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.
I must have missed where you put it into context.
So, you are stating that the rest of us have gotten it wrong? 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.
I disagree with your interpretation. I believe that we will have to agree to disagree on this.
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?
Well, I would like to point out a few things, my interpretation of forewords :)
1) The foreword of the APs are not only about the adventure, but often include discussion on other parts of the AP.
2) The foreword in not an integral part of the any book or adventure, that if they are discarded, there is little if any impact on the enjoyment of the book or adventure.
3) Forewords are not necessary to the adventure in the AP, as a matter of fact, if you download the AP you get it in several files and please notice that the foreword is not included in with the adventure (which is why I had trouble finding Disciple of Sakura's references).
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.I must have missed where you put it into context.
Most paladins are going to worship a deity, as they are required to respect legitimate authority which a LG deity would certainly qualify as. As those deities would most likely already work in unison with the paladin's code, then to disobey the deity would mean ultimately disobeying the code, which would cause the fall.
So, you are stating that the rest of us have gotten it wrong? 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.
In homebrew games you can have them get their abilities from whatever source you wish. Likewise you can say that a ranger gets his abilities from a deity. There is no requirement in the RAW for that, but it certainly makes sense. As I pointed out, there is no actual class mechanics of the paladin directly tied to a deity, instead all that has been shown is a bit of fluff text. If your claim is that paladins can get their abilities from deities, then please show some actual game mechanics that tie the paladin to a deity at least as closely as a cleric is tied (see the ex-cleric entry), a class which can get its abilities directly from a deity.
I disagree with your interpretation. I believe that we will have to agree to disagree on this.
Which is fine, if you had an actual game mechanic evidence, I would be happy to back down, since you don't, nor do you believe it is necessary, I guess we are at an impasse.
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?
Well, I would like to point out a few things, my interpretation of forewords :)
1) The foreword of the APs are not only about the adventure, but often include discussion on other parts of the AP.
2) The foreword in not an integral part of the any book or adventure, that if they are discarded, there is little if any impact on the enjoyment of the book or adventure.
3) Forewords are not necessary to the adventure in the AP, as a matter of fact, if you download the AP you get it in several files and please notice that the foreword is not included in with the adventure (which is why I had trouble finding Disciple of Sakura's references).
And I would suggest the text in the paladin entry before Alignment: Lawful Good, is in the same spirit. It is not necessary to the paladin class. But as you say, we will probably not see eye-to-eye on this issue.
I always propose that people who put up situations that say things like "What if the paladin had to sacrifice 1 innocent to save 100 lives?" aren't seeing the big picture. The paladin would sacrifice the one innocent, save the one-hundred lives, and then go save the one innocent. It's been happening for years in superhero comics: Save the girl or save these innocents! And the hero just saves both.
If you're a paladin and you're faced with a lose/lose situation, choose the third option and save both.
My biggest complaint with moral lose/lose situations is rooted in the fact, that nearly all examples I've ever seen are extremely artificial. To the level of the Universe itself aiming to screw with the paladin. Well, newsflash: if the Universe conspires against you, you're damned of course, but that proves nothing except the well-known fact, that anyone can be damned if the Universe conspires against him. And maybe the fact, that the GM involved is a douchebag. See Order of the Stick for DnD-related examples of the Universe screwing over certain characters (for lulz) and related fail.
My second-biggest complaint is rooted in the fact, that these situations universally assume that the good character bears personal responsibility for every bad thing that happens in their vicinity, and, when he proves to be lacking in power to prevent some of them, say, by failing to avoid all harm to the hostages in a hostage situation, condemn him for, in essence, not being God Almighty.
1)Paladin's do not get the abilities from a deity, therefore a deity has no say on whether a paladin loses her abilities. A deity could act through a cleric to return them, but not stop them from being lost in the first place.** spoiler omitted **
Could you let me know how you came to the conclusion that Paladins don't get their powers from a deity?
Funny, last time I check divine =/= deity.
Also: I agree with that last statement by fatr.
Clerics dont have to worship a Diety to recieve their powers - its certainly an option but they can also choose to worship an ideal (this allows them to pick two domains that suit this ideal) - it states as much under the Clerics spellcasting and Domain descriptions. While Divine certainly = Gods its no longer always the case in Pathinder.
While nothing implictly states that Paladins have to serve the Gods but it certaily makes sense that they do. Paladins are paragons of good first and law secondly - they would have issues with Non-Lawful/Non-Good characters equally (depending what they witnessed of course). But technically speaking nowhere does it metion they tie themselves to a God in this manner (though it explains where their powers come from) but they do obey a code of conduct that guides their actions in a lawfully good way.
I do agree that alot of adventure paths tend to push towards the greyer morality of doing something evil to prevent a greater evil, but then again the choice always comes down to the characters in question. While Paladins stand to suffer the most in situations like this (given that their code of conduct is woven through every action they undertake) its not neccisarily corrupt.
For example - a Paladin who truly believes they are doing something for the greater good could infact (and perhaps unknowingly) be doing something evil in his methods (a old 2d Edition Planescapes advanture saw a paladin NPC forced to make a choice to either kill an innocent in sacrafice to prevent a demonic portal from opening into a clueless prime material world or let it open and wipe out the town).
End of the day... "Atonement" is a way to 'cleanse' the soul of a truly penetant individual (and would certainly re-instate the powers of someone like the Paladin who would lose his power for this evil act commited for the greater good). Plus the events which forced the paladin (or other good characters) to commit some evil for the sake and cause of good makes for excellent roleplaying situations. A character with a tortured past is more realistic that some cut and dry generic goody-two-shoes paladin.
In "Planescapes" for 2nd Edition, Paladins had to rub shoulders next to the likes to Baatezu (now just Devils) and Ta'anari (now just Demons) as well as Yugoloths (now Daemons) in Sigil and he HAD to keep himself in check. He may very well be 1st level and see all these horribly wrong evil beings and he could not openly act against them (without being flattened hard if he tried).
In Sigil even Angels rubbed shoulders to Devils and Demons and Paladins would eventually come to understand the biggest underlying cause of all - the Blood War, the war of Law VS Chaos, which was much bigger (and greyer) than the cliche of Good VS Evil. Eldarin (now the Azanti) siding with Ta'anari because o their Chaotic related philosphies and Deva's (Angels) siding with Devils who shared strong Lawful related beliefs. Of course, the Angels being Good and Evil outsiders being Bad, one side would always try to screw over the other while trying to help them (for example, Angels might give Devils a shipment of cold-iron weapons to combat the Demons in the Blood War, but the weapons may carry subtle enchantments that cause the Devils to frenzy like a barbarian and likely kill themselves trying to kill their hated foes). I could go on about it forever...lol, (I LOVE Planescapes, by far one of the best 2nd Ed Settings)
End result?..Paladins in Pathfinder can tolerate evil as long as it achieves a greater result, and if they do commit some horrible sin (knowingly or not), they can always use "Atonement" at the end of the day.
While nothing implictly states that Paladins have to serve the Gods but it certaily makes sense that they do. Paladins are paragons of good first and law secondly - they would have issues with Non-Lawful/Non-Good characters equally (depending what they witnessed of course). But technically speaking nowhere does it metion they tie themselves to a God in this manner (though it explains where their powers come from) but they do obey a code of conduct that guides their actions in a lawfully good way.
This got me thinking. Clerics MUST be within one step of their deity (assuming they worship a deity). Yet paladins have no such restriction. Thus, a paladin could worship a LE deity and as long as he followed his code, would not fall. Of course he probably wouldn't want to hang around other worshippers (at least the LE ones, he would probably be fine with most of the LN ones).
|
Thus, a paladin could worship a LE deity and as long as he followed his code, would not fall. Of course he probably wouldn't want to hang around other worshippers (at least the LE ones, he would probably be fine with most of the LN ones).I'm gonna get flamed for this, but what the hell.
Old Testament.
?
The god presented by the Old Testament of the bible is an example of a Lawful Evil deity.
I would say, more likely LN. Most people that got the wrath of the old testment god were people that were not considered "innocent".
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...
I like grittiness. I like the grey between good and evil.
And so on.But sill - "good" solutions for the paths would be nice. And not just mentioned in two sentences as a possibilits.
Hm.. you could say, I really would enjoy if there were more details on "not so gritty/grey/evil/.." possibilities for the characters.
Simply because I think you shouldn't do only the gritty way. I am sure there are gamers out there who love Pathfinder but would prefer other.. "ways" sometimes.
Even if it's just for the sake of variety.
And to be honest - I am quite bored with the point of view that "evil" is more "mature" oder "interesting".
At least on Vampire I've always been quite bored with Sabbat and all the evilness.. Personally I often find it harder to stay "good" because the "evil" way ist far easier in my eyes. *shrug*
I guess it's just a question of taste.
So.. don't stop the "gritty mature evil ..." thing - but offer a little bit more for other tastes. Please. :-)
The old testamant is a history of the Jewish people. God didn't mandate they do evil things, and the people who did those things certainly aren't treated as agents of God.
===
The correct decision if you are giving a choice between killing an innocent and saving 100 innocents by some evil party, is to kill the evil party. It is not YOUR decision which damns them...it is HIS. Place the evil and the blame where they fall. YOur duty is to try and stop him from executing his decision.
If you have a choice between saving 100 people falling of a cliff and saving 1 person, you will probably try to save the 100 and trust and pray your friends and god can save the one. This is a neutral decision of trying to save as many lives as possible. In a team, the paladin will probably leap to save the one as the rest of the team saves the 100...because that's the heroic thing to do.
Observing Evil does not mean going into a berserker rage and dying valiantly and stupidly. A paladin can pick his time and place with cold wrath in his heart, and the knowledge that he will return and visit divine justice upon this wicked place. If he can find the wherwithal to do something about it now, all the better. Or, he can plan to return, when he is strong enough to grant the wicked all they truly deserve.
A paladin is not impulsive...that's being Chaotic. He's a planner, a hero, and a warrior. Captain America is the best example I know of him. He can watch evil acts being committed, knowing he can't do anything about them now...but oh, when he comes back with his friends, are they going to pay.
==Oh yeah, Moon KNight does still kill. There's a reason there are guns on his copter. He killed a madman during the Civil War, after all.
===Aelryinth
|
For me the APs do a good job of mirroring the gray areas and moral quandries we experience regularly as humans, though certainly not on the same scale. And they shouldn't be on the same scale. The characters we play exist on a level that far exceeds the reality of our existance and so the degree of their challenges are increased as well.
Someone trying to survive in flooded New Orleans has to balance his morals with his need to feed his family when considering whether or not to break in and rob a supermarket of necessary foodstuffs.
A narcotics cop often overlooks smaller offenses in order to encourage the offender's participation in making a case against the "real bad guy."
Criminals can be granted immunity for the crimes they have commited in exchange for their testimony in what is considered a more important case.
An international customer who bought something from you on ebay askes you to mark it a gift to avoid paying taxes though they know as well as you that they should "render unto Caesar that wich is Caesar's."
Good christians regularly engage in all manner of audio, video and document piracy. Piracy sometimes lends a sense of nobility to it but basically it's theft.
There have to be so many more examples.
Tambryn
|
|
Savage Tide:
To finally defeat the big bad guy the PC's have to ally with the witch queen Iggwilv (who is also the mother of Iuz), along with not 1 but 2 other Demon princes! After previously making deals with and freeing a group of succubi. They do get the Eladrin to help, but what are the other forces of good doing? Sitting around on their thumbs?
To make progress in Iraq, our Army has regularly had to make deals with powerful men that were almost certainly far from pious under Saddam. The end justifies the means as we are able to remove or marginilize others that are greater current threats.
Second Darkness:
The heroes have to pretend to be drow by wearing the bodies of slain drow as a disguise. Gooing along with the evil culture while in disguise.
Here I am reminded of an undercover cop who might have to be exposed to drugs and even worse aspects of the culture he is infiltrating in order to maintain his cover.
Tam
To make progress in Iraq, our Army has regularly had to make deals with powerful men that were almost certainly far from pious under Saddam. The end justifies the means as we are able to remove or marginilize others that are greater current threats.Savage Tide:
To finally defeat the big bad guy the PC's have to ally with the witch queen Iggwilv (who is also the mother of Iuz), along with not 1 but 2 other Demon princes! After previously making deals with and freeing a group of succubi. They do get the Eladrin to help, but what are the other forces of good doing? Sitting around on their thumbs?
And thinking about the Soviets and the Taliban, we see that working with questionable individuals never comes back to bite one on the rear. :D
|
Killing Children:
2 Kings2:23-24 (Elijah the prophet goes to Bethel and is mocked by a large group of children who call him 'baldy'. Elijah curses them and God sends two female bears out of the forest who tear the children to shreds for mocking Elijah.)Rape:
Numbers 31:15-21 (The Israelites have conquered the Midanites, and Moses does as God has commanded and orders all male children and all non-virgin women. Then, feel free to rape the virgin women that remain.)Human Sacrifice:
Numbers 31:25-41 (Divide the booty from the conquest of Midan. Of the human prisoners sacrifice 32 to God.
2 Samuel 21:1, 8-9, 14
(During a famine King David asks God what they should do. God says sacrifice the family of Saul. David does so and God ends the famine.)
Out of curiosity, I looked up all of these passages in the NIV. With the possible exception of 2 Kings 2, their facial meaning seems different to me (e.g., the Numbers passage mentions neither rape nor human sacrifice). As for 2 Kings, I believe the Hebrew refers to a threatening gang of adolescent hooligans rather than, e.g., disrespectful eight-year-olds.
However, rather than furthering a hot-button, off-topic argument in an otherwise interesting thread, I'll encourage people to read the Bible themselves and make up their own minds. Supplementing the text with a good commentary to provide background information would be even better.
On the thread topic of APs forcing people to side with evil, I find the motif of a difficult ethical choice compelling when done well. "Done well" for me in this context means a real choice between an easier, morally compromising path and a more difficult good path. An occasional "lesser of two evils" choice can be interesting, but too much embitters me for two reasons.
(1) Feeling trapped into doing something isn't fun for me. It makes me feel that my supposedly heroic character is incompetent or ineffective. This is a game. If it's not fun most of the time, I have plenty of other ways to spend my time.
(2) I most enjoy Lord of the Rings high-fantasy heroism, and I think that the "lesser of two evils" motif evokes a different, clashing feel. I prefer the motif of hard choices yielding unexpected long-term benefits (e.g., not killing Gollum).
All in all, I've enjoyed the adventure paths, but I'd really like an capital-H high fantasy path. As an alternative, why not include a crucial evil ally that can be turned to good if the PCs make the right choices?
Well the Gods alone know how a Paladin is going to get through Kingmaker without falling..
At some point the party is going to have to deal with diplomats from..
..a city state ruled by Assassins.
..A Military dictatorship which kills anyone entering their lands without the relevent permits.
..a city of creatures who allow their god to eat people
..another Dictatorship whose Ruler punishes all crimes 2 fold usually by death and who rides a nightmare.
Any Paladin Ruler attending the 'Outlaw Council' would be almost forced by his code to declare war on virtually every state in the River Kingdoms..unless the GM allows common sense to be a part of that code.
Well the Gods alone know how a Paladin is going to get through Kingmaker without falling..
At some point the party is going to have to deal with diplomats from..
** spoiler omitted **
Any Paladin Ruler attending the 'Outlaw Council' would be almost forced by his code to declare war on virtually every state in the River Kingdoms..unless the GM allows common sense to be a part of that code.
You know, nowhere in the code does it say that Paladins must fight every Evil they come across Right Now. I would also hope anyone I would game with would be creative enough to come up with something other than declaring war; diplomacy is on the Paladins skill list for a reason.
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.
Must also act honorably, which means that you listen to parleys. Surely noone would suggest that paladins are less honorable than pirates.
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.
Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
I can see this point and respect it but then we get into a slippery slope situation -- if the paladin doesn't "like the way this rule happens" and can ignore it because of that could he also "not like the way that rule happens" and ignore another kingdom (say Andorian) because it's too chaotic?
Generally put if other kingdoms respect each others sovereignty then I would suggest that it has legitimate rule and authority even if the paladin doesn't like how that rule comes about. In fact changing how that rule happens could be a vital part of his negotiations with that kingdom (see how the USA tries to get other governments to change how they operate in negotiations for aid and the like) hopefully making the world a better place without the need for armed conflict.
Could he ignore gods since he doesn't see them as legitimate? (Lamashtu for example -- this one could also be reversed: Does he have to offer prayers to all gods due to their legitimate authority?)
|
Could he ignore gods since he doesn't see them as legitimate? (Lamashtu for example -- this one could also be reversed: Does he have to offer prayers to all gods due to their legitimate authority?)
Even evil gods has legitimate authority about something. I guess a Paladin has to respect a contract blessed by Asmodeus or a secret blessed by Norgorber or a pregnant woman who prays for Lamashtu as these are things lawful. But anything relationated to Rovagug seems out of the paladin league.
|
|
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
I would tend to agree here. The Paladin's Code, in my opinion, is more focused on Good than it is Lawful. If a Paladin had to be both Good and Lawful at all times, there would not be a such thing as Paladins. They would all fall. I would also generally assume that a Paladin could essentually make choices in regards to their own Code, within basic reason. I doubt that a Paladin planeshifted to hell would be expected to enforce any "legitimate" hellish authority by taking escapees rightback to th torture pits for breaking the law.
I would tend to agree here. The Paladin's Code, in my opinion, is more focused on Good than it is Lawful. If a Paladin had to be both Good and Lawful at all times, there would not be a such thing as Paladins. They would all fall. I would also generally assume that a Paladin could essentually make choices in regards to their own Code, within basic reason. I doubt that a Paladin planeshifted to hell would be expected to enforce any "legitimate" hellish authority by taking escapees rightback to th torture pits for breaking the law.Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
So now paladins can directly defy laws? Especially when the law has put these people here for their rightful and just punishment?
So buddy but this is far down the "slippery slope" I was just talking about. At this point there isn't such a thing as Legitimate authority by your thought here and at that point you've directly voided out a section of the paladin's code.
"Oh I don't like your legitimate authority cause you are also evil so I can ignore it cause that's convenient to me."
That just doesn't wash.
Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
I think as i said before a paladin would do a Saint Augustine and say that an unjust law is no law at all.
I think as i said before a paladin would do a Saint Augustine and say that an unjust law is no law at all.Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.
Yes however that's a "true Scotsman" argument, which is a fallacy.
For those that don't know what a true Scotsman argument is it goes like this:
Person 1: No Scotsman would ever do "x".
Person 2: I'm a Scotsman and I do "x".
Person 1: Yes well no REAL Scotsman would do "x".
It's false because Person 1 is redefining the term to make his premise correct instead of changing his premise to fit the facts (the fact that person 2 is a Scotsman and does "X").
I think as i said before a paladin would do a Saint Augustine and say that an unjust law is no law at all.Also the code specifically states you have to respect legitimate authority. If they are real diplomats from real governments the paladin has to respect/treat with them. That doesn't mean he has to let them have everything they want, but he can't just go ignoring them cause he wants to.Just to add more fuel to the fire, that depends on how the Paladin defines 'legitimate' government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a Paladin might not define rule based on fear and oppression 'legitimate'.Yes however that's a "true Scotsman" argument, which is a fallacy.
For those that don't know what a true Scotsman argument is it goes like this:
Person 1: No Scotsman would ever do "x".
Person 2: I'm a Scotsman and I do "x".
Person 1: Yes well no REAL Scotsman would do "x".It's false because Person 1 is redefining the term to make his premise correct instead of changing his premise to fit the facts (the fact that person 2 is a Scotsman and does "X").
Not in this case, because Augstine had a very strict criteria for "just" and "law". as long as you have objective criteria for the determination of "just", the arguement would hold.
Not in this case, because Augstine had a very strict criteria for "just" and "law". as long as you have objective criteria for the determination of "just", the arguement would hold.
So just because it didn't fit his criteria then it wasn't a law? (I'm aware of St. Augustine honestly I'm just rephrasing)... so I guess the next question would be under what authority does he get to void out others?
Now if he had a code of laws that was handed down from something larger than him I could go with this (say if Imodae said, "You will follow these laws and none other, and will work to abolish laws that do the following.") however him just saying it, as a mortal smacks of a chaotic alignment...
"I'm not following these laws because they aren't just by my criteria, and therefore are void despite the fact you have a legitimate claim to governance of this land... I do not respect your legitimate rule because it isn't rule by my rules, and therefore I don't have to listen to you."
I'm sorry I'm still seeing this as a "I don't have to listen to you because according to me you aren't a valid ruler and therefore not legitimate."
I do respect Augustine for what he has done don't get me wrong -- however I really don't see this holding up.
It basically sets the definition of "Legitimate Authority" in the paladin's hands... and that's not where it belongs. Basically put if the paladin gets to decide it, why can't everyone else decide it for themselves too? Where does the paladin get the Authority to ignore others Authority just because he doesn't like the way they go about it?
Just too chaotic for me.
|
|
I would tend to agree here. The Paladin's Code, in my opinion, is more focused on Good than it is Lawful. If a Paladin had to be both Good and Lawful at all times, there would not be a such thing as Paladins. They would all fall.
But they must do it. Sometimes deposing a bad king hurt the peasants more than enduring it. A paladin HAS to be able to compromise or else he is not doing any good at all. He can be morally perfect, but the world he lives in is not.
Not in this case, because Augstine had a very strict criteria for "just" and "law". as long as you have objective criteria for the determination of "just", the arguement would hold.
So just because it didn't fit his criteria then it wasn't a law? (I'm aware of St. Augustine honestly I'm just rephrasing)... so I guess the next question would be under what authority does he get to void out others?
Now if he had a code of laws that was handed down from something larger than him I could go with this (say if Imodae said, "You will follow these laws and none other, and will work to abolish laws that do the following.") however him just saying it, as a mortal smacks of a chaotic alignment...
"I'm not following these laws because they aren't just by my criteria, and therefore are void despite the fact you have a legitimate claim to governance of this land... I do not respect your legitimate rule because it isn't rule by my rules, and therefore I don't have to listen to you."
I'm sorry I'm still seeing this as a "I don't have to listen to you because according to me you aren't a valid ruler and therefore not legitimate."
I do respect Augustine for what he has done don't get me wrong -- however I really don't see this holding up.
It basically sets the definition of "Legitimate Authority" in the paladin's hands... and that's not where it belongs. Basically put if the paladin gets to decide it, why can't everyone else decide it for themselves too? Where does the paladin get the Authority to ignore others Authority just because he doesn't like the way they go about it?
Just too chaotic for me.
By your arguement any two bit ruffian can declare himself the Legitimate Ruler of an area(providing it isn't legitimately claimed by some other power) and the Paladin can do nothing about it.
I will never understand this desire to make paladins almost impossible to play
[edit] It just struck me that the thing that will really screw them over in Kingmaker is the fact that the party, as far as I can gather, goes into the Stolen Lands as agents of the King of Brevoy..surely creating your own Kingdom is an usurpation of HIS Legitimate Authority
|
|
I would tend to agree here. The Paladin's Code, in my opinion, is more focused on Good than it is Lawful. If a Paladin had to be both Good and Lawful at all times, there would not be a such thing as Paladins. They would all fall.But they must do it. Sometimes deposing a bad king hurt the peasants more than enduring it. A paladin HAS to be able to compromise or else he is not doing any good at all. He can be morally perfect, but the world he lives in is not.
But they must do what? Be Good more than Lawful? I don't think a Paladin has to compromise. Otherwise there is not Code. Living by a Code means that you are holding to certain things, not compromising when it is more convenient for you.
Further to my previous point..The legitimate authority in Galt is whatever murderous bunch of sadists have siezed power today
The longer I spend thinking about this the more I become convinced that Paladins can only really function within the confines of church sponsored orders which define what Law and Good are in their own terms..or within secular orders who derive their authority from Kings and Princes
Now when different orders have different definitions..that's when it gets interesting
Further to my previous point..The legitimate authority in Galt is whatever murderous bunch of sadists have siezed power today
The longer I spend thinking about this the more I become convinced that Paladins can only really function within the confines of church sponsored orders which define what Law and Good are in their own terms..or within secular orders who derive their authority from Kings and Princes
Now when different orders have different definitions..that's when it gets interesting
I have always interpreted Legitimate Authority to mean Lawful Good authority; the further away from LG you get the less respect the Paladin has to give. NG or LN, that’s ok; CE is right out.
The whole “Paladins Must Obey All Laws” is just silly, otherwise all the Evil Overlord has to do is say “I am king of the world, all paladins commit suicide now” and they would have to do so.
By your argument any two bit ruffian can declare himself the Legitimate Ruler of an area(providing it isn't legitimately claimed by some other power) and the Paladin can do nothing about it.I will never understand this desire to make paladins almost impossible to play
[edit] It just struck me that the thing that will...
Please note that just because you declare yourself a legitimate power doesn't make it so either -- the real question is who respects your authority? In the case of the kingdoms mentioned they have been around long enough and have had other kingdoms acknowledge their legitimate placement as governments and positions of authority (I pointed this out earlier too). I would have just as much problems with every two bit ruffian going out and declaring himself Legitimate Ruler of an area as I do the paladin simply declaring that someone isn't legitimate to rule. You've thrown the slippery slope my way now. I would say overall there is a middle ground (just like there is when deciding if a new religion is a "Cult" or a valid "Religion") -- It all comes down to when the world at large accepts your authority... yes that's messy, no it's not perfect, but it does hold up.
As to wanting to make paladins fall:
Not at all. I love playing paladins and haven't ever had a problem doing so, or one that fell by anything other than my choice (it worked with the character). However that doesn't mean I'm going to give anyone an easy way to turn the code into whatever they want it to read. I make sure to cover what I do and don't expect out of a paladin to players, and if they have a question I am more than ready to help them work through it out of character and with plenty of time to think it over before they act -- I don't want to make others fall as that ruins their fun (unless they are looking to play a fallen paladin), and if there is a hard choice that they feel they must choose something I've mentioned will lead to the start of a fall I do my best to make sure a chance at atonement is close at hand for them.
I LOVE the paladin class -- It sits right up there with the bard for my favorite -- however I'm not going to let people not consider the full concequences of what they are trying to get away with on a paladin -- the class is too awesome (from a flavor/ playing stand point) to cheapen it with logical fallacies, false ideas.
For example the "Kill 1 to save *insert larger number here*" question isn't really a dilemma to me: You don't kill sacrifice, you do your damnest to save them all -- no you might not succeed, but if someone else has set up this situation you are not responsible for their acts -- the paladin can not assume responsibility for everyone else's actions. He can simply do his best to solve the situation without comprise. No he's not going to succeed every time, but that doesn't mean he's wrong or evil or even at fault for failing at times. He's no god.
|
|
By your argument any two bit ruffian can declare himself the Legitimate Ruler of an area(providing it isn't legitimately claimed by some other power) and the Paladin can do nothing about it.I will never understand this desire to make paladins almost impossible to play
[edit] It just struck me that the thing that will...
Please note that just because you declare yourself a legitimate power doesn't make it so either -- the real question is who respects your authority? In the case of the kingdoms mentioned they have been around long enough and have had other kingdoms acknowledge their legitimate placement as governments and positions of authority (I pointed this out earlier too). I would have just as much problems with every two bit ruffian going out and declaring himself Legitimate Ruler of an area as I do the paladin simply declaring that someone isn't legitimate to rule. You've thrown the slippery slope my way now. I would say overall there is a middle ground (just like there is when deciding if a new religion is a "Cult" or a valid "Religion") -- It all comes down to when the world at large accepts your authority... yes that's messy, no it's not perfect, but it does hold up.
As to wanting to make paladins fall:
Not at all. I love playing paladins and haven't ever had a problem doing so, or one that fell by anything other than my choice (it worked with the character). However that doesn't mean I'm going to give anyone an easy way to turn the code into whatever they want it to read. I make sure to cover what I do and don't expect out of a paladin to players, and if they have a question I am more than ready to help them work through it out of character and with plenty of time to think it over before they act -- I don't want to make others fall as that ruins their fun (unless they are looking to play a fallen paladin), and if there is a hard choice that they feel they must choose something I've mentioned will lead to the start of a fall I do my...
Ok, that is a lot diferent that what it came off as the first time. This, I completely agree with.
|
|
But they must do what? Be Good more than Lawful? I don't think a Paladin has to compromise. Otherwise there is not Code. Living by a Code means that you are holding to certain things, not compromising when it is more convenient for you.
Think of this as Starfleet Kobayashi Maru. The purpose of the test is not to make every cadet to quit, but to measure his capability in front of a no win situation.
A see a level 20 paladin being a lot better at those morality puzzles than a level 1 paladin, this turns them human. Of couse the GM would also off-game the situation about the drama to do not make a free fall to the paladin player as above cited.|
|
I think a paladin's code, behavior, etc will depends on his god as much as anything. And many of these paladins might hold themselves up to higher standards than even their god holds them. For example, I could see a paladin of Cayden Cailean losing confidence in himself over something that the god himself would barely notice, much less care about. And perhaps it is that loss of confidence that manifests itself as a psycological block to the paladin abilities, instead of the god yanking them for something that would be, in his eyes, so minor as to not be worth mentioning.
And before you say that the chaotic Cayden Cailean can't have paladins, think about this: there are paladins of Asmodeus. 'Nuff said.
You can't have a Paladin to Asmodeus either. He's LE.
So? Paladin's don't have to be within one step of the deity they worship.
Creative Director
|
You can't have a Paladin to Asmodeus either. He's LE.So? Paladin's don't have to be within one step of the deity they worship.
They DO have to be lawful good though. And if a paladin's being a devout worshiper of his deity, he's doing things to appease his deity and exemplify his faith's beliefs, which means he skews HEAVILY toward the deity's alignment. If the deity is lawful neutral or neutral good, this probably still works fine. But once you go TWO steps into evil or chaotic, you end up being between a rock and a hard place:
Either:
A) uphold choices that support your alignment and then lose the divine support of your deity, or;
B) uphold choices that support your religion, and lose your paladinhood as your alignment shifts away from lawful good.
You can't have a Paladin to Asmodeus either. He's LE.So? Paladin's don't have to be within one step of the deity they worship.They DO have to be lawful good though. And if a paladin's being a devout worshiper of his deity, he's doing things to appease his deity and exemplify his faith's beliefs, which means he skews HEAVILY toward the deity's alignment. If the deity is lawful neutral or neutral good, this probably still works fine. But once you go TWO steps into evil or chaotic, you end up being between a rock and a hard place:
Either:
A) uphold choices that support your alignment and then lose the divine support of your deity, or;
B) uphold choices that support your religion, and lose your paladinhood as your alignment shifts away from lawful good.
Except a LE deity can have LN clerics. If a paladin follows the lawful teachings of the LN cleric but not the evil teachings, which the LN cleric is already down playing (otherwise he'd be LE), it is unlikely he is going to fall.
I think history has shown us that very noble people can work for a system this is fundamentally corrupt at its highest levels.
I just want to cast my vote for an AP that is morally challenging, but gives an as-printed, not-worked-around-way of finishing it in all glory and goodness (just like Age of Worms). Trumpets, Angels, Righteousness!
All it took was one experience with a GM who insisted on Paladins being "lawful stupid" for me to get really lax on them. If you want to run them as written, then they may have to do things to atone or make some really hard choices. My houserule on Paladins is that their code is about fidelity to their god and his/her alignment rather than having to always be lawful good.
My general thoughts on Paladins who's code prevents them from saving the world is that it's not truly good to keep one's own soul unblemished at the expense of everyone else's lives. If a Paladin can do what needs to be done to defeat the horrors that are threatening in the APs, then he should just sign up for the crusade into the world wound and leave the saving of the world from a second darkness to the real heroes.
The darker world that is Golarion is one of it's key features. It's the Age of Lost Omens. Things have gone wrong. The promised golden age is lost with Aroden's death. Goodness and love are not going to be sweeping the land any time soon.