By helping the evil god to spread his faith, yes you have broken your code. To me it is a clear violation of the code. You can say it 30 ways it always comes back to the same fact.
Paladins are not LN, they are not all about the law.They are Lawful Good and helping spread an evil faith works against the every thing they stand for, and brakes the code.
Your talking about LN or LE paladins, not lawful good. As Law and order seem to be more important then good and right.
Haven't we smurfed this smurf before we smurfed it??
papa smurf always says.....
oh smurf up
Haven't we smurfed this smurf before we smurfed it??
papa smurf always says.....
oh smurf up
:)
My response to 'Smurf Up' is usually...
Smurf you! And the Smurf you rode in on! And the Smurf that put the shoes on the Smurf you rode in on! And the Smurf that smurfed that smurf's dinner!
:)
What the smurf is this smurf?
The input of Species 392 is Irrelevant
Species 1337 is not recorded
Species designate TriOmegaZero will be designated Species 1337
|
I'm still a fan of the Holy Warrior class that Green Ronin made for the Book of the Righteous, which de-constructed the powers of the paladin, and created Holy Warrior domains that you'd plug in as appropriate for your deity.
I've actually been working thru their 3.5 update, and updating it further to PF for my home campaign.
To me a holy warrior of a god is a cleric, that is the role they already fill. A paladin is a step above a holy warrior.
A paladin is a bit more then just a holy warrior, as he is restricted not only by his god {in places he has them} but by his own code and alignment as well.
He is not just holy warrior of his faith, but a champion of good , honor and rightness as well
Yes, and no. He is not the standard holy warrior by any means as that is a cleric. He is more a holy champion of both his god and good then a holy warrior.
kinda like saying a sorcerer is just a spellcaster. The cleric is the holy warrior of his god, a paladin normally is also a holy warrior of his god on top of being a champion for good and honor and justice and such.
But no he is not a holy warrior, he is a paladin. That is not the same thing. You want to play a holy warrior of a faith, play the cleric.
|
But no he is not a holy warrior, he is a paladin.
I'll stop teasing you, but this line just makes me smile. And makes me think of this.
I never will understand the drawl of that site.
|
|
Main Entry: 1cham·pi·on
Pronunciation: \ˈcham-pē-ən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin campion-, campio, of West Germanic origin; akin to Old English cempa warrior
Date: 13th century
1 : warrior, fighter
2 : a militant advocate or defender <a champion of civil rights>
3 : one that does battle for another's rights or honor <God will raise me up a champion — Sir Walter Scott>
4 : a winner of first prize or first place in competition; also : one who shows marked superiority <a champion at selling>
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).
I was going by seeker's example, not by the rules since he believes that spreading an evil religion's belief in any form is an evil act. By that logic a good cleric who has an evil deity as a sponsor would become evil, and no longer be able to channel positive energy.
By helping the evil god to spread his faith, yes you have broken your code. To me it is a clear violation of the code. You can say it 30 ways it always comes back to the same fact.
Paladins are not LN, they are not all about the law.They are Lawful Good and helping spread an evil faith works against the every thing they stand for, and brakes the code.
Your talking about LN or LE paladins, not lawful good. As Law and order seem to be more important then good and right.
You still have yet to show me a concrete example of how it is an evil act which you said before IIRC, and even if those words were not used you still can't show me where it says belonging to an evil organization breaks the paladin codes. You might beleive it does not feel right, but nothing in the book supports it being wrong for a paladin to do so.
I did show you. You simply do not agree with it.
I did show you. You simply do not agree with it.
I saw words that you changed to fit your own meaning. I did not even see an implication. You still did not answer my cleric example. :)
Edit: I do not mean you changed the words. I am saying want the paladin to be a certain way and read between lines that are not there.
No I showed a few times. The code is far more strict then most faiths. It outright disallows helping evil in any way that could harm others and associating this those that offend the paladins moral code.
Helping the evil faith does harm others. You are spreading evil. And if your church's clergy and hell even the god do things that continuously offend your moral outlook and code. The you can not be apart of it.
I will not move on this. I am constantly amazed at you guys not being able to see a clear code violation here.
As I have said many times now, if ya want to allow it in your games, fine.
|
|
I did show you. You simply do not agree with it.
See, the problem is, all you've said is 'they're spreading an evil faith'. You've not shown how that breaks the code.
'Avoids working with people that offend his moral code' does not mean he can never associate with them. Hell, he doesn't even FALL because of that, it's just a guideline for roleplaying. The code and the associates part are completely separate entries.
And even if it did, it has to be proven in game. You are refusing to even entertain the possibility that the character can be a part of a LN church of Asmodeus without a single Evil character for him to object to. You're not even allowing the character to make the choice of 'I am not associating with this person because he offends my moral code'. You're saying that because someone is employed at a BP station he's responsible for the oil spill. It doesn't mesh.
eh rule on it how ya like. To me it is a violation and I will rule it as such.
No I showed a few times. The code is far more strict then most faiths. It outright disallows helping evil in any way that could harm others and associating this those that offend the paladins moral code.
Helping the evil faith does harm others. You are spreading evil. And if your church's clergy and hell even the god do things that continuously offend your moral outlook and code. The you can not be apart of it.
I will not move on this. I am constantly amazed at you guys not being able to see a clear code violation here.
As I have said many times now, if ya want to allow it in your games, fine.
How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?
How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?He doesn't want to get into details, leave him alone.
Fine take his side <crosses arms and pouts>
|
|
Fine take his side <crosses arms and pouts>How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?He doesn't want to get into details, leave him alone.
:P Please, I've given him specific examples to refute and both times he's told me that's how I rule it and he doesn't care. He's not going to budge, so stop wasting your time trying.
:P Please, I've given him specific examples to refute and both times he's told me that's how I rule it and he doesn't care. He's not going to budge, so stop wasting your time trying.Fine take his side <crosses arms and pouts>How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?He doesn't want to get into details, leave him alone.
sos is the proverbial immovable object. Even when Paizo tells him he's wrong, he says he doesn't care, he's right.
|
sos is the proverbial immovable object. Even when Paizo tells him he's wrong, he says he doesn't care, he's right.:P Please, I've given him specific examples to refute and both times he's told me that's how I rule it and he doesn't care. He's not going to budge, so stop wasting your time trying.Fine take his side <crosses arms and pouts>How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?He doesn't want to get into details, leave him alone.
Unless I am very much mistaken the only Paizo staff that has really said anything on the subject was James Jacobs and he said he couldn't see how someone could be a Paladin of either an evil or chaotic god without falling
Unless I am very much mistaken the only Paizo staff that has really said anything on the subject was James Jacobs and he said he couldn't see how someone could be a Paladin of either an evil or chaotic god without fallingsos is the proverbial immovable object. Even when Paizo tells him he's wrong, he says he doesn't care, he's right.:P Please, I've given him specific examples to refute and both times he's told me that's how I rule it and he doesn't care. He's not going to budge, so stop wasting your time trying.Fine take his side <crosses arms and pouts>How is giving money to the poor harming people if that is all I do?He doesn't want to get into details, leave him alone.
That is not all he said. He also said that even though he does not like Asmodeus having a paladin he can accept it as a rule. Until the new book comes out that alone makes it possible by the rules, if it gets changed at all, unless it gets stated as the one exception to the rule. For now it is accepted.
No what he said was he was OK with folks not bringing it up and he would have never allowed it to see print if he had known it was in there. At lest that is how I read his response to a poster saying no one had brought it up yet.
And yes he has stated you could not worship a CG god without falling before. Using pretty much the same argument I used against it.
|
Wow, finally finished all 8 pages. Now my eyes are bleeding T_T
... you know what's strange though? I play a paladin of Sarenrae so I don't even have a side to this fight.
... why the hell did I just waste an hour O_O
Oh ... wait ... because I'm at work. Nevermind I'm good ^_^
Note: As a note, I'm not about to claim what is or isn't THE LAW since it's currently in the air, but I know I DO like Paladins staying within one step and I also like them having deities too. Then again the Golarion deities are friggen awesome and way better than any other setting I've come across (yes, I'm looking at you my old FR friend) so I don't know why someone wouldn't want to pick one up ^_^
No what he said was he was OK with folks not bringing it up and he would have never allowed it to see print if he had known it was in there. At lest that is how I read his response to a poster saying no one had brought it up yet.
And yes he has stated you could not worship a CG god without falling before. Using pretty much the same argument I used against it.
Happens all the time in society play... and society play is the official Golarion venue. You're still arguing for your OPINION and not the settign rules.
Unless I am very much mistaken the only Paizo staff that has really said anything on the subject was James Jacobs and he said he couldn't see how someone could be a Paladin of either an evil or chaotic god without falling
I didn't say that I was talking about this specific subject.
Wow. I look away for a day and *poof*, another hundred posts.
I get what SOSL was saying earlier about Paladins and holy warriors though. A paladin is a subset of holy warrior, differentiated because they are held to a higher standard. A cleric has to follow certain rules and tenants of their deity (or ideal). A paladin has that same standard plus their own code as detailed in the class description.
Happens all the time in society play... and society play is the official Golarion venue. You're still arguing for your OPINION and not the settign rules.
Anytime a GM rules you broke your code that is what it is. Same thing when the GM rules you have no chance of seeing the goblin ambush or your clerics actions offend his god or you offended the king by calling him "King puffy pants".
The rules are guide lines and you use someone to interpret them and make a call on what is or is not in line with the rules.
If a paladin slays every man , woman and child that pings evil is he braking his code? Someone has to make a ruling. You always all back onto the GM making a call. Some times it's a good call, sometimes it's a bad call. But if you do not like the call then you can , get over it, leave or man up and run your own game.
I get what SOSL was saying earlier about Paladins and holy warriors though. A paladin is a subset of holy warrior, differentiated because they are held to a higher standard. A cleric has to follow certain rules and tenants of their deity (or ideal). A paladin has that same standard plus their own code as detailed in the class description.
This is indeed what I was getting at.
Just as ranger and fighters are just warroirs and sorcerers are just spellcasters yeah.
I removed a post and a reply to it. Blatant trolling and flamebait doesn't become less so just because you label it as such.
Did I use the word 'just'? If I did, I apologize. *goes to look* Cause I totally can accept things having more than one classification.
Sure ya can call em holy warroirs, but they are not the standard type as they are beholden to more then just the god/idea/oak tree/dancing monkey they worship.
Alot of folks when ya say "Yeah they are holy warroirs" then try and twist it to go.."see being LG only does not fit! why can't every god have holy warroirs?" But really they are a very strict sub set of holy warroirs and not the run of the mill standard type, which all gods do indeed have.
Anytime a GM rules you broke your code that is what it is.....Happens all the time in society play... and society play is the official Golarion venue. You're still arguing for your OPINION and not the settign rules.
Wrong, a GM ruling something does not mean it happened. It only means he ruled it that way. That is like saying just because someone is found guilty of a crime they are actually guilty. I am sure if you google the internet there are several cases that don't agree.
Incorrect. It did indeed happen. You may disagree, but you did something the GM thinks stepped over the line. This is not a court of law.
Most Gm's will and should say "If you do so and so I think that is a violation or break of your code/AL/ gods teachings etc." But in the End the GM must make a call. He is the one running the game.
This is no different them him ruling a cleric pissed off his god by doing something or that you got ambushed or ya pissed off someone with a comment. You may disagree but it is the GM's place to run the game and if his final ruling is that would break your code, then that is what it is.
I need to stop reading this thread. It hurts.
+1
I removed a post and a reply to it. Blatant trolling and flamebait doesn't become less so just because you label it as such.
So it's ok for smurfs to smurf and for facepalmers to facepalm but it's not ok for a troll to troll?
Grumbles about posts moving and leaves a crate of 'Holy avengers" on his way out