Off hand, I think the idea of a goddless Paladin violates the very concept of a Paladin. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Just remember if you allow this, you need to sit down with the Paladin and work out a code he has to follow, and it needs to be restrictive. That's the point of the limitation of the class.
It also needs to fit his 'concept' if you allow that, and be appropriate for a LG character.
Finally, you'll need to disallow any archetype that replaces either of those two powers, since he can't qualify for those archetypes. You can't replace a power you don't get in the first place.
They released some pretty specific paladin codes for each god in the Faiths of Purity book, I tend to ask my GM if I can use those codes instead. I didn't say I did make a paladin with no god, just that I can make that choice. Free will is very important, it's part of the reason the alignment system should be more of a suggestion than an actual rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Screw the paladin code.The code does not include abstinence. Feel free.
I will make my hermaphrodite pole dancing paladin that uses a polearm named sam.
So, uh... what would happen to a hermaphrodite who put on a girdle of femininity/masculinity?
What? It's a legitimate rules question...
In a two gender system, the opposite of Male is Female. If you have both genders at once, the opposite is not androgynous (which is 'hard to tell which gender), it's neuter. Basically, no gender.
Basically, instead of being able to breed as either gender, the character would be able to breed without a gender. Parthogenesis or something, splitting down the middle into two clones perhaps.
Hmmm, you could possibly set up an entire society based on that girdle getting worn by one hermaphrodite, who then becomes neuter and self-replicates. :) An entire country of clones, everyone exactly the same. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything even remotely questionable here.
1) You are attacking kidnapers, not random peasants. They commited a crime and if some of them are killed to ensure the safety of innocent people then so be it. A paladin is NOT required to be a pacifist, or against killing. MOST of their abilities are about killing things.
2) The paladin is not in charge of the rest of the party. As a DM you should not try to make him responsible for their actions unless you want to run him out of the class on a rail or cause frictioin between his player and the other players. If the sorcerer is fireballing an inn, yes, the paladin stops him. The sorcerer fireballs criminals? No.
3) The lawful stupid thing, "HELLO! PICK UP ARMS AND PREPARE TO FACE RIGHTOUS COMBAT!" is just that.. lawful stupid. Even if a paladin wants to risk his own neck trying that, he is NOT going to get innocent hostages killed over what is essentially a matter of pride.
This statement is completely false. In history a coup de grace is a mercy blow. In D&D, it almost never is. When was the last time you saw a PC use a coup de grace to ease the passing of a fallen foe? That is, when has a player performed a coup de grace on a dying foe below 0hp?
Well, in D&D even a hamfisted peasant with the sense of a lemming has a decent change to stabalize the character before he dies.
The reason why i was questioning it was more the invisibility and not attempting to use diplomacy first in order to bargain with the kidnappers. Using diplomacy could result in no fighting what so ever, but ultimately as i look back on it the paladin didn't have any real choice due to the sorcerers actions.
Paladins aren't diplomats, they are holy warriors. They spread good through force of arms. Now, if the kidnappers were a bunch of unarmed people who had no hope of defending themselves, then we're in questionable territory. Steamrolling non-violent evildoers with bloodshed is petty and ignorant, and falls under "slaughter" which smacks of both chaos and evil.
Using deadly force against kidnappers and slavers who, just by being what they are, are violent (kidnappers & slavers overpower and imprison people against their will - it's in the job description), that's fine.
Using deadly force against swindlers, con artists and cruel businessmen who can't fight back... that's just mean and ignorant.
Using non-lethal force to subdue swindlers, con artists and cruel businessmen who can't fight back... that's okay, so long as you're doing it to help people or drag these jerks (kicking and screaming) to justice... a justice which may (if their crimes are vile enough) warrant execution.
Thanks for the input. It was a gray area for me because the paladin didn't attempt to negotiate at all with the captors. I really like Itchy's recommendation of having the player write up his paladin's code. This can clear up a lot of the gray area as well.The Paladin isn't required to negotiate with evil. He's required to defeat evil and protect it's victims. Aside from that it's a pretty wide choice as to how it's done.
Holy thread necro! Absolutely the paladin is supposed to stop evil, etc. The method of execution should be dependant upon the evil being presented as well. In this case the barbarians had taken the hostages because they were given as a part of a deal between nations. The barbarians themselves were not evil, but chaotic, this was a part of their tradition (the exchange of women when forming an alliance).
|
A paladin must match its gods alignment, in my games they don't have to be lawful good only good.
Paladins aren't diplomats, they are holy warriors
(Groan...not this cra--, er, stuff again....)
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3uy9&page=4?Paladin-Archers-Honorable#155
It's quite simple, really: paladins are not lawful-neutral -- which is how many of you here insist they behave whenever some debauched satrap issues a tyrannical edict which said paladin is then expected to have a "moral dilemma" dealing with.
It boils down to the "respect legitimate authority" line in the paladin's code. What actions, undertaken by an authority, would render said authority illegitimate in the eyes of a paladin?
-- If you've never watched the early dinner scene in Nottingham Castle in the 1938 version of The Adventurers of Robin Hood, in which Sir Robin susses out of Prince John his willful intention to usurp the throne, now is an excellent time to do so. That scene pretty much tells everything you need to know to put yourself in the proper frame of mind for playing a character dedicated to the destruction of evil and the protection of the innocent. (It might not be TACTICALLY prudent to behave like Robin did, but you have to admit that it would certainly be fun to roleplay it.)
The knight who offers his allegiance to Prince John -- "My sword is yours!" -- is a cavalier. His lawful-neutral obedience to an unabashed tyrant takes precedent over any appreciation of the ethical consequences; and thus he cannot be a paladin.
The character portrayed by Flynn is a paladin. (I.e., he is not chaotic-good; he follows a consistent code of ideals, and repeatedly endangers his life to rescue people and thwart evil.)
-- Yes, he was also a rogue and a ranger too, but those multiclass dips weren't integral to the CONCEPT of the character (at least as portrayed in the 1938 film).
Re Flyn:
Hmmm.. lets see. Poaching (a capitol offense), assaulting officers of the law, complaints about a tax burden and open statement to rebel against the legal government.
Definitely not lawful good. That's a chaotic good ranger with STYLE.
|
|
Did you two even read what I wrote?
Prince John, revealed to be corrupt, was no longer worthy of obeisance -- and it would be a moral duty for any real champion of justice to oppose him, not enforce his edicts.It's quite simple, really: paladins are not lawful-neutral -- which is how many of you here insist they behave whenever some debauched satrap issues a tyrannical edict which said paladin is then expected to have a "moral dilemma" dealing with.
It boils down to the "respect legitimate authority" line in the paladin's code. What actions, undertaken by an authority, would render said authority illegitimate in the eyes of a paladin?
The character portrayed by Flynn is a paladin. (I.e., he is not chaotic-good; he follows a consistent code of ideals, and repeatedly endangers his life to rescue people and thwart evil.)
You said that like Chaotic Good characters can't do that.
<groan>
I really hate the way Paizo watered down the better-written alignment descriptions in 3.5.
Suffice to say this: no paladin is under any obligation to obey the edict of any leader he has cause to determine is a tyrant. E.g.:
She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Flynn's Robin goes out of his way organize revolt against tyranny, and lead the assault. He's not an "outlaw" by natural inclination, but is because the prince has declared him one.
Did you two even read what I wrote?
Yes, oddly enough. And we still somehow manage to disagree with you. Perhaps you should consider our points rather than faulting our reading comprehension.
Prince John, revealed to be corrupt, was no longer worthy of obeisance -- and it would be a moral duty for any real champion of justice to oppose him, not enforce his edicts.
Lawful good is NOT just listening to the people in charge that you agree with. Chaotic good characters do that. They don't automatically have to reject all authority: just the authorities they disagree with.
Yes, he is corrupt. He is also the legitimate heir. That's the paladins dilema.
Prince John, revealed to be corrupt, was no longer worthy of obeisance -- and it would be a moral duty for any real champion of justice to oppose him, not enforce his edicts.
Yes, the paladin has to oppose the evil tyrant (because he is good) but he must do so within the law because he is lawful. The what (good evil) axis is more important to a paladin than the how (law vs chaos), but the how is what seperates him from other adventurers.
Raising a rabble of peasants is how chaotic folks work. Power to the people individual and the right to bear torches and pitchforks for everyone!
Lawful ones find The next male in line for the throne and convince a council of lords to instal him as regent, or charge the sitting ruler with treason. A paladin in this case would probably get a series of quests from the different lords , agreeing to hear the paladin's case if the paladin performs some service for him.
|
|
Yes, (Prince John) is corrupt. He is also the legitimate heir. That's the paladin's dilema.When there is conflict between law and good, the paladin chooses good. (To not choose so is moral cowardice.)
Raising a rabble of peasants is how chaotic folks work.In the film, Robin championed King Richard's just law over Prince John's usurpation. There wasn't nothing chaotic about it.
Lawful ones find The next male in line for the throne and convince a council of lords to instal him as regent,There were none, and Prince John has already kicked out Longchamps (the Regent appointed by Richard). This is so stated in the video)
or charge the sitting ruler with treason.
Which is exactly what Robin did.
Yes, (Prince John) is corrupt. He is also the legitimate heir. That's the paladin's dilema.When there is conflict between law and good, the paladin chooses good. (To not choose so is moral cowardice.)
He HAS to choose both if its at all possible to fulfill both.
Raising a rabble of peasants is how chaotic folks work.In the film, Robin championed King Richard's just law over Prince John's usurpation. There wasn't nothing chaotic about it.
And there's nothing particularly lawful about it either.
Lawful ones find The next male in line for the throne and convince a council of lords to instal him as regent,There were none, and Prince John has already kicked out Longchamps (the Regent appointed by Richard). This is so stated in the video)
or charge the sitting ruler with treason.Which is exactly what Robin did.
He ACCUSED him of treason but didn't charge him with it (since he has no legal authority to do so.) A paladin is supposed to work within the system, NOT go completely outside of it by going strait to the peasants... who are also getting a little uppity because of the high tax burden.
You're trying to take the poster child for CG and make him lawful good. There's more to being a paladin than the good part.
|
|
He HAS to choose both if its at all possible to fulfill both.If it possible (i.e., the law serves good). If it is not possible (i.e., the law serves evil), then the paladin champions an alternative law (one serving good) to oppose and replace it.
He ACCUSED (Prince John) of treason but didn't charge him with it (since he has no legal authority to do so.) A paladin is supposed to work within the system,When Prince John dismissed the Regent Longchamps, there was no longer any "system" to work with -- John was, for all practical purposes, a full-blown tyrant at that point. Robin goes to the castle in the first place in order to ascertain this.
NOT go completely outside of it by going strait to the peasants... who are also getting a little uppity because of the high tax burden.
As well as getting uppity about the starvation and the hangings. -- Paladins protect the innocent.
Y'know, it seems to me that everyone's eyes just sort of slide over the "legitimate" in the "a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority" bit of the code. This isn't even an alignment issue, but exactly the sort of thing that a DM and player should discuss before play imho.
As for Robin Hood: I think RH is described as chaotic good so often because "steal from the rich, give to the poor" is pretty obviously chaotic and good. But (backing up Mike here) that's not really what Douglas Fairbanks did with the role.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things that break the Paladins Code of Conduct.
A) An Evil Act. (Killing innocents, desecrating a holy shrine, etc.)
B) Breaking a legitimate authorities laws.
C) Lying, cheating or using poison. (Listed under "Dishonorable Acts")
D) Not punishing someone for an evil act.
E) Knowingly associating with an evil character without EXTREME conditions. (This one is overlooked if the paladin and evil character are attempting to save an entire people, or similar dire situations where you must ally with less tasteful people)
Your description has the Paladin attacking by surprise, which to me doesn't seem "dishonorable" as much as "good tactics."
Also if the paladin saved them he/she would still be compelled by the Code of Conduct to distribute justice to the kidnappers anyways due to section D of the Code of Conduct, whether that is demanding their surrender or systematically wiping them out, is technically up to the Paladin.
DO NOT PUNISH YOUR PALADIN FOR PLAYING INTELLIGENTLY!
Doing this will make him reroll/quit because even if he does earn his powers back he now must tiptoe around every situation or fear the loss of his powers.
If it possible (i.e., the law serves good). If it is not possible (i.e., the law serves evil), then the paladin champions an alternative law (one serving good) to oppose and replace it.
If not possible. Not if "Damned hard to do without dying". There are paladin hellknights in cheliax upholding laws that favor the slave trade when the clearly good thing to do is to say BLEEP the law and free them (thats chaotic good or neutral good). They haven't all fallen.
Yes, Lawful good is less good when the law is evil. That isn't an excuse to work completely outside of the law.
In the video, what exactly was Robin hood's lawful excuse for poaching the deer? (and i don't mean cooking, he said "with the compliments from king richard" implying it came from the kings forest)
If you want a legal solution to the problem, leave England and either raise enough treasure to pay off the ransom or Fight your way to where he's being held captive, capture the city in honorable warfare and demand him back as your price for lifting the siege.
Stealth and surprise= good tactics.
Shield of Captive orphans= dishonorable tactics.
|
|
Once you mix in the Anti-Paladin the whole concept of a Paladin is over with.... which is a good thing.I categorically disagree -- the anti-paladin confirms the concept of a paladin.
Ultimately IMO the Paladin is a religious fervor warrior so devoted to a Gods beliefs that anything outside of it is worthy of destruction. They are all about one dimension; their faith.
That's a Crusader (Ultimate Combat cleric archetype), not a paladin. Multiclass Cavalier to taste.
If it possible (i.e., the law serves good). If it is not possible (i.e., the law serves evil), then the paladin champions an alternative law (one serving good) to oppose and replace it.If not possible. Not if "Damned hard to do without dying". There are paladin hellknights in cheliax upholding laws that favor the slave trade....They haven't all fallen.
Any paladin who willfully enforces evil should fall.
Every. Last. One of them.
-- They're lawful-neutral, not lawful-good.
In the video, what exactly was Robin hood's lawful excuse for poaching the deer? (and i don't mean cooking, he said "with the compliments from king richard" implying it came from the kings forest)
I recommend watching the rest of the film. Robin, unlike the "holy warrior" jarhead crusader type envisioned by some in the thread, actually takes the "good" part of his alignment, in particular the "protect the innocent" part, seriously.
One of Prince John's hidden objectives in the film was to eliminate the Saxons via starvation after confiscating their properties and taxing their livelihoods at confiscatory levels. (Thus they took to the woods.)
If you want a legal solution to the problem, leave England and ....
I'm sure every slave-trafficking scumbag robber tyrant on the face of Golarion would absolutely love it if all paladins out there failed their will save to that kind of logic.
"Ho, Robin! Troop off to Austria and free Richard while I keep robbing, hanging and starving people! Forget about that 'protect the innocent' and good alignment stuff in your paladin code; and nevermind that I'm evil-incarnate myself! You just have no choice, so off you go now!"
Any paladin who willfully enforces evil should fall.
Every. Last. One of them. -- They're lawful-neutral, not lawful-good
And yet they haven't fallen, and they're by definition still lawful good. You don't seem to understand why: Its because they're trying to change things the legal way. Yes, its a LOT less effective than bashing a slaver in the head and running the slaves to the border. If being a paladin was easy everyone would do it.
.
In the video, what exactly was Robin hood's lawful excuse for poaching the deer? (and i don't mean cooking, he said "with the compliments from king richard" implying it came from the kings forest)I recommend watching the rest of the film. Robin, unlike the "holy warrior" jarhead crusader type envisioned by some in the thread, actually takes the "good" part of his alignment, in particular the "protect the innocent" part, seriously.
Right, and paladins don't.
Yes, the law part gets in the way of the good part sometimes. (chaos can do that as well, but isn't nearly as relevant in a world where individuals like pc and high level pcs largely eliminate the need for organization) But that doesn't mean that the paladin can't be both. The paladin does not drop the law part of his alignment the second it becomes inconvenient.
One of Prince John's hidden objectives in the film was to eliminate the Saxons via starvation after confiscating their properties and taxing their livelihoods at confiscatory levels. (Thus they took to the woods.)
Too many taxes, we declare armed revolution is a chaotic act. I'm not going to say that a paladin CAN"T engage in such behavior from time to time, but it really can't be their MO.
If you want a legal solution to the problem, leave England and ....
I'm sure every slave-trafficking scumbag robber tyrant on the face of Golarion would absolutely love it if all paladins out there failed their will save to that kind of logic.
blatant attempt to shove stuff i didn't say into my mouth
Stop him by different means does not say or imply don't stop him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Big, i'm not being a wiseass, i'm really asking: In your opinion, if a paladin must choose between a lawful neutral act or a chaotic good one, which way should he go? (This is exactly the conversation DMs and players should have prior to gameplay.)
|
|
Yes, its a LOT less effective than bashing a slaver in the head and running the slaves to the border. If being a paladin was easy everyone would do it.
The should-be-fallen "paladins" enforcing slavery are the ones taking the "easy" route. Hey, why not sacrifice infants to demons if that's the law too? It's the easy way out of ethical dilemmas so long as the god granting you your powers is asleep at the switch.
-- No erstwhile paladin will ever get away with "The Nuremberg Defense" at any table I judge or campaign world I run.
Big, i'm not being a wiseass, i'm really asking: In your opinion, if a paladin must choose between a lawful neutral act or a chaotic good one, which way should he go? (This is exactly the conversation DMs and players should have prior to gameplay.)
If a law is evil, it ceases being morally legitimate.
A paladin not only cannot commit evil, he by definition activity seeks to thwart and oppose it.
The should-be-fallen "paladins" enforcing slavery are the ones taking the "easy" route. Hey, why not sacrifice infants to demons if that's the law too?
That's the point at which you would have to resign, preferably with a large pointed object as the exclamation point. I can't see any other way around that.
-- No erstwhile paladin will ever get away with "The Nuremberg Defense" at any table I judge or campaign world I run.
I agree it really won't work that well for a pc. PC's come across way too many situations and don't have a lot of control over whats going on... just like if the campaign is a rebellion against the king Paladin probably isn't the class you want in that campaign, or "we're carving a nation out of this pristine forest" probably isn't the campaign for a druid.
But the idea is to think less Nuremberg and more Schindler's list. You use your position of power to do what you can within the technical limits of the law. Where a lawful evil person twists a good or neutral law beyond its intent for their own gain, a lawful good person where the law is evil twists the law beyond its intent for the benefit of others.
Its a rare campaign that has PC's in a position of authority where this is feasible. It doesn't help that that sort of creativity and acumen is well outside of a paladin's skill set, class abilities, or required mental traits.
If you're really serious about the law and you're required to sacrifice babies to demons, you put as many babies as you can onto a cart and head for the demon. You take your route through a town/inn known to be sympathetic to runaway slaves, walk into the bar, and pointedly tell the stableboy to keep the babies dry, they're for Kraklaouzu, demon lord of Pustules... with as many people overhearing you as possible. Sit at the bar with your back to the wall door, and hope that what hits you is doing subdual damage or whatever gets put in your drink isn't lethal.