|
The thing that bugged me about the Oath Against ______ oaths for Oathbound paladins was that so many of them easily dipped into "absolutist, genocidally racist xenophobe" territory, especially when one considers good and neutral aberrations(nagas, flumphs), undead, and all the assorted sorcerer bloodlines that cross into that territory. Heck, Oath Against Wyrms specifically states that some of these paladins actively persecute draconic-bloodline sorcerers.
Besides the potential for party-griefing that these particular oaths provide, if paladins are required to actually be genuinely good, sooner or later their code and alignment are going to come into conflict with their oath unless the GM and players limit their world/PC choices. The Oathbound archetype actually cops to the fact that not all of these oaths are going to be appropriate for all paladin deities, but some of the "Against" codes really dips into evil territory when taken to the absolutes suggested in their very text.
What's your take how this should be handled if it happens? Personally I'd see the Oaths, as short as they are, to be secondary in importance to the primary paladin Code. If the two come into conflict, the paladin should most likely err on the side of the code and his alignment. Probably with the caveat that if the Oath was broken because it would have conflicted with the Code, the paladin doesn't lose the Oath abilities(and thus avoiding punishing the paladin for actually playing a paladin).
That or just have the paladin explicitly word how far they're taking their oath and have their deity accept or outright reject it, to keep Sir Hatecrimes from starting to begin with. That would stop any trouble before it starts, although it keeps most potential drama involving choosing between their oath or their code from happening for those players that want it(for reasons beyond griefing the party or being a self-righteous murder machine).
...really liking the "Oath of ______" series a lot more now. That and Oath of Vengeance is still missing a code of conduct section, which could make or break that one.
If it comes down to Oath or Code. The Code has to win, if not you are an Ex-paladin.
Wow my friend and i were talking about just this thing tonight. In his campaign i'm a paladin with oath of undeath. well he was saying that if he puts a lawful good undead in front of me that doesn't want to be brought back to life as he serves humanity better in his immortal body, that i'd have to choose between either killing him because he is undead and losing my paladin levels, or walk away from him and break my oath and loose my oath abilities. is there any room in the oaths? or in that situation would i HAVE to choose between the lesser of two gimping things for my character?
Oaths are really more about the roleplaying aspect. If following your code breaks your oaths or vice versa you should reconsider either your religion or your place as a protector of the innocent and enforcer of justice.
To be honest it's not like this is a new problem; Followers of Pharasma has never liked Necromancers and Iomedaea is very anti-devil / anti-demon. The only difference is that Paladin's get bonuses for that fluff.
Wow my friend and i were talking about just this thing tonight. In his campaign i'm a paladin with oath of undeath. well he was saying that if he puts a lawful good undead in front of me that doesn't want to be brought back to life as he serves humanity better in his immortal body, that i'd have to choose between either killing him because he is undead and losing my paladin levels, or walk away from him and break my oath and loose my oath abilities. is there any room in the oaths? or in that situation would i HAVE to choose between the lesser of two gimping things for my character?
And the "Interesting Roleplay Situation that only hurts the Pally/Cleric" rears its head. No offense you DM sounds like a jerk.
|
|
Wow my friend and i were talking about just this thing tonight. In his campaign i'm a paladin with oath of undeath. well he was saying that if he puts a lawful good undead in front of me that doesn't want to be brought back to life as he serves humanity better in his immortal body, that i'd have to choose between either killing him because he is undead and losing my paladin levels, or walk away from him and break my oath and loose my oath abilities. is there any room in the oaths? or in that situation would i HAVE to choose between the lesser of two gimping things for my character?
More context might change things, but if that good undead had to be there for a truly good purpose, I'd say an oathbound paladin could walk away without losing his oath. It avoids screwing the paladin while retaining the flavor of the world.
That is, if the good undead was meant to be there to begin with. If it was put there just to mess with the paladin while enforcing an absolutist approach to the oaths, it starts dipping into bad form on the GM's part.
|
|
As with all Paladin discussions this one is a matter of interpretation. Personally I would say that the oath will not allow the Player to actively assist the target of his oath (even if good or neutral) and if evil the Paladin is obliged to destroy it.
However, I would not call it a breach of the oath for a Paladin to refuse to slay a target of his oath if that would lead to a greater evil being unleashed. It would be beholden on the Paladin to destroy the greater evil first and then return to destroy the lesser one. A wise Paladin knows that their main role is to protect the innocent and uphold the principles of Law and Good. If by following their oath they are not doing this then they should be allowed a bit of slack.
YMMV
Rule of Thumb: if there is an exception to the rule, or a rule that integrates an existing one, you must follow the exception at the expense of the vanilla rule. To clarify: Oaths are addition to the Code, so you must follow the Oath first, the Code later. If the Oath contradicts the Code, follow the Oath. The GM should obviously realize that too, and don't punish you for following the Oath if you didn't follow the Code at the same time.
In the situation Azreal described above, a good GM would have rewarded you for following your oath instead of your code (I would have done that, at least). A dickish GM wouldn't have done that, and instead punish you for being in a lose-lose situation (break your oath OR your code is punishable) that he made in the first place.
So, discuss the details of your oath and code with the GM beforehand, to decide wether Oath>Code or Code>Oath in difficult moral choices situations.
|
Rule of Thumb: if there is an exception to the rule, or a rule that integrates an existing one, you must follow the exception at the expense of the vanilla rule. To clarify: Oaths are addition to the Code, so you must follow the Oath first, the Code later. If the Oath contradicts the Code, follow the Oath. The GM should obviously realize that too, and don't punish you for following the Oath if you didn't follow the Code at the same time.
In the situation Azreal described above, a good GM would have rewarded you for following your oath instead of your code (I would have done that, at least). A dickish GM wouldn't have done that, and instead punish you for being in a lose-lose situation (break your oath OR your code is punishable) that he made in the first place.
So, discuss the details of your oath and code with the GM beforehand, to decide wether Oath>Code or Code>Oath in difficult moral choices situations.
Code comes first. Oath comes second.
This is reinforced by the RAW mechanics of the Oaths which state that "If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities."
After all, the Oath is taken in addition to the Code. It does not replace it in any way.
|
|
This is the thing about Paladins, they are totally open to interpretation. Paizo has done a good job trying to nail down what each Paladin believes in and that helps a lot. However, as this thread shows what does and doesn't constitute a breach is still a highly contentious issue.
The simple thing is to speak to your GM. If you can't agree what constitutes a breach may I suggest playing an Inquisitor or Cleric instead?
Yeah, Code comes first...
Or to put it this way: Break the Code, Fall as a Paladin.
Break the Oath... Lose that one Class Feature.
So `if you`re smart` you will favor the Code over Oath...
On the other hand, being gung-ho about the Oath could make alot of RP sense, side-effects be damned.
But that`s not HALF the fun, Mikaze!
Look at Deity specific Paladin Codes... such as from everybody`s favorite cuddle-dwarf, Torag.
Standard prohibition against Evil acts and requirement of Good Alignment? Check.
Exhortation to kill all racial enemies of dwarves, including women and children? Check.
That`s within the same Code. And not even some difficult case of resolving different directions, i.e. Code meets Real World, but the Code itself is pretty much inherently contradictory... and pretty clearly exhorts the violent solution rather than allowing for diplomacy, etc (unless offing greens really IS Good - Psycho Murders: Join the Goblin Crusade, become a Paladin!!!).
|
|
Look at Deity specific Paladin Codes... such as from everybody`s favorite cuddle-dwarf, Torag.
Standard prohibition against Evil acts and requirement of Good Alignment? Check.
Exhortation to kill all racial enemies of dwarves, including women and children? Check.
That`s within the same Code. And not even some difficult case of resolving different directions, i.e. Code meets Real World, but the Code itself is pretty much inherently contradictory... and pretty clearly exhorts the violent solution rather than allowing for diplomacy, etc (unless offing greens really IS Good - Psycho Murders: Join the Goblin Crusade, become a Paladin!!!).
Actually, Torag's code says :
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families."Note that it does not say "slay their families".
Of course, slaying them is a way to scatter them, but it is not the only one. And the Serial Killer masquerading as a Paladin and citing Torag's Code to justify his evil doings is as wrong as the one citing any other Paladin's Code.
I feel that this is reinforced by the following statement in Torag's Code :
"Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Contrary to what most fanatics and zealots believe (even in the real world), killing the innocent and defenseless, even if they are your enemies' family, in no way brings honor to your God.
The "Showing no mercy to enemies nor allowing their surrender" part is pretty much par for the course for any Paladin and not a case of losing the Good alignment (as enemies are not "innocent beings" in any way).