Paladin / Deity Rule Clarification


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I was reading the Core Rulebook and I found that Clerics must be one step within the alignment of their deity, but I couldn't find the same requirement for the Paladin. Which section did I miss, or is it in the errata?

-Perry


There is no such rule. There's actually a CG deity in Forgotten Realms that has paladins (Sune).


There is no rule stated, but all the gods that have paladins in golarion are one step. As a rule go one step and in FR Sune is the exception[and called out as such) and only because she is the goddess of marriage so life long strict oaths fit her

And the first person to bring up a LG paladin of an evil god again I swear I am hitting em with a Rat pie


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
There is no rule stated, but all the gods that have paladins in golarion are one step.

Please cite anything that says only those gods have paladins. We already know you can't, because you never could any of the other times I called you on this.


Zurai wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
There is no rule stated, but all the gods that have paladins in golarion are one step.
Please cite anything that says only those gods have paladins. We already know you can't, because you never could any of the other times I called you on this.

Gods of golarion lists each and every class , each god has in there clergy {including NPCclass)

They are the only Golarion gods that have then, all 1 step.

Edit:Don't start this again, it has been stated more then once 1 step is the general rule. You can do what ya want in your own games but in general it's one step. The OP asked, so I gave him the accepted guideline{That being paladin gods must be one step with rare exceptions)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're the one who started it. There is no general rule. You're inventing a rule from an incomplete example.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

YA may want to add that rule James this is the 5th or 6th time this has come up. And some folks wont except 1 step as it's not stated. Go fig


James Jacobs wrote:
There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

No paladins of Kurgess? No paladins of Ragathiel? No paladins of any of the other lesser deities? Are paladins exclusive to greater deities then?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the new Pathfinder rules of Paladins have made things abundantly clear. Paladins are diametrically opposed to CE, strongly aligned against CN and NE, and uncomfortable with both LE and CG equally. This is a change from previous editions which only seemed to focus on the good/evil axis.

The whole Sune thing should go without saying that the rule pertained to 3.5, and the "new Paladins" are a whole different cup of tea flavor-wise than the old Paladins.

Though I do have to agree, why wouldn't LG, NG, and LN lesser gods have the occasional Paladin?


MisterSlanky wrote:
uncomfortable with both LE and CG equally.

Not true. Paladins can freely associate and ally with chaotic entities. They can only ally with evil entities if battling a greater evil, and they must seek atonement periodically throughout the alliance.

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

This answers the question. A player who attempts to be a paladin of a deity not within one step of the alignment is going to waste a great deal of time and money on Atonement spells. Therefore, the text I should have been reading was the section for how a paladin can become an ex-paladin. Thank you for the clarification.

-Perry

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

By your reasoning, a True Neutral deity can be worshipped by paladins. That opens up interesting venues.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:
uncomfortable with both LE and CG equally.
Not true. Paladins can freely associate and ally with chaotic entities. They can only ally with evil entities if battling a greater evil, and they must seek atonement periodically throughout the alliance.

I would disagree. The new code of conduct for paladins states: "Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code." Emphasis mine.

You are correct, the rules state clearly that he can adventure with good and neutral allies, but I think that if a CG (or CN) individual continuously offends the lawful side of a Paladin's moral code, the Paladin SHOULD have just as much trouble as he does with the evil types. Yes it is a case-by-case basis, and no it's not called out like evil is, but I contend that a Paladin would be just as uncomfortable with Robin Hood (who steals to help others) as he would with The Sheriff (who is likely LE). That's not to say he wouldn't be more likely to cooperate with Robin Hood (at least temporarily), but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't turn him into the authorities when he was done.


MisterSlanky wrote:
That's not to say he wouldn't be more likely to cooperate with Robin Hood (at least temporarily), but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't turn him into the authorities when he was done.

Actually, I've seen a convincing argument that Robin of Loxley was a Paladin. Remember, the Paladin only has to respect legitimate authority, and Robin's legitimate authority was King Richard the Lionhearted, not Prince John or his illegally-appointed and illegally-operating minions. As such, it does not offend the paladin's code to take from the Prince's taxmen.

Sovereign Court

Zurai wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:
That's not to say he wouldn't be more likely to cooperate with Robin Hood (at least temporarily), but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't turn him into the authorities when he was done.
Actually, I've seen a convincing argument that Robin of Loxley was a Paladin. Remember, the Paladin only has to respect legitimate authority, and Robin's legitimate authority was King Richard the Lionhearted, not Prince John or his illegally-appointed and illegally-operating minions. As such, it does not offend the paladin's code to take from the Prince's taxmen.

Yeah... uhh... No. That's clearly the definition of CG.

If you can justify that Robin Hood was a paladin, or represents a paladin, you could say the same of Dirty Harry.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Yeah... uhh... No. That's clearly the definition of CG.

No, it isn't.

PRD wrote:
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Robin of Loxley believed in his King and did everything in his power to defeat the usurper to the throne of England. He very strongly believed in the laws and regulations of the land -- which is exactly why he opposed Prince John, who was breaking them. His moral compass was pretty tightly aligned with that of society, as shown by the fact that everyone but the lawbreakers (the Prince and his men) helped him.


Zurai wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Yeah... uhh... No. That's clearly the definition of CG.

No, it isn't.

PRD wrote:
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Robin of Loxley believed in his King and did everything in his power to defeat the usurper to the throne of England. He very strongly believed in the laws and regulations of the land -- which is exactly why he opposed Prince John, who was breaking them. His moral compass was pretty tightly aligned with that of society, as shown by the fact that everyone but the lawbreakers (the Prince and his men) helped him.

I'm with Zurai on this one. I'm honestly surprised by your assessment, but it makes perfect sense. Interestingly enough, Robin Hood is often touted as an example of CG.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Interestingly enough, Robin Hood is often touted as an example of CG.

Yep, which has always bugged me. He's not CG at all, IMO. NG I could see, LG is what I call him. Definitely not Chaotic.

It's worth noting that both 3.5 and Pathfinder have omitted that reference from the CG text. I can't remember whether 3.0 did or not. I know AD&D 2nd edition did have it.


Could you give me a good example of a Chaotic Good fellow then?


Conan from the movies would fall under CG

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Conan from the movies would fall under CG

Well for the first movie I would say CN at best since he is only doing what he does for A revenge and B because the king paid him


Xum wrote:
Could you give me a good example of a Chaotic Good fellow then?

I want to say Matrim Cauthon from Wheel of Time, but it's been so long since I've read through the books that I'm not positive of that diagnosis. He certainly fits the "random" aspect of Chaos, and he's not too big on authority, but I'm having a hard time remembering how he holds up to the social mores/obeying the law of the land aspect.

James Bond, possibly. He certainly intentionally breaks the rules if they're in the way of him bringing his target to justice, but I'm not sure he does it often enough to go from Neutral Good to Chaotic Good.


Conan is not a bad option, I don't see him as a Good guy overall though. But it's ok, good example.

I would go with Rorscharch, but Robin Hood ws a good example before, I think he works better as neutral considering Zurai's argument though.

The point I was trying to make is that Chaotic characters are underated most of the time, and I don't like that at all. There are fez examples and even fewer classes that require such a behavior, unlike Lawfull which is very much in vogue these days. (I know, venting a little)


Every one will hate this but....Drizt is a good example of CG


Son of a ... good person!!! (with all due respect) Good one! I liked it ;)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Every one will hate this but....Drizt is a good example of CG

Drizzt in Menzoberranzan, absolutely. Good example. No respect whatsoever for the established, legitimate authority or the social mores of his culture.

Once he breaks free of the Underdark, I'd probably start shifting him more to the Neutral or even Lawful end of the spectrum, but I havn't read the last few Drizzt books, and it's been a long time since I read Icewind Dale and so on, so I may be fuzzy there.

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

By your reasoning, a True Neutral deity can be worshipped by paladins. That opens up interesting venues.

You must be reading that wrong. Or misunderstanding. True Neutral would be two steps away. One on the Law / Chaos axis and another on the Good / Evil axis. As such a true neutral deity could not and would not have a Paladin. An occasional LN or perhaps NG Diety could sponsor a Paladin but this would not be as comoon as a LG Diety Sponsoring a Paladin or even entire Orders thereof.


The icewind dale trilogy he is CG as well, it was only after they had reclaimed the dwarf halls and wulfgar's "death" he started to shift a bit

Scarab Sages

Zurai wrote:


Actually, I've seen a convincing argument that Robin of Loxley was a Paladin. Remember, the Paladin only has to respect legitimate authority, and Robin's legitimate authority was King Richard the Lionhearted, not Prince John or his illegally-appointed and illegally-operating minions. As such, it does not offend the paladin's code to take from the Prince's taxmen.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing that argument.

Robin Hood, no matter the myth you choose to use as an example, doesn't strike me as someone who goes about solving problems lawfully. In the one you chose, that of him fighting Prince John's not so rightful rule of England, there were legitimate means to remove Prince John. He chose to use illegitimate means, even by the standards of the rightful ruler.

I understand that it's easy to identify with Robin Hood, and that most people don't consider themselves "chaotic". But in order to identify if a character (or person) is Chaotic you have to determine whether they're willing to violate a code or law for what they consider the greater good (or their own good if they're not-so-Good.) Under this condition I think Robin Hood, in almost any version of the myth, qualifies as Chaotic. He's generally portrayed as willing to break any law, and in some stories his own word as a gentleman, in order to remove Prince John (or whomever he's acting against) from power. That person lawfully deserves it in almost every myth, but that doesn't make Robin Hood's violation of the law Lawful.

Whether he's Good or not depends on the myth as well, but I'm happy to concede that he is almost always portrayed as being a good person.

As to whether or not he was a "Paladin", I'm not sure just being a crusader (which he is often, though not always, portrayed as) qualifies. But given the many myths surrounding Robin Hood, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of one claiming that he was a soldier for God. I just don't know of any off the top of my head. Though I'd love to know if anyone does know of an example.

Liberty's Edge

Crimson Jester wrote:
The black raven wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

By your reasoning, a True Neutral deity can be worshipped by paladins. That opens up interesting venues.
You must be reading that wrong. Or misunderstanding. True Neutral would be two steps away. One on the Law / Chaos axis and another on the Good / Evil axis. As such a true neutral deity could not and would not have a Paladin. An occasional LN or perhaps NG Diety could sponsor a Paladin but this would not be as comoon as a LG Diety Sponsoring a Paladin or even entire Orders thereof.

Bolded emphasis mine : James speaks of one step on any axis (L to N or G to N), not of one step in the first axis and one step in the second. If L to N is ok and G to N is ok, then LG to LN to TN is ok.

The one total step max is the rule for Clerics, but it is not what James wrote.

Liberty's Edge

Xum wrote:
Could you give me a good example of a Chaotic Good fellow then?

Han Solo

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
The black raven wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

There's no rule for this because there shouldn't NEED to be a rule.

Paladins MUST be lawful good.

In order to worship a deity, you need to follow that deity's teachings and philosophies and do things that would make that deity proud.

If you don't worship a lawful good deity, you are increasingly doing things to impress your deity that are at odds with being a paladin.

Once an axis of your alignment drifts more than one step away (law to chaos or good to evil), maintaining a paladin's code and following a deity's philosophy and teachings become pretty much impossible to maintain for long. And without long-term maintenance, that faith simply cannot hold the order together.

To be devout, you need to adhere closely to your deity's alignment. To be a paladin, you need to be lawful good. That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

On Golarion, the following deities in particular are established in game canon as having paladin orders: Erastil, Iomedae, Torage, Sarenrae, Abadar. I suspect that both Shelyn and Irori have a few paladins worshiping them as well, but they don't have as many as the other five. There are no paladins serving any of the other deities.

By your reasoning, a True Neutral deity can be worshipped by paladins. That opens up interesting venues.
You must be reading that wrong. Or misunderstanding. True Neutral would be two steps away. One on the Law / Chaos axis and another on the Good / Evil axis. As such a true neutral deity could not and would not have a Paladin. An occasional LN or perhaps NG Diety could sponsor a Paladin but this would not be as comoon as a LG Diety Sponsoring a Paladin or even entire Orders thereof.

Bolded emphasis mine : James speaks of one step on any axis (L to N or G to N), not of one step in the first axis and one step in the second. If L to N is ok and G to N is ok, then LG to LN to TN is ok.

The one total step max is the rule for...

We are still looking at two steps here not one.

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:
Xum wrote:
Could you give me a good example of a Chaotic Good fellow then?
Han Solo
wikipedia wrote:


Chaotic Good
Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific," "Rebel," or "Cynic" alignment. A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. They always intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganised and often out of alignment with the rest of society. They have no use for those who would try to push them around and tell them what to do.

While they do not have evil intentions, they often do bad things (even if they do not necessarily enjoy doing these things) to people who are, in their opinion, bad people if it benefits their goal of achieving a greater good. Most elves are Chaotic Good, as are some fey.

Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica, Malcolm Reynolds from Firefly, and Robin Hood are examples of Chaotic Good individuals. Eladrin are the outsider race representing Chaotic Good.

Although Iconically given Chaotic Good, I like the interpretation of him being Lawful Good.


The black raven wrote:


Bolded emphasis mine : James speaks of one step on any axis (L to N or G to N), not of one step in the first axis and one step in the second. If L to N is ok and G to N is ok, then LG to LN to TN is ok.

The one total step max is the rule for Clerics, but it is not what James wrote.

Thats 2 steps

Paladin is LG and must be LG
LG to NG =1step
NG to N=1step
Total 2 steps
1step in the Law/chaos side and 1 step on the Good/evil side for a total of 2 steps not 1

When you go 1 step it must be 1 step total, moving 1 step on both axis is 2 steps not one


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The black raven wrote:


Bolded emphasis mine : James speaks of one step on any axis (L to N or G to N), not of one step in the first axis and one step in the second. If L to N is ok and G to N is ok, then LG to LN to TN is ok.

The one total step max is the rule for Clerics, but it is not what James wrote.

Thats 2 steps

Paladin is LG and must be LG
LG to NG =1step
NG to N=1step
Total 2 steps
1step in the Law/chaos side and 1 step on the Good/evil side for a total of 2 steps not 1

When you go 1 step it must be 1 step total, moving 1 step on both axis is 2 steps not one

Yep, that's the way I've always had it explained. And the way it makes sense from both a RAW and RAI. It always talks about two axis, and how you have steps along both axis.


So buy this The God needs to be a greater god of Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral Alignmentg

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Pathfinder Adventure Path #29 Mother Of Flies has an article about Asmodeous. There is a section about a Paladin serving him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Crimson Jester wrote:
We are still looking at two steps here not one.

Two steps on two different axis. James said two steps on the same axis would make it difficult to adhere to the gods tenants. Thus, if you only go one step on each instead of two on one, the tenants are not so far removed that you can't follow them successfully. What raven is saying is that it works because there is no rule that a paladin must be within one step of his god. Only that he must be LG.

Dark Archive

Chris Ballard wrote:
Pathfinder Adventure Path #29 Mother Of Flies has an article about Asmodeous. There is a section about a Paladin serving him.

Arent the antipaladins going to be in the new advanced players guide?


Joey Virtue wrote:
So buy this The God needs to be a greater god of Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral Alignmentg

Nevermind Its any good and Lawful Neutral, but I think the Chaotic Good Gods will be hard but doable


aptinuviel wrote:
Zurai wrote:


Actually, I've seen a convincing argument that Robin of Loxley was a Paladin. Remember, the Paladin only has to respect legitimate authority, and Robin's legitimate authority was King Richard the Lionhearted, not Prince John or his illegally-appointed and illegally-operating minions. As such, it does not offend the paladin's code to take from the Prince's taxmen.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing that argument.

The problem with your arguement is it breaks down once Zurai added the word legitimate (actually he didn't add it -- it was there to begin with). Prince John didn't have the legitimate authority to do any of the things he was doing. Robin of Loxley however as a nobleman did have a legitimate legal responsibility to stop Prince John in the name of the real king (Richard the Lion Hearted -- who iccidently didn't speak English, and was rarely if ever actually in England). To do his duty to the legitimate authority of the actual king Robin had to defy the illegitimate rules imposed by Prince John. Since those that supported Prince John would be supporting and aiding an illegitimate ruler they too could be opposed as providing illegal aid to an usurper.

Please note that when King Richard returns in the stories of Robin Hood, Robin returns to his title and duties as a faithful member of King Richard's court, nary to cause problems again.

Sovereign Court

I always preferred the versions where he was a poor boy who ran away when his dog was going to be killed, then was tricked into shooting a deer; unwittingly becoming an outlaw at a young age and having to live in the greenwood.
Those versions tend to have no royalty in them, just the Sheriff and perhaps Guy of Gisbourne.
I also like the stories where he meets other legendary figures (Alan A'Dale, Pinner of Wakefield, etc.) and spends a lot of time interfering with corrupt monks and ignoble bishops as well as bothering the Sherrif's men.

To be honest, I don't think I've read many versions where Robin goes into Sherwood simply because Prince John is king and he wants to set up a guerrilla army to return the legitimate ruler. Robin is an outlaw who bands together with like-minded fellows to survive the attacks of the cruel sheriff. Once he becomes successful he tries to protect/support his community, not in an organised way with roadblocks and whatnot, but by occasionally robbing rich people (not necessarily the tax-collectors, just rich people in general) and giving some of the spoils to the nearest village.

Maybe Robin Hood on the silver screen is Lawful Good but all of the Robin Hood films are pretty appalling so I'm not going to treat them as worthwhile sources. They're clearly not interested in the myth/legend anyway.

When I was a schoolboy I was taught that Robin Hood's first stories made him a commoner and that it was only later stories that made him an aristocrat fighting kings - this was portrayed as storytellers moving their hero up in the world to satisfy a noble (wealthy) clientele.

Robin was a yeoman outlaw who struggled to survive against pernicious laws, he was charming and erratic, he helped others when the opportunity presented itself and had a whimsical edge.

The lawful Robin Hood is a product of later traditions. Probably a great example of a character being institutionalised by structures of authority.

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:
aptinuviel wrote:
Zurai wrote:


Actually, I've seen a convincing argument that Robin of Loxley was a Paladin. Remember, the Paladin only has to respect legitimate authority, and Robin's legitimate authority was King Richard the Lionhearted, not Prince John or his illegally-appointed and illegally-operating minions. As such, it does not offend the paladin's code to take from the Prince's taxmen.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing that argument.

The problem with your argument is it breaks down once Zurai added the word legitimate (actually he didn't add it -- it was there to begin with). Prince John didn't have the legitimate authority to do any of the things he was doing. Robin of Loxley however as a nobleman did have a legitimate legal responsibility to stop Prince John in the name of the real king (Richard the Lion Hearted -- who incidently didn't speak English, and was rarely if ever actually in England). To do his duty to the legitimate authority of the actual king Robin had to defy the illegitimate rules imposed by Prince John. Since those that supported Prince John would be supporting and aiding an illegitimate ruler they too could be opposed as providing illegal aid to an usurper.

Please note that when King Richard returns in the stories of Robin Hood, Robin returns to his title and duties as a faithful member of King Richard's court, nary to cause problems again.

Please note, in the early stories Robin operated during the reign of a King Edward and had little or no interaction with any kings.

edit: This is probably a good example of a retelling of Robin Hood that is truer to early sources, with King Richard just popping up at the end as an extra character.


Keep in mind also that the Robin Hood that serves King Richard might not do so out of a sense of duty but out of individual loyalty. A chaotic person can serve someone they believe in, and the legitimacy of that persons right to rule wouldn't factor in one way or the other once they made the personal choice to follow.

I usually look at the person's methods as to how they go about accomplishing their goals. Good and evil are easy, but did they follow the rules, bend them, or break them to do so?

I would put the current popular version of Robin Hood as neutral good because he does respect legitimate authority, but he isn't afraid to do what he as to (which means breaking even King Richard's laws) to do the most good. He does lean to the chaotic just a bit in his methods, though.


Also, a good example of CG would be Wolverine from the films. He does things his own way (often being unreliable because he doesn't work within the confines of the team), forms loyalties based solely on his own feelings, chafes when forced to work with people that follow all the rules (the LG Cyclops for example), but he is compassionate, and altruistic, placing himself in personal danger to protect others, even those he has no personal connection to.


Zurai wrote:
There is no such rule. There's actually a CG deity in Forgotten Realms that has paladins (Sune).

Which was a big deal because it was an exception.

The Forgotten Realms are a bad example, anyway, because there, you can't have godless paladins or druids oranges (uh, I mean, "or rangers"), which is not the standard.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Soliloquies wrote:
Chris Ballard wrote:
Pathfinder Adventure Path #29 Mother Of Flies has an article about Asmodeous. There is a section about a Paladin serving him.
Arent the antipaladins going to be in the new advanced players guide?

There will be anitpaladins. Part of this article was about a LG paladin serving Asmodeous. Don't really want to spoil anything for those who haven't read it yet.


It's a safe bet the one step rule for paladins will most likely be in the new setting book. James has said a few times none was included because no one thought they had to be, it's clear you can't go to far from your god and still worship that god.

As for the LG paladin serving Asmodeous articles, I think of that as being a mistake. After all it's silly you can't be a paladin of a CG god, yet they kinda oked an evil god, damned silly. I just fail to see how any LG person can have enough faith and be devot to an evil god to gain power and stay LG.

If they could then you should have LG clerics of LE gods as well.{Which makes as much sense if not more then LG paladins of an evil god}

1 to 50 of 416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Paladin / Deity Rule Clarification All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.