of priests and philosophers. Paladins were given their might and skill at arms in order to defeat and destroy evil, not chat with it.
I always read the RAW for paladin behavior as a starting place for the DM and player to flesh out a full code of behavior, not the full text of the code itself. In that sense, I see your archetype as a perfectly viable paladin, right along with the new-agey, touchy-feely types. It all comes down to what you want to play and if you can have fun doing it.
Where you run into problems is when you get players whose enjoyment consists of ruining other people's enjoyment of the game, but then, of course, the problem lies with butthead players rather then unsatisfactory rules.
The association clause is like me saying, "Elves can't eat meat." What happens if they do? Do they die? Do they become drow? If it is after midnight do they become gremlins? "They can't eat it." Is not a logical answer to those questions.
I think the intent is for you to fill in the blanks... any of the three possibilities you brought up would be fine, if all at the table were OK with it. The same goes for the association clause. What happens if a paladin associates with evil? Pennance? Atonement? Fall? Nothing? You decide.
Now, I'm the type that has never been bothered about being asked to "fill in the blanks" a little bit in cases like this. If you happen to be the type that likes things to be spelled out more explicitly, that's OK, too. It just didn't happen in this case.
A) Don't meet the prerequisites, then you can't take a feat.
"Take paladin levels, can't associate with evil."
Alternately, to take your reasoning and put it in a different context,
"There are no consequences described for moving a rook diagonally, therefor the rules restricting their movement are only flavor text, and they can actually move however they want."
99% of the rules laid out in the Player's Handbook don't have consequences for not following them. The same is true for virtually all games (and to a greater degree for non-roleplaying games); if you don't follow the rules, you simply aren't playing the game. It has nothing to do with "consequence"; that is a concept which is only introduced when dealing with the behavior of a living character, and the distinction between "behavioral rules" and "game rules" is easily lost on many players.
Or, as an even better example, "constructs don't sleep."
"What happens if they do?" is a nonsensical question. They just don't. It's a fact of the game world.
Compare this with "Giant's don't dance". THIS is flavor text, and no one here would read it to mean "it is impossible for giants to dance". It's merely a suggestion concerning giant culture.
If you know how these games work, then nine times out of ten you can tell the difference. If it's your first time picking up a player's handbook, though, then the difference might easily be lost on you, because you will tend to read it as a rulebook.
Or, as an even better example, "constructs don't sleep."
"What happens if they do?" is a nonsensical question. They just don't. It's a fact of the game world.
Compare this with "Giant's don't dance". THIS is flavor text, and no one here would read it to mean "it is impossible for giants to dance". It's merely a suggestion concerning giant culture.
If you know how these games work, then nine times out of ten you can tell the difference. If it's your first time picking up a player's handbook, though, then the difference might easily be lost on you, because you will tend to read it as a rulebook.
So ... you are agreeing that it is flavor text, just like your "giants don't dance" statement would be. You just think that most new readers were be too ignorant to realize it, so they need it spelled out for them. Is that your point?
EDIT: Also there are differences between cheating (lying about your dice rolls), not knowing the rules (moving your rook incorrectly), trying to do something impossible (fly by simply flapping your arms), and doing something possible but for which there is no clear consequence for.
It is possible for a paladin to interact in a non-violent way with an evil character (I would hope we could all agree on that). It is possible that they may have a mutual interest that working together would be to both their benefits (say a paladin joins with a LE cleric to take down a CE cleric). Thus it is possible for a paladin to "associate" with an evil character. Since it is possible, within the rules (that is unless some magical hand of the gods comes down and move the paladin away from the LE cleric and keeps doing so if they try to move closer together) then there should be negative consequences if this is a "wrong" action. Comparing this to a rook moving incorrectly is I think a very invalid comparison. This is a roleplaying game, if you do not wish to roleplay, there is always chess.
Sort of. I think "paladins don't associate with evil" is a lot more ambiguous than "giant's don't dance" because of the strong language ("a paladin would never...") and because it appears in the middle of a list of rules text (albeit "soft" restrictions: i.e, "you can do this but then this will happen", as opposed to just "you can't do this ever its impossible").
Occorse, it's also more ambiguous than "constructs don't sleep", since there is an evident reason why it is impossible for constructs to sleep, whereas for the paladin it's a bit trickier.
I think the default assumption wouldn't be Evil Repulsion Fields. I think that the default assumption would be "A character can't be a paladin unless his personality is of the sort that would never associate with evil. If my character were capable of associating with evil she wouldn't be a paladin".
*I* wouldn't read it that way, because I know that it clashes with the way the game actually works (if something is physically possible, a player can't be counted on to not do it, no matter what it says in his backstory. And, furthermore, because characters change). However, I admit that this conclusion is based on "unwritten rules" of roleplaying games, a conjecture removed from the text of the rules themselves.
Jason granted that your (and my) viewpoint was valid, but you pressed the point with a this-is-the-ONLY-valid-reading line of debate, which I think is quite unfounded. My point was that it is possible for a rational person to read it otherwise.
*I* wouldn't read it that way, because I know that it clashes with the way the game actually works (if something is physically possible, a player can't be counted on to not do it, no matter what it says in his backstory. And, furthermore, because characters change). However, I admit that this conclusion is based on "unwritten rules" of roleplaying games, a conjecture removed from the text of the rules themselves.
Jason granted that your (and my) viewpoint was valid, but you pressed the point with a this-is-the-ONLY-valid-reading line of debate, which I think is quite unfounded. My point was that it is possible for a rational person to read it otherwise.
I see, you think I stated it too strongly for your taste. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that, like you, I also know how roleplaying actually works.
But as I said, for some people they need it spelled out for them in the official rules, otherwise they won't accept the reality of the situation. So for those people the change is good.
|
First I'll post ON TOPIC:
I've always wondered why they didn't just slap the Paladin with a Lawful Good alignment requirement and leave it alone from there to let DMs decide if there is a specific code to fill. Heck, Lawful Good as an alignment can kind of cover a lot of paladin code bases with just the alignment as the tag.
Did Paizo ever consider just doing this? Is there a reason this WOULDN'T work?
EDIT: Heck, if you need a code of sort maybe make it very loose like "Upholding the beliefs of their religion" giving more weight and slight differences in Paladinds depending on the deity chosen. You'd see differences in Shelyn and Sarenrae worshipping Paladins ya know?
OFF TOPIC:
Captain America is better than Superman.
Wolverine is better than Batman.
That is all.
The gods are a part of everyday life in D&D and every character should, IMHO, follow a deities teachings. They should strive to act like that deity or suffer what ever ill the GM could think of.Statements like this are hard to parse for me. It's like saying "In my humble opinion, you should eat more ketchup and less mustard". =p
What I mean is when a PC turns up at a temple for a Regeneration/Cure Disease etc and throws his/her coin around demanding this that and the other the deity would cause the spell to fail because of the characters behaviour ie the player not playing alignment correctly. This is assuming that the PC follows a paticular deity anyway. If not what priest would offer any aid? And don't use the "He is a LG priest so he will" line, they will be too busy healing all those Paladins who DO follow a code to heal those PCs who don't.
Playing a bad boy and the next session a goody-two shoes isn't being netural its being chaotic. And possibly with mental health issues.
As this thread is about Paladin's code (dragging it back)...
These are not rules but guidelines IMO. It is down to you as a GM to develop a Paladin's Code with the statement in the classes section as a starting template. In my campaigns the good/evil thing takes a lesser role to the Law/Chaos conflict.
Would a Paladin fight along side a bunch of Devils in order to defeat Demons? If he had no other choice I would say yes and wouldn't give any alignment penalty if it is a Law v Chaos fight.
A lot depends if you run a campagin where good/evil or law/chaos struggles are the main protagonists. A Paladin can't associate with evil PCs but its okay to hang out with a CN PC or even CG. To me that is just as offensive to a Paladin's Code
If used right, alignment is a great tool. You have to remember it's a slave to you.
As for paladins: It is, sadly, true that many people use it as an excuse to be a pain in the butt.
I think they we're following your advice about making alignment a slave to their own wishes ;)
A couple of characters from novels I see as the epitome of what a paladin should be are Carrot Ironfoundersson from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels
Excellent example, and I'm glad to see someone else bring it up. I'd like paladin options to play up the heroic and downplay the divine. The concept I'm looking for is quixotic.
For all of Han's "roguish" behavior he was a sucker for hard luck cases and doing what was right even if it cost him. He was also loyal to a fault and kept his word. I would say he was CG prehaps even NG.
Batman's willingness to kill at times could push him to CN, his quest for vengence often when way past righting wrongs.
Vader ... His training would put him at LN, his actions at LE. He seemed to truly believe in might makes right. Might makes right is LE at it's very core, he serves the Emporer because he is stronger than Vader. Nearly every choice he makes is to bring order to the galaxy, that really feels to me like LE.
=========
A) Again, CG and NG characters do not smuggle drugs for huts. I think he changed by the end of the trilogy, but at the start, he was a drug runner and smuggler (Han Solo).
B) Nothing about being willing to kill makes you chaotic (Batman). Paladin's are all too happy to kill evil or neutral characters who perform evil acts.
C) Training makes him LN with G tendencies, I'd agree (Vader). Decisions turn him to LE or NE.
Han Solo is a Spice runner, not a drug runner. This is equivalent to getting out of Arabia in the middle ages with a ton of peppers, worth more then their weight in gold...or saffron. It's called the Kessel Spice Run, NOT the Kessel Drug Run. We can assume some company has a monopoly on the spices and is restricting trade to drive up prices. So, naturally, smugglers flock there to make money.
It's been shown clearly in the books Han doesn't participate in drugs or slavery, both high-end and profitable.
-Vader serves the Emperor because he has knowledge Vader wanted...and which is now useless to him. He's also the Emperor's pet since he got rebuilt by him...in his debt, and without anyone else to turn to since he murdered all his allies. And I'm sure the Emperor had all sorts of nasty things hidden in his cybernetics to insure loyalty. Because he was supposed to be STRONGER then the Emperor..just not as skilled, yes?
==Aelryinth
ok, I'm sure I'm going to get slammed here by all the new-agey touchy-feely sorts, but (in my mind) Paladins do not convert evil, they destroy it.
You think of those part-time, untrained evil-smiters. They get below-minimum wage, no training beyond a 90-minute crash course, and are sent out against low-grade evil - you know, the type of evil who wears a scary costume with "EVIL" in neon letters written on it and who sing evil songs out day.
Paladins get all the benefits and a (divine) health plan, so they're expected to go the extra mile.
Paladins are classically depicted as the swords of justice and righteousness not proselytizing evangelists. They exist to destroy evil, converting evil is the job of priests and philosophers. Paladins were given their might and skill at arms in order to defeat and destroy evil, not chat with it.
They're also given high charisma (usually a lot higher than that of clerics and other people) and diplomacy as a class skill, so they're not exactly socially crippled.
Plus, you don't always have a priest with you, so what do you do if you find someone who is a bit mean. Do you kill him? For some minor transgressions? That will land you in jail.
Do you drag him to the next temple (there might not be a friendly temple nearby)?
No! You do your job. Fight evil. That can be done with swords, or with words. Paladins are armed with both.
If there is a paladin in the party the DM should not allow an evil PC in the same group.
Of course he should. Under the right circumstances.
Not allowing it robs you of some of the greatest roleplaying opportunities!
I allowed it and played in games where it was allowed, and I had a blast!
As is is, playing evil PC's is counter to the stereotypical game
All the more reason for doing it.
, which should be about heroic characters adventuring in a dangerous world defeating monsters. Of course individual campaigns will differ, and there is no single one "right" way to play, I'm just saying that I think more people look at it from a "my pc is a hero" perspective rather than the "I want my pc to run around looting, raping, and pillaging villages" perspective.
You overlook a couple of very important facts:
First of all, the game is not just for you. It's for a lot of people. It's designed to support a lot of playing styles, not just yours.
And, more importantly: There are more than two types of characters: "good-aligned hero" and "evil marauder who loots, rapes and pillages" are only two of a killion different character types. Just look any fantasy movie, read any fantasy novel, or play any fantasy game, and you'll see dozens, scores, hundreds of them.
Its a DM's job to manage his group of players and its a simple matter of saying "ok guys, I'm not banning evil characters so therefore a paladin would be a very bad choice for a PC" or, alternatively, "there is a paladin in the group, so please no one play an evil pc" etc.
Yeah, simple. Good jobs are never simple, though. If he's willing to work on it just a little bit, he can open a lot more options for the players.
By the same token, the players should all make a point of trying to get along and perhaps even help the other players develop the story of their PC.
Of course. That doens't preclude an evil character and a paladin in the same group, though.
Which is the exact polar opposite of creating an annoying, opportunistic, offensively evil pc who is only there to cause trouble.
Again with the narrow view. Just as there are annoying paladins, there are evil characters that are not annoying and sociopathic.
I'm sorry you never played with anyone who couldn't play a proper evil character beyond the "I just play Postal the RPG" type. But there are out there. And not the sort of out there that is measured in gigaparsecs.
I said it before and I'll say it again, in campaigns I run Paladins are swords of justice and righteousness who destroy evil wherever it is found.
Good for you. That's not the only way to play Pathfinder, though.
They do not see shades of gray and they do not choose the lesser of two evils. They do not associate with evil and they do not bargain with evil.
Remind me who you are if I ever think about joining your group, so I can rethink that. Games like that frankly bore me. If the whole play is just hack'n'slash, with more moral depth, I always feel like I'd have a better time playing Diablo :P
but now the player can get all crazy and play poker with pit fiends, so long as the player can come up with a convincing argument why its not evil.
Yeah, now you go into hyperbole. Always a bad sign for your argument.
If you cannot talk to your players, and they cannot talk to you, without becoming rules lawyers who try to win the game through the rules, roleplaying might not be the pastime for you.
Paladins are 100% NOT ends justifies the means types. They hold their morals to be above all else, and allying with evil for even a moment offends both themselves, and their god, which a paladin would never do.
I think allowing a greater evil to happen offends everyone a lot more.
Of course, this may just be *my* concept of a paladin
Sure, you're entitled to that. Just understand that it's not the vision of paladin Pathfinder has in mind.
If used right, alignment is a great tool. You have to remember it's a slave to you.
As for paladins: It is, sadly, true that many people use it as an excuse to be a pain in the butt.
Do you mean Awful Good or Lawful Stupid Paladins?
Or both...
Both, probably. I had mild cases and really awful cases. Cases where the paladin totally disrupted the game.
We made the mistake of not killing or at least neutering the offending players, and we beg the world's forgiveness for that. ;-)
EDIT: Heck, if you need a code of sort maybe make it very loose
That's how I always do it. There are some general principles, but beyond that, the code is tailored to the paladin's order!
Captain America is better than Superman.
Nah. The name alone disqualifies him. Superman is non-racist and will help everyone! :P
The Correct solution of a paladin to the rampaging demon/helpful diabolist problem is to Save the Orphans.
If he can do that by killing the demon, then kill the demon, and get two birds with one stone.
If he can do that by using the diabolists, then do that. Have them fight the demon and let him get the kids to safety. Then he can come back and help kill the demon...and THEN give the diabolists what they have coming to them.
There's too much moaning and groaning about allying with evil to defeat a greater evil. That's perfectly permissible...as long as you then give your would-be 'allies' what is coming to them, which is also very much a staple of literature. I'm reminded of the Warhammer Inquisitor series Ravenor where the Inquisitor has been chasing ONE MAN for over a century, allies with him in the last book to defeat the coming of a greater demon lord that threatens both of them...and then hunts him down at the end and kills him personally. Working with Gollum to destroy the one Ring is another example of the Lesser Evil getting his comeuppance, too!
In like vein, the paladin should save the kids, and return to do his duty...getting rid of both diabolists and demon. We all know that if he pitches in on the side of the diabolists, they are going to try to make him take the brunt of the fighting, and get him killed. This then leaves the innocent souls of the orphans up for conversion. NOT an option. Likewise, these are diabolists...they care nothing for the orphans save as potential innocent souls to corrupt.
When the demon is dead, the paladin has the option of deciding if the devil-worshippers acted with sufficient honor to let them go at this time, to be hunted down later for their sins, or to simply challenge and eliminate their threat now...and they ARE a threat. He knows they would like to see him dead, too...he'd be a fool not to.
--------
a paladin uses the cone version of Detect Evil to scan and get a ping back, not for details. If looking for an ambush, he'd of course use it...and get a hit on anyone in the area. he doesn'thave to know precisely where, "In the trees off to the side" is pretty indicative all by itself.
Also note, a Paladin doesn't have to give you the peery eyeball to Detect Evil on you. He can turn completely around and look totally lost in thought. It's not like it is based on vision...he can Detect people completely behind him.
------
On Associates: a paladin must and will scan those he regularly does business with for signs of Evil...not doing so is rewarding such for being Evil by 'legitimizing' them. Everyone who associates with a Paladin should expect it, and only those who don't want to show up as Evil should really mind. The Paladin certainly won't mind you doing it in return.
Likewise, a Paladin would definitely go one step further and be looking for those who conceal their alignment. Something as simple as a Mind Shielding Ring isn't going to stop a paladin...that's a dumb, blanket idea, and blanket ideas never hold water. If his life depends on you being non-Evil, he's going to go one step past Detect Evil and back it up with a Know Alignment. When THAT also fails, due to the ring, he's going to know your alignment is concealed. At which point, he'll politely ask you to remove the ring so he can verify your Aura and Alignment, or cut you free. If you don't want to do so and start shouting about your rights, he'll invoke his and tell you to leave, rightfully suspecting the worst and seeing your secrecy as complete lack of trust and respect for his motivations. He's perfectly willing to put his beliefs up for measurement, and who, in the end, are people going to trust? Note that as soon as he hits level 4 he should be able to Detect Magic and see you've got a magic ring with an abjuration effect on it...and he might even have been taught to recognize the effect. He would in the real world.
There's also Sense Motive, which can reveal a person's rough alignment, and even if you've got BLuff ranks, sooner or later he's going to get a good 'ping' on you, and your secret is blown.
--------
Batman is N(L)G in alignment. His personal discipline is high, he clearly has enormous respect for the law...and is also aware of the limitations of the law, and willing to go beyond it to do the Right Thing. He will not break the law actively, but he is clearly willing to consider that the legal rights of those who do spurn the law are left behind with their regard for it. That Batman is Good can be seen by his strict adherence to a non-lethal form of combat (in the core books), which is almost an Exalted form of combat. It is the Law which has problems with him, and which he operates outside of to do what they cannot (pretty much the definiton of NG). He's not CG because he does respect the law, he doesn't flout it like a true CG would.
===Aelryinth
EDIT: Heck, if you need a code of sort maybe make it very looseThat's how I always do it. There are some general principles, but beyond that, the code is tailored to the paladin's order!
Nah. The name alone disqualifies him. Superman is non-racist and will help everyone! :P
Captain America is better than Superman.
Cap isn't racist, either. Both are paladins, but Cap is a soldier, at the end, with human limitations, and willing to kill if he must. Superman is an alien with nearly divine power...he simply doesn't use his full might because he doesn't have to. He's more paternal and 'generous' in his Goodness, like a god doling out his gifts to all people. You can't look at Cap that way.
==Aelryinth
If used right, alignment is a great tool. You have to remember it's a slave to you.
As for paladins: It is, sadly, true that many people use it as an excuse to be a pain in the butt.
Do you mean Awful Good or Lawful Stupid Paladins?
Or both...Both, probably. I had mild cases and really awful cases. Cases where the paladin totally disrupted the game.
We made the mistake of not killing or at least neutering the offending players, and we beg the world's forgiveness for that. ;-)
I'd say Carrot Ironfoundersson is an example of Lawful Stupid and exactly the person you want to have around if you need to be saved from the bad guys. There's room for some humor in role-playing the paladin's code, which may seem stupid to the other characters, while it is anything but that to the paladin.
IMHO as long as a Paladin does nothing overtly wrong, acts with honor, tries his best to temper the (perceived) evil actions of others and the outcome is going to be the best for the community I have no issue with a Paladin working with an evil PC/NPC. If that is the only solution available.
The problem arises when the Paladin turns a blind eye to evil actions because its the quickest way to solve a problem and allows the bad guys to act with impunity.
For a Paladin which is the worse travelling companion. The LE Fighter who sticks to a code of Honor (no women and children, not attacking unarmed foes etc) but bullies and intimidates villagers or a CN Fighter who has no honor, does what he likes etc?
What I mean is when a PC turns up at a temple for a Regeneration/Cure Disease etc and throws his/her coin around demanding this that and the other the deity would cause the spell to fail because of the characters behaviour ie the player not playing alignment correctly. This is assuming that the PC follows a paticular deity anyway. If not what priest would offer any aid? And don't use the "He is a LG priest so he will" line, they will be too busy healing all those Paladins who DO follow a code to heal those PCs who don't.
You're envisioning a world completely different from the implied setting.
Not that that's a crime or anything, but for what it's worth, I personally prefer the implied setting.
Playing a bad boy and the next session a goody-two shoes isn't being netural its being chaotic.
You don't appear to understand what "chaos" actually means within the rules.
From the srd:
A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
If you want, I can also dig up the DMG quote saying that a character who does evil one day and good the next is neutral. I would have to find my book, though, because the DM advice in there isn't part of the SRD.
When I let myself get drawn into comic-book alignment debates, I usually insist that characters like The Punisher are morally neutral. He has a very strong moral code which is very different from the standard by which D&D judges good/evil; as such, he is as likely to perform a Good action as an Evil one, in pursuit of what he feels is right.
I don't know if I would venture so far as to say that he doesn't have a mental disorder, but his behavior is certainly consistent and coherent.
...ie the player not playing alignment correctly.
You completely misconstrue alignments to be an active restriction (when they aren't), then dismiss them as artificial and unnecessary. Did this not strike you as needlessly complicated?
If you used alignments as the core rules intended rather than casting them as straight-jackets you would find them considerably easier to work with.
|
It is possible for a paladin to interact in a non-violent way with an evil character.
Not only possible, but, in many cases, *necessary.* Paladins of the Great Kingdom in Oerth or Cheliax in Golarion simply must accept that the ruler of their kingdom (and most of the royal court / upper class) is evil. They must obey his laws, and if he invites them into his castle to be knighted for some great service to the crown, they kinda have to not be complete and utter dicks in the royal presence, since he's their king (or she's their queen), and all.
Does said Paladin pray mightily for something to happen to inspire their wicked monarch to change their ways (or, barring that, for them to fall off a horse and break their neck)? Sure. But, only in the most shockingly lawless and *evil* of societies would a Paladin be allowed to just hack someone's head off for nothing more than pinging the Pally-dar. (Indeed, a wicked soul might develop a spell or item that temporarily taints someone with an evil aura, sort of like an alignment-aura version of Nystul's Magic Aura, to add to the 'fun' and encourage smite-before-right Paladins to attack and kill other good-aligned people willy-nilly, and turn the surviving good and righteous people of the land to turn against their apparently psychotic 'white knights.')
First I'll post ON TOPIC:
[Facetious]Um, how long have you been around these boards? I think there's an over/under of about 10 posts before a thread goes astray -- [/Facetious]
It is possible for a paladin to interact in a non-violent way with an evil character.Not only possible, but, in many cases, *necessary.* Paladins of the Great Kingdom in Oerth or Cheliax in Golarion simply must accept that the ruler of their kingdom (and most of the royal court / upper class) is evil. They must obey his laws, and if he invites them into his castle to be knighted for some great service to the crown, they kinda have to not be complete and utter dicks in the royal presence, since he's their king (or she's their queen), and all.
Does said Paladin pray mightily for something to happen to inspire their wicked monarch to change their ways (or, barring that, for them to fall off a horse and break their neck)? Sure. But, only in the most shockingly lawless and *evil* of societies would a Paladin be allowed to just hack someone's head off for nothing more than pinging the Pally-dar. (Indeed, a wicked soul might develop a spell or item that temporarily taints someone with an evil aura, sort of like an alignment-aura version of Nystul's Magic Aura, to add to the 'fun' and encourage smite-before-right Paladins to attack and kill other good-aligned people willy-nilly, and turn the surviving good and righteous people of the land to turn against their apparently psychotic 'white knights.')
A paladin does not HAVE to honor authority that he does not consider legitimate.
However, if you're a LG dude trying to make life a bit better for the commonfolk in a NE nation, you've got to choose your battles, and a code of conduct which didn't allow you to do that would be absurd.
So all of this would explicitly forbid the idea of a paladin going undercover within an evil organization in order to undermine it from the inside? Shame... it sounded like a great adventure hook. Oh, well...
So all of this would explicitly forbid the idea of a paladin going undercover within an evil organization in order to undermine it from the inside? Shame... it sounded like a great adventure hook. Oh, well...
Not sure about the PF code of conduct, but the 3.5 code of conduct made this extremely difficult. For example, it was against a paladin's code to lie. I would think that lying would be something someone going undercover would have to do on a regular basis.
The paladin just isn't the man for that.
The paladin represents the flamboyant side of Goodness. He's a loud, bright, in-your-face beacon of truth and righteousness whose very existence inspires others to do better. Not the guy to send when subtlety is key.
Luckily, Good has many agents.
|
|
I had this insane notion, back in the day, of playing a Paladin of a god who either is evil, or has fallen to evil. (In Golarion, a Paladin of the Harlot Queen would be one example, maintaining ethical and moral standards that his patron has fallen far from, but unwilling to disrepect the memory of the god she once was by abandoning the tenets of her former faith.) In many D&D settings, particularly evident in Planescape, is the notion that dieties draw power from their worshippers, and can 'evolve' over time to take on new portfolios and associations and shed old ones.
I'd love to see a good organization attempting to convert a god, from within, by encouraging the worship of the god among good people, following good practices (and avoiding any evil practices popular among his traditional clergy). It would be the ultimate heresy. A bunch of Banites (or whatever) attempting to create a good church of Bane, as god of benevolent rightful rulership, hoping to 'corrupt' Bane from within into a good diety!
There's also the possibility of characters following a boddhisattva line of thought, that they commit acts that would surely damn them (or deny them from paradise, whatever), for the greater good. (Someone who kills in the name of a diety that forbids killing, for instance.)
Turning this on it's head, a Lawful Evil diety who is particularly irony-minded might happily sponsor an order of lawful good warriors and priests who spread civilization and order, and are held to *much* higher standards than those the god sets for himself. He's not the god of 'tyrants,' he's the god of tyranny. Nobody but him gets to be the tyrant! Everybody else is expected to do as he says, not as he does... Just because he is a cruel dictator, doesn't mean that he has any love for puny mortals who want to be cruel dictators. If anything, he would hold them in contempt. He's the only dictator anyone needs, after all!
In a less absolutist environment (where a good god could have an evil priest, or vice-versa, or one where the 'alignment' of the gods was a complete mystery, and clerics of a single diety could be every alignment under the sun), this sort of thing could be kinda fun. There would be evil clerics of the sun god (the burning lord who sees our sins and punishes us from above!), and good clerics of the death goddess (the gentle lady who guides us across the river into paradise!).
Turning this on it's head, a Lawful Evil diety who is particularly irony-minded might happily sponsor an order of lawful good warriors and priests who spread civilization and order, and are held to *much* higher standards than those the god sets for himself. He's not the god of 'tyrants,' he's the god of tyranny. Nobody but him gets to be the tyrant! Everybody else is expected to do as he says, not as he does... Just because he is a cruel dictator, doesn't mean that he has any love for puny mortals who want to be cruel dictators. If anything, he would hold them in contempt. He's the only dictator anyone needs, after all!
And by holding them to the higher code he in effect shows his tyranny but forcing them to act in the way they do in order to maintain their puny powers (compared to the possibly earth shattering power of a level 20 cleric).
*burrp!* "Excuse me, " sayeth the Paladin after loosening the Code Belt to let out his ale belly. ^_^
So all of this would explicitly forbid the idea of a paladin going undercover within an evil organization in order to undermine it from the inside? Shame... it sounded like a great adventure hook. Oh, well...Not sure about the PF code of conduct, but the 3.5 code of conduct made this extremely difficult. For example, it was against a paladin's code to lie. I would think that lying would be something someone going undercover would have to do on a regular basis.
This is one reason why I think the totatlity of a paladin's code should be hashed out between player and DM, and not left completely to the rulebook. The "no lying" thing is appropriate most of the time, but depending on player/GM interpretation, a strict ruling can lead to situation that just don't make sense...
DM: So, your paladin's been captured by the enemy and tortured for information about the escaped prisoners.
Player: Let's see, I'm not allowed to lie to them, so I'll resist by refusing to speak at all.
DM: Ah, but a lie of omission is still a lie, and therefore against your code. You don't want your character to die having lost his paladinhood, now do you?
Player: (sigh) No need for pain, badguys, I don't want to defy my god(ess) by protecting the innocent; the people you're looking for are right over there...
Absolute rules tend to lead to impossible or ridiculous choices. I don't think that the DM making a ruling when the irresistable force meets the immovable object is necessarily a bad thing.
The paladin just isn't the man for that.
The paladin represents the flamboyant side of Goodness. He's a loud, bright, in-your-face beacon of truth and righteousness whose very existence inspires others to do better. Not the guy to send when subtlety is key.
Luckily, Good has many agents.
True, and I think that chossing to play a paladin that way is perfectly valid. But why save the undercover assignment for the NG rogue when a willing Paladin exists who has the Charisma to spike his Diplomacy skill, so as to be able to talk his way out of a bad situation?
Then again, I also believe that it's possible to play a paladin who may occasionally believe the discretion is the better part of valor, so maybe I'm just weird.
I just think that taken holistically, there are several assumptions (even beyond those in the rules) about a paladin's behavior that give the class a bad rap, and can make it a nightmare to play. The terms "Awful Good" and "Lawful Stupid" exist for a reason...
I think you may be working under the impression that the paladin is a generic and flexible good-guy. He's actually fills a very focused roll, which has both benefits and drawbacks. I think that this is by design and that it's actually really cool (after all, if I want something different there's nothing to stop me from playing a LG fighter), but YMMV.
I do think that the advantages of playing a paladin are often overlooked. For instance, the fact that a paladin CAN'T lie means that anyone who knows that he's a paladin will trust his word implicitly. Most DMs really underplay what an advantage this would be.
(Incidentally, a "lie by omission" is when you make a false statement whose components are true. "I'm not telling you anything" would never be a lie-by-omission).
The paladin just isn't the man for that.
The paladin represents the flamboyant side of Goodness. He's a loud, bright, in-your-face beacon of truth and righteousness whose very existence inspires others to do better. Not the guy to send when subtlety is key.
Luckily, Good has many agents.
I think Hydro nailed it. It's the whole concept of "knight in shining armor". I always thought of paladin as the opposite of rogue. I would penalize them for using rogue tactics in combat, and reward them for fighting honorably and rushing headlong into danger for the sake of truth and justice (or whatever ideals are elevated by their code).
Not that they can't cooperate with the stealth objectives of the party when necessary, but while doing so they forgo the bonuses they normally derive from being the embodiment of their code.
|
|
The paladin just isn't the man for that.
The paladin represents the flamboyant side of Goodness. He's a loud, bright, in-your-face beacon of truth and righteousness whose very existence inspires others to do better. Not the guy to send when subtlety is key.
Luckily, Good has many agents.
I think Hydro nailed it. It's the whole concept of "knight in shining armor". I always thought of paladin as the opposite of rogue. I would penalize them for using rogue tactics in combat, and reward them for fighting honorably and rushing headlong into danger for the sake of truth and justice (or whatever ideals are elevated by their code).
Not that they can't cooperate with the stealth objectives of the party when necessary, but while doing so they forgo the bonuses they normally derive from being the embodiment of their code.
Now, this I disagree with. Stealth is fine for Paladins (Armour penalties notwithstanding). Attacking from the shadows, probably not, but sneaking into the tent of the enemy commander and going "Put your armour on, pick up your sword. We finish this now!" That is an acceptable Paladin response, IMHO.
Now, this I disagree with. Stealth is fine for Paladins (Armour penalties notwithstanding). Attacking from the shadows, probably not, but sneaking into the tent of the enemy commander and going "Put your armour on, pick up your sword. We finish this now!" That is an acceptable Paladin response, IMHO.The paladin just isn't the man for that.
The paladin represents the flamboyant side of Goodness. He's a loud, bright, in-your-face beacon of truth and righteousness whose very existence inspires others to do better. Not the guy to send when subtlety is key.
Luckily, Good has many agents.
I think Hydro nailed it. It's the whole concept of "knight in shining armor". I always thought of paladin as the opposite of rogue. I would penalize them for using rogue tactics in combat, and reward them for fighting honorably and rushing headlong into danger for the sake of truth and justice (or whatever ideals are elevated by their code).
Not that they can't cooperate with the stealth objectives of the party when necessary, but while doing so they forgo the bonuses they normally derive from being the embodiment of their code.
That's close enough to what I'm saying that I won't quibble. The specifics of the code may vary.
Also, I can imagine a paladin who doesn't wear any armor (perhaps trusting in his righteousness to shield him), and for whom stealth nevertheless goes against the grain.
In like vein, the paladin should save the kids, and return to do his duty...getting rid of both diabolists and demon.
Remember, though, that being evil is not a crime. Unless diabolism is a crime in itself, or you know they done other crimes, attacking the diabolists might not be lawful to do.
When the demon is dead, the paladin has the option of deciding if the devil-worshippers acted with sufficient honor to let them go at this time, to be hunted down later for their sins, or to simply challenge and eliminate their threat now...and they ARE a threat. He knows they would like to see him dead, too...he'd be a fool not to.
Yeah, but the beauty about that lawfulness thing is that you follow the laws. For example, it is usually illegal to attack "innocent" people. Innocent, here, is defined as "has not commited a crime". Being of evil alignment isn't a crime in itself. After all, the greedy, selfish merchant is probably evil, but until he actually commits a crime, he cannot be punished for it. Not by mortal agents. He'll probably go to the lower planes after his death, but he won't go to jail.
Also note, a Paladin doesn't have to give you the peery eyeball to Detect Evil on you. He can turn completely around and look totally lost in thought. It's not like it is based on vision...he can Detect people completely behind him.
On the other hand, it is not at all unexpected, of anyone, to look a future comrad-in-arms or even coworker in the eye and try to assess if he's a "good man" (i.e. fortright, honest, loyal).
On Associates: a paladin must and will scan those he regularly does business with for signs of Evil...not doing so is rewarding such for being Evil by 'legitimizing' them. Everyone who associates with a Paladin should expect it, and only those who don't want to show up as Evil should really mind. The Paladin certainly won't mind you doing it in return.
Exactly. As I said earlier: It's like a routine drug test or a criminal checkup before you can become a security guard or something.
Likewise, a Paladin would definitely go one step further and be looking for those who conceal their alignment.
Agreed. The thing is: How do you know if someone conceals their alignment? Unless they have a lead sheet for "cultural reasons", like Belkar, it can be hard to spot.
If done right. You don't want to do a half-assed job there.
he's going to go one step past Detect Evil and back it up with a Know Alignment.
As far as I know, that spell doesn't exist any more. You can detect a specific part, like evil, but unless you have all 4 spells (really hard for a divine caster), you cannot really read someone's alignment.
Cap isn't racist, either.
It was just a jab at the name. He's not "Captain Mankind", but "Captain America". That name evokes titles like "Smiter of Commies" to me.
I'd say Carrot Ironfoundersson is an example of Lawful Stupid and exactly the person you want to have around if you need to be saved from the bad guys. There's room for some humor in role-playing the paladin's code, which may seem stupid to the other characters, while it is anything but that to the paladin.
I wouldn't call him lawful stupid. Not at all. True, he can be naive sometimes. But beyond that dumb exterior is a mind that is probably more cunning and insightful than most. You never really know with Carrot.
Plus, part of his MO is not to be naive about the state of the worl, but to be so persuasive that others can't help to start seeing the world through his eyes.
(Indeed, a wicked soul might develop a spell or item that temporarily taints someone with an evil aura, sort of like an alignment-aura version of Nystul's Magic Aura, to add to the 'fun' and encourage smite-before-right Paladins to attack and kill other good-aligned people willy-nilly, and turn the surviving good and righteous people of the land to turn against their apparently psychotic 'white knights.')
That soul is called Asmodeus. His infernal healing spell lights you up under detect evil. The greater version lights you up as an evil priest.
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.
DM: Ah, but a lie of omission is still a lie
Player: "And I'm still stronger than you and will beat you up if you pull this crap" (player is not a paladin) }>
