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.
Yes, but this raises issues about the question of shades of alignment.
A LN cleric can serve a LE deity. But more than likely, in the service of that deity, he's occasionally going to lean toward LE. At best, he's going to be a very strict LN--concerned only with order and not with goodness for its own sake. A LN cleric that leans towards LG is going to get Asmodeus ticked pretty quickly.
A LG paladin can lean NG or LN, but only lean very slightly; his alignment needs to stick to LG, which means he can incrementally favor goodness over law, or vice-versa, but essentially he's got a narrow road to walk. He can, of course, translate that leaning into a religious choice, but picking a LN god means that the paladin's already following a deity for whom moral ambiguity is okay.
Now, that's not to say that a LE god couldn't somehow masquerade as a bulwark of pure order and get some paladins under him (some deities, like Bane from FR, manage to pull this off, until someone looks at their report card). In fact, that'd be a pretty nasty force to deal with, as even the lay followers might think they were righteously opposed to your attacks against the religion. Paladins of such a god are simply corruptions waiting to happen, shining knights on their way to being irrevocably tarnished.
Asmodeus, however, is not a LE god that's somehow tricked people into thinking that he's LN. He's the ruler of Hell and chief archdevil. He is, to many minds, THE Big Bad. It can be argued that the very act of worshiping Asmodeus as your patron is an evil act, to say nothing of the things you'd need to do in order to fulfill your religious obligations.
Paladins don't follow orders from higher clerics and no one else; particularly in lawful religions, there are complex hierarchies involved. Your hypothetical LN cleric of a LE god is likely to be branded a heretic by others, if she begins to pervert the message of the deity, and could well find himself drummed out of the church when a higher priest finds out what she's been teaching.
So, sure, you can have a paladin of Asmodeus. Such an individual, though, is probably not destined to be a paladin for very long, without leaving the church of Asmodeus for 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.
Paladins however in my book are put up to high standards not only by the codes of law and good, but by those whom they serve as well.
Lets get one thing straight. The Big A is EVIL, planning, moustache twirling, EVIL. he embodies dictatorship,slavery, oppression, domination, and all of the might makes right atttitude which are unalterable opposites of any Paladin's code.
I'm not sure what the obsession is with trying to shoehorn Asmodeus as an acceptable patron for Paladins by trying to sweep this fact under the rug.
If you're looking to play a Paladin of the Big A, what I suspect the primary reason must be is to sneak a Blackguard-type character within PFS rules.
I would argue under your mindset then, there should be no LN clerics of that deity.
I suspect a part of the "Asmodeus has paladins" stuff comes from Paizo's very own Council of Thieves Adventure path.
In the article on Asmodeus, it points out that there are paladins of Asmodeus.
|
Asmodeus paladins...hmm. Think Boy-Scouts-as-knights with a bit of Hitler Youth for color; might makes right, turned to the cause of protecting those without might. After all, without the weak, who would the strong rule? Paladins of Asmodeus believe in strict discipline, unwavering fealty, and the strong's role to protect and shepherd the weak. Cruelty is unproductive and destructive. Paladins of Asmodeus are merciless without cruelty or sadism; they're the sort of paladins who execute their foes with as little pain as possible and consider this a mercy. It requires a certain amount of ignorance or unwillingness to see the excesses and cruelties of other followers of Asmodeus, or it could be sheltered or splinter cult.
Hmm. That's not quite there, but someone creative might be able to finish that.
One word: Mercykillers.
Asmodeus paladins...hmm. Think Boy-Scouts-as-knights with a bit of Hitler Youth for color;
Does this count as a Godwin?
|
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.
I disagree.
The truly virtuous path would be to turn the evil villain from sin, persuade him to repent, and thus save everyone.
When you draw your weapon you admit defeat.
Although I kinda wish it didn't say that, since it doesn't make sense.I suspect a part of the "Asmodeus has paladins" stuff comes from Paizo's very own Council of Thieves Adventure path.
In the article on Asmodeus, it points out that there are paladins of Asmodeus.
When I read it, I added it to my imaginary "Things for which to get even with SKR" list.
|
One of the things I wish I could play in the Pathfinder Society (I've been informed the rules don't allow it) was a Tiefling rouge of Cheliax, who is actually an undercover agent of Andoran. Seeing the direction this thread was is going makes me wonder if it would me more challenging/fun to play an undercover Paladin. Although being a secret agent would probably require more pragmatism.
Now that this has veered into Paladin's code territory. Nothing says the Paladin can't TRY to help people while in the drow city. Say in going back and healing the goblin of all things. Or "buying" a slave and making him/her your compatriot. Starting an underground resistance movement. Defying the evil order doesn't have to be overt :)
On another note: anyone finding the overuse of the kill 1 innocent to save a 100 argument kind of annoying? I think we've proved it's a ridiculously artificial gotcha game in the end.
Yes. I also am finding the "kill 1 to save hundred" argument disingenious.
After all, it IS a game and the DM has total control. Therefore, any artificial no-win situation was explicitly created by an actual person - there is no karma, only the situations the DM has set up.
I intentionally avoid setting up that kind of dilemma in my games, because I don't find the whole angsty moral dilemma thing fun.
Your mileage may vary :)
The purpose of any contrived moral quandary isn't to trap or the win, but to learn or demonstrate. The kill an innocent to save many innocents is in the realm of fiction and thus completely plausible as something that might come up in an RPG.
If the DM does that and you're not alright with it, then that's an out of game discussion that needs to be had about what's okay and what's not. If everyone's on board, then it can be a powerful opportunity for characterization and making a statement about a particular theme.
Even in this thread the discussion of such a contrived hypothetical has been illuminating and demonstrative. There were massive arguments about what really is the right choice. If everyone is up for such controversial issues can be fertile ground for growing some amazing RPG play.
Why imaginary? It's hard for other people to keep track if you don't write it down. My list is over 23 pages, single spaced, three columns, 10 point font.
When I read it, I added it to my imaginary "Things for which to get even with SKR" list.
The purpose of any contrived moral quandary isn't to trap or the win, but to learn or demonstrate. The kill an innocent to save many innocents is in the realm of fiction and thus completely plausible as something that might come up in an RPG.
As I commented, your mileage may vary.
Frankly, as neither a DM nor a player do I want my Friday night game to be used to teach lessons.
While I'll agree that it makes excellent fodder for these forum discussions, such discussions in the middle of a great gaming session would not be so excellent - I forsee them bringing the game to a screeching halt.
Spider-Man. This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice. Let die the woman you love... or suffer the little children? Make your choice, Spider-Man, and see how a hero is rewarded!
There's your moral quandry, right there. Oddly enough, in that context, he managed to avoid either negative. Because Spider-Man is awesome.
There's your moral quandry, right there. Oddly enough, in that context, he managed to avoid either negative. Because Spider-Man is awesome.
QFT
|
|
Spider-Man. This is why only fools are heroes - because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice. Let die the woman you love... or suffer the little children? Make your choice, Spider-Man, and see how a hero is rewarded!There's your moral quandry, right there. Oddly enough, in that context, he managed to avoid either negative. Because Spider-Man is awesome.
Heroes very often do the unexpected.
Commenting on the original topic, I am not familiar with the APs. (I will likely try to find a group soon, as I picked up the Core Rules snd the Bestiary.) However, it is possible to convince people whom you would not normally associate with to work in a common cause. This can range from people fighting a fire or fighting a war. (Churchill and FDR probably never trusted Stalin, but they were willing to work with him during World War II.)
I think that a Game Master should avoid railroading, and encourage players to find creative solutions. For example, several people suggested that players could seek help from celestials.
Perhaps the key thing to remember is to always give players options. They will surprise you.
The purpose of any contrived moral quandary isn't to trap or the win, but to learn or demonstrate. The kill an innocent to save many innocents is in the realm of fiction and thus completely plausible as something that might come up in an RPG.As I commented, your mileage may vary.
Frankly, as neither a DM nor a player do I want my Friday night game to be used to teach lessons.
While I'll agree that it makes excellent fodder for these forum discussions, such discussions in the middle of a great gaming session would not be so excellent - I forsee them bringing the game to a screeching halt.
Just because you explore a theme or have that theme present doesn't mean you're stopping everything for a 1980's GI Joe Public Service Announcement. "And knowing is half the battle!" Incidentally the other half is made up of equal parts blue lasers and red lasers.
Such quandaries are also fertile ground for characterization. An opportunity to *show* rather than tell something about your character through action and choices.
The point is not at all to have the discussion during the game. The point is to have the actual actions and decisions happen, If it stops the game, things have gone wrong.
Everyone needs to be on board though. I once ran a session where the Cleric of Serenrae decided on a murder trial through trial by combat. It totally shocked one player's sense or morality and justice. It made a very powerful statement about the culture/area and their notion of justice. If the one player who couldn't just let it be didn't intentionally try to stop play, it would have been great. It still was good. I thought it made a fairly powerful statement about the injustice of trial by combat and standards of evidence that we humans have held in the past. In that case I overruled the objecting player pretty quickly and got back to the game. Maybe he had some relative wrongly convicted or something and it was too much for him to have someone executed as a result of a system he considered unjust.
|
|
The truly virtuous path would be to turn the evil villain from sin, persuade him to repent, and thus save everyone.
When you draw your weapon you admit defeat.
When you risk the lives of 100 to save one who has declared his sin, then you've placed your pride above those who you would profess to protect.
This is how you get plots about paladins fighting on opposite sides.
Variables.
How great is the risk?
I wasn't really professing my own belief, I was merely commenting upon the inherent reliance upon violent means in this entire thread.
Are paladins those who turn to violence first?