| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point the whole mechanics talk was about was the assertion that the Paladin is given tools to deal with threats head on that Fighters don't get. The balance being that they are SUPPOSED to deal with threats head on.
Yes, and those seem to be a free pair of Stagger-Proof Boots and Locking Gauntlet...
In all honesty, a "good and evil are both valid points of view; the truth lies somewhere in the middle!" paladin would be a solid Lawful Evil. Trying to keep the balance between Good and Evil is terrible, morally-speaking, because...well, it's Evil. This is why aeons are so poorly thought-out. They are the actual extraplanar embodiment of the "save an orphanage, burn one down, TN" philosophy. I only give them a pass because monsters (especially godly or planar ones) tend to break the rules more.
But a human? Nah, that's evil.
That said, I could see a TN paladin (and I'm using "paladin" as a generic term for "divinely-powered warrior with a strict code") who's dedicated to inaction. Sure, Evil sucks, but conflict between Good and Evil just leads to more suffering. Better to just let the "devil you know" be than try to exterminate or fight them and cause more trouble doing so.
A TN paladin like this wouldn't exactly be dedicated to balance, but they would be dedicated to maintaining the status quo, and the status quo is balance. They would advocate leaving a dictator in power, or allowing orcs to continue raiding small villages...just as long as nothing escalates in one direction or another. It's a highly questionable outlook on life, but it is a consistent philosophy, and it's basically the opinion of Neutral: Do no awful harm, but don't do a ton of good, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read a Pathfinder novel called The Master of Devils. In it, a character named Burning Cloud Devil wants to take revenge on a celestial dragon who bit off his arm and (I think) killed his lover. He has a method to kill the dragon, but he himself cannot use it because it requires two arms.
So he captures a tiefling named Radovan. He specifically captures Radovan because, as a tiefling, he has the combination of fiendish and mortal ki necessary to utilize BCD's dragon-killing method. So ki is not just incidental to the story; it's a plot point. And BCD trains Radovan to become a moderately high level Monk. For example, able to use both the Quivering Palm and Abundant Step. So no, he's not a Brawler, or an Unarmed archetype Fighter or a Martial Artist archetype Monk. Radovan is a ki using Monk.
And he remains Chaotic the whole time. Radovan does not care about self-discipline or deference to proper authority. He doesn't give a damn about the smooth functioning of society or reaching a state of self-perfection. He cares about "BCD could stop my heart and kill me so I better play along until I can get out from under his thumb".
He's even called out as CN in both the Pathfinder Wiki and Inner Sea Combat. So no, he isn't making use of the Idyllkin Aasimar racial trait that allows you to still take levels in Monk even if NG or TN.
Radovan is a Pathfinder character. In the setting of Golarion. So any given player should be able to see that, be inspired by that, and emulate that in a character of his own in any given Pathfinder game with a minimum of fuss (i.e., none whatsoever). Not just one set in Golarion (as that's where the inspiration for this character comes from), but any setting under the sun, at least by default, since Pathfinder is a setting neutral game and, by definition, should be open to any published or homebrewed setting imaginable. Nor should the player in question have to produce the credentials and pedigree of a character concept the way I just did.
Instead, we have this:
Neither am I. If you dont want to be shoed in to LG, don't play a paladin. If you don't want a non-Neutral alignment, don't play a druid. If you want to be Lawful, don't be a barbarian. If you don't want to be lawful, don't play a monk.
Blah blah blah.
You have options. If you don't like the alignment restriction, choose another character. You have the choice.
Which is the functional equivalent of "Storm and Thor from Marvel must be evil because they use lightning and Emperor Palpatine is evil and uses lightning".
Being lawful has nothing to do with being a ki-using Monk (beyond Ki Strike Lawful and Perfect Self, both of which should have been handled like the Cleric channeling Positive or Negative Energy). And even if that's true in some settings (but not Golarion; there's an entire novel that explains why that's not the case), it's not necessarily true in others. And as a game that advertises itself as a setting neutral game, to be used for any setting you might want to use it for, including but not limited to Golarion, these assumptions about classes and the concepts behind them need to not be the default (especially the assumptions that don't apply to Golarion, anyway).
A player with a character inspired by Radovan, a Pathfinder Golarion character, should be able to present a non-Lawful ki-using Monk as his character and expect no more of a knock-down drag-out philosophical war than a character who comes along saying "I've got this idea for a Rogue, except I eventually want her to be using a grappling hook or a spiked chain instead of a dagger". That that isn't the expectation is dismaying. We need to be better than this, people.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was a thread about True Neutral paladins, not name nitpicking. Geez, this makes the ten-foot jump thread look rational and important. Guys, who cares what they call the class? Is it really worth a three-page..."altercation"?
|
Being honourable does not equal being suicidal IMO. A Paladin is supposed to oppose evil in all its forms. How does throwing his life away in a honourable but futile gesture really accomplish that. It's all good to say a Paladin had to be honourable to the point of willing to commit suicide. Not so much when you take the rest of the party with you. If a Paladin tried that in outlet group he would be heading towards his death with no backup. We're heroic adventurers. Not terminally stupid ones. If a Paladin heroic actions results in a tom. Especially a preventable one he falls. I reward honourable and smart tactics. I don't reward players who throw away their characters lives. Or those of the group.
Can we fork this into, like, two different threads? Alignment restrictions on barbarians, monks and druids (and, to a lesser extent, deity-focused casters and paladins) are a perfectly interesting and viable line of pointlessly hostile discussion, but they aren't really what this thread seems to be about. This threads seems to basically be about a class variant.
Also, do we really need another thread about what paladins are allowed to do?
The point the whole mechanics talk was about was the assertion that the Paladin is given tools to deal with threats head on that Fighters don't get. The balance being that they are SUPPOSED to deal with threats head on.Yes, and those seem to be a free pair of Stagger-Proof Boots and Locking Gauntlet...
They weren't free. Though they are useful to deal with maneuvers which are the bane of heavily armored characters in Pathfinder. Without them you can always counter with flight and imp unarmed attack.
I brought those up because my current character has to deal with both a lot.
I just found it amusing that with your "paladins are awesome cuz LG" argument you made, you then turn around and say you wouldn't be beaten because of two items anyone can buy and not because of the super-duper paladin super-powers that you got because you are contractually required to charge "threats head on".
Depends on how you define "honorable". Many paladins in many games would probably see ending a fight as quickly as possible as a very good and honorable tactic—putting the needs of others over your need for an "honorable" fight.
Most paladins probably don't see violence as a place for honor at all. Violence is a necessary evil and something you resolve as quickly as possible. Save your honor for honorable activities. A demon or ghoul is not entitled to an equal fight.
The "default code" does mark use of poison as dishonorable, though that's more a port from older editions than a really consistent rule. Paladin codes vary depending on the god and the paladin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin, in such a case, is simply going to fall and need atonement no matter what he does.
This is actually untrue for most games following the default rules. A typical paladin only has one "instant fall" button: Committing an evil act. The rest is stuff she should do most of the time. Breaking with other parts of the code once or twice will get her ugly looks from her god and put her on a razor line, but it won't instantly cause a fall.
In my own games, I actually encourage paladins away from killing living, sentient creatures (excepting fiends and such). They can do it if need be, but if given the choice between killing an evil human and capturing them, they should choose to capture. So in my games, if they see a sleeping enemy, and that enemy is legitimately sentient and free-willed, I actually would give them some pushback on killing the enemy right there (assuming there's no reason capture would be impossible). But that's because of my personal views on morality, and I wouldn't say everyone should be running their games like that.
Monstrous races are a gray area. If the goblin is being played like a stereotypical comedically evil goblin, they can usually treat them like one (though some respect for the sanctity of life is still encouraged). If the goblin is being played with a smidgen of complexity, though, standard rules apply.
It would be interesting to have a thread just discussing how each of us runs paladins without criticizing each other for it. Sadly, I don't think such a thread would be able to stay civil for more than a page or so. Maybe I'll take a stab at it when I get home. I haven't made a IBTLbait thread in a while.
This is actually untrue for most games following the default rules. A typical paladin only has one "instant fall" button: Committing an evil act. The rest is stuff she should do most of the time. Breaking with other parts of the code once or twice will get her ugly looks from her god and put her on a razor line, but it won't instantly cause a fall.
The Paladin, in such a case, is simply going to fall and need atonement no matter what he does.
Sadly, I think this was changed in the Pathfinder code. The way I read it, violating the code leads to a fall. It used to be a "gross" violation in 3.5. Note the phrasing:
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct..." (Pathfinder core rulebook)
vs
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct..." (D&D 3.5 core rulebook)
Unless it was unintentional, Pathfinder paladins do not need to commit a gross violation of the code to fall. Of course, the DM is the arbiter of what is an actual violation and what is grey area. For example, let us say the paladin fights a mindless ooze or even a mindless undead, an enemy who cannot even comprehend honest combat. Is the paladin bound in any way? Or is the paladin bound to relinquish a strategic advantage and not do a nighttime raid against an enemy force when war has been duly declared and the enemy is aware that you are at war with them?
Anyway, the title "paladin" is sort of too tied with LG for many people here to take it away without a lot of gnashing of teeth. In the meantime, I would suggest using a Champion of the Faith warpriest if you want to smite people with any other alignment. Regular warpriest or even cleric/holy vindicator can work decently as well.
Much like the last thread about this, the definition of honorable can vary. We've yet to nail down the degree of lying (which seems to be given as an example of something some consider honorable), not cheating and so on. How much help can one get from one's party before it is cheating -- or is it tactics? Or does it depend on the GM's view of this?
|
|
That's the problem. What is a evil act. Maybe acceptable depending on the situation. The Paladin is on his way out of a enemy camp after rescuing some POWs. Comes across a sleeping sentry. Does he left the sentry be and run the risk of the entire camp being alerted. Or does he kill the sentry in sleep to ensure no alarm is raised. Sometimes game situations in terms of morality are not cut and dry.
& Hwalsh
Why would the Paladin fall. On one hand you say it's a smart plan. But as a DM your still going to penalize the player. The group might as well simply yell and walk up the dragon. Whatever happens either the party or the Paladin is going to get screwed over.
Not Honorable =/= Evil and in a situation where killing or attacking a sleeping enemy is beneficial to thousands the the Paladin wouldn't fall IMO.
That's the problem. What is a evil act. Maybe acceptable depending on the situation. The Paladin is on his way out of a enemy camp after rescuing some POWs. Comes across a sleeping sentry. Does he left the sentry be and run the risk of the entire camp being alerted. Or does he kill the sentry in sleep to ensure no alarm is raised. Sometimes game situations in terms of morality are not cut and dry.
This is not just a game situation. It can happen in RL.
The Paladin would disable the sentry in some way so that he cannot alert the camp. He would not kill him.
That's the problem. What is a evil act. Maybe acceptable depending on the situation. The Paladin is on his way out of a enemy camp after rescuing some POWs. Comes across a sleeping sentry. Does he left the sentry be and run the risk of the entire camp being alerted. Or does he kill the sentry in sleep to ensure no alarm is raised. Sometimes game situations in terms of morality are not cut and dry.This is not just a game situation. It can happen in RL.
The Paladin would disable the sentry in some way so that he cannot alert the camp. He would not kill him.
And when the paladin figures out he doesn't have a way to disable without killing? What then? Is the guard living more honorable than letting the POW's possibly get attack because you didn't want to kill the guard?
This is why I stress communication at the table. It's pretty important to puzzle out where the GM and a respective paladin (of any alignment) stand on things like honor, lying, and so forth. It's better to have a sit down before you find out that they have a very strict reading of the text before you make a character and find it unplayable.
This is actually untrue for most games following the default rules. A typical paladin only has one "instant fall" button: Committing an evil act. The rest is stuff she should do most of the time. Breaking with other parts of the code once or twice will get her ugly looks from her god and put her on a razor line, but it won't instantly cause a fall.
The Paladin, in such a case, is simply going to fall and need atonement no matter what he does.Sadly, I think this was changed in the Pathfinder code. The way I read it, violating the code leads to a fall. It used to be a "gross" violation in 3.5. Note the phrasing:
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct..." (Pathfinder core rulebook)
vs
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct..." (D&D 3.5 core rulebook)
I think you're using an outdated book. The PRD says:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
The only "instant fall" is explicitly called out there: Commits an evil act.
The argument here keeps pushing the goal post...
"Is killing someone in their sleep evil?"
"Yes. Yes it is."
You're the only one who believes that. The point we're arguing here is more, "Is it allowed for a paladin?"
Killing someone in their sleep is not evil. It's very much neutral (killing someone in their sleep is easier than risking waking them up trying to, say, tie them up).
"What if it is for a good reason?"
"Pathfinder morality isn't subjective. Ends don't justify the means."
Pathfinder morality isn't subjective, but that has nothing to do with ends justifying the means. Regardless, you're basing this on the incorrect notion that we accept killing someone in their sleep to be evil.
"What if it is tactically better to kill him?"
"Tactics have nothing to do with honor."
Neither does combat.
*Strawmanstrawmanstrawman*
*Strawmanstrawmanstrawman*
The argument here keeps pushing the goal post...
"Is killing someone in their sleep evil?"
"Yes. Yes it is.""What if it is for a good reason?"
"Pathfinder morality isn't subjective. Ends don't justify the means.""What if it is tactically better to kill him?"
"Tactics have nothing to do with honor.""Uh... Well... Uh... What if it is a sentry, and uh, if you don't kill him then, uh, the POW's will get attacked?"
"Then the Paladin knocks the guard out or otherwise disables him!""Well uh, he, uhm, you, uh... You can't."
"Why?""Well, erm... I... Uh... Because I want to win the argument!"
"Sorry. Honor isn't really as subjective as you think. You can't win with this line of thinking. Concede with honor."
Wait, I can play this too!
"Why is it like this?"
"Er, because the book says this!"
"No it doesn't. It says you fall for an evil action."
"umm. But all this is evil!"
"Only if you have a GM stuck in AD&D. Pathfinder moved a little past that."
This is actually untrue for most games following the default rules. A typical paladin only has one "instant fall" button: Committing an evil act. The rest is stuff she should do most of the time. Breaking with other parts of the code once or twice will get her ugly looks from her god and put her on a razor line, but it won't instantly cause a fall.
The Paladin, in such a case, is simply going to fall and need atonement no matter what he does.Sadly, I think this was changed in the Pathfinder code. The way I read it, violating the code leads to a fall. It used to be a "gross" violation in 3.5. Note the phrasing:
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct..." (Pathfinder core rulebook)
vs
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct..." (D&D 3.5 core rulebook)
I think you're using an outdated book. The PRD says:
The only "instant fall" is explicitly called out there: Commits an evil act.Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Incorrect:
...Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her
Fair enough. I didn't see that bit. In that case, it continues to depend on what code they have and how we interpret that code (we all know how you interpret it). Codes vary based on paladin and deity. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I didn't see that bit. In that case, it continues to depend on what code they have and how we interpret that code (we all know how you interpret it). Codes vary based on paladin and deity. :)
And there's the thing: the code, much like a great deal of the game, is designed so that someone with an eye on the book and the game -- the GM -- can adjudicate this. It isn't a video game that keeps a tally and BOOM you fall, the fail succeeds regardless of how poorly it was written and so on. Clinging to the book and pointing desperately at the words on the page ignore that the rules are going to be interpreted by GMs and players at their table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, the "strawman script" format of arguing is the slimiest, most passive-aggressive technique currently allowed by these forums. It's virtually guaranteed to escalate arguments into insults (since it itself is very thinly-layered insulting to begin with).
I look forward to the day the mods wise up and handle it the same way they do other forms of flamebaiting and personal attacks. In the meantime, let's be bigger people and just not use them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally -- page 150 Inner Sea Gods -- Paladins of Torag can in fact lie and kill sleeping enemies and guards on duty and cheat and possibly anything else that they need to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That only works as an argument if the only options are: "Pass him by and get an alarm raised, or kill him and raise no alarm."
However there are other options:
1. Subdue the target and gag him. By the time anyone finds him you will be long gone.
2. Capture the target, without killing him, and let him go once you are clear.
3. Wake the target, at sword point, and use diplomacy: "We have you dead to rights sir and yet have spared you. I am taking these men to freedom. You must realize that freedom is the right of all people, I appeal to your better nature in this and ask that you let us pass."
Now, you will say, "Well those won't necessarily work!"
Neither will killing him in his sleep. You could miss, he could make his save, someone else could track blood on their shoe and give a clear path to the group if another sentry finds a dead body.
There are tons of alternatives to simply "kill him." They just don't fit the false narrative that you are trying to sell.
See, all that runs against the paladin's need to protect the innocent.
#1 subdue: You KNOW you are less likely to succeed, meaning your pride is more important than the lives of innocents.#2 capture? Without an alarm? See #1. You KNOW you aren't as likely to do it.
#3 See #1-3. Your need to be nice has put innocent people in danger. Better kill yourself and protect them... :P
Color it anyway you like but EVERY alternative has drastically lower chances of working vs a coup de grâce and puts your charges in greater danger.
Additionally -- page 150 Inner Sea Gods -- Paladins of Torag can in fact lie and kill sleeping enemies and guards on duty and cheat and possibly anything else that they need to.
This exactly. Paladin codes can vary quite sharply. The book gives some sample rules, but not a hard list (you don't use "and so forth" if you're making a hard-and-fast array of dos-and-don'ts).
Additionally, there's a lot of interpretation on rules like "behave honorably" and "respect legitimate authority". These are highly subjective rules, and for good reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem. What is a evil act. Maybe acceptable depending on the situation.Negative. Pathfinder deals in OBJECTIVE morality not SUBJECTIVE morality.
Tell you what. You show me the lines is the rulebook where Pathfinder codifies good or evil in anything but the vaguest of generalizations. For example is giving candy to a baby good ? You've made a child happy but this particular piece of candy was also enough to push him into diabetes. You a have inflicted a disease on a small child is inflicting a child with disease evil ? Show me where the books come anywhere near defining the morality of a situation like that as anything shy of dude it's a GM call.
And when the paladin figures out he doesn't have a way to disable without killing? What then? Is the guard living more honorable than letting the POW's possibly get attack because you didn't want to kill the guard?
Whyfor you want to make this about *me*?
You seem to want to postulate a situation in which a Paladin has no choice but to violate his code. Given such a situation, I expect he would do whatever is necessary for the good of his friends and allies. If that means killing a helplessly sleeping guard, so be it. But I suspect he would want to pray about it afterwards. A lot would depend on his god's examination of what he did. And I suspect that different gods, even different LG gods, might have different opinions of such an act.
Individual paladins may vary somewhat in terms of which aspects of a god's tenets they prioritize highest, and two paladins of the same faith may still have differing interpretations on how to best implement a god's divine mandates.
If the gods are willing to allow their paladins to prioritize their tenets, which are close to them, then it would stand to reason they'd be allowed to do the same with the generic inherited codes from the Core book.
And Torag's paladins can still lie to the enemy and are pretty unwilling to show mercy to the enemies of their people.