Why are PCs forced to side with the Devil in every Adventure Path?


Pathfinder Adventure Path General Discussion

601 to 632 of 632 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Contributor

pres man wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
pres man wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
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.


LazarX wrote:
pres man wrote:


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.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

gbonehead wrote:

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.

Although I kinda wish it didn't say that, since it doesn't make sense.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But there are templars (APG-wise) of Asmodeus, right ?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Gorbacz wrote:
But there are templars (APG-wise) of Asmodeus, right ?

Sure! (Assuming we end up keeping templars in the APG of course. We probably will, but the book's still being created...)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:

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.


A Man In Black wrote:
Asmodeus paladins...hmm. Think Boy-Scouts-as-knights with a bit of Hitler Youth for color;

Does this count as a Godwin?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Gorbacz wrote:


One word: Mercykillers.

That's two words. Just because you removed the space, doesn't make it one word! ;-)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Godwin's Pimp Daddy wrote:
Does this count as a Godwin?

Is it an argument?

Stormtroopers who are actually benevolent is a plot hook to run with. Maybe they believe the New Order is actually good for people, maybe they believe that the best good they can do is to protect people and limit the excesses. Maybe there's a significant amount of strain in the order over this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


One word: Mercykillers.
That's two words. Just because you removed the space, doesn't make it one word! ;-)

Ignorant Pony, go read some Planescape (yes, Planescape not Plane Scape) !

Sovereign Court

Aelryinth wrote:
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.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

GeraintElberion wrote:

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.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Gorbacz wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


One word: Mercykillers.
That's two words. Just because you removed the space, doesn't make it one word! ;-)
Ignorant Pony, go read some Planescape (yes, Planescape not Plane Scape) !

I always thought it was Plan Escape. Doh.

Shadow Lodge

Wow, wish I hadn't mentioned the Asmodeus thing. People have jumped all over this, and ignored the what I was actually trying to say in the post. Oh well, such is life...


James Jacobs wrote:
gbonehead wrote:

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.

Although I kinda wish it didn't say that, since it doesn't make sense.

When I read it, I added it to my imaginary "Things for which to get even with SKR" list.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pres man wrote:


I would argue under your mindset then, there should be no LN clerics of that deity.

There is a world of difference between Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil. While a Lawful Good character might object to the excesses of a Lawful Evil realm, a Lawful Neutral character can be content as long as the trains are run on time. (contrary to popular belief this wasn't quite the case in Nazi Germany as the commuter trains were frequently delayed to allow the trains to the labor camps to proceed)

That's why the allowed deviation is one stop from the diety and not two.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

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.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:


When I read it, I added it to my imaginary "Things for which to get even with SKR" list.

Why imaginary? It's hard to keep track if you don't write it down. My list is over 23 pages, single spaced, three columns, 10 point font.


Sebastian wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:


When I read it, I added it to my imaginary "Things for which to get even with SKR" list.
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.

[smurf] Corrected that for you. You, of course, have no reason to state that you do not having a perfect memory, and so obviously don't need the list for yourself... ;) [/smurf]

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

frozenwastes wrote:
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.


Green Goblin wrote:
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.


Disciple of Sakura wrote:


There's your moral quandry, right there. Oddly enough, in that context, he managed to avoid either negative. Because Spider-Man is awesome.

QFT

Liberty's Edge

Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Green Goblin wrote:
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.


gbonehead wrote:
frozenwastes wrote:
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.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

gbonehead wrote:

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 :)

Well, I'm framing it not as a dilemma the GM presents the players, with a spiked pit lurking under the "wrong" choice, but instead a dispute between two paladins, both of whom are legitimately lawful good.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Green Goblin wrote:
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.

In that case, it's because how it was scripted. There's no random variable of reality to complicate the works. Now the DM can leave a third angle for a hero to find or come up with or decide how he's going to moderate the consequences of either choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:


Well, I'm framing it not as a dilemma the GM presents the players, with a spiked pit lurking under the "wrong" choice, but instead a dispute between two paladins, both of whom are legitimately lawful good.

That happpened all the time in Arcanis, frequently over lines of patriotism. Countries and factions can go to war each with lawful good Paladins seeking to defeat or slay other lawful good Paladins witch each side in the "right".

Sovereign Court

A Man In Black wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

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?

601 to 632 of 632 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / General Discussion / Why are PCs forced to side with the Devil in every Adventure Path? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.