I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.
On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
On another side, you have people talking about how a paladin doesn't need to serve any deity, per the rules and the campaign setting.
On another side you have people looking for reasons to kick people from their table and some others going off the deep end.
And then along comes James Jacobs who says that an entire section of the Council of Thieves AP was a "production error" and should never have been printed and should be ignored.
And I think that's what's bothering me most.
It brings a whole host of questions.
- Does the PDF still have this section?
- Is the book receiving errata?
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
- Is this an isolated event or should I expect to see a lot of this and just get used to it?
- What steps are or will be put in place to avoid this happening in the future? Or should I expect that how the setting works will be different depending on who is saying what in any particular thread?
Until very recently, I played in Living Forgotten Realms, and bought a whole host of WOTC 4e books. What drove me from their product and their organized play was (primarily) the fact that the rules had become a moving target. Put together a character today, and by next month, that character's feats, powers and class abilities might be entirely changed because some designer decided that he wanted the rules to work in a way that another designer had not wanted them to work. It made no sense to purchase a book because the amount of errata necessary to track in order to build a character began to outweigh the book itself. For a while, I printed out sections of errata and mounted them in the margins on the appropriate pages. Until whole pages needed replacing (stealth rules anyone?) Then I just kept the errata PDF on my ipad.
I've been recommending Pathfinder to a lot of people. I know of at least three different customers at my FLGS who bought into Pathfinder based on my recommendation. One of the big selling features that I'd been recommending to people about Pathfinder was the comparatively stable platform. No 100 pages of new errata every month to download, read and remember.
I'm not saying that Pathfinder has become 4e and I'm disgusted with it and am quitting Pathfinder, but I am concerned when designers begin to disavow the product as printed.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I'm curious whether it's something that I'll have to deal with in the future again and again.
If its the thread I am thinking of James specifically said it was his PERSONAL opinion that he would be disregarding the article. Remember most of the time the attitude of Paizo staff, is not 'my word is law' but 'here is my opinion on controversy x but do what works best for your game'.
Paizo is definately not going to provide the mountains of errata that wizards has, and there are far fewer word of law clarifications/rulings coming down from on high. The ap's will always be cannon as they are the main product of Paizo, its just the opinion of one staff member that things could have been done differently and maybe it isnt his favorite thing to go into the AP.
I will admit that it isnt the 'best' attitude for things like organized play as it leaves a few things up in the air, but the general company attitude is definately play it in a way that works best for you and your table.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I suppose one issue here is that there's three different levels of character restriction: the game, the world setting, and the OP campaign. The rules for Paladins in the Pathfinder role-playing game can revere an idea, and don't need to be tied to any particular god (although the fluff for some of the Paladin's divine powers suggests otherwise). In the Golarion campaign setting, Paladins do indeed need to worship particular gods, and there's a short list of appropriate patron deities. (Asmodeus seems to be on that list as a special case exeption to a general rule.) And then there is the more restrictive "Pathfinder Society" Organized Play environment.
(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)
P.S. Kolokotroni, I just wanted to (a) thank you for your measured and considerate contributon to the discussion, and (b) twitch at the pet peeve of mine you've violated. According to my favorite on-line dictionary (the Omnificent English Dictionary in Limerick Form)
An apocryphal story is told
Of the Bible compilers of old.
They'd reject any book
That had gobble-de-g#*#;
What remained was canonical gold.
The determination of the canon, or the official collection of holy scriptures, resulted in diverging lists of the accepted books. Besides the canons of the Jewish and Christian traditions, the Pali Canon is an official collection of Buddhist holy scriptures.
In a cannon, see circus folks jump,
Then get blown in the air with a THUMP!
And I'm willing to bet
They all hope they hit net
And don't land with a clown up their rump.
I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.
On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
On another side, you have people talking about how a paladin doesn't need to serve any deity, per the rules and the campaign setting.
On another side you have people looking for reasons to kick people from their table and some others going off the deep end.
And then along comes James Jacobs who says that an entire section of the Council of Thieves AP was a "production error" and should never have been printed and should be ignored.And I think that's what's bothering me most.
[...]
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I'm curious whether it's something that I'll have to deal with in the future again and again.
I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of back-tracking and recanting previously printed stuff. Sometimes it makes it seem like there's no central guiding principle and that people are just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. That shows a lack of editorial leadership, I think; there's a reason that "written by committee" isn't usually regarded as a compliment. :-)
For instance, Paizo is reprinting the Campaign Setting and reworking the old feats (like Hamatulatsu) and countries (like Arkenstar). Why was that material suitable the first time it was published, but not now? And if it was not suitable, why was it published in the first place?
Similarly, right on the heels of the Adventurer's Armory comes the Advanced Player's Guide, reprinting and changing material that's only a few months old.
Generally I think the quality of material Paizo puts out is quite good, but I have to wince every time I see comments like: "That thing was a mistake, so we're printing a different version our new book." I'd much rather have old mistakes quietly ignored rather than have two (or more!) versions of the same thing floating around in different books.
...(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)...
Here's the relevant text from the thread in question:
Paladin Pathfinder Society thread
Technically, it's a DEVELOPMENT error and not an editing error that the bit about paladins of Asmodeous slipped through into print. The whole "what is Lawful Good" and "what's okay to do as a paladin" scene is WAY too complicated as it stands without us confusing things more by saying a paladin can serve a lawful evil deity. It should have been changed before it saw print, but it slipped through.Paladins of Asmodeus are, in any event, not allowed in the Pathfinder Society. They're fine in home games if the GM is cool with them. I would not be.
The original reference is (I believe) this:
Paladins of Asmodeus thread
I feel like pointing out that no one is mentioning paladins of Asmodeus. In the write up for the god in the Mother of Flies module, number 29 for those kids without it, it says paladins of Asmodeus exist. Page 63-64 writes how Asmodeus pulls it off and why he has them.Honestly, I am okay with this. I'm not a fan of paladins of Asmodeus, and had I noticed that bit before the volume went to print, I would have removed all mention of them.
Hmm never had a typo corrected with a limerick before, thanks Chris Mortika for the mild amusement.
Anyway, so there were alot more threads about this then I was aware of, hehe. I guess the whole paladin of the lawful evil god would be a hot button issue. I am definately far more layed back about this sort of stuff because even as an AP subscriber, the material is most of the time more for inspiration and ideas then to be used as canon. There is still only one publisher that gets a blanket ok at my table, and that is Super Genius Games. But that is mostly because they produce self contained easily digestible (small) products instead of the massive interrelated libraries of stuff the big publishers put out. Bigger the scale, the better the chance there is of something being in there that's out of wack. It is litereally inevitable.
I will have to re-read the article itself, but it seemed to me to be an article to help dms write interesting storylines for their game and not something to be used to justify characters. But then again, like I said I am extremely willing to handwave great swaths of material into and out of my game(always with proper notice to my players of course) so it just doesnt seem to be a big deal to me.
But anyway, back to the main point from the OP's thread:
Does the PDF still have this section?
It is extremely unlikely the PDF will be edited in the near future if ever. I dont have access to my copy of the pdf can someone check? But i would be 98% sure its still there.
- Is the book receiving errata?
Same as above.
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
Ditto.
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
Honestly, any and all that dont work for your game. If you are talking about organized play, there is a list in the pathfinder society guide of what is legal from non-core products and what isnt. I am pretty sure that this particular article from CoT is not in the list.
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?
To improve your game. No game material will be perfect. You wont like everything that is ever put out by any company. Buy material that has things that inspire your imagination, your group members, and yourself to envision amazing characters doing awesome things. No publisher will ever be perfect, if that is what you are looking for you will never find it. Paizo however is better then most in my opinion.
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?
Not everyone buys the print copy, the pdf is a cheaper, more portable version of the product. That said when a product is corrected (like the Core Rules for instance) the pdf is also edited. Its just unlikely that an adventure path will get that treatment.
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
This goes back to my previous response, there is a list of what is or isnt legal in PFS in the guide. This is updated regularly. Check it before going to a game.
- Is this an isolated event or should I expect to see a lot of this and just get used to it?
There have been other changes, such as the change to the paladin's smite, but in terms of scale they are less frequent then any other major game system I have used in the past.
- What steps are or will be put in place to avoid this happening in the future? Or should I expect that how the setting works will be different depending on who is saying what in any particular thread?
I would say there are lots of things in place already. Like i said, with something as big as the body of work paizo is putting out, problems like this are literally inevitable. To much written, to many different people doing it, not enough time to cross check everything. The article was meant as a cool tool to inspire dms and has apparently lead to a fire of controversy I completely missed when it came out. In the end like I said paizo is definately more layed back about 'the word of law' tnen wizards or most major companies are. I am quite certain that attitude extends to most organized play tables. I really doubt even if you showed up with a cheliax aligned paladin who has this weird fascination with asmodeus you will be turned away from a society table. Though I do anticipate some serious difficulty attaining the faction's goals for many scenarios. But that is an entirely different story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The article was meant as a cool tool to inspire dms
This is exactly it. The article talks about how Asmodeus some times uses a paladin as a tool. It also says that "it's potentially possible for a paladin to believe his efforts .. will serve a greater good, though ultimately he serves nothing more than the god of tyranny's cruel agendas". It goes on to say that "only those lucky enough to die young avoid falling from grace".
The controversy surrounding the article seems to stem from people wanting this article to condone a PC paladin of Asmodeus, which is not at all what it does. To me, the article goes out of its way to explain how it's not at all a good choice to be a paladin of Asmodeus, and perhaps not even a conscious choice for those NPCs who are.
Hmm never had a typo corrected with a limerick before, thanks Chris Mortika for the mild amusement.
Anyway, so there were alot more threads about this then I was aware of, hehe. I guess the whole paladin of the lawful evil god would be a hot button issue. I am definately far more layed back about this sort of stuff because even as an AP subscriber, the material is most of the time more for inspiration and ideas then to be used as canon. There is still only one publisher that gets a blanket ok at my table, and that is Super Genius Games. But that is mostly because they produce self contained easily digestible (small) products instead of the massive interrelated libraries of stuff the big publishers put out. Bigger the scale, the better the chance there is of something being in there that's out of wack. It is litereally inevitable.
I will have to re-read the article itself, but it seemed to me to be an article to help dms write interesting storylines for their game and not something to be used to justify characters. But then again, like I said I am extremely willing to handwave great swaths of material into and out of my game(always with proper notice to my players of course) so it just doesnt seem to be a big deal to me.
But anyway, back to the main point from the OP's thread:
Does the PDF still have this section?
It is extremely unlikely the PDF will be edited in the near future if ever. I dont have access to my copy of the pdf can someone check? But i would be 98% sure its still there.
- Is the book receiving errata?
Same as above.
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
Ditto.
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
Honestly, any and all that dont work for your game. If you are talking about organized play, there is a list in the pathfinder society guide of what is legal from non-core products and what isnt. I am pretty sure that this particular article from CoT is not in the list.- If I can't trust the printed...
I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful answers.
I believe you have a good outlook and interpretation of the use of the books in play.
Portions of the book (certain spells, and the customized summon list) are usable within PFS, but as you say, it's not all legal as player resources.
I currently run the Legacy of Fire campaign at my FLGS, and I understand that what to let in and keep out is the domain of the DM. I'm very liberal in what I let in, as I believe that players should have the opportunity to play characters that they want to play, not characters that I want them to play. As a consequence, I've had characters ranging from "I'm a generic archer" to "I'm an alcoholic pirate wench cleric who somehow wound up in the deserts of Katapesh".
[I keep writing things that devolve back to the locked thread, and then self-edit them out, as I don't want to re-fight a lost battle.]
So. Bottom line. I agree with you that most probably nothing in print or pdf will see any changes. I reluctantly agree with you that the best use of the Paizo material is as inspiration and not as canon, given that we can regard the Paladins of Asmodeus issue as a glaring reminder that print <> canon. Re: Pathfinder Society, I also agree with you that by and large, most judges will be cool with whatever you bring to the table, but the closer one is to any fine line, the more likely one is to find that line redrawn with oneself on the wrong side of it.
Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)
Cheers, Thanks. and good gaming.
I don`t even have the original ¨Paladin of Asmodeus¨ article,
but from what I know, it doesn`t even seem like it`s directly talking about ¨Paladins OF Asmodeus¨, i.e. those whose powers derives from Asmodeus and who explicitly worship him. Why can`t Asmodeus ¨use Paladins as a tool¨ indirectly (i.e. not providing their divine powers), i.e. tricking them into doing his will, etc, but not be ultimately responsible for their powers? That seems alot more likely of an explanation to me, and suprememly in line with the modus operandi of a being like Asmodeus.
I don`t even have the original ¨Paladin of Asmodeus¨ article,
but from what I know, it doesn`t even seem like it`s directly talking about ¨Paladins OF Asmodeus¨, i.e. those whose powers derives from Asmodeus and who explicitly worship him. Why can`t Asmodeus ¨use Paladins as a tool¨ indirectly (i.e. not providing their divine powers), i.e. tricking them into doing his will, etc, but not be ultimately responsible for their powers? That seems alot more likely of an explanation to me, and suprememly in line with the modus operandi of a being like Asmodeus.
"As a whole, Asmodeus’s church has few organized groups of soldiers, mainly because in most lands their religion is forbidden and a large, open group attracts too much attention. Even in many evil countries, where worship of the Prince of Darkness is openly allowed, tyrannical militaries and despotic laws reduce the need or impetus to create special groups in Asmodeus’s name. However, monastic orders aligned with Hell are not that unusual; the rigid discipline and isolated community of such an organization are complementary to the lawful-minded and often-persecuted Asmodean faith.Paladins also have a strange relationship with the Archfiend. Though the idea of a lawful good paladin serving a lawful evil deity seems ridiculous, it can happen. Asmodeus is primarily a deity of law, with evil being incidental to his concept of law. Very rarely, Asmodeus allows a true paladin to serve him, using him as a tool in lands where a more traditional priest would be hunted. The paladin’s duties are always very carefully explained and restricted to avoid conflicts that result in evil thoughts or actions; in effect, the paladin is a champion of contracts and law, who happens to be good. This is possible for three reasons: One, Asmodeus can have clerics who are lawful neutral rather than lawful evil; these clerics walk a fine line that avoids outright evil while still promoting order, and therefore in theory a paladin can do the same. Two, the nature of evil does not require one to always be evil; an evil person who doesn’t rob, murder, or torture at every opportunity is not at risk of becoming less evil—in fact, an evil person can perform good acts every day, making it entirely possible (though exceedingly rare) for a servant of Asmodeus to be good, having never done an evil act. Three, the deceptions of Asmodeus are subtle and deft, and it’s potentially possible for a paladin to believe his efforts and the orderly god’s will serve a greater good, though ultimately he serves nothing more than the god of
tyranny’s cruel agendas.Such paladins sometimes see themselves as reformers of their church, trying to convince others that it is possible to serve the ultimate law and still be a good person. Religious scholars speculate that these paladins are actually granted powers by another deity (typically Iomedae or Sarenrae) through some complex arrangement with the Prince of Darkness. However, it is possible that having a good paladin in his service benefits his plans in the long run, and that these enigmatic individuals really are serving Asmodeus. Their path is much more difficult than other paladins, and only those lucky enough to die young avoid falling from grace—though what fate their souls face in the afterlife remains a matter of great theological debate."
[emphasis mine]
Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me.
Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)
There is also the post that James made when he locked that thread:
Cheliax faction paladins are completely legal.
Asmodeus-worshiping paladins are not.
You can be a Cheliax faction character who doesn't worship Asmodeus. The vast majority of Chelaix's citizens don't actually worship Asmodeus, in fact... although they're all afraid of him.
And I feel that a lot of the Cheliax missions are mild because evil alignments are not allowed for PFS characters. So if you had to do a lot of missions that were more evil in nature, then the game would be forcing your character's alignment to slide toward evil, perhaps resulting in a forced retirement of your character due to alignment change.
Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me.
Ah. Well, this grew out of somebody asking on the Pathfinder Society forum whether or not Paladins of Asmodeus were legal to play. Which led to someone saying [paraphrasing] 'of course not', and someone else pointing to the article as a reason why they would be. And forth and back and so on.
The one take-away I've gotten from this whole thing.
Don't ask rules questions on the rules forums. Look for the answers in the Core Assumption (Core Rules + Bestiary + Seeker of Secrets). If what you are wanting to do allowed (or is not prohibited by a plain text reading of the rules), then simply make your character according to the rules. Show up at the game with the relevant rule, and if it becomes an issue with the DM, discuss it there.
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Oh, one other thing. In an environment with strangers, leave all of the non-rule information (hair color, eye color, height, weight, religion (if your class does not specifically require a deity), place of birth, mother's maiden name, name of first pet, pin number, favorite color, etc) on your sheet blank. Keep your backstory on a separate piece of paper. There are a lot of people out there who will hate your fluff (it's kind of like not discussing politics, religion, or sex with strangers - somebody will hate something that you don't and then they'll hate you because you don't hate what they hate). It's better to have a fluff-free character sheet than one that can be objected to in any way.
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Well, when you have three different possible rulings that can happen, how it should work in your home campaign, how it officially works in the company's setting (Golarion), and how it even more strictly works in the Organized Play campaign using the company setting, then yes, it makes it much harder to keep track of rulings.
Of course, you will get tons of posts/threads arguing about a problem, then a developer will step in and make an official post saying "this is how it works", and then you get tons more posts/threads arguing about how official the official ruling really is.
But frankly, even with the occasional exceptions, these forums are still much more polite and free of trolls and obnoxious people than practically any other forum I have been on that dealt with rpgs.
Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)There is also the post that James made when he locked that thread:
And I feel that a lot of the Cheliax missions are mild because evil alignments are not allowed for PFS characters. So if you had to do a lot of missions that were more evil in nature, then the game would be forcing your character's alignment to slide toward evil, perhaps resulting in a forced retirement of your character due to alignment change.Cheliax faction paladins are completely legal.
Asmodeus-worshiping paladins are not.
You can be a Cheliax faction character who doesn't worship Asmodeus. The vast majority of Chelaix's citizens don't actually worship Asmodeus, in fact... although they're all afraid of him.
Re: James Jacob's final post on thread - I thought about including that, but since it went right along with his first word on the thread, I left it out out of redundancy. Thanks for posting it.
I think that most Chelaxians profess to worship Asmodeus not out of fear of the Deity, but out of fear of the Paracountess and the rest of the hierarchy. The Cheliax book makes it clear that many of the church services in Asmodeus are performed as much to be seen professing faith as anything else.
I'm playing a Cheliax Cleric of Ydersius in PFS. His outlook (and role-played as such) of the Paracountess is much like a North Korean's outlook of the Great Leader would be - you had better be seen as one of the most ardent supporters, and you had better turn in anyone who isn't.
Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.
This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.
It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.
I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.
But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.
The one take-away I've gotten from this whole thing.
[Don't ask rules questions on the rules forums. Look for the answers in the Core Assumption (Core Rules + Bestiary + Seeker of Secrets). If what you are wanting to do allowed (or is not prohibited by a plain text reading of the rules), then simply make your character according to the rules. Show up at the game with the relevant rule, and if it becomes an issue with the DM, discuss it there.
Actually, what it says is dont ask fluff dependent rules questions on the rules forums expecting a definitive answer. You will get every opinion under the sun, and from the devs you'll get 'do what works best for you, but here is my opinion'. What you will get from the forums is multiple points of view, and then you must decide for yourself which one is best. It can still be useful to ask rules questions, but if the problem is very complicated, you may have to actually make a choice for yourself. I do agree however the best and final answer is talk to your dm most of the time. But it helps to get those perspectives first to fuel that conversation.
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Most of the time, the pathfinder devs are not offering rulings anyway. There are a fair amount of them, and they are working on a faq in the near future, but the 'from on high' rulings that become RAW are rare. It just doesnt mesh with the attitudes of the paizo staff (play it your way). When you ask a question people will try to answer, but if its complicated it will lead to a debate, thats just the way the internet works really. By the way, until paizo actually gets their Faq off the ground, the best place to gather rulings is here. Nice clean straightfoward dev responses with all the background clammoring no where to be seen. It is ofcourse more limited then asking a question on the boards.
Oh, one other thing. In an environment with strangers, leave all of the non-rule information (hair color, eye color, height, weight, religion (if your class does not specifically require a deity), place of birth, mother's maiden name, name of first pet, pin number, favorite color, etc) on your sheet blank. Keep your backstory on a separate piece of paper. There are a lot of people out there who will hate your fluff (it's kind of like not discussing politics, religion, or sex with strangers - somebody will hate something that you don't and then they'll hate you because you don't hate what they hate). It's better to have a fluff-free character sheet than one that can be objected to in any way.
Its one reason other then at cons i dont game with strangers. It can be a problem since dynamics of a group are a big part of the game and theres no real way to anticipate that with strangers. And fluff is the thing that differs most between various groups. But I dont think that is a reason to go light on your own character. Make your character in the way that you think will be most fun for you (within reasonable limits of the game) and honestly, if people 'hate' your fluff, you are better off not playing with them anyway.
Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.
This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.
It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.
I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.
But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.
Regardless of rulings or what have you this story wouldn't play well in any organized play situation. This kind of story requires tailored adventures and plotlines. The VERY canned stories of any organized play scenario set is not going to do this. You are expecting WAY to much from organized play. To really tell this story you need a dm to actively weave it into the fabric of a campaign. You just cant do that in 4hour chunks. It doesnt work.
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Well, when you have three different possible rulings that can happen, how it should work in your home campaign, how it officially works in the company's setting (Golarion), and how it even more strictly works in the Organized Play campaign using the company setting, then yes, it makes it much harder to keep track of rulings.
Of course, you will get tons of posts/threads arguing about a problem, then a developer will step in and make an official post saying "this is how it works", and then you get tons more posts/threads arguing about how official the official ruling really is.
But frankly, even with the occasional exceptions, these forums are still much more polite and free of trolls and obnoxious people than practically any other forum I have been on that dealt with rpgs.
Politeness - yes, I think that generally, the Paizo boards are more polite than most other's that I've seen.
Officialness - What would be more optimal, to me were if there were one locked thread on the each of the Pathfinder, Golarian, and Pathfinder Society boards, where the only posts were official rulings. Mirrored in a PDF that could be downloaded through the "My Downloads". The thread would contain short synopses of rulings. (ie. on Pathfinder Society - [this is per an earlier ruling by Josh that has not yet been incorporated into the Guide to Organized Play] - "For clerics, the character must be with in one step of the alignment of their deity. For other classes, no alignment restriction applies. This is a change to page xx in the guide, and will be incorporated into a future printing."
But, that's mostly wishful thinking. The game has grown quite quickly, and it really looks like the Paizo folks are still overwhelmed on their website. A big push to come up with a organized forum strategy would probably help them out a lot in the long run, but it's always hard to justify the time required to do so.
Regardless of rulings or what have you this story wouldn't play well in any organized play situation....Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage.
This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses.
It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.
I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities.
But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.
Oh, I know this thing won't ever get covered in Organized Play. I'm talking about how/why paladins of evil could (and probably would) exist. I'm talking about fluff on my (well, not on, but next to) my character sheet. The type of thing that you start launching into at the table when people say "Really?? A paladin of X?" or (what I get) is "Really, a necromancer cleric of Ydersius with an animal companion that you Animate Dead on if it dies???"
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
Also, in regards to one of your original questions, I found this while looking for official, or "official", rulings about paladins:
Heart of the Jungle page 19 have shamans that take levels of cleric without worshiping a specific god, instead can choose certain domains to represent their worship of the nature spiritsHere's a handy way to look at it from a strict rules perspective.
If something lists "granted domains," a cleric can worship it. We generally list granted domains only for deities; I'm not aware of having done so for things like philosophies.
That's unfortunate and should never have gotten into print. I can't control everything that comes out under the Pathfinder Chronicles line, I guess.
Those shamans should not be clerics, actually. They should be adepts or druids.
Honestly you have a different issues here.
One it was never the intent to allow non LG paladins, and this does open the door way to do so. People keep saying well no it doesn't but in fact it does, by the core rules some of your power comes from a god, I can see arguments on both sides as to why you would not fall for breaking a code your god simply would not enforce.
Which brings us to issue two. Does a paladin need a god? Well the core book says no, and it says yes. By the rules you do not need a good and do need a good for some powers or you do not have them. kinda a catch 22. Bad wording they should have went one way or the other and it seems they flip flopped on it at some point
Another issues is the setting book was 3.5 which was a different beast then pathfinder in many ways. Expect some things not to match up. Also keep in mind the book does allow paladins not to have a god but all gods that have paladins are within one step
Then ya have the issues of how far away is two far, paizo never came out and said one step but has stated they simply didn't think it needed to be stated as it was kinda clear ya needed to stay LG and could not do that following say a CG god
Much like clerics this issues may be changed in the new setting book, Who knows. But I do belive the paladin of Asmodeus was an error. It simply is to far from every other establisted rule or theme, it stuck out way to far to be normal.
Also it opened up all kinda of issues about a paladin and his code and why you could serve evil knowingly and still not fall, then why could you not lie? why did you need to stick to a code your god would not enforce. If you serve a god then he grants your power.
Simply put you have no need to be LG or follow the paladin code as you found a loophole. If a paladin can not follow a CG god and remain a paladin, which we know he can not, then why can you follow evil yet remain one? Simply your not LG to start with is the only way
So round and round we go, no I can be good/ No you can not...
And ya throw that in org play like PFS, and your asking for trouble, I mean really you just oked them to be evil/non good, yet now they have to be good, yet do not have to be good. They can't do their gods work and not fall, yet why should they be punished for serving there approved god?
So yeah whole big mess, that is not needed. So they ruled it an production error and moved on. If they allow it when the new setting book comes out, then they have changed their minds again. I doubt ya will ever see it again as it is not inline with anything else in the setting.
Also, in regards to one of your original questions, I found this while looking for official, or "official", rulings about paladins:
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
Yep, they have been moving to cement Cleics must have gods things, and that is another error that slipped by.
As far as I know that and the Asmodeus thing are about it. They have been moving to make everything even so to speak.
Paizo puts out a lot of stuff, and a few mistakes have been made this year, those are two of them.
Honestly you have a different issues here.
One it was never the intent to allow non LG paladins, and this does open the door way to do so. People keep saying well no it doesn't but in fact it does, by the core rules some of your power comes from a god,
Remember that setting specific rules can trump general core rules and other items such as class/feat/etc. availability. All Golarian clerics and paladins are required to be sponsored by a specific diety.
Another thing to keep in mind was that it's very likely that WOTC invented the idea of godless clerics to pacify the "D+D leads to PAGAN AND SATAN WORSHIP!" crowd, probably also for the same reason that the D+D cartoon party did not have a cleric; perhaps not realising that such crowds can't be reasoned with.
Whoa-k. The first part of your post was a very benificial reminder that local over-rides global. Always good to keep in mind.
However, the second part of your post was pure speculation. Be careful what you claim, unless you've got some data to back it up.
(Not trying to hijack the thread...)
On the whole, editing and revisions are a delicate balance. In works such as these, the Paizo folks should always be keeping in mind the (business) tactical and strategic consequences of what their changes mean. I'm sure they are aware of some of the problems besetting WOTC, it's one of the reasons their business has been successfull, by NOT being WOTC. At the same time, opinions and outlooks do change, and I prefer a system that isn't so rigid that it can't, or won't adapt to make itself better.
My guess, based on what I've seen from them so far, is that they'll stick to mostly publishing approved "alternatives" that can be selected, and still remain "canonized" by players. Ultimately, I know most of us prefer something to refer to, but in the end each campaign is our own. So make of yours what you will, just make an effort to inform your players of house rules that deviate from written rules in use, and if you decide that a change in mid campaign makes your game better, consider it, but provide and explanation to the players so they can follow the logic/wisdom of your decision.
Remember that setting specific rules can trump general core rules and other items such as class/feat/etc. availability. All Golarian clerics and paladins are required to be sponsored by a specific diety.
Clerics yes, Paladins no, or not yet, at least. The Golarion Campaign Setting book states that there are paladins that do not follow a deity. I have quoted it in other threads and can quote it again here if needed.
Despite all the threads about paladins and all the posts by people from Paizo, they have yet to say straight out that a paladin on Golarion has to pick a deity. This may change in the revised version of the book, and if it will change, I would really love for a Paizo employee to come into one of these paladin threads and say so.
Remember that setting specific rules can trump general core rules and other items such as class/feat/etc. availability. All Golarian clerics and paladins are required to be sponsored by a specific diety.
Clerics yes, Paladins no, or not yet, at least. The Golarion Campaign Setting book states that there are paladins that do not follow a deity. I have quoted it in other threads and can quote it again here if needed.
Despite all the threads about paladins and all the posts by people from Paizo, they have yet to say straight out that a paladin on Golarion has to pick a deity. This may change in the revised version of the book, and if it will change, I would really love for a Paizo employee to come into one of these paladin threads and say so.
Agreed as it stands paladins do not have to have a god in golarion, but all paladins they do serve gods are with in one step.
I to hope they make a call one way or the other in the new book, areas of grey are not good, they invite loophole hunters.
Creative Director
|
As much as it bugs the OP, I can GUARENTEE it bugs me more. Especially since, in this case, it's already in print and going back to "errata" it won't change that, since that volume of Pathfinder AP is unlikely to ever be reprinted (we have PLENTY in stock). If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change. For now, though, it's just something that I have to deal with, and something that every GM will need to either make a judgement call on for his own game and/or seek out advice on these boards.
- Does the PDF still have this section?
Yes.
- Is the book receiving errata?
No. I'm not interested in setting a precedent of issuing errata for EVERY book we print, since we simply don't have time to wallow in our previous errors to that extent.
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
No.
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
None. The rest of the books are fine.
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?
If one development error getting into print like this is enough to make you lose trust in our work on Golarion... I'm not sure what I can say aside from I'm sorry.
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?
Because there's a LOT more material in that volume that ISN'T an error that still works fine. Including that specific article about Asmodeus.
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
PFS does not generally allow every single new option in ALL of our books to be legal for play. Buying our Adventure Paths solely to mine them for new player options for use in PFS is not a good idea, in other words. The Adventure Paths are not intended to augment the PFS.
- Is this an isolated event or should I expect to see a lot of this and just get used to it?
It's an isolated event. We've published 37 volumes of Pathfinder so far, and this is the only time a development error like this has crept into print. One error over the course of 3,700 pages is pretty good. It's a better error rate than most hospitals have, I suspect.
- What steps are or will be put in place to avoid this happening in the future? Or should I expect that how the setting works will be different depending on who is saying what in any particular thread?
I'm the Creative Director, and it's my job to ensure that all of the material we publish for Golarion fits the same vision. I'm not going to spend much more time describing ALL of the things I do to ensure that development errors creep in, but when they do, I'll "man up" and admit it.
As much as it bugs the OP, I can GUARENTEE it bugs me more. Especially since, in this case, it's already in print and going back to "errata" it won't change that, since that volume of Pathfinder AP is unlikely to ever be reprinted (we have PLENTY in stock). If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change. For now, though, it's just something that I have to deal with, and something that every GM will need to either make a judgement call on for his own game and/or seek out advice on these boards.
- Does the PDF still have this section?Yes.
- Is the book receiving errata?No. I'm not interested in setting a precedent of issuing errata for EVERY book we print, since we simply don't have time to wallow in our previous errors to that extent.
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?No.
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?None. The rest of the books are fine.
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?If one development error getting into print like this is enough to make you lose trust in our work on Golarion... I'm not sure what I can say aside from I'm sorry.
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?Because there's a LOT more material in that volume that ISN'T an error that still works fine. Including that specific article about Asmodeus.
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?PFS does not generally allow every single new option in ALL of our books to be legal for play. Buying our Adventure Paths solely to...
James,
Many thanks for stepping up and addressing all of my questions. As I stated later in the thread, it's more my problem than anything else.
I fully understand that as a company, your aim is to drive forward than to have to recircle back to fix things that got missed or miss-printed. [deliberate misspelling].
I enjoy the game. I enjoy the setting. I enjoy the organized play. I bring up issues in the hopes that you won't end up doing to Pathfinder what WOTC did to 4e. (I know, a whole other discussion for some other company's forum. Dropping that.)
One it was never the intent to allow non LG paladins, and this does open the door way to do so. People keep saying well no it doesn't but in fact it does, by the core rules some of your power comes from a god, I can see arguments on both sides as to why you would not fall for breaking a code your god simply would not enforce.
The article that brought all of this up actually goes straight out and says that such paladins would not be able to avoid falling from grace (aside from dying before that happened). So it clearly does not open the door to allow non-LG paladins.
I disagree, you are worshiping evil, your spreading evil your happily enforcing the rule of evil and its corruption, by RAW you auto fall.
Worshiping and helping to spread the name and influence of evil brakes your code. At lest the way the code is listed as your helping evil to evils ends, your harming others by damning souls to hell and you know it.
Paladins are Lawful and Good, you can't ignore the god part, that article they are LN at best.
But ya see that is the issues, it is to big a grey area, I am not the only one who reads it the way I stated.
"Wait you mean I can have paladins? I was I never told? I demand Naked paladins!"
|
I really liked the article in mother in flies. There are two paragraphs detailing the bizarre situation of the asmodean paladin so it does not really meet my definition of a typo. Then again whether or not it is RAW is of no concern to me. I especially like the ambiguity in the second paragraph regarding where the paladin's powers come from.
Religious scholars on Golorion and i am sure their debates are as contentious as the debates on the topic here. So some more questions;
Does everyone on Golorion know that Asmodeus is Lawful Evil or it a convenient pigeonhole we use while metagaming?
Is it possible a paladin might think his powers are granted by Asmodeus when in fact they are granted by some other divinity? {sounds like the theme of a chelish opera}
Is an atheist paladin possible?
I have no beliefs or strong opinions on the matter myself but find it amusing to ponder.
|
This is how I feel about it..
1. If you are a DM that likes to stick to canon, like me, then James saying that it should have never made it to Canon and it is not Canon is good enough.
2. If you are a PFS player you have no choice, you are out of luck if you want a Paladin of Asmodeus, because you can't.
3. If you are a GM who could care less about Canon, then you can do what ever you like and ignore James.
Now most GMs will fall under 3 so most people are good.
Number 2 will cause the biggest problems, I know because there is where we have seen the most violent arguments, but they are going to have to except and change their Paladins Diety or refuse to and leave the PFS if they regularly play at conventions because sooner or later a GM will call them on it, and that will not be pretty.
And 1, well if you have a GM that falls under 1 you already know that and most likely have excepted it, or left his game.
|
|
Interesting. This is the first I'd heard of this particular article.
Having read it just now, I'm not seeing where it says you can have a paladin of Asmodeus. It says you can have a paladin who serves Asmodeus, not one who worships Asmodeus.
For example, a paladin who forms an alliance with LN clerics in an effort to better enforce LG contract law is technically serving the interests of Asmodeus. If he has promised his LN cleric allies that he will complete a certain task for them, he is even serving the priesthood of Asmodeus. But that doesn't require that he worship or actively promote the worship of Asmodeus, nor must he ask for or receive spells from Asmodeus.
In fact, the article strongly implies that paladins in the service of Asmodeus aren't being granted spells by Asmodeus at all. So a paladin that happens to be serving the LN interests of Asmodeus isn't a "paladin of Asmodeus." He's a paladin of some other deity who happens to have an agenda which Asmodeus supports and can exploit.
That is an interesting take on the article Eric.
|
I could see a Paladin who Worships Abadar, particularly his aspect of Law, admiring Asmodeous view on the Lawful, but despising him at the same time for being Evil.
It's been stated recently on another thread that Irori is the only non-good god with Paladins (in a discussion of the 'one-step' rule), so I'm not even sure if Abadar is supposed to have Paladins now.
And someone quoted a short list of gods, supposedly from James, that very clearly did not include any of the dwarven, etc. gods (except for Torag), or the Empyreal lords. So even being LG isn't enough.
I seem to remember a discussion on Candlekeep at one point in time where SKR chimed in and pointed out that is often a better idea to point out who definitely does have divine servants of one form or another than to give a definitive list of the only gods that have a given form of servant, because eventually someone will come up with a good idea for a paladin or druid or ranger of X or Y, and all saying that a given deity has paladins means is that they are more common in those faiths than in others.
But its been a while, and that was the Realms.
|
|
And someone quoted a short list of gods, supposedly from James, that very clearly did not include any of the dwarven, etc. gods (except for Torag), or the Empyreal lords. So even being LG isn't enough.
In Abadar's wright up in Gods and Magic, it states though they are rare, that Abadar has some Paladin followers.
|
|
I seem to remember a discussion on Candlekeep at one point in time where SKR chimed in and pointed out that is often a better idea to point out who definitely does have divine servants of one form or another than to give a definitive list of the only gods that have a given form of servant, because eventually someone will come up with a good idea for a paladin or druid or ranger of X or Y, and all saying that a given deity has paladins means is that they are more common in those faiths than in others.
But its been a while, and that was the Realms.
in Truth, in my Home game I would not give any issue, if for example someone wanted to pick a god that fits the Paladins code but does not mention having Paladin followers, but I would have issue if someone picked a deity not fitting to the Paladins Code, or if it was a PFS game where you have to follow Canon more closely.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of the core 20 deities in Golarion, the following have paladins serving them (note that this is NOT the same as saying all paladins serve deities). They're listed in the order of who has the most paladins and who has the least paladins.
1: Iomedae
2: Erastil
3: Torag
4: Sarenrae
5: Abadar
6: Shelyn
7: Irori
If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change.
I'll just have to find a sneaky way to change it back. ;)
..Anyway, since that issue looks solved,
what about the rest of the thread topic:
Development and Errata in general?
With the APG (and GMG while we´re at it), is Paizo planning on following it´s ´break our own rules´ precedent re: referencing page #´s as happened with the Core Rules?, or will that be avoided so as to not impede future Errata? If so, what is different about these ¨crunch¨ products as compared to the Core Rules?
Personally, I don´t really see the problem with giving up fixed page #´s for the Core Rules themselves - products already in print referencing page numbers DO accurately reference Core Rule books already in print, but going forward products can avoid page # references, so if new Core Rules shift material by several pages, it won´t really matter that much. In the case somebody is using old AP/setting material (with page# references) in conjunction with new-print Core Rules, worst case they will probably have to flip a page or 2 backward or forward. Heck, I´d be happy with staggering the implementation of this, so all Paizo products from RIGHT NOW emit page # references (culling PDFs and new print runs of page # references should be reasonably easy, since page # references pretty much all have the same format), and only after a year or so of this will a new printing of the Core Rules, with page-shifting Errata, be released.
I´m also curious how the ´breaking our own rules´ thing (re: page # references) started - Was there a meeting that decided that page # references (of the Core Rule) were SO useful that it justified forgoing the possibility of issuing certain Errata that would shift page #´s, or did it just happen? How is it so useful for Paizo to be able to page reference the Core Rules, but not so much for 3rd party publishers who presumably will abide by the rule (unlike Paizo) because their licence to publish material depends on following the rules?
Also, for Errata fixes in the present tense, what is the process for deciding whether or not it can go forward, in terms of respecting page count? Is it simply looked at as single sentences with no context, or is the rest of the passage, or even nearby text on the same or previous page looked at to find any opportunities for saving space, i.e. to off-set any gains from an Errata that is longer than the original?