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.
I disagree he said he was ok with it never being brought back up and he would have removed it as he did not agree with it.
So yes editing mistake. As Non LG paladins are still not allowed and this change allow them
|
So to recap, paladins do not explicitly need gods nor do the gods they worship explicitly have to be within one step of LG. There are wordings that imply otherwise, and certain extremes would be hard to maintain. Expect the reprinting of the campaign setting to clarify this issue better as long as no one slips something past James again.
|
As Non LG paladins are still not allowed and this change allow them
Except no it didn't and doesn't as it did not say you could have non-lawful good paladins, and implies that the paladins that work for asmodeus are paragons of law, and are constantly under temptation and usually don't last very long, implying that they do eventual fall as the burdens of being a paladin of asmodeus usually force them into a situation where they have to choose between law and good. It's a shame that you're commenting on something you apparently haven't read.
So to recap, paladins do not explicitly need gods nor do the gods they worship explicitly have to be within one step of LG. There are wordings that imply otherwise, and certain extremes would be hard to maintain. Expect the reprinting of the campaign setting to clarify this issue better as long as no one slips something past James again.
This is more or less how it stands yes.
Okay, so JB said the LG Pallies following Asmodeus not something he's a fan of. I'm still trying to figure out how to have Paladins in a Dark Sun campaign get powers from Arcane and Chaotic/Evil sources.
There are no paladins in Darksuns
|
|
So to recap, paladins do not explicitly need gods nor do the gods they worship explicitly have to be within one step of LG. There are wordings that imply otherwise, and certain extremes would be hard to maintain. Expect the reprinting of the campaign setting to clarify this issue better as long as no one slips something past James again.Two different issues, and I still contend that a paladin must worship a specific god.
I have already covered your complaint. The paladin explicitly does not need to have a god and implicitly does need to have a god.
|
|
LOL. Exactly.
So, a paladin needs to worship a god.
I don't follow implied instructions.
Also.
Some paladins serve Abadar, Irori, or Shelyn, but paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common.
Paladins do not have to serve a god. A DM could rule that those who don't also do not receive the two mentioned abilities. But those abilities do not definitively state paladins must worship a god.
It comes down to the setting and How the Gm interprets both the written and implied rules
Restatement of something already covered.
Again a god could claim a paladin without the paladin ever claiming the god.
And I am playing as written. I see a violation of the written code and ruled on it. If you do not see that violation then fine. You can rule however you like in games you run.He's not ruling anything otherwise, you are. He's playing by the written word of the game.
Unless you can say specifically how the paladin is committing an evil act you are houseruling. I don't have to push Asmodeus's evil agendas to support him. You are assuming that just by supporting him I am spreading evil.
Unless you can say specifically how the paladin is committing an evil act you are houseruling. I don't have to push Asmodeus's evil agendas to support him. You are assuming that just by supporting him I am spreading evil.And I am playing as written. I see a violation of the written code and ruled on it. If you do not see that violation then fine. You can rule however you like in games you run.He's not ruling anything otherwise, you are. He's playing by the written word of the game.
Supporting and helping an evil god does violate it as written as you are helping to support and spread evil something the code says they may not do , which is use the paladins help for evil ends. By supporting and helping spread the faith he is allowing himself and his deeds be used for evil ends.
Supporting and helping an evil god does violate it as written as you are helping to support and spread evil something the code says they may not do , which is use the paladins help for evil ends. By supporting and helping spread the faith he is allowing himself and his deeds be used for evil ends.Unless you can say specifically how the paladin is committing an evil act you are houseruling. I don't have to push Asmodeus's evil agendas to support him. You are assuming that just by supporting him I am spreading evil.And I am playing as written. I see a violation of the written code and ruled on it. If you do not see that violation then fine. You can rule however you like in games you run.He's not ruling anything otherwise, you are. He's playing by the written word of the game.
If the pally is only teaching he lawful parts how is he spreading evil. In order to learn the evil parts of the religion the person would need to go to another source. That is not the paladin's fault. It could also be argues that by the paladin being so focused on the lawful part he is drawing attention away from the evil part of the teachings.
I disagree, your spreading lies and false truths or at the lest half truths about evil. You are helping evil to spread. Spin it how you like to me this clearly violates a paladins code.
The code just calls for helping evil, this is clearly helping evil. He is helping the spread of lies that do harm people and helping the spread of an evil faith.
As I said, if ya do not see it as a break in the code, cool. I however do see a clear breaking of the code here.
|
|
The code just calls for helping evil, this is clearly helping evil. He is helping the spread of lies that do harm people and helping the spread of an evil faith.
And yet this is entirely subjective. What is he doing that is a lie?
"The rule of the strong will bring about an orderly society, one that will be solid and unbreakable if all follow the rightful rulers."
There is nothing evil or false about this statement. Very lawful, but not evil.
Suppose one of the people listens, and believes. Then he moves up the ranks and begins oppressing the people beneath them, with harsh laws meant to worsen their lot.
You would make the paladin fall for this? Because one man chose to turn to evil, it is the paladins fault?
Do you believe all Republicans are responsible for the Iraq War because they are in the same political party as Bush?
In my example, the only way I could see the paladin falling is if he knows/finds out about the wayward official and does not bring him to justice.
I fail to see how you do not see it as a clear violation. He is spreading evil, hell he is working in evils name. I just do not get how y'all don't see that, and most likely you don't get how I see it as such.
As you said it is subjective , which is way ya always see where your GM stands on these things. This is why I think they need to fix this silly loophole. I do not think they will, but they should.
Unless you can say specifically how the paladin is committing an evil act you are houseruling. I don't have to push Asmodeus's evil agendas to support him. You are assuming that just by supporting him I am spreading evil.
If a DM were to permit a player to play a paladin of Asmodeus, this is exactly the point of view the paladin would have and is exactly the type of thinking that Asmodeus would encourage.
Of course by the end of the campaign, or maybe post-campaign, a good/clever DM would have Asmodeus arrange for his loyal paladin to see the results of his "good" actions - how Asmodeus's evil schemes were advanced by the paladin, how all the evils defeated by the paladin just opened the door for greater evils, how all the paladin's kind deeds resulted in greater suffering, and how everything is the paladin's fault and Asmodeus couldn't have done it without him.
The paladin should end up completely broken and miserable for the rest of his mortal life... and after death, his soul belongs to Asmodeus.
The paladin should end up completely broken and miserable for the rest of his mortal life... and after death, his soul belongs to Asmodeus.
He belongs to him anyhow if he worships him, I fail to see how such a paladin could fall, he is far more useful as a LE paladin then a fallen LG one. After all if evil can sponsor a LG one he can do the same with a LE one.
|
And yet this is entirely subjective. What is he doing that is a lie?"The rule of the strong will bring about an orderly society, one that will be solid and unbreakable if all follow the rightful rulers."
There is nothing evil or false about this statement. Very lawful, but not evil.
Suppose one of the people listens, and believes. Then he moves up the ranks and begins oppressing the people beneath them, with harsh laws meant to worsen their lot.
You would make the paladin fall for this? Because one man chose to turn to evil, it is the paladins fault?
Do you believe all Republicans are responsible for the Iraq War because they are in the same political party as Bush?
In my example, the only way I could see the paladin falling is if he knows/finds out about the wayward official and does not bring him to justice.
I believe the problem is that Asmodeus is as much evil as he is Lawfull you cant simply turn of one aspect of his existence so by helping one aspect (Lawfull) you are also helping another aspect (Evil)
As per the code
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Also
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil
A large part of Asmoduses Dogma I would say is something that falls under offending the paladins Moral code. Now temporarily siding with asmodeus to deal with a threat of something like Rovagug then fair enough but being a supporter of the god at all times is where it goes to far.
As a note: The "consistently offends her moral code" is also why gods more then one step would be out.
|
|
All I am saying is that the paladins actions should determine if he falls. Not other peoples actions. If he performs evil acts, he falls. If other people perform evil acts, even if they take their inspiration from the paladin, he should not.
Mandor, that is exactly what I would expect. It would be an excellent story, one that would be done a disservice by saying 'no you can't play that'.
And yes seeker, I agree it should be clarified and laid out explicitly in the next printing.
I fail to see how such a paladin could fall
By commiting an evil act. By ceasing to be LG. The god is not the only thing governing the paladins power.
Except he is helping evil by his actions, every day. Which breaks his code.
And no if evil can grant his power then evil can grant it to any AL. As the powers of good are clearly not granting him his power to help spread an evil faith.
Sadly I do not think it will be making it to clear TOZ. Paizo seems to know just what they want in the setting and where it should go, but often they try to make every happy and just imply things instead of just coming out right and saying it.
I hope they do but we'll see.
He belongs to him anyhow if he worships him, I fail to see how such a paladin could fall, he is far more useful as a LE paladin then a fallen LG one. After all if evil can sponsor a LG one he can do the same with a LE one.The paladin should end up completely broken and miserable for the rest of his mortal life... and after death, his soul belongs to Asmodeus.
LE minions are a dime a dozen. It's easy to find useful. Remember, evil is a growth industry - they're always hiring! (OotS) But allowing a paladin to completely delude himself then ultimately reducing him to utter despair - priceless!
Minions are a dime a dozen, your own paladin is not. So to me it's someone trying to play a non-LG paladin as it violates the LG paladins code.
|
|
Except he is helping evil by his actions, every day. Which breaks his code.
Again, this has to be proven. Am I responsible for the governments actions just because I'm a citizen?
And no if evil can grant his power then evil can grant it to any AL. As the powers of good are clearly not granting him his power to help spread an evil faith.
Again, the god is not the only source of a paladins power.
Sadly I do not think it will be making it to clear TOZ. Paizo seems to know just what they want in the setting and where it should go, but often they try to make every happy and just imply things instead of just coming out right and saying it.
I hope they do but we'll see.
I would hope the endless forum arguments would have convinced them by now. :)
Dude how many godless cleric threads popped up before they stepped up and said " Ok, no godless clerics " :)
The other stuff we'll have to disagree on as I think otherwise.
|
|
Dude how many godless cleric threads popped up before they stepped up and said " Ok, no godless clerics " :)
The other stuff we'll have to disagree on as I think otherwise.
We need to set up a forum campaign. You and me, locked in eternal flame wars until they break down and publish something airtight. :)
Except he is helping evil by his actions, every day. Which breaks his code.
And no if evil can grant his power then evil can grant it to any AL. As the powers of good are clearly not granting him his power to help spread an evil faith.
But if he doesn't know that his actions are helping evil, does it break his code?
It's probably completely against the cosmic rules for an evil deity to grant good powers. And no evil deity would ever consider breaking those rules, right? :)
The fun part of Asmodeus is he's insidious enough to trick a paladin into thinking his actions are for good and he's one of the few deities who would break the cosmic rules.
Minions are a dime a dozen, your own paladin is not. So to me it's someone trying to play a non-LG paladin as it violates the LG paladins code.
Paladins have to be LG. And what fun would it be for Asmodeus if his paladins weren't LG and followed the LG code? There'd be no point to it.
lol, ya know I would not mind to bad if I was over ruled as at lest for the setting it would have known limits.
For my own worlds I find godless paladins a joke really, much as I find godless clerics a joke. As most settings that have them do not think of the implications of having them and they just do not fit right. We we have covered most of the paladin godless loopholes in this thread. And some interesting worlds could be made to explore some of those options really.
But to me a world needs to make a call on how things like that work as it does have far reaching implications. To me Golarion has holes, great heaping holes in it. Clerics need gods, but where does a druids power come from? A rangers? A paladins? Oracles come from portfolios of all the gods who hold it so to me pinning those sources down and not the others makes your setting less believable and leaves holes.
Another issues is the core book seems like they were gonna say you needed a god, then just with with implying in place of coming out and saying it. Which made things worse.
Mandor I disagree, either 1 he is braking his code or 2 he is not using the written code and there for is not a LG paladin.
Also if evil or CG god sponsor a paladin why would he hold him to a code he does not support? So yeah non-LG paladins. As that is not within the rules then being sponsored by a god more then one step is outside of it as it also breaks the code.
And if a Good god or power is granting you your power why is it allowing you to work in the name of evil?
Dude, like, rangers and druids are totally natural people man. Like, in tune with the earth mother and stuff, totally far out. I don't know about them paladins, they just harsh on my vibe with their rules and stuff. Totally not cool man. </stoner>
Myself I explain druids and rangers as having a connection to the first world. Maybe not a god but maybe just a link to it. Or maybe something over there wants them to have power. I can see that with ease.
As I said loopholes bug me.
Mandor I disagree, either 1 he is braking his code or 2 he is not using the written code and there for is not a LG paladin.
Again, is a paladin breaking his code if 1. he doesn't know he's breaking his code and/or 2. all his LG actions ultimately result in the advancement of evil?
Also if evil or CG god sponsor a paladin why would he hold him to a code he does not support?
A CG god? No. Most evil gods? No. Asmodeus? Yes. Why? Because it's fun and because it's so diabolically evil.
Asmodeus no as it violates the code, in a few spots. But as I said, if you do not see it that way cool. To me it is a clear violation and I rule it as such.
I disagree, your spreading lies and false truths or at the lest half truths about evil. You are helping evil to spread. Spin it how you like to me this clearly violates a paladins code.
The problem Seeker is that you are assuming all of these things to be true. Read what I wrote. There are no lines to read between. Even an evil religion has parts that don't promote evil. Now what is your response to my previous post?
Unless you can say specifically how the paladin is committing an evil act you are houseruling. I don't have to push Asmodeus's evil agendas to support him. You are assuming that just by supporting him I am spreading evil.If a DM were to permit a player to play a paladin of Asmodeus, this is exactly the point of view the paladin would have and is exactly the type of thinking that Asmodeus would encourage.
Of course by the end of the campaign, or maybe post-campaign, a good/clever DM would have Asmodeus arrange for his loyal paladin to see the results of his "good" actions - how Asmodeus's evil schemes were advanced by the paladin, how all the evils defeated by the paladin just opened the door for greater evils, how all the paladin's kind deeds resulted in greater suffering, and how everything is the paladin's fault and Asmodeus couldn't have done it without him.
The paladin should end up completely broken and miserable for the rest of his mortal life... and after death, his soul belongs to Asmodeus.
You are assuming the paladins actions directly led to evil also. If you take my lawful teachings and use them for evil it is your fault not mine. Even good teachings can be used for evil if the person wants to twist the words enough.
He belongs to him anyhow if he worships him, I fail to see how such a paladin could fall, he is far more useful as a LE paladin then a fallen LG one. After all if evil can sponsor a LG one he can do the same with a LE one.The paladin should end up completely broken and miserable for the rest of his mortal life... and after death, his soul belongs to Asmodeus.
He probably could, but he wouldn't. He would have no use for him. The LE guy would commit evil acts, most likely, and have his powers taken away. Asmodeus could find a use for a paladin. He would probably prefer you do things that were good so attention is not drawn to the dark side of the religion.
As an aside, I do believe your ruling is perfectly valid, seeker. I only got into the argument because I didn't see either side as clearly correct. I'm glad we agree on that part.
Oh I agree which is the issue, when something can be ruled to very different ways and both be valid that is a problem.
I disagree, your spreading lies and false truths or at the lest half truths about evil. You are helping evil to spread. Spin it how you like to me this clearly violates a paladins code.The problem Seeker is that you are assuming all of these things to be true. Read what I wrote. There are no lines to read between. Even an evil religion has parts that don't promote evil. Now what is your response to my previous post?
The same as before. You broke your code. To me it is that simple. I told you how I feel you broke it and you do not agree. That is fine , but in any game I ran to me it is clear you broke your code. This is not a house rule, it is a ruling based on the written code. I am not saying you must agree with how I see it, but that is indeed how I see it.
The same as before. You broke your code. To me it is that simple. I told you how I feel you broke it and you do not agree. That is fine , but in any game I ran to me it is clear you broke your code. This is not a house rule, it is a ruling based on the written code. I am not saying you must agree with how I see it, but that is indeed how I see it.I disagree, your spreading lies and false truths or at the lest half truths about evil. You are helping evil to spread. Spin it how you like to me this clearly violates a paladins code.The problem Seeker is that you are assuming all of these things to be true. Read what I wrote. There are no lines to read between. Even an evil religion has parts that don't promote evil. Now what is your response to my previous post?
So we can stop the circle, it seems you are saying that even spreading the good/non-evil parts of an evil religion you are doing evil. Correct me if I am wrong.
If so that is our issue. I don't see it as an evil act. If I work for an evil organization that has a key point of donating to the poor(with honestly and legally gained money)and I only promote that concept while clearly being a member of the evil organization I don't think I am doing evil. You are not evil strictly because you belong to an evil organization. If that were the case good clerics could not worship evil deities, but by the book they can since they are allowed one step difference in alignment.
|
The same as before. You broke your code. To me it is that simple. I told you how I feel you broke it and you do not agree. That is fine , but in any game I ran to me it is clear you broke your code. This is not a house rule, it is a ruling based on the written code. I am not saying you must agree with how I see it, but that is indeed how I see it.I disagree, your spreading lies and false truths or at the lest half truths about evil. You are helping evil to spread. Spin it how you like to me this clearly violates a paladins code.The problem Seeker is that you are assuming all of these things to be true. Read what I wrote. There are no lines to read between. Even an evil religion has parts that don't promote evil. Now what is your response to my previous post?So we can stop the circle, it seems you are saying that even spreading the good/non-evil parts of an evil religion you are doing evil. Correct me if I am wrong.
If so that is our issue. I don't see it as an evil act. If I work for an evil organization that has a key point of donating to the poor(with honestly and legally gained money)and I only promote that concept while clearly being a member of the evil organization I don't think I am doing evil. You are not evil strictly because you belong to an evil organization. If that were the case good clerics could not worship evil deities, but by the book they can since they are allowed one step difference in alignment.
I agree with all of this... except the last bit. Good clerics *can't* worship evil deities. Evil is two steps away from Good, not one. Though to go along with your metaphor, I see Paladins/Fighters/etc. as the basic 'members' that can focus on one aspect or another, wheras Clerics need to support the majority of the aspects (though not necessarily all).