If I were running a game in which a paladin was working undercover in an evil society and he avoided saving a creature getting beaten, I would certainly NOT strip the paladin of his paladinhood. I would expect the player to roleplay some guilt and angst and torment, and would expect the player, once the undercover assignment were over, to seek out atonement (or even earlier) from an allied cleric. And if the end result of the undercover assignment results in a step forward for good (such as discovering where the MAIN bad guy is shacked up and what she's up to), then while the paladin had a long dark night of the soul during the assignment I would rule that it was for the greater good and, especially if the paladin came out the other side with atonements and a greater appreciation for society, would see the paladin as having grown better for the ordeal.
Had the paladin stepped forward to save the goblin, and in so doing done so wihtout blowing his cover, I would give the group extra XP points. If the paladin steps forward to save the goblin and in so doing blows his cover and gets the PCs either driven out of town or TPKed or otherwise prevented from finding the key info they were after... that'd be not really an EVIL act but it would certainly be a CHAOTIC act. This situation would likely result, in my game, in the paladin losing his paladinhood just as surely as if he'd stepped in to help torture the goblin.
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.
I am going to have to disagree. You seem at least to me to be equatating hero/knight with paladin.
Prehaps we just have different expectations. Doing the most good is not the same as doing justice.
Your point about whether saving the Goblin is a choatic act is not correct. you are saying it's chaotic because it hurt the mission, but the fact is the mission would be diametrically opposed to justice. It would be like an uncover officer watching another bad guy get tortured and let it go because of the mission.
Second that a paladin would enter a mission with the forthought that he would have watch people do evil for the greater good and then watch the evil be done and go anyway, and allowed to be able to atone for it, destroys everything that is just about the class, not to mention justice.
Second, it would seem to me that LG for the Paladin means that Justice is best attained your Order. I am not sure how deciding that an evil act going rectified being more important than a mission is chaotic? And second as Augustine said "an unjust law is no law at all" an order requiring that a paladin stand by and watch evil, would not be a Just order.
The one thing I know that every philosopher and moralist has ever agreed on about justice is that an unjust act can never said to be justified in the name of justice, because justice has value in of itslef. There is no such thing as a greater Justice.
Jack Bauer not a paladin, knight yes, paladin no. He does far too many unjust things.
If Paladins are bound by the cause of Justice, and only need be concerned with the greater good? why not just called them knights? and allow neutral good alignments.
|
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.
The problem with this is that in the world of 24 many of his 'lesser evils' are effective. In the really real world torture (for example) is a deeply unreliable technique.
If I were running a game in which a paladin was working undercover in an evil society and he avoided saving a creature getting beaten, I would certainly NOT strip the paladin of his paladinhood. I would expect the player to roleplay some guilt and angst and torment, and would expect the player, once the undercover assignment were over, to seek out atonement (or even earlier) from an allied cleric. And if the end result of the undercover assignment results in a step forward for good (such as discovering where the MAIN bad guy is shacked up and what she's up to), then while the paladin had a long dark night of the soul during the assignment I would rule that it was for the greater good and, especially if the paladin came out the other side with atonements and a greater appreciation for society, would see the paladin as having grown better for the ordeal.
Had the paladin stepped forward to save the goblin, and in so doing done so wihtout blowing his cover, I would give the group extra XP points. If the paladin steps forward to save the goblin and in so doing blows his cover and gets the PCs either driven out of town or TPKed or otherwise prevented from finding the key info they were after... that'd be not really an EVIL act but it would certainly be a CHAOTIC act. This situation would likely result, in my game, in the paladin losing his paladinhood just as surely as if he'd stepped in to help torture the goblin.
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.
I have to disagree. This sounds more like a knight concerned with the greater good, than a Paladin concerned with Justice.
First off saving the Goblin is not a chaotic act. To quote on of my favorite thinkers on law and justice. "an unjust law is no law at all". Any rule rule or order that would require a paladin to ignore an obviously evil act is not a valid law or rule of order. Note i didnt say a law he didnt like, or one that was iconveinient, or unfair, but an unjust one, an evil one.
2. The greater good and Justice are not same thing. You can't have a greater Justice. If thing requires commiting an injutice or an act of evil to do, it no matter how much aggragate good it creates can not be considered just.
3. I do not see how a paladin with forethought goes into a place he knows to be evil, and when willingly watches evil be perputated and can still remain a paladin.
4. Jack Baur is a knight not a paladin. Jack is concerned with doing the greatest amount of good, and not in justice.
5. The MEANS are the most important part of Justice, using bad ends can never result in justice. A most basic tenet of Justice is that ends may NEVER be justified by means.
I don't see the point of Paladins if they all have is a code and the greater good. A knight with a code and any good alighment can do the same.
Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.
Not quite a paladin, but the cleric of Sarenrae that I'm playing in Legacy of Fire recently returned from adventuring and requested an atonement.
I made a list of things that didn't "feel right" as a cleric of Sarenrae, such as my character being too concerned with wealth (i.e. I need to buy equipment) and with being violent and too unforgiving.
My GM and I actually had a really fun session of roleplaying, with the abbot chiding my character for some of the actions and feelings I had described. There were several points where my character was defensive, and it was fun to sort through what my cleric realized he might have been wrong about, and even where he still felt that the abbot was wrong.
It left me with a feeling that reminded me of the priest from John Carpenter's Vampires. He goes into the team being very straight laced and down on the team of hunters, and at the end, without really loosing the core of what he believes in, he's a lot more like the team he is a part of.
So I was left with the feeling that an adventuring cleric probably has a lot harder edge to them then a temple priest. Not that the temple priest is wrong, or that the adventurer can't err or do something wrong, but that in a way, its a blessing to not be "in the field" and have to make some of the choices that have to be made as an adventurer.
|
While I love Paizo and their invention of the Adventure Path, I've noticed a trend in almost all the Adventure Paths (even those from Dragon Magazine) published so far. From Cauldron to the Council of Thieves it seems like you have to do something evil to win. Or more likely make a deal with an evil entity to gain an advantage. This is seriously getting kind of repetitive.
Examples:
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Because.
Remember also that most temple priests would be Adepts...it's the Clerics who get out and kick evil where it hurts..then, when they retire from adventuring,become part of the heirarchy..at least that's how I see it
|
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.The problem with this is that in the world of 24 many of his 'lesser evils' are effective. In the really real world torture (for example) is a deeply unreliable technique.
Not completely.
A lot of stuff in several posts
I am getting the impression that you are more concerned with "Justice" than good. Which leads me to believe that all of your arguments are a very good fit for Hellknights, but much less for Paladins.
A lot of stuff in several postsI am getting the impression that you are more concerned with "Justice" than good. Which leads me to believe that all of your arguments are a very good fit for Hellknights, but much less for Paladins.
I'm pretty sure the decription of Paladin is the embodiment of Divine Justice. Thats a very High standard. That standerd is why pragmatism, ulitarianism, Humes and relativism were born, because it's damn hard to live up to the ideal of Justice.
If what james is saying is the correct interpration, then the wording should be change, because his paladin does not act in accordance to what theologians, moralists, philosophers agree are minimum attributes of divine justice.
Creative Director
|
And finally, in a move that I"m sure will rile things up here even more... I see Jack Bauer of "24" almost as a paladin. He's an intrinsically good and lawful man who's constantly put into impossible situations where he has to make choices for the lesser chaos or the lesser evil, but in the end he manages to save a LOT of people. Yet he's incredibly psychologically damaged and tormented and wracked with guilt and shame over what he's had to do... but I wouldn't take away his paladin powers. Perhaps being wracked with guilt and shame is part of what being a paladin is.The problem with this is that in the world of 24 many of his 'lesser evils' are effective. In the really real world torture (for example) is a deeply unreliable technique.
True. But we're not talking about the real world. We're talking about an RPG. So comparisons to a TV show like "24" are actually pretty usable.
|
Creative Director
|
If what james is saying is the correct interpration, then the wording should be change, because his paladin does not act in accordance to what theologians, moralists, philosophers agree are minimum attributes of divine justice.
Paladins have had their code written and rewritten countless times over the past 30-some years they've been part of the game. I'm pretty sure that rewriting them again won't solve the age-old argument over what they can and cannot do in a game. The only real solution is that each GM needs to make that decision for himself in his game, and he needs to communicate that with his players, and he needs to keep that in mind when he chooses adventures to run for his players.
For us at Paizo, we have to pick one way of interpreting what a paladin can and cannot do. I am relatively lenient when it comes to such interpretations because if it's too strict, then paladins become increasingly unplayable and unworkable in ANY adventure where not every other player is LG and/or a paladin.
The end result may indeed make our adventures a bit more tricky at times for paladins in some groups to navigate, but it's MUCH more disruptive and constrictive to make sure every adventure is "paladin-friendly" than it is to try to make the adventure usable by as wide a range of character types as possible.
Paladin excerpt from the Core:
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and lawbringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conf lict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.Could you let me know how you came to the conclusion that Paladins don't get their powers from a deity?
First off, the fact that they are divine does not mean that their powers come from a deity, look at the druid and ranger and heck even some clerics, they are all divinely powered yet do not all require a deity, ergo paladins by default of being divinely power are not forced to get their power from a deity.
Secondly, while certainly some paladins, even most, would worship and serve a deity (this goes into the respect for legitimate authority), there is nothing in the code, abilities, or details on falling that has anything to do with a deity. Compare the part about a paladin falling:
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, as appropriate.
With the cleric entry:
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
Notice how the paladin has nothing in there about how their deity feels, because the deity has no say on a paladin falling or not. Funny thing, deityless clerics are incapable of falling, because they have no code of conduct since they don't worship a god. ;)
Paladin Code of Conduct:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.How does the code conflict with infiltrating an evil city?
If the Paladin refuses to talk, or states something like "I'd rather kill you than do anything else right at the moment" to an evil inhabitant of that city (as this wouldn't be a lie, and could give the paladin a nice modifier on their intimidate check), that paladin wouldn't be lying.
It depends on how deeply that infilitration goes. What if the paladin is required to whip a disobediant slave? I would assume that if a paladin was acting as a drow, they would be expected to act ... you know ... as a drow. If he was acting in a way fundamentally different than a drow would act, he would blow his cover just as if he had declared his true self and attacked all the evil beings near by. And, I would imagine that some DMs (and game designers) would force him to fall just as well.
Also, I wonder if under normal situations if many DMs would allow similar types of "vague" conduct to happen.
I agree with those that have stated that the Paladin wouldn't be compelled by their code to attack every being that threatens or harms an innocent. That type of approach may be what caused the creation of "Lawful Stupid", well that along with cannot retreat.
As well, in such an evil city, would there be any innocents?
I would imagine that lots of slaves would be considered innocent, then again since they are mostly "evil" races (troglodyes, goblins, etc) then in PF, they like drow, might all be universally evil.
Of course I would say the measure of a paladin's actions are not related to whom he is interacting with, but how he is interacting. A typical paladin can't really say, "I'll be honorable towards people that are honorable, but if they are without honor, I will treat them as such."
First off, the fact that they are divine does not mean that their powers come from a deity, look at the druid and ranger and heck even some clerics, they are all divinely powered yet do not all require a deity, ergo paladins by default of being divinely power are not forced to get their power from a deity.
Could you please explain the meaning of the this phrase:
the virtuous deities they serve.If they serve a deity and they have divine power, would that not lead one to believe that their power is granted by their deity?
First off, the fact that they are divine does not mean that their powers come from a deity, look at the druid and ranger and heck even some clerics, they are all divinely powered yet do not all require a deity, ergo paladins by default of being divinely power are not forced to get their power from a deity.Could you please explain the meaning of the this phrase:
the virtuous deities they serve.If they serve a deity and they have divine power, would that not lead one to believe that their power is granted by their deity?
Answered already.
Secondly, while certainly some paladins, even most, would worship and serve a deity (this goes into the respect for legitimate authority), there is nothing in the code, abilities, or details on falling that has anything to do with a deity. Compare the part about a paladin falling:
...
EDIT: Also, certainly a paladin may believe that their powers do in fact come from a deity. The fact that this is not the case, would not necessarily effect the belief of the paladin. Also, since paladins tend to serve deities that act in accordance to the paladin's code already, and thus acting against the wishes of their deity would also usually acting against the code, it is understandable how there may be confusion. The question really comes in, when a deity that a paladin worships demands that the paladin do an action that would be in violation of the code. That is where the rubber meets the road.
|
Paladins have had their code written and rewritten countless times over the past 30-some years they've been part of the game. I'm pretty sure that rewriting them again won't solve the age-old argument over what they can and cannot do in a game. The only real solution is that each GM needs to make that decision for himself in his game, and he needs to communicate that with his players, and he needs to keep that in mind when he chooses adventures to run for his players.
Exactly my mind. Everyone has a special relationship with the paladin, he is the ideal/perfect champion. So he draw very much of what each person hold sacred as moral perfection or righteousness. Such deep emotional attachment call for immediate defense of ones ideals against offending arguments by others. That´s wy will be ever that debate about the paladin.
For us at Paizo, we have to pick one way of interpreting what a paladin can and cannot do. I am relatively lenient when it comes to such interpretations because if it's too strict, then paladins become increasingly unplayable and unworkable in ANY adventure where not every other player is LG and/or a paladin.
This is the only issue i am really concerned, playability. I guess people forgets we are supposed to have fun playing this game.
The end result may indeed make our adventures a bit more tricky at times for paladins in some groups to navigate, but it's MUCH more disruptive and constrictive to make sure every adventure is "paladin-friendly" than it is to try to make the adventure usable by as wide a range of character types as possible.
I am deeply grateful for that. But i wonder if even the anti-paladin will hold similar discussion about what a champion of evil can or can´t do (or even been sympathetic). The paragons of philosophies hold immense power of the imagination of each person, so if there were some room for words to prepare the reader to accept what others can consider their ideals also.
I am deeply grateful for that. But i wonder if even the anti-paladin will hold similar discussion about what a champion of evil can or can´t do (or even been sympathetic). The paragons of philosophies hold immense power of the imagination of each person, so if there were some room for words to prepare the reader to accept what others can consider...
The difficulty of the anti-paladin, will be giving her purpose. An anti paladin dedicated to destruction and chaos qua destuction and chaos will be unplayable, he will be the spree killer, his every action will be designed to cause chaos and destruction.
The problem with being the embodiment of divine injustice is that you will rebel against nature and order itself. Entropy would be the closest word i can think of.
You would need to create the anti-paladin, such that it were dedicated to injustice and evil but not destruction.
I think the class would need to be focus on destroying some specific virtue tied to law/good, without that kind of limit, you will have the opposite effect of the paladin. instead of being too constrained, the anti-paladin is given too much free reign and will devolve into a spree killing nightmare.
Oddly enough, the Paladin's code encourages them to punish those who harm innocents. Drow society harms innocents. If he were to walk among them, he'd encounter so many transgressions that his code would encourage him to punish, he'd fall just by ignoring them.
How do Paladin's ever get out of their own neighbourhoods if they "have" to punish all those who harm innocents?
What do they do with parents who spank or swat their children?What do they do when they see signs of spousal abuse?
How do they survive in order to grow more powerful if they are "compelled" to take on those that are more powerful then themselves?
I know that it is a slippery slop when you start talking about moral compromises, but applying Ivory Tower principles to the game real world setting leads to unhappy gaming for a lot of people (as well as adding fuel to the Lawful Stupid arguments)
Mentioned several points as to why she is unhappy with some of the APs.
AP discussion:Quite frankly, this entire module is a "Paladins better get out" module. You get to wear the skins of dead Drow, go down into the darklands, and then spend about two to four weeks "playing Drow." In order to get by in Drow society, you must do evil things. Either you torture the slaves at the behest of your masters, or they kill you. Pretty much plain and simple. A paladin that gets involved in this module pretty much says "Well, guys, I'm a glorified warrior for the better part of two or three levels now," or he leaves his teammates to go down there on their own, or he dies.Where does it state that you have to do evil things? Where does it state that you have to torture slaves?
The module even instructs DMs to "ease up on the alignment watch; keep in mind that what faces the world is a pretty catastrophic event... A paladin might not approve of working for someone who performs living sacrifices and worships demons, but in order to stop an even greater evil, a paladin sometimes has to bide his time... don't forget that atonement is a pretty handy spell for cleansing the soul. The elves sent the PCs into the Darklands; the least they'll be able to do in the next adventure is provide a few free castings if necessary." Of course, the same section also mentions "Offer the PCs any reward - you probably won't have to actually pay it since the PCs are unlikely to revisit the Mierani Forest..."It took me a while to find where those references came from. Please note that they did not come from the author of the module, but are located in the foreword. In the module itself, it does not mention Paladins or easing up on them and it does have a different set up/consequences for those that refuse to go on the mission.
So, they have to participate in live sacrifices and justify it for the "greater good" (something that Paladins should never justify their actions for) and then hope that they can convince some elves who didn't even task them with the quest and don't even believe them to cast Atonement on them, unless they want to sit through two complete modules as warriors with good will saves?Where does it state that they have to participate in live sacrifices? I have re-ready the adventure twice tonight and cannot find that anywhere. Yes, there are sacrifices and executions that happen in the adventure, but the players are not forced to attend the religious ceremonies that happen twice a week. I have a hard time seeing a "chaotic" society forcing people to attend worship.
Quite frankly, this is a problem with this adventure path. The beginning of CotCT has a really weird hook - Everyone gets together and decides to go kill someone who's done them wrong. Paladins, honestly, need not apply there, either. At least not from my reading of it. Which is funny, since a Paladin's the iconic on the cover of the module.I don't believe that the module states that you are forced to kill Lamm. You join up with the other PCs to hunt him down, but no where does it say that you are forced to kill him (yes, it is the most likely outcome in trying to apprehend him) and yes, a Paladin character would have to deal with possibility that even if they did capture Lamm and hand him over to the authorities, that Lamm may be able to pay a fine and be free again. So, could you point out where it states that the players have to kill Lamm?
The points that you raised, I cannot seem to find them in the adventures. Is it possible that you GM interpreted them differently than they were written or intended?
pres man, is there any reason why you are discarding the first part of the Paladin description?
And for the record, I do not believe that you addressed my question above, that is:
Could you please explain the meaning of the this phrase:
the virtuous deities they serve.
EDIT: Also, certainly a paladin may believe that their powers do in fact come from a deity.
It appears to me that you are stating that Paladins categorically do not receive their powers from Deities. Not that some Paladins do not receive their powers from Deities, but none at all. Is this the case?
I'm pretty sure the decription of Paladin is the embodiment of Divine Justice. Thats a very High standard. That standerd is why pragmatism, ulitarianism, Humes and relativism were born, because it's damn hard to live up to the ideal of Justice.
If what james is saying is the correct interpration, then the wording should be change, because his paladin does not act in accordance to what theologians, moralists, philosophers agree are minimum attributes of divine justice.
I will raise two points here.
1) We are talking about "Divine" justice, as in the justice that is at the will (and perhaps whim) of the deity. We are not talking about the "ideal" of Justice, as understood in the western world today.
2)The phrase in the Paladin description that mentions divine justice does not stop at that concept, it also includes other elements.
Knights, crusaders and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve
To me, that indicates that not only is divine justice not their only focus, but may not be the most important one, depending on the deity worshiped.
I'm pretty sure the decription of Paladin is the embodiment of Divine Justice. Thats a very High standard. That standerd is why pragmatism, ulitarianism, Humes and relativism were born, because it's damn hard to live up to the ideal of Justice.
If what james is saying is the correct interpration, then the wording should be change, because his paladin does not act in accordance to what theologians, moralists, philosophers agree are minimum attributes of divine justice.
I will raise two points here.
1) We are talking about "Divine" justice, as in the justice that is at the will (and perhaps whim) of the deity. We are not talking about the "ideal" of Justice, as understood in the western world today.
2)The phrase in the Paladin description that mentions divine justice does not stop at that concept, it also includes other elements.
Knights, crusaders and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serveTo me, that indicates that not only is divine justice not their only focus, but may not be the most important one, depending on the deity worshiped.
Divine Justice = Ideal Justice=Justice in it's most perfect form
i·de·al Spelled[ahy-dee-uhl, ahy-deel]
–noun
1.a conception of something in its perfection.
this has always been the case, whether it was a GOD like ZEUS who had many flaws, the Greeks still held that the Justice that flowed from him was perfect, The same with ODIN. I am not aware of any culture that did not believe that thier diety of Justice, delivered any thing but perfect/ideal Justice.
the difficulty has always been is can there be true/ideal Justice without reference to the divine or can it even exists at all. This is a major reason why the writing of aethists thinkers will be filled with pages on the nature of Justice.
|
I personally have always prefered the term priest to cleric. Perhaps it's a holdover from a previous edition (2nd, I think) but to me priest indicated a devotion to a particular god, and cleric refers to a devotion to a pantheon or concept. And I was never a big fan of the clerics. I still refer to them as preists...the term cleric just never appealed to me.
Since I'm ranting, I wish monk had a different name as well. 'Cos now, what the hell do a call religious guys who cloister themselves and wear burlap sacks, but do NOT learn kung-fu ?
pres man, is there any reason why you are discarding the first part of the Paladin description?
And for the record, I do not believe that you addressed my question above, that is:
Could you please explain the meaning of the this phrase:
the virtuous deities they serve.EDIT: Also, certainly a paladin may believe that their powers do in fact come from a deity.It appears to me that you are stating that Paladins categorically do not receive their powers from Deities. Not that some Paladins do not receive their powers from Deities, but none at all. Is this the case?
Why did I discard the fluff text that has absolutely no game mechanical effect on the class? And I did not discard it, I put it into context. Paladins will most often serve a deity that matches the paladin's code, this goes to the respect for legitimate authority part of the code. Which is why disobeying their deity often leads to falling, because it is really disobeying the paladin's code.
The real issue is when the deity commands the paladin to break the code, does the paladin keep his abilities because he obeyed the deity but didn't follow the code? Does the paladin keep his abilities for following the code but disobeying the deity? Is the paladin basically screwed and will fall irregardless? Will the paladin keep his abilities in either case (following the code or obeying the deity) because he is trying his best?
Notice again, when comparing the paladin's entry to the cleric's. The cleric's code of conduct, which could be even more strict than the paladin's, is based on the wishes of the deity. The paladin's is not, the deity's wishes are not figured into it at all.
Let me ask you, why did you discard the statements in a foreword of a module when you responded to Disciple of Sakura in the post right above the one where you responded to me?
How do Paladin's ever get out of their own neighbourhoods if they "have" to punish all those who harm innocents?
What do they do with parents who spank or swat their children?
What do they do when they see signs of spousal abuse?How do they survive in order to grow more powerful if they are "compelled" to take on those that are more powerful then themselves?
I know that it is a slippery slop when you start talking about moral compromises, but applying Ivory Tower principles to the game real world setting leads to unhappy gaming for a lot of people (as well as adding fuel to the Lawful Stupid arguments)
Swats or spankings don't usually harm a child in any meaningful way and often help them, they also are a form of punishment and so a paladin wouldn't see an problem with them as in that case the child probably wasn't "innocent" of what caused the parent to spank them. Beatings on the other hand are a totally different issue, when the punishment is out of measure with the offense.
As for spousal abuse, a paladin that didn't step in when they saw it happening, I would question if that was truly a paladin. That doesn't mean that she runs a sword through the offender, but it does mean that she should step in to stop it.
It's also a standard houserule for me as well. I've always suspected that the non-diety option was put in there to placate Christian fundies.
I would think it would be in there for people who didn't feel comfort talking about worshipping a deity of any kind, people who believe in ancestor worship, or buddhists, or pagans, or atheists (I remember a thread where a DM like yourself was dealing with an atheist player that wanted to play a cleric but refused to have the character worship a deity), or any number of others, as well as some christians that didn't feel comfortable talking about worshipping a deity that was not their own (though I'm not sure how many "fundies" would even be interesting in playing D&D in the first place).
|
|
In the matter of fairness I decided to take a look at the product in question (Second darkness endless night if I'm not mistaken.) out of the 30 possible jobs you could end up doing only two I would say may be iffy for a paladin (and even then I would say it is probably streching it) those being Forger (were you forge some documents) and Acolyte (preparing drow rituals although it dosent say what that entails) besides that anything else that is in the adventure has been added in.
|
Creative Director
|
As far as atonement (the spell) is concerned... it should function just as well on a paladin if it's cast by a cleric of his god, a cleric of another good, or someone casting it from a scroll (even via use magic device). Otherwise, you're heading into a slippery slope where you might end up tracking what deity (or lack thereof) is associated with every spell and every scroll and whether or not it'll work when cast on or by certain people.
AKA: restricting what sorts of atonement spells work for which situation is kind of needless complication, I feel.
I removed a post. Please refrain from personal attacks.
I removed said post again. Please don't repost material removed by moderators.
|
|
I'm not personally attacking them, I'm attacking their flawed arguments. There is nothing in Second Darkness that mentions the PCs partaking in demonic sacrifice or beating slaves. Thus, their argument is automatically false and yet when it is pointed out to them they ignore it.
You can't continue an argument when the basis of it is provably untrue.
|
|
It's also a standard houserule for me as well. I've always suspected that the non-diety option was put in there to placate Christian fundies.I would think it would be in there for people who didn't feel comfort talking about worshipping a deity of any kind, people who believe in ancestor worship, or buddhists, or pagans, or atheists (I remember a thread where a DM like yourself was dealing with an atheist player that wanted to play a cleric but refused to have the character worship a deity), or any number of others, as well as some christians that didn't feel comfortable talking about worshipping a deity that was not their own (though I'm not sure how many "fundies" would even be interesting in playing D&D in the first place).
As someone that is spiritual, I find arrogant claims like this very close to offensive. Offering an option for an issue like this does nothing at all to placate Christians, (or Jews or Muslims, or any other faith that has similar issues).
At best it does allow for other things such as a Buhddist-like belief system, for someone that wants to play a religious character, but not pick a specific deity. If anything it placates atheists so that in real life they don't have to break their religious beliefs by playing a concept that is forced to worship a deity. :)
I agree with Pres Man, that it also does help the people that don't want to openly refer to deities, in the same way tey might want to go around in character talking about Demon Lord Bazzzolsnatz, or puppy rape, again in real life. But I do not agreee with LazarX. None of those things have anything to do with placating Christianity. Propriety and and common sense are a lot different than your claim (Christian are to be blamed for everying).
Enough for a "Christian" alternative to show up every now and then.
What "Christian" alternative are you talking about?
|
Creative Director
|
In the matter of fairness I decided to take a look at the product in question (Second darkness endless night if I'm not mistaken.) out of the 30 possible jobs you could end up doing only two I would say may be iffy for a paladin (and even then I would say it is probably streching it) those being Forger (were you forge some documents) and Acolyte (preparing drow rituals although it dosent say what that entails) besides that anything else that is in the adventure has been added in.
Yup... as I've maintained for this entire thread... no Paizo adventure path forces paladins to lose their paladinhood. Some adventures are edgier than others, but we do our best to make sure that even paladins can play. We have no control over tables with traditions of super strict paladin rules, though... so if your table's one where paladin codes are SUPER strict and allow for now gray areas, I suspect that getting stymied by published adventures is only one of several trials your paladin must face during game play. ;-)
In the matter of fairness I decided to take a look at the product in question (Second darkness endless night if I'm not mistaken.) out of the 30 possible jobs you could end up doing only two I would say may be iffy for a paladin (and even then I would say it is probably streching it) those being Forger (were you forge some documents) and Acolyte (preparing drow rituals although it dosent say what that entails) besides that anything else that is in the adventure has been added in.Yup... as I've maintained for this entire thread... no Paizo adventure path forces paladins to lose their paladinhood. Some adventures are edgier than others, but we do our best to make sure that even paladins can play. We have no control over tables with traditions of super strict paladin rules, though... so if your table's one where paladin codes are SUPER strict and allow for now gray areas, I suspect that getting stymied by published adventures is only one of several trials your paladin must face during game play. ;-)
I don't see why that is a bad thing. the path of the paladin or the saint, ought to be tough or else it isn't special. If you don't want the baggage that goes along with being SiR Galahad, then don't walk the path of Sir Galahad. Being a Paladin afterall is more than just being a hero, or a good guy, you are the representive and embodiment of justice, and that ought to mean somthing in my opinion.
I don't see why that is a bad thing. the path of the paladin or the saint, ought to be tough or else it isn't special. If you don't want the baggage that goes along with being SiR Galahad, then don't walk the path of Sir Galahad. Being a Paladin afterall is more than just being a hero, or a good guy, you are the representive and embodiment of justice, and that ought to mean somthing in my opinion.
The problem is, no one tells the stories of Galahad walking through towns filled with beggars and the sick and infirm without stopping to aid them because he was on the grail quest. Sure, he probably didn't turn down a request for aid, but did he actively seek out the oppressed to help them, or did he focus on the "greater good" of the grail quest?
Lancelot didn't "fall" because he had to kill a baby to save the world, or because he had to ignore a demon worshiper to get to report his findings to Arthur, he fell because he was in love with a married woman. There were no "angels dancing on the head of a pin alignment traps" going on, there was a clear violation of his code.
|
|
One of the role playing games I have in my collection is a Christian-themed card game called "Revelations" it's main intent is to act as a teaching aide through roleplaying in Biblical times.
What "Christian" alternative are you talking about?
Interesting. I've seen a few Historical settings called Testament, but they are not "Christian". I was just curious.
Enough for a "Christian" alternative to show up every now and then.What "Christian" alternative are you talking about?
I collaborated on some fiction for a "christian-approved" game based around robots and cyborgs. It wasn't going anywhere so I just told them to keep what I'd done and good luck.
I don't remember your points either, but they were good enough for me to comment on. :)
|
Threadjack:
I own an old RPG called Dragonraid that was designed to teach christian values through roleplaying games.
|
|
Threadjack:
I own an old RPG called Dragonraid that was designed to teach christian values through roleplaying games.
How much of it do you own?
|
|
How much of it do you own?Threadjack:
I own an old RPG called Dragonraid that was designed to teach christian values through roleplaying games.
Not much, the Basic Box (without the cassette) and an Adventure Sourcebook called the Moonbridge Raid. Actually my FLGS sent it to me as a freeby a while ago.
this has always been the case, whether it was a GOD like ZEUS who had many flaws, the Greeks still held that the Justice that flowed from him was perfect, The same with ODIN. I am not aware of any culture that did not believe that thier diety of Justice, delivered any thing but perfect/ideal Justice.
I won't get started on Odin. I'm sure he was pathologically driven to drive a crooked line to his every ends even when a straight one was available. Considering how many times Loki bailed him out of a mess that he created for himself this way and got no thanks for it, one can hardly blame the Trickster for siding with the Giants at the end.
I do believe that the Buddhist-Hindu dieites being more abstract than the Greeks and the Norse are portrayed as perfect ideals as well as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic diety.
I always liked loki personally, true he took the baldur thing a little too far.
It really would be wierd for a culture not to believe that thier gods could not grant divine justice. because even if you believe that man can never get justice right, you kind of need to believe that your diety can.