|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to post in the rules section, but then I realized that pretty much all the answers to my question would have been "GM discretion," since there are no solid rules for what's evil, what's dishonorable, etc.
So here I am asking for some sort of consensus, or perhaps even an official ruling, on what is and isn't permissible for a paladin to do in PFS. In a normal game I'd just ask my GM for his opinion, but that's not something I can do in PFS as there isn't a single GM.
1. A paladin cannot commit an evil act. But who's definition of evil? The GMs? That may be different every time. Often the very missions pathfinders are sent on could be interpreted as evil by morally stringent GMs. Do ends justify means? What values are more important than others? For instance, if freeing a village from an oppressive ruler would also result in economic instability, is it really good? Is it evil? Neutral?
On this point I think players should be able to use their own character's moral code. As long as there is a reasonable moral framework by which they could consider an action to be non-evil, and they consistently follow that same moral framework, I think they should be in the green as far as this first clause is concerned.
2. A paladin must act with honor (i.e. cannot act dishonorably). Poison use, lying, and cheating are called out as dishonorable, but then we're left with a GM-fiat-providing "and so on" clause. Is setting an ambush dishonorable? Hiring an assassin to take out a dangerous villain who for practical reasons you can't reach? Using a ranged weapon (attacking enemies from a location where they can't attack you)? Attacking a flat-footed foe? Sneaking past guards? Stealing good from someone who has obtained them through legitimate (see #3) legal means? Through illegitimate means?
On this point, I try not to put the paladin into too much of a straight jacket. I've seen some very restrictive definitions of honor applied in games, and frankly it just makes the paladins look like they have no brains, and it makes them an absolute bore to play: with a restrictive definition of honor, instead of role-playing, your code of conduct essentially role plays for you. You're told to infiltrate a hideout? Better let the guards know you'll be entering, offer them the chance to surrender, and challenge them to a fight if they refuse, knocking them out nonlethally and bringing no further harm to them if they do not surrender. I personally prefer a much looser definition of honor. Of the things I listed in the previous paragraph, I would only necessarily consider stealing legitimately-gained goods to be dishonorable (again, see #3 for clarification on "legitimate"). I think this loose definition is the best way to do it for PFS, because it prevents the specifics of the code from changing from GM to GM while also making paladin an actually viable class that doesn't screw over the rest of the party (unless the player wants to play him with a restrictive code of honor).
3. The paladin must respect legitimate authorities. What does that mean? If a governor was elected, does that make his authority legitimate, even if he is abusing his power? What about if a paladin has reason to suspect that he's collaborating with an evil force, but doesn't know for sure? Is the paladin required to stupidly question him about it upfront, or can he subvert the governor's authority while he investigates? What if the paladin simply has deep philosophical disagreements with how a certain political system works (let's say, a monarchy that passes on kingship by blood), or with its practices (say, forcing farmers to provide food for an army for no compensation)? Can I consider it illegitimate?
I think the answer is that the paladin should be able to consider any authority to be either legitimate or illegitimate based on his own moral and philosophical code. What the paladin can't do is consider an authority to be illegitimate just because it's inconveniencing him. If according to his views the authority is a legitimate one, then he must respect it. If a player can give a convincing argument for considering an authority to be illegitimate, then he can go ahead and ignore that authority.
It's even possible to consider all authorities illegitimate. Lawful good does not necessarily mean you agree that some people have authority over other people. You can instead simply believe that there are certain moral imperatives that people ought to follow, and that's what the "lawful" is dedicated to, the adherence to the moral authority of a moral code. In any case, I once again think the loosest plausible interpretation should be PFS canon here, that way as long as a character can justify to his GM that he's being consistent with his character's values, he doesn't arbitrarily lose class features because he differs in philosophy with the GM.
So what do you guys think? Should paladins be as straightjacketed as most people seem to want them? Should the tightness of their straightjacket change with the GM's views? Or should we allow for reasonably justified actions as long as the player can explain why he thinks it's justified and doesn't violate his code?
|
I was going to post in the rules section, but then I realized that pretty much all the answers to my question would have been "GM discretion," since there are no solid rules for what's evil, what's dishonorable, etc.
The solution to the GM discretion stuff for paladin is that, whatever perspective GM has on it, the player of the paladin knows that he's off the reservation before he takes the action.
Player: "I'm gonna do option x."
GM: "Ok, but realize that option x will violate your code as follows.... Do you still want to do that?"
(Whatever discussion is necessary)
Player: "Based on, or in spite of the consequences, I will act as follows...."
Forewarned is forearmed. And forearmed, of course, is not the same as having four arms.
|
Stuff
You are asking the same questions that have been asked since the dawning of RPG and the creation of the first paladin. There are soo many interpretations that honestly, it is a collaboration between the player and GM. What anyone else thinks doesn't really matter.
Of course, that doesn't help much in organized play. All I can advise is to stay true to the basic, accepted concepts, and try to avoid "gray" areas as much as possible.
Don't be too lax in your faith, nor too zealous. Use the pally's strengths to enhance the fun, not as a divisive tool to bend others to your will.
And most of all, don't try to meta-game your way out of being lawful or good. Remember, the paladin wasn't drafted, nor does s/he believe that being a pally is a choice they can turn down. They WANT to be the epitome of of the holy, lawful good knight in service of their faith. IMO, you do them a disservice when you do things like, "I'll be over here not paying any attention" as the rogue executes a helpless captive.
|
|
In my experience in both PFS and other OP campaigns, mod authors/campaign staff frequently (note not always) note when a particular act would be considered blatantly evil in campaign terms. Otherwise I agree with the general notion propagated by the other responses. It's something you and the GM have to figure out together.
Your diety's opinion as to what is or isn't "evil" or "lawful" is going to be a major factor in my considerations of this sort of thing when I'm a DM. This is especially important, IMO, because a paladin can serve LN and NG dieties as well. As an example I might give a Paladin of Erastil (LG, but more good than lawful) or Saranae (NG) a wider berth when acting against potentially abusive authorities than I would a paladin of Iomedae (LG but in my view more Lawful than good) or Abadar (LN- super into authority). As a counter I might be more stringent on a Paladin of Erastil when it came to something regarding the sanctity of life.
|
|
While I do think that every GM should have the right to interpret things as they wish at their table, in PFS, I think perhaps a more relaxed atmosphere is appropriate.
Not every GM is going to rule how a player can have their Paladin character act, and while it is easy enough to go from table to table with this understanding, it just makes it easier on the player.
All that being said, if they do blatant things that could be described as evil or unlawful in any religion or city, then by all means start giving them strikes.
Three and you suddenly lose paladinhood and need to spring for an atonement.
Someone mentioned this last weekend that it might be interesting to start a Paladin character, and the first thing they buy with PA is a wand of atonement and then just willy nilly doing whatever.
|
|
Someone mentioned this last weekend that it might be interesting to start a Paladin character, and the first thing they buy with PA is a wand of atonement and then just willy nilly doing whatever.
This is cheese and I would not allow it. Reference the key part of the spell language...
"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."
That might be okay for a one-time issue, but I doubt you could pull off the "truly repentant" part if you intend to do it again.
|
|
Someone mentioned this last weekend that it might be interesting to start a Paladin character, and the first thing they buy with PA is a wand of atonement and then just willy nilly doing whatever.This is cheese and I would not allow it. Reference the key part of the spell language...
"The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."
That might be okay for a one-time issue, but I doubt you could pull off the "truly repentant" part if you intend to do it again.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was meant in jest.
But as player who may take this character to different tables, how as a GM, who has never seen said player play, rule on something like this?
|
|
In my experience in both PFS and other OP campaigns, mod authors/campaign staff frequently (note not always) note when a particular act would be considered blatantly evil in campaign terms. Otherwise I agree with the general notion propagated by the other responses. It's something you and the GM have to figure out together.
Your diety's opinion as to what is or isn't "evil" or "lawful" is going to be a major factor in my considerations of this sort of thing when I'm a DM. This is especially important, IMO, because a paladin can serve LN and NG dieties as well. As an example I might give a Paladin of Erastil (LG, but more good than lawful) or Saranae (NG) a wider berth when acting against potentially abusive authorities than I would a paladin of Iomedae (LG but in my view more Lawful than good) or Abadar (LN- super into authority). As a counter I might be more stringent on a Paladin of Erastil when it came to something regarding the sanctity of life.
I agree that a paladin's deity should impact on the way the code is perceived. The Paladin code write ups in Faiths of Purity give an excellent example of this.
There are also the write ups in Faiths of Balance for the LN deities.
But like others have said, first check to see if it violates your deity's personal code, and if it still feels vague then check with your GM. Even in the PFS a lot of judgement calls still come down to the individual GM's decision and if you violate things enough, he has the right to note on your chronicle sheet that you have done evil acts and are drifting away from being Good. And if you are extremely bad enough, the GM has the right to shift your alignment on the spot and make you LN and an ex-paladin. Also never forget that if you think the GM overreacted to something or just simply made a huge mistake, that you can appeal to the Event Coordinator for a ruling.
|
Can anyone give a specific example of a paladin losing their status in the history of PFS? Ever? How about in another OP campaign? Specifics, as in you were a personal witness.I only recall one and I thought YOU were the GM who noted it on the chronicle.
Correct. But I want to hear about other people's experiences.
|
|
Correct. But I want to hear about other people's experiences.Can anyone give a specific example of a paladin losing their status in the history of PFS? Ever? How about in another OP campaign? Specifics, as in you were a personal witness.I only recall one and I thought YOU were the GM who noted it on the chronicle.
In our area, Ryan Bolduan has tagged a Paladin Character with two strikes (third he loses his paladinhood) for doing things decidedly unpaladinlike.
Don't remember the first one, but the 2nd he tortured some folks to get some info.
The first might have been when he cast magic missile at helpless hostages.
|
|
Can anyone give a specific example of a paladin losing their status in the history of PFS? Ever? How about in another OP campaign? Specifics, as in you were a personal witness.I haven't see it happen in PFS.
In Living Greyhawk, there was at least one module that required you to sacrifice a living, helpless, sentient being upon an altar to an evil god to open a gate you needed to get you to the next part of the module (and yes, sentient was specified, so no killing a riding dog or rabbit, etc.). I did know someone personally who played his paladin in that module and lost his paladinhood for standing back and letting the party make the sacrifice.
Also in Living Greyhawk, I know of at least one interactive that required you to donate money and then say prayers to an evil goddess in order to acquire what you needed to accomplish your mission. Paladins who were there and did so lost their paladinhood (likewise clerics, etc required atonements).
I played the LG module mentioned above and while we neither had a paladin in our party nor sacrificed the provided sentient (yes, the people hiring you provided the sacrifice) it's also not the only time I've seen something like that in an LG mod. Of course we did something that also might cause a Paladin to get stripped to move forward but anyway. There was more than one LG module and even a whole LG region that basically said "um...probably shouldn't play your paladin in this one." I'd think that if there was a similar module in PFS, either the author or the campaign staff would put in a similar warning in the blurb.
And personally, no, I haven't seen a paladin get defrocked in an OP game but at the same time I was in an LG region that was short on Paladins and haven't really encountered that many in PFS yet
|
|
If it makes anyone feel better, I will use my pally, level 11, at the GenCon special event as his semi-retirement mod and do something egregious to lose his status. That would be something to talk about. :-)
What? Your pally still has his status?
I would have thought he'd be the yahoo with the Wand of Atonement that he uses to mix his drinks.
|
|
It really does not require a doctorate in philosophy to answer this question. While there is a fair amount of latitude, it's quite clear what Paladins are supposed to be when the sun comes down in the evening.
They're supposed to be heroes. They can be shiny knights, they can be gritty gruff vigilante types. But whatever they are, they're heroes. They've got lines they don't cross.
Superman is a hero, The Lone Ranger is a hero, Batman is a hero. The original Punisher was not.
Paladins are defined by the lines they draw around their behavior. If a player and a DM can't get a feeling of consensus, it's probably best that Paladins not be created on the player side.
I agree with your statement mostly. Just not sure Batman would be considered a paladin. Especially in the Dark Knight series. In some cases, he wasn’t really a hero and more a vigilante. Sure a vigilante with more “do-gooder” in him than The Punisher, but not really a paladin.
|
|
Um, don't most pallys have an 8 INT :PPlease gawd let's not start discussing the alignment of batman and analyze his actions to determine his PC class...AGAIN!
Love the Tick reference btw. If ever there was a paladin in comics, perhaps he's it. Albeit a none-to-bright one. :-)
I think you are giving the Tick more credit than he deserves. He and Zapp Branigan are no higher than a 5 :P
|
|
I think you are giving the Tick more credit than he deserves. He and Zapp Branigan are no higher than a 5 :P
Let's not forget Dudley Do Right, RCMP.
The right-up he got in an ancient issue of Dragon magazine gave him an Int/Wis of maybe 6 max.
His horse was the smarter/wiser of the duo - 12/14 iirc.