IMO, the code of conduct varies between character, players, and GMs as it is, which deals with the "grossly" issue sufficiently.
I personally hadn't read the section until we got into the discussion, as I assumed I knew what it took to lose paladin-hood. I found many of their complaints strange, as I didn't remember the code having been so strict. That prompted me to take a look at 3.5, as that's what I was probably remembering.Has there been any commentary on the change? Was it due to human error or was this a deliberate means by which to make the paladin's code more strict?
I believe it was deliberate.
They increased Smite evil then made being a Pally harder.I've heard nothing from Devs on either way.
3.5 was very leniet if you followed RAW (grossly means 144 times or very severe).
I believe it was deliberate.
They increased Smite evil then made being a Pally harder.I've heard nothing from Devs on either way.
3.5 was very leniet if you followed RAW (grossly means 144 times or very severe).That's certainly true. What I'm not so sure on is why clerics don't have a similar issue. Why would a a god of Truth give her cleric the "grossly" allowance with lying, but a paladin doesn't have that same leeway?
It's odd that they changed one without changing the other, if it was deliberate.
Clerics work for the deity, but Paladins are like ambassadors, and represent the deity so they are held to a higher standard. A lot of it also has to do with the paladin being a "knightly" concept so they have to always be virtuous. It has a lot to do with flavor.
Clerics work for the deity, but Paladins are like ambassadors, and represent the deity so they are held to a higher standard. A lot of it also has to do with the paladin being a "knightly" concept so they have to always be virtuous. It has a lot to do with flavor.I'm not sure I agree. If there's a Lawful Good of deity of Honor and Truth that holds her clerics to a code a lot like the paladins (no lying, for instance), why can that Cleric lie 144 times (to numerate it, though I think they don't mean "grossly" that specific) but the Paladin can only like once? The deity cares about the same thing, and really, in terms of power, gives the Cleric *much* more than the Paladin. Paladins don't gain Miracle after all.
I am not saying it is right or wrong. It does not make sense to me either that the more powerful class is held to a lower standard, but that is basically how the game was designed.
Edit: And code of conduct isn't about how powerful a class is, its about what the class is. Power has nothing to do with it.
That is the issue the OP has with the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fairly vague given the language we use here on the boards. Was it an alignment trap by the DM? Did the character have REASON to kill the creature, even if it was just self-defense? What I have from you so far is not enough to comment on.
I was the GM in question, so I can answer your question. I hope this isn't off-topic too much. I think the conversation is about the strictness of the Paladin code and why the wording differs from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and whether Paizo did this consciously.
After leading out a group of monsters from an old lady's basement and then dispatching them, the group's paladin went downstairs to find out if there were any more of these creatures left. There was one left, nestled in a hole, sleeping.
The paladin raised his hammer, screamed the equivalent of "They're coming right for us!" and brought the hammer down, killing the sleeping creature. The creature wasn't evil, and the act wasn't in self defense. The player and the table laughed at the events, even after he was told he lost his powers for that. He had no problem with that.
The problem came when we re-read the rules and realized that the little bit of lying he did in the attack, and before when he and the group lied to an old lady, would have caused him to lose his powers, according to the book.
My friend Kevin, the OP, thought there was more leeway, but discovered that leeway only exists in the text from 3.5 and the cleric, not the paladin.
That's fairly vague given the language we use here on the boards. Was it an alignment trap by the DM? Did the character have REASON to kill the creature, even if it was just self-defense? What I have from you so far is not enough to comment on.I was the GM in question, so I can answer your question. I hope this isn't off-topic too much. I think the conversation is about the strictness of the Paladin code and why the wording differs from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and whether Paizo did this consciously.
After leading out a group of monsters from an old lady's basement and then dispatching them, the group's paladin went downstairs to find out if there were any more of these creatures left. There was one left, nestled in a hole, sleeping.
The paladin raised his hammer, screamed the equivalent of "They're coming right for us!" and brought the hammer down, killing the sleeping creature. The creature wasn't evil, and the act wasn't in self defense. The player and the table laughed at the events, even after he was told he lost his powers for that. He had no problem with that.
The problem came when we re-read the rules and realized that the little bit of lying he did in the attack, and before when he and the group lied to an old lady, would have caused him to lose his powers, according to the book.
My friend Kevin, the OP, thought there was more leeway, but discovered that leeway only exists in the text from 3.5 and the cleric, not the paladin.
If I were the GM it would depend on why the paladin killed the creature, and why he lied. If he just wanted to kill for the sake of killing then powers would be stripped, and he would have to pay for the atonement. If it was a less serious situation then his deity would probably just give him a migraine for the transgression.
PS:Paladins are hard to run if you go directly by the book.
|
That's fairly vague given the language we use here on the boards. Was it an alignment trap by the DM? Did the character have REASON to kill the creature, even if it was just self-defense? What I have from you so far is not enough to comment on.I was the GM in question, so I can answer your question. I hope this isn't off-topic too much. I think the conversation is about the strictness of the Paladin code and why the wording differs from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and whether Paizo did this consciously.
After leading out a group of monsters from an old lady's basement and then dispatching them, the group's paladin went downstairs to find out if there were any more of these creatures left. There was one left, nestled in a hole, sleeping.
The paladin raised his hammer, screamed the equivalent of "They're coming right for us!" and brought the hammer down, killing the sleeping creature. The creature wasn't evil, and the act wasn't in self defense. The player and the table laughed at the events, even after he was told he lost his powers for that. He had no problem with that.
The problem came when we re-read the rules and realized that the little bit of lying he did in the attack, and before when he and the group lied to an old lady, would have caused him to lose his powers, according to the book.
My friend Kevin, the OP, thought there was more leeway, but discovered that leeway only exists in the text from 3.5 and the cleric, not the paladin.
Wow. Whether the text says grossly or not I would've stripped the paladin's powers for that. Killing an innocent creature AND lying about it is downright evil, any way you look at it. From that description it sounds like the player's heart isn't really into playing the paladin and might be playing it for the powers more than for the character. I can't imagine the motivations that would make someone who would choose to be a palidin take those kinds of actions, and it's right that he (and the player) should be punished accordingly.
That's a horrible case of not playing your alignment and unfortunately in the case of the paladin happens to have some nasty in-game consequences.
Wow. Whether the text says grossly or not I would've stripped the paladin's powers for that. Killing an innocent creature AND lying about it is downright evil, any way you look at it. From that description it sounds like the player's heart isn't really into playing the paladin and might be playing it for the powers more than for the character. I can't imagine the motivations that would make someone who would choose to be a palidin take those kinds of actions, and it's right that he (and the player) should be punished accordingly.
That's a horrible case of not playing your alignment and unfortunately in the case of the paladin happens to have some nasty in-game consequences.
Well, first off, I did strip his powers for the killing. We're in agreement there :) haha.
As for the rest, I do take issue with you coming down on our player like that. It was very much a heat-of-the-moment kinda thing, and it was pretty hilarious. We all laughed, and he wasn't surprised to discover his powers didn't work. He takes his characters, including this paladin, seriously, and he knew what he was getting into. This is the whole reason a spell like Atonement is in the game for, ya know :) So players can make a mistake or make up for something they shouldn't have done.
They're now going off on a quest to restore his paladin-hood, and it's going to be a pretty fun adventure I think. And we have a hilarious story to tell people now. So the idea of "he must be punished" comes off as very harsh. Or maybe I'm just taking you a bit too literal. It just sounds like you believe this is a much bigger issue, when it was really a very spontaneous moment at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The code is a vow, you took before all the goodly powers, your own god and upon all that is holy. So yes, it is a more strict then some gods hold their priests to. As you are not beholden to a single god, but unto all that is right ,just and holy.
Your Vow is sacred and it does not matter why or how you broke it, you broke something holy and sacred and so you pay for it.
|
|
IIRC, one big difference is about lying. Apparently, it was not explicitely forbidden in 3.5 while it is in PFRPG. On the other hand, associating with Evil creatures was a big No-No in 3.5 while it is now permitted, under strict requirements, in PFRPG.
And code of conduct isn't about how powerful a class is, its about what the class is. Power has nothing to do with it.
I beg to differ based on what I concluded from the threads on the power-upping of the Paladin at the time when PFRPG was released.
It was very clear that those who felt the Paladin was well-balanced were those who put a very strong accent of the code while those who thought the class was "broken" were those who thought the code put almost no limitation on the character.
Ergo, the code (and how strictly it is enforced) has everything to do with the power of the class.
Ergo, the code (and how strictly it is enforced) has everything to do with the power of the class.
I'd say those who thought it was "balanced" might have been more aware of the situational usefulness of the paladin's abilities, but just how tight the code is has little, if any, usefulness. Otherwise, how come wizards have had no code of conduct for so long?
Paladins have been unfortunately cast as the harsh CoC class because there were too many cleric or druid deities to write codes for everyone in the PHB, while paladins have had a single one for a while. Many settings do have religion supplements that detail the various faiths in more detail. That some DMs would ignore the cleric and druid's responsibilities and focus only on the paladin imo says more about said DMs than the paladin class.
@ seekerofshadowlight: I beg to disagree strongly. If paladins have a vow, so do clerics, and theirs should be just as tight. Paladins have the blessing of the higher powers; clerics are the purest representatives of a deity's interests and faith on Golarion. They are given much more divine power than paladins - they call on the deity's own servants (summons/allies), can bring others from death, and perform miracles no other believer can match. Those deities have an agenda, and they ask a certain behavior of all true believers - and that code, as you might imagine, should be much more stringent for clerics. After all, clerics, by their profession, are not only servants of the deity, but the ones who act as its intermediaries to all other servants - the ones who tell others how to live by X's will. Paladins are the ones whose job involves defending the faith and other good people - while they are given some blessings to help with their cause, generally they are of a less central importance to the cult. Having a more demanding code makes little sense.
I agree the cleric should have such a code, and as GM I tend to hold them to high standards of what ever god they happen to worship.
However as it stands they don't have a "code" to many gods to include one code to cover them all.As unlike a paladin all gods can have clerics. A paladin however only can worship a very few gods and most devote themselves not to a god, but to the ideas of the code. The code is the manifestation of all they believe and hold true.
A paladin who breaks the code is the same as a cleric who has broken one of his gods most holy tenets.
Note: I have many, many, many issues with the cleric class as written and feel it need a total rework, but that is neither here or there.
What? The code is a roleplaying requirement. Balance is about mechanics. People thought Paladin was or was not broken because they weren't used to the new smite evil, not because of the Paladin's code or lack there of.
If more powerful classes should have codes as a balance then it would start with full casters and work its way down.
----
I would also point out that a cleric is not even required to match his deity's alignment.
2 things: 1, in a class system fluff and mechanics are not always two different things. The code is as much a mechanic as any other class that has rules on how to become ex-class. You can't make them two issues when it is a part and parcel of the class.
2: They must be within one step, same as a paladin. You must stay close enough to your gods AL to still believe in them. Anyone that goes more then one step does not really believe in anything that god stands for.
Note: I have many, many, many issues with the cleric class as written and feel it need a total rework, but that is neither here or there.
seeker and I don't agree on too many things when it comes to the divine classes but I do agree that they need a rework as well.
|
|
What? The code is a roleplaying requirement. Balance is about mechanics. People thought Paladin was or was not broken because they weren't used to the new smite evil, not because of the Paladin's code or lack there of.I beg to differ based on what I concluded from the threads on the power-upping of the Paladin at the time when PFRPG was released.
It was very clear that those who felt the Paladin was well-balanced were those who put a very strong accent of the code while those who thought the class was "broken" were those who thought the code put almost no limitation on the character.
Ergo, the code (and how strictly it is enforced) has everything to do with the power of the class.
How often you can use your class's abilities is part of the mechanics. Breaking the code makes your Paladin lose all his special abilities, which is a very strong impact on the mechanics of your PC in the game.
Thus, if you feel that a Paladin will often lose his powers (temporarily), you can accept that, when he has his powers, he is more powerful than other similar classes. However, if you feel he will never ever lose them, even temporarily, then you will assess the class as ridiculously overpowered.
In the same vein, all alignment requirements have both roleplaying impacts and are part of the mechanics. You take them in consideration when designing a character, for example when assessing the opportunity of a 1-level dip in a base class. It is the reason why so many people were happy that UC proposed a Monk archetype that did not have to be Lawful.
If more powerful classes should have codes as a balance then it would start with full casters and work its way down.
That is a really interesting take on it and it could appear as interesting house-rules or even in PFRPG 2nd edition (or somesuch).
However, as is, very few classes have stringent codes in their make-up and it has not much to do with their power level. That there are codes or not for such and such class was initially part of the fluff, but in the modern era of RPG, it is the impact on mechanics which has the greatest import.
One thing to keep in mind, the reason there isn't a standard "code" for cleric is that unlike the Paladin which is strictly defined by one particular alignment, the cleric is not built that way. After all gods exist in all alignments and shades of them, so you really can't write a code for the class. Nor do I think that one should be written.
I think they are quite similar, actually. Both are based around a philosophy; the difference is that paladins are based on a single one (the "LG Warrior" code that you can see in the book, on the SRD, and elsewhere) while clerics' varies with their patron deity. Their dogma may allow for some alignment diversity, and often covers different areas of interest, but that doesn't make it less restrictive. A paladin's code may allow room for personal differences in various social and moral issues that a cleric's patron is fixed on.
I do feel it's purposely that strict. It's probably not an omission. All the classes I checked (cleric, druid, monk, paladin) that have ex text have slightly different wording and results/penalties.