We expect Paladins to play good guys, and for them to avoid being a douchebag.
What is a douchebag?
Its like pornography, hard to describe, but we know it when we see it.
The original knights of yore believed that bows were dishonorable weapons and only hand to hand weapons were considered righteous.
That is not true at all. They spread the word as if it were true so peasants would not shoot them, but those same knight had no issues running peasants down using a mount.
You dishonor your men by being a fool of a general and putting their lives at needless risk.Paladins running wars do not need to telegraph their intentions on the battlefield and cede all intelligence advantage to their enemies. That would, in fact, be acting dishonorably to the people under their command for whom they are responsible.How so?
<Playing devil's advocate for the moment.>
While there is no honor in being a fool it is not dishonorable on its own.
That is not true at all. They spread the word as if it were true so peasants would not shoot them, but those same knight had no issues running peasants down using a mount.
First...Those are not the knights who I am refering to as Paladin-like. Secondly, riding someone down with a horse is still "close combat" and not the cowardly form of shooting someone from afar.
While there is no honor in being a fool it is not dishonorable on its own.
Um...YES being a fool IS dishonorable when you are needlessly risking the lives of your own people.
And being a fool dishonors oneself, ones family, ones teachers, ones country, etc. Being foolish inherently dishonors someone or something. When was the last time you heard someone say, "My son is a complete fool. He brings honor to our family." Yeah... didn't think so.
your statements.
Try reading the WHOLE citation before you run the sarcasm... it might help.
That is not true at all. They spread the word as if it were true so peasants would not shoot them, but those same knight had no issues running peasants down using a mount.First...Those are not the knights who I am refering to as Paladin-like. Secondly, riding someone down with a horse is still "close combat" and not the cowardly form of shooting someone from afar.
While there is no honor in being a fool it is not dishonorable on its own.Um...YES being a fool IS dishonorable when you are needlessly risking the lives of your own people.
And being a fool dishonors oneself, ones family, ones teachers, ones country, etc. Being foolish inherently dishonors someone or something. When was the last time you heard someone say, "My son is a complete fool. He brings honor to our family." Yeah... didn't think so.
I have never heard them say my stupid son has no honor either.
Explain how wearing a disguise is a violation of "the" Paladin's Code?
I don't think it is, just like I don't think lying is a violation of the Paladin's Code, if and only if, the Paladin is lying to protect the innocent or to further the cause of Good. Honor demands that the Paladin keep his promises, but it does not demand that he tell the truth at all times.
The INTENT of wearing the disguise is what you need to look at. If a disguise is the only way a paladin can infiltrate and defeat the evil Orc boss, then what's the gripe? Again, dressing up is NOT AND NEVER WILL BE LYING. It is only lying when someone asks if you really are Spider Man and you say "yes".
Pretending to be someone or something that you are not is just as deceitful as lying; arguing that it is not "technically" lying is a form of equivocation. Paladins that argue on the letter of the Code to justify their behavior are betraying the spirit of the Code and are on their way to becoming ex-Paladins.
Why? That is what makes the paladin a challenge to play.
The challenge of playing a Paladin is living up to the Code, not trying to find ways around it. It is hard enough playing a Paladin without DMs adding additional restrictions and trying to trap them.
What necessary lie? I already stated that a Paladin CANNOT tell lies.
Yes. And then you proceeded to explain how Paladins can justify any other sort of deceitful behavior. What you are describing is not upholding a code of honor, it's trying to skirt around an inconvenient set of rules; Paladins should be above such behavior.
Adultery is a social rule.
It is a far greater offense against honor than lying. There is no gray area to it; it is breaking your oath and encouraging someone else to do the same.
|
Try reading the WHOLE citation before you run the sarcasm... it might help.
your statements.
No sarcasm engaged. His statement was one of many theories, none of which are supported by anything but hearsay.
There isn't a single right answer to this question. Instead there are a spectrum of possibilities which will vary highly on personality and context.
I'd say the entire issue is actually much more an interpretation of the Paladin's God's interpretation of the Paladin's code than it is anything else.
I see no reason why different gods wouldn't have different interpretations of their Paladin's code.
A LG Knight type god might be extremely strict in his interpretation, and any sort of trickery including feinting or flanking might be considered dishonorable.
A NG Healer god type might be very lax on the code so long as it's in the furtherance of helping/rescuing others. Such a god might be perfectly fine with their Paladin going in disugise and lieing if it's necessary to protect/defend the innocent, but would likely be much more strict on accepting surrenders from enemies, healing the downed enemy after the battle, etc.
A LN Judge god type might focus more on the Law and Order aspects of the code, over the Good bits. His Paladins would likely be judges, meting out low justice and giving out trials on the road, with no second thoughts about lopping the head off an enemy after giving him a quick trial, even if he surrendered.
I removed an older post. Telling people they're playing the game wrong and are bad people for doing so is not constructive criticism.
I would also like to see something detailing the different monastic orders of Golarion, and their orders codes of conduct.
Happy gaming everyone!Happy gaming to you too! =)
Why canonize something that does not need to be and subsequently takes away from the DM, the ability to "create his own" flavor?
As a counter-proposal, instead of saying "Monastary X follows Y code." why not make a generic list of attributes and moralities so that the player or DM can create their OWN codes of conduct? Seems more flexible and useful to me.
And, yes, the great folks at Paizo should get on this! =) Pretty please, with sugar!?
Thank you for agreeing.
One of the problems I've had with the Monk, other than them not fitting in with the general feel of most settings, is the fact that they are non-defined. Monks have codes. And these codes vary widely from monastery to monastery. Are monks allowed to marry, hold positions of power, or have sex? Some traditions say yes, others no.
Another problem I have with the class is that every monk I've ever seen played, with the exception of one drunken master, has been in effect the same character. The race my vary, but otherwise it's just guy or girl beating things with their bare hands and enforcing the law, in a vague way.
Now I've seen some players go the extra distance and look up actually monastic traditions, but they are rare. It'd be much easier if they could say "monks of Sarenrae fast after sunset" because I read it in a Pathfinder supplement.
Perhaps a compromise? I like the idea of a general code, but what if there were additional strictures added based on sect? I'm not saying as a way to punish monks, but more as a way to define them and add depth to their individual orders.
By the way, I do like the concept of monks in an eastern setting and am not trying to start a fight over the class. To each their own.
Agreed except that the Cardinal Virtues were more for clergy than crusaders.
The Cardinal Virtues were actually set down by Plato, not Christianity. In this case the word Cardinal means "of prime importance" much like the cardinal directions. Plato's views were adapted by Christianity, who added the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Combined they form the Seven Divine Virtues, the opposite of the more famous Seven Deadly Sins.
You do not understand the definition of feinting as it applies to weapons of a knight. In this case feinting is moving or swinging in one direction to make it seem they are attacking from one angle/direction and quickly switching to another attack point instead. It could be as simple as a glance in one direction or a shift of the head, body or arms. This is NOT lying, cheating, stealing, murderous, underhanded or otherwise unlawful. It is a BASIC fighting technique. Ask any modern group that studies and practices historic martial fighting techniques INCLUDING KENDO (for those samurai fans)!!! It is a method of defeating an opponent more quickly and allows the knight to defeat more evil on the battlefield instead of becoming exhausted in the first 2 mins because he announces each and every swing of the blade (which is then parried or blocked) and therefore can only defeat his opponent with sheer endurance instead of martial skill.
I bow to you on this point. While I do fully understand the meaning of feint, as I mentioned in my previous post, I did not take the time to look up what Pathfinder defines as feint. I've always seen it portrayed in game as yelling "behind you!" and then stabbing them in the back as they turned. It is not specifically stated as such, and therefore the Paladin should be allowed it.
The first paragraph I consider a strength as it means the Monk isn't confined to one narrowly defined box.
The second is not a problem with the class, but with the players' lack of imagination.
Or with busy players. Most of mine are full-time students working full-time jobs. They like to read over setting stuff as much as the next player, but asking them to do individual research on difrent monk sects is too much. As such the monk comes across as a generic eastern monk. Now if a player for LoF decided to play a monk of Saerenrae all she'd have to do is read maybe a page or two from a Pathfinder book defining the difrent types of monks.
I believe the monks should have a code as well defined as the Paladin. Now would a Lawful Evil monk bend the code more than a Lawful Good monk? Yes. They are a class that also has an alignment restriction, and as a GM I'd like to have something to point to when I feel like they've violated it.
A couple of thoughts on stuff that has come up in this thread.
-- I think some people are confusing honor and goodness. The two are very different things. Anybody who doubts that should Google "honor killings".
-- Societies that put a strong emphasis on honor, in fact, frequently pressure people to do things that are decidedly not good.
-- IMHO, that is why Paladins have a Code of Conduct, not an honor code.
-- Codes of Conduct should be, at the very least, unique to each deity, and you can make a case that they should be unique to each paladin.
-- That does not mean each paladin gets to do whatever he wants in his own self-defined code. The code should be worked out by the player in cooperation with the GM and consider both the indidvidual paladin's character and background, and the rules and ethics of his sponsoring deity.
-- Once established, a paladin character should be expected to abide by his code. That doesn't mean that he will never stray - he's still human. It just means that when he does stray, his conscience should force him to atonement.
-- Only repeated and willful violations of the code, or refusal to atone, or a really big violation of the code should cause a paladin to fall.
-- Paladins can be excellent war leaders. They may lose some (not all) tactics, but their charisma and willingness to lead by example inspires their troops. They wouldn't be desk jockey generals surveying the battlefield from a safe vantage point, and spending the lives of their soldiers like coin. They'd be battlefield commanders standing squarely in the front lines, leading every charge, taking on all the enemy's champions, healing the wounded, etc. Their troops would love them and fight like hell to live up to their example.
I have never heard them say my stupid son has no honor either.
Wow...ok... I am obviously not being clear. You win.
Pretending to be someone or something that you are not is just as deceitful as lying; arguing that it is not "technically" lying is a form of equivocation.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of this. However I respect your right to your opinion. There is nothing more I can say to you about this.
Thank you for agreeing.
YAY! =)
Perhaps a compromise? I like the idea of a general code, but what if there were additional strictures added based on sect? I'm not saying as a way to punish monks, but more as a way to define them and add depth to their individual orders.
Great idea! There is no reason not to include lists that might have more of a western civ flavor or eastern civ flavor or Native american flavor etc.
Lets make this happen!!!
-- I think some people are confusing honor and goodness. The two are very different things. Anybody who doubts that should Google "honor killings".
I agree with this and most of all the other points you made too!
-- IMHO, that is why Paladins have a Code of Conduct, not an honor code.
I see what you are saying. My take is that a code is a code is a code. Code of Honor / Honor Code is fine too. The bottom line is that the code is just a list of ideals, Alignment is what drives the ideals of the code. A Paladin and an Anti-paladin can both have similar codes of honor, but it is their inherent good or evil that defines them.
OK, Rule #1: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR
No.
The entire idea of being a paladin is that you do NOT need to compromise your principles in order to win the war. You don't need to lie, fight dirty, cheat, in order to fight evil. You can fight evil, you can do it honestly, and you will win.
|
It's too easy imo to say that a Paladin cannot fight dirty, cheat and lie. sometimes things in a game are not so cut and dry and sometimes things do not always go in a Paladins favor. I'm not saying he should break his code and toss awy his honor all the time. Just that sometimes you cannot play the sterotypical Paladin 100% of th time. Or as they say your Lawful good not Lawful stupid or Lawful sucidal. Then again I tend to be more leninent as a DM when it comes to Paladins but thats just me.
Then again I tend to be more leninent as a DM when it comes to Paladins but thats just me.
Same. AS long as they are genuinely trying to do the right thing then I don't nitpick.
OK, Rule #1: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR
No.
How wonderful it must be to be so all knowing that you can definitively tell me "no".
The quote is still valid. All is fair. Just because all is fair does not mean that one will choose to use ANY means necessary. One can choose some or all means they wish to implement. That is where individual codes of conduct come in to play.
I have never heard them say my stupid son has no honor either.Wow...ok... I am obviously not being clear. You win.
I said earlier I was playing devil's advocate. :)
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.
Is this really that hard to understand everybody.
As for a Paladin using Feint its not allowed by RAW.(I don't care about real life fighting and how it works either.) By the rules Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie. Thus by the code of conduct no Feint, no Bluff, no lies.
As for people who think that only committing an evil act makes a Paladin lose their abilities;
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 abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
It clearly states that breaking your code of conduct also makes you lose your abilities.
|
|
Is this really that hard to understand everybody.
Yes
As for a Paladin using Feint its not allowed by RAW.(I don't care about real life fighting and how it works either.) By the rules Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie. Thus by the code of conduct no Feint, no Bluff, no lies.
Bluff includes lying, feinting, and sending secret messages. Using Bluff does not mean you are lying every time you use it. Therefore, you need to show in the rules where it says feinting equals lying, or it is not RAW.
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.
Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
It says that you are fooling someone, to fool someone is to trick them, or lie to them.
Definition of LIE
intransitive verb
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
I'm sure using a Feint is creating a misleading impression. Thus it is in itself a lie.
Bluff (Cha)
You know how to tell a lie.
I mean Bluff its self is an entire skill based on knowing how to lie and be deceitful. Bluff lets you;
1. Deliver Secret Message: Delivering a secret message generally takes twice as long as the message would otherwise would take to relay.
You can use Bluff to pass hidden messages to another character without others understanding your true meaning.
So this use of the skill is attempting to deliver a secret message by misleading others as to what your doing. So your creating a misleading impression, which is a lie.
2. Feint in Combat: Feinting in combat is a standard action.
As what i stated above.
3. Deceive Someone: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
Its says it all in its action.
So the skill Bluff and all its uses is knowing how to lie, mislead, and be deceitful.
Also i liked to point out that the opposed roll for all of these is Sense Motive.
Sense Motive (Wis)
You are skilled at detecting falsehoods and true intentions.
The opposed roll is to detect a falsehood and discover the true intentions of what is going on. Leading me to think that a lie or some kind of deceit is going on in the first place.
Thanks.
I really should have put that to begin with. :)
You know, I liked the standard 3.5 paladin code a lot better in that it specified that a paladin fell for GROSS violations of the code (as well as evil acts and stopping to be LG). The exception for evil acts or stopping to be LG ties with the gross violations idea as well - evil acts are THE violation of the spirit of the code, and LG is the alignment the code is based on. Actually, the the default paladin code can, for the most part, can be summed up as "LG alignment for warriors." Seriously, just read the description of one, then the other :) .
I prefer it to the current version because it allowed for some leeway. Paladins follow an ideal, and follow it pretty well for the most part, but they are only human - and even the best may sometimes set a foot a bit to the side of the perfect line. Right now you could end up in trouble if your character mumbles "Leave me alone" to a beggar who's been hounding him. I would much prefer having minor RP shows of repentence at minor infractions or facing the disapproval of your patron (weakening or eventually withholding your abilities), but the current rule of "no matter what, one strike and you are out" makes the Power look like a nitpicking jerk running a protection racket. "Oh, you boozed that guard to get info on my imprisoned high priest out of him? Dishonorable. You fail, smartass - now go pay one of my clerics a bucketful of gold so you get your healing mojo back. Sucker!" You can imagine my opinion of the Atonement spell requiring thousands of GP in sacrifice for a "willful" misdeed - indulgence selling much, Pelor? Yeah, I know those fancy temples don't build themselves, but it sounds like there's no more fitting sacrifice to the gods than your gold. It doesn't really tie in with the concept of the fallen champion either - pretty much any example I can think of fell from grace for pretty big things, not from the likes of feinting in a duel. To me, the idea that a holy champion can fall from grace for THAT cheapens the concept so much it's nearly insulting. Just what kind of a cosmic ******* automatically withholds their favor from their chosen one for that?
Anyway, so much for my rant :) . Personally, I'd say in most cases the paladin codes should be loosely based on the codes for the clerics. Actually, I'm not surprised that there haven't been much stricter, and more detailed, codes for the clergy. Their divine patrons (or matrons?) have invested them with much more power, which would normally go with much more responsibility. The parable of talents comes to mind - of whom more is given, more is required.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many of the assumptions involved in "screwing" paladins are stuff & nonsense -- they are not required to indulge grossly suboptimal fighting techniques; they are required to refrain from committing evil, dishonorable and obviously cowardly acts.
If, while at the marketplace, my halfling rogue/paladin sneak-smites a slimy NPC merchant just because he detects as evil, I should expect the DM's eyebrows to hitch way up as the poor bastard flops dead over his wares. I've committed murder without provocation because I haven't witnessed any evil activity let alone evil of a scale requiring lethal confrontation on my part. In fact, the DM could reasonably rule that Erastil, who is constantly watching over me, would rebuke me before my weapon actually lands (converting a deadly attack into a merely hurtful one, or a miss).
At the tournament lists where I would be jousting versus other faction knights, chivalry is required and rules of engagement are to be observed. If I lose because I suck at jousting, I should lose honorably, and then laugh it off and congratulate the victor, informing him that I feel sorry for the embarrassment he has endured by lot-drawing such a weak opponent, and that I wish I could have been able to truly test his abilities. Such men are honorable opponents (or at least behaving honorably); and tests of one's bravery and martial prowess are the purpose of an event I am willingly participating in. -- If lassoed a lancer off his mount with a rope just so I can win a joust (when I didn't actually joust) is cowardly and unchivalrous; it would be grossly dishonorable, and I should lose my abilities. If I didn't want to joust, then I shouldn't have entered the event n the first place, and maybe I shouldn't be even attempting to pass myself off as a knight. (Being a paladin doesn't require you to be a square-chinned guy on a horse with level ranks in Ride.)
-- But if I run into a large-size evil outsider or undead riding a huge-size nightmare on the battlefield, I am going to Stealth my ass off, then ambush it with ranged attacks. Such abominations are simply monsters with no concept of honor; and I would be a complete fool to extend them such courtesies.
So many of the assumptions involved in "screwing" paladins are stuff & nonsense -- they are not required to indulge grossly suboptimal fighting techniques; they are required to refrain from committing evil, dishonorable and obviously cowardly acts.
The problem is that what some of us call fighting with tactics others call dishonorable. If we were to use a pincer attack that would be dishonorable to them because we tricked them into that position. I first heard of this in the Sword of Truth Series in which the bad guys were allowed to penetrate the center of the army IIRC and the found themselves surrounded.
So many of the assumptions involved in "screwing" paladins are stuff & nonsense -- they are not required to indulge grossly suboptimal fighting techniques; they are required to refrain from committing evil, dishonorable and obviously cowardly acts.
The problem is that what some of us call fighting with tactics others call dishonorable.
pincer attack link
So now even encircling the enemy is dishonorable? I think it might just be the sore losers speaking ;) . It tends to be a somewhat risky maneuver as well - you are placing yourself in danger in order to obtain an advantage.
2) Can a Paladin lead men into battle? So can paladins use strategies and tactics when leading men into battle? Or are they restricted to the mindless charge which would guarantee their utter and total loss almost every battle?
I recommend reading the Eberron novel Bound by Iron for an excellent characterization of a veteran paladin who used to serve in the military (though more as a Sergeant than Officer) and even uses a bit of misdirection now and then.
Usually, such alignment restrictions can lead to the creation of cookie-cutter characters, or at least makes it harder for the player to break out of the mold. Actually, if I do any homebrew rules for a campaign alignment restrictions for any base class that is not a divine caster go out the window. Lawful bards or barbarians and non-lawful monks may be very rare, maybe considered strange or even deluded by their peers, but that doesn't mean they can't develop their talents. Alignment struck me more as a moral or political compass that helps describe your character - being related to class abilities only makes sense when those abilities are granted by a sentient power that may give or withhold them on its whim.
I'd much rather have the player of a lawful monk develop his own code of conduct, and meeting or failing to meet it as their character concept entails.