I have to agree, in 3.5 it may not have been required but under pathfinder it more or less is to gain those two abilities
It will be interesting to see what the CS has to say about it.
|
Here's a final question. Can you see an LG Fighter or Rogue supporting/worshiping Gorum? If...Great question. I would answer it No. The idea of taking what you want, by force if necessary, is a chaotic neutral tenant, and no lawful good individual would stand for it. And I dare say, stand in the way if they tried.
It is one thing to not see eye to eye on everything and not be a big booster of this or that, it is another entirely for it to be something you are vehemently opposed to.
I think you're taking things a bit differently then I would. I see it like I presume most citizens of Golarion would. Simply. Gorum is, at his core, the Lord of BATTLE. If you end up in combat a lot, it makes sense to pay homage to him or pray to him for luck in combat, whatever your alignment is.
Unless you're a cleric, I just really don't see that your alignment needs to tie closely to the deity's.
Karui Kage, I just want to be clear, I am just discussing the rules as I am reading them. In a campaign that I am running, I absolutely would consider allowing a paladin of a neutral god or a chaotic good god if the player had a good story and concept to go along with it. But I would be doing so as a home rule exception, not an interpretation of the rules. I suspect that in Pathfinder Society play that it would not be allowed.
If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?
Just because the Paladin doesn't worship a deity doesn't mean a deity isn't supplying the power. Deities work in mysterious ways.
As an example (and i think I've said this in pretty much every "Can a paladin..." or "Paladin alignment..." thread on this board, but it bears repeating anyway), please read The Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon.
I suspect that in Pathfinder Society play that it would not be allowed.
Keep in mind that Pathfinder Society has house rules as well. For example, you cannot play Evil characters (even though that is an option in the book), you are forced to use point buy to generate characters (even though that isn't even the default from the book -- the book defaults to 4d6 drop the lowest), and characters cannot take feats such as Leadership, Improved Natural Armor, Flyby Attack, and so on.
In other words, don't say "PFS does it this way, so it must be RAW". PFS has its own rules which don't always agree with the rules of the non-organized-environment game.
In other words, don't say "PFS does it this way, so it must be RAW". PFS has its own rules which don't always agree with the rules of the non-organized-environment game.
Excellent point.
|
|
Karui Kage, I just want to be clear, I am just discussing the rules as I am reading them. In a campaign that I am running, I absolutely would consider allowing a paladin of a neutral god or a chaotic good god if the player had a good story and concept to go along with it. But I would be doing so as a home rule exception, not an interpretation of the rules. I suspect that in Pathfinder Society play that it would not be allowed.
That's actually what I'm saying. Well, the opposite. I see no where in the rules where a Paladin IS required to worship a deity close to their own (LG) alignment. As far as I see it in RAW, only Clerics have such a requirement. Paladins have the same requirement as all the other classes. That is to say, none.
They need to be LG. Beyond that, there is no rule that says 'you need to be within one step of a deity's alignment in order to worship them'. :)
They need to be LG. Beyond that, there is no rule that says 'you need to be within one step of a deity's alignment in order to worship them'. :)
*Blink*
Hmm. I don't see anything in the SRD about it. I don't have the core book with me to see if it is any different there. Wow.
EDIT: Post edit eaten... Trying again. Yes, looking back at James Jacob's comments earlier in the thread, he was discussing the one step rule in regards to clerics, not paladins. Also, he said he was not in favor of LG paladins of LE gods, and LE paladins were not in the rules and that he didn't think they should be (paraphrasing really roughly right now). But it looks like you are right.
Thanks for your patience in explaining the point you were trying to get across.
*me looks at Karui Kage and markofbane. Well done Karui Kage, you have defeated an encounter and levelled up. Make good use of the feat and skill points that come available - for you still have to defeat the end-boss seekerofshadowlight!
As an aside - I fully agree with Karui Kage's observation that a particular individual (mayhaps a paladin) in Golarion has no specific knowledge of the alignment of a god. For all practical purposes - and the most accurate form of roleplaying - Caiden Caylean is a heroic god. Gorum is a god of battle. Both are admirable choices for an aspiring paladin. The personal code and morals a paladin adheres to have little distinction on the situation here.
The personal code and morals a paladin adheres to have little distinction on the situation here.
I disagree, if your personal code is so far removed from anything your god would ever enforce then you breaking that code would have little if no effect. You god would simply not see a breaking such a restrictive code as an action worth punishing you over. Meaning being LG or having a code would be meaningless, you just made non-LG paladins.
This to me pretty much means your limited to gods who would respect and enforce that code. Which honestly becomes an issues the farther you go from one step. So yes being LG and having such a strict code would limit which gods you would worship or would empower someone with the powers of a paladin and enforce that strict code.
|
|
My two CP as a paladin player and a person with a nearly worthless degree in religion and philosophy:
For the following, you MUST assume that a paladin gets their powers from being LG, not from their deity.
You could play a LG paladin of a non LG, NG, or LN deity, however, it would be very very difficult to do so. I would say that it would create an awesome chance to roleplay. I think, it would be possible to be a LG paladin of Gorum, who revils in only the battle (and only against evil), but not the other bits. However, and this is huge, IF the paladin starts popping ranks into knowledge religion, he's becoming more aware of the full scope of his deity, and he'd be forced to either choose his deity or his paladinhood. I do, think CC would be plausible, but only because you could be the LG paladin that goes, "I look forward to a day when peace reigns and revelry and partying can be all there is, however, that day will never come without the order to squash out evil and reform it and guide it towards good." Again, it would be tough, but I'd say it'd almost be easier to have a paladin (ALWAYS LG) of CC than of Abadar, who has no care for compassion or protection, but merely law for its own sake. A paladin sees law as a necessary means to achieve good, but it must be used to achieve good, else we are devils all of us.
Asmodeus, I could see, but only for an idiot paladin who has zero ranks in religion and perhaps even an INT below 12. Devils barter for the souls of people. They connive and trick, all within the law of contracts. As Cheliax would say, you'd be hard pressed to find a more orderly place than the hells, but that order is achieved through fear, violence, and intimidation, even on the innocent. This is something a paladin could never support. He may be for order, but not for that cost.
... nothing in the paladin write up states you have to worship a god...From the SRD...
Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.
At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?
Because you know, nobody can have a divine bond without a god -- here's looking at you druid, ranger, and oracle.
Oh wait -- that's three characters that can -- oh wait, so can the cleric .
The paladin write doesn't say you must have a god. A few class features do directly reference having a deity in the fluff portions of the writing, but that isn't the same as saying "you must worship a deity."
For the following, you MUST assume that a paladin gets their powers from being LG, not from their deity.
This has nothing to do with a setting or this topic in general , but this has always bugged me. If a paladin gains his power from just his belief is what he is doing is just and right. Then how does one fall? As long as he thinks and has totally belief in he is doing the good and right thing how does he fall?
If there is no higher power to hold him into account , just how does one ever fall even if he bends or breaks his code as long as he thinks he is still just and right?
I worship myself personally.
However the paladin could worship the idea of lawful good as a god, or she might hold up the "code" itself as a deity spirit worthy of worship.
Fluff is easy. We are dealing with the abstract here and as such interpretation is quite quick in coming.
Indeed it might be that without a god the paladin simply doesn't get those two powers, however these two lines do not state that not having a god means you are not a paladin. No where in the code does it require having a god. No where in the fluff is such a thing required. There is simply two lines that state that a divine bond forms with a god (specifically the paladin's) that gives the paladin power.
Another thought -- a deity might choose to "sponsor" a paladin without the paladin ever acknowledging the god. It could be that say, shelyn likes what she sees and simply sends the power down from on high without asking. Shelyn would be the paladin's God in this case even if the paladin never did offer her up a prayer or anything -- the example the paladin provides is enough that it serves Shelyn's purposes (basically the god claims the paladin in this case instead of the other way around).
I worship myself personally.
Heh, ya can't do that in golarion really :}. I always look at it as many of the paladin gods provide power to the paladins, weather the paladins know they are getting it from them or not. Could be a good chance the Empyreal lords empower them.
Paladins after all are called.
|
|
For the following, you MUST assume that a paladin gets their powers from being LG, not from their deity.This has nothing to do with a setting or this topic in general , but this has always bugged me. If a paladin gains his power from just his belief is what he is doing is just and right. Then how does one fall? As long as he thinks and has totally belief in he is doing the good and right thing how does he fall?
If there is no higher power to hold him into account , just how does one ever fall even if he bends or breaks his code as long as he thinks he is still just and right?
I think you'd have to make the semi-reasonable jump that lawfulness and goodness are themselves combining to grant the power. In the real world, the philosophical argument is, "Does God create "good" by fiat or does He look towards a existential law, and conform His laws to fit those? If it is the second, he is not omnipotent, as the ideas of good and evil supersede Him."
For Pathfinder, since alignment is not abstract, this would be acceptable. The gods are not omnipotent, merely powerful beyond many mortal's comprehension. Also, no god created Pathfinder alignment, they just perpetuate it. Somewhere, far beyond the power of the gods are the tangible, real, and absolute alignments. Think of Plato when he says, "you don't sit in a CHAIR, but a chair which is merely some derivation of what CHAIR, the perfect ideal, is." In that sense, a paladin does not get power from his god, but from the Capital L Law and Capital G Good. If he strays, no matter how deluded he is, his connection to Lawful Good still breaks.
I don't buy that at all really. A fantic can think he is lawful good all day long. Most evil folks think they are not evil after all. With no higher being funneling them power it really would be damned hard for em to fall.
Law and good are not things that funnel power, not even by the core book do they funnel power. Faith and belief in a thing by core can do this, but LG is not a vast power source you just tap into, if it was then you would have paladins of every AL as they can be tapped into as well as ya pretty much just made them mindless gods.
From the SRD...Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin forms a divine bond with her god.
At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
If a paladin does not worship a god, then what god is she forming a divine bond with and what god is she a conduit of power for?
Wait are you saying that you can't play a male paladin as only female ones get divine bonds? Kinky.
What he is saying is that change from 3.5 pretty much means you need a god for those powers. This has been debated a few places. Folks either use gods for paladins or ignore it, just like they always did :)
|
|
I don't buy that at all really. A fantic can think he is lawful good all day long. Most evil folks think they are not evil after all. With no higher being funneling them power it really would be damned hard for em to fall.
Law and good are not things that funnel power, not even by the core book do they funnel power. Faith and belief in a thing by core can do this, but LG is not a vast power source you just tap into, if it was then you would have paladins of every AL as they can be tapped into as well.
I don't quite understand how the first paragraph doesn't agree with what I said (you have a certain alignment, regardless of what you THINK you are).
However, I do completely understand that there are a few holes with the alignments as sources issue. Maybe it's just how LG (or CE) merge together that makes them so special. At least, in Pathfinder. What version of "good" or "evil" is closest to pure "good" or "evil" is for another thread entirely and has been done to death, otherwise we could get into the abstract of why good always creates, evil always destroys, and how animals might be neutral, but nature is lawful neutral. Blah blah, so on.
For the record, I am merely trying to get some use out of my schooling. It is my personal belief that paladins should have gods, though if you are willing to allow anything other than LG gods, you open up a can of worms. (A neutral good god would allow a paladin to break their code if it meant it was "for the greater good")
To me it really depends on the setting as the stuff we are now talking about would be very setting dependent and would effect other classes and the world as a whole, not just paladins
Often I think folks don't think how things like theses effect the world as a whole and not just a single pc. Stuff like this change the world and how things work and inter act.
Heh, ya can't do that in golarion really :}.I worship myself personally.
Why not?
We got kobold's worshiping statues, men worshiping another man (that isn't actually a god) and demons getting cults -- why can't I do the same for me? My argument would be that paladin's are called to ascend into the heavens -- there is even proof in Imodae -- she did it. Mortals are meant to ascend into godhood and paladins are using their path of enlightenment to do just that.
Basically a Humanistic religion that teaches self-worship as a means of self-enlightenment and ascension.
Paladins after all are called.
Doesn't say that -- they can be, but they don't have to be. The fluff doesn't even mention a "calling" just that these people are called paladins and they do "x" stuff.
Also we do have fluff in galorian that does lend creedence to the thought that the alignments exist independent of the gods. The fact that godless souls still go to certain planes would be one example. The fact that paladins in galorian can be godless and still be paladins would be another. Asmodeus found Hell -- he didn't make it, and according to the book for him and the other Devils most the other realms existed "in the beginning" -- if fact the great seal was there even before the souls started coming from it and there is stuff "beyond the seal (reality)" too that occasionally comes to visit. All this suggests there are things out there bigger than the gods and that everything goes on even if the gods aren't there -- in fact consider the case of Zon-Kuthon who was accosted by these other things when he went too far out and abroad (something Desna is known to do as well), it could very well be the gods are actually worshipping a "super god" out there beyond the knowledge of the galorian reality.
Paladin's don't wake up and on a whim go "Humm think I'll be a paladin" just like clerics do not do that. Something grants them that power, god or faith..that is a calling they simply can not ignore.
|
|
To me it really depends on the setting as the stuff we are now talking about would be very setting dependent and would effect other classes and the world as a whole, not just paladins
Often I think folks don't think how things like theses effect the world as a whole and not just a single pc. Stuff like this change the world and how things work and inter act.
I agree. For Pathfinder, I could make the argument, but there are holes. For Ravenloft, the alignment as power is set in stone required. For Dragonlance, LG is the epitome of Good and CE is the epitome of Evil. It is very setting dependent. And it does affect more than one class.
Paladin's don't wake up and on a whim go "Humm think I'll be a paladin" just like clerics do not do that. Something grants them that power, god or faith..that is a calling they simply can not ignore.
You used faith -- which could mean not a god? (I'm inquiring about a godless paladin not nessecarily an evil or chaos worshiping one)
The fact that Law and Good are tangible forces in pathfinder means that these forces alone could empower paladins -- much like some dead spontaneously become undead from the powers of the plane of negative energy (possibly not even directed by evil -- just spontaneous undead). Paladins could simply be paladins because they are lawful and good enough that the power comes to them regardless of their opinion in the matter.
Not arguing for "non LG" paladins here -- just suggesting that it could be a case almost like a sorcerer -- they didn't ask for the power but that because of their LG status the power chose them.
I agree this could be a calling but that doesn't mean that it wasn't "hm... think I'll be a paladin" when they accept it on the whim of the moment. I would suggest such paladins are "chosen" rather than "called" -- they are commanded to serve and do so without answering the call simply because that is what they do.
(I have the feeling I'm not explaining the difference well)
|
|
I would suggest such paladins are "chosen" rather than "called" -- they are commanded to serve and do so without answering the call simply because that is what they do.
(I have the feeling I'm not explaining the difference well)
Called, chosen, potato, potahto. We use the term called in church to describe ordained ministers. It covers 1)called by God through abstraction or direct and 2) answering a call of people for a minister. (1) Could very well be called and think it's their own choice, when it's not. One can also suppress it, though for how long is uncertain. There are also those who try, but are not called. They don't make it.
Yes I used faith, I do not support that view but it does not matter for the calling. A paladin no matter the source is called, he thinks he has a calling. You do not gain the powers of a paladin off a whim, it takes real dedication.
So yes, I would say they are all called or chosen, its the same thing. Something grants them that power and watches to make sure they use it correctly and do not abuse it.
Be it angles , gods or what have ya, something watches them or they could not fall.
As to what they depends on the setting and the GM really. In Golarion they could be like oracles and just drawl them from all the gods that have paladins or maybe some other force of good grants them power as they find them worthy of that power {Like maybe the Emypreal lords}
Now as for Golarion as it stands paladins do not need a god, this may or may not change. But I still think something sponsors those paladins as they can fall so faith alone does not power them.
Called, chosen, potato, potahto. We use the term called in church to describe ordained ministers. It covers 1)called by God through abstraction or direct and 2) answering a call of people for a minister. (1) Could very well be called and think it's their own choice, when it's not. One can also suppress it, though for how long is uncertain. There are also those who try, but are not called. They don't make it.
This is indeed how I was using the term, I grew up with a family full of preachers and was using the term just as you said it there.
*me looks at Karui Kage and markofbane. Well done Karui Kage, you have defeated an encounter and levelled up. Make good use of the feat and skill points that come available - for you still have to defeat the end-boss seekerofshadowlight!
I did concede Karui's point that the core rules do not specific that a paladin has to worship a god within a step of alignment. However, there are still several points of discussion in this thread that I do disagree on. But I appreciate Karui, Seeker and everyone keeping the discussion civil.
Well, seeker is a jerk and I'm an arse, but we don't hold it against each other. :)
Be that as it may (and I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you... :) ), I have seen some threads, especially around edition conversations, get utterly nasty. And I love being able to have conversations like this without it escalating into ugliness.
|
No matter how wrong I think someone is, I always try to keep that 'maybe I'm wrong' in the back of my mind. Otherwise, there's no reason to keep discussing the topic, because I'm not changing my mind. How can I expect them to be willing if I'm not?
Of course, I'm incredibly stubborn, so even when I know I'm wrong it'll take some time before I'll admit it. :)
As for ugliness, I've alway felt it best to be the better man and continue arguing in good faith. Thus, those reading at home can see who is more reasonable. ;) Although now and then I can't help but jab a little barb at someone.
We try and stay civil and try and not to get snarky. Sometimes we fail at that, but we do try and keep the debate civil.
Of course, I'm incredibly stubborn, so even when I know I'm wrong it'll take some time before I'll admit it. :)
That's why Karui needed an Earthbreaker to get his point through my thick skull... :)
|
For the following, you MUST assume that a paladin gets their powers from being LG, not from their deity.This has nothing to do with a setting or this topic in general , but this has always bugged me. If a paladin gains his power from just his belief is what he is doing is just and right. Then how does one fall? As long as he thinks and has totally belief in he is doing the good and right thing how does he fall?
If there is no higher power to hold him into account , just how does one ever fall even if he bends or breaks his code as long as he thinks he is still just and right?
Which explains your point of view, you don't understand a rather silly concept (for what it's worth I actually agree that it doesn't make much sense) and so you try to put forth a much more rational explanation. Your more rational explanation makes much more sense, but isn't supported by the rules. Paladins powers do come from their being lawful good, the fact that they can fall for not behaving as such is kinda an abstraction, it doesn't make sense any more than HP makes sense.
Player 1 "HP damage doesn't mean you were actually hit, it's an abstraction."
Player 2 "then if it's not physical damage, how come a 20th level barbarian can swim in lava for a few rounds and survive, how do you abstract that?"
You're right, it doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean it isn't allowed and within the rules of the game, and that by using your rational explanation to deny a character that's allowable by the rules, you aren't in fact treating alignment as a straightjacket.
|
|
To me it really depends on the setting as the stuff we are now talking about would be very setting dependent and would effect other classes and the world as a whole, not just paladins
Often I think folks don't think how things like theses effect the world as a whole and not just a single pc. Stuff like this change the world and how things work and inter act.
In that case then you have to allow paladins of Asmodeus as the setting clearly states that it is allowed. The APs expand the setting and that is an official source for golarion content. So either you don't allow the setting to take precedence or you do, which is it?
Now as for Golarion as it stands paladins do not need a god, this may or may not change. But I still think something sponsors those paladins as they can fall so faith alone does not power them.
Again I would argue that even without a god it's not just "faith" that keeps the paladin with his powers -- its the "faith" conviction and fact that the universal standards of Law and Good (which are actual forces in their own rights in pathfinder) that gives him his power.
Basically I would suggest that it is in fact "Lawful Good" (as a proper name of these ideals) that gives the paladin his power, and when he no longer abides by the code then he loses the power that "Lawful Good" has given him.
Basically "Lawful Good" in this case would be treated as the sponsor itself (almost like an overdeity) instead of a god. Much like oracles are "chosen" by their mystery instead of a god or set of gods -- the thing itself empowers the oracle.
Actually yeah I like that -- paladins are basically martial oracles of "Lawful Good" -- that's how I think I would put it.
actually no that is not supported by the rules. The rules do say the powers of good and gods it does not say LG grants your powers. So by the rules some power and god grant you your powers
It is silent on what power of good grants this. So really what I put forth is covered by the rules while the idea that the concept of LG grants it is not
|
In that case then you have to allow paladins of Asmodeus as the setting clearly states that it is allowed. The APs expand the setting and that is an official source for golarion content. So either you don't allow the setting to take precedence or you do, which is it?
Often I think folks don't think how things like theses effect the world as a whole and not just a single pc. Stuff like this change the world and how things work and inter act.
And if said source is then pretty much announced as a mistake? (As noted before James said he would remove it if he could and I'm fairly certain that it wont ever be mentioned again.)
|
|
actually no that is not supported by the rules. The rules do say the powers of good and gods it does not say LG grants your powers. So by the rules some power and god grant you your powers
It is silent on what power of good grants this. So really what I put forth is covered by the rules while the idea that the concept of LG grants it is not
Okay I'll agree, only so much as I was thinking the LG is the powers of good.
That doesn't change the fact that you said the setting takes precedence and then completely ignored setting material.
|
|
And if said source is then pretty much announced as a mistake? (As noted before James said he would remove it if he could and I'm fairly certain that it wont ever be mentioned again.)
No he expressed his personal opinion, and said that if he had caught it he would have removed it, but that doesn't change that he didn't catch it, and it's in. He also expressed his opinion that it isn't a good idea, but never once refuted it or said that it isn't correct, or that it isn't an official source or rule.
|
|
I didn't say that
Well the only source in the setting that I know of that allows a Paladin of Asmodeus is the Asmodeus article in council of thieves and as mentioned James did say on another thread that if he were to redo the article he would remove the Paladin part. Unless of course we are talking about something else and I have misunderstood you?
I ignored a concept that brakes the rules and was declared a mistake. If you want to allow LE or any AL paladins fine. I will take it as a mistake as it has been called that now at lest 6 times and was stated that if spotted would have been removed
There for it is an editing mistake
|
|
I didn't say thatWell the only source in the setting that I know of that allows a Paladin of Asmodeus is the Asmodeus article in council of thieves and as mentioned James did say on another thread that if he were to redo the article he would remove the Paladin part.
Right and if I were president gay marraige would be mandatory for all citizens.
Saying "ifs" isn't the same as officially correcting or changing something.
|
|
I ignored a concept that brakes the rules and was declared a mistake. If you want to allow LE or any AL paladins fine. I will take it as a mistake as it has been called that now at lest 6 times and was stated that if spotted would have been removed
There for it is an editing mistake
Except if you read what he says it isn't "declared a mistake." He just expresses his opinion that it isn't a good idea. He could have officially refuted it (damn Sarah Palin, I keep wanting to use the word refudiate lol) but he didn't. He even said he's okay with it.