Even if I was in a different section, what would it matter? I'm here to bring perspective to this discussion, not to bash your little organized play club (no offense of course, I'm just playing with words here). And yeah, I know there are no evil characters allowed, but I find that baffling when earlier someone said a Paladin is equally asking for a beating (metaphorically speaking) if he wants to play in those games. Then again, I understand that: The Pathfinders, as a faction, are true neutral, after all, but evil people are generally less keen on co-operation than good guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but evil people are generally less keen on co-operation than good guys.
I disagree. The evil necromancer isn't complaining that there's a paladin present and is therefore cooperating. The paladin who's objecting to the necromancer's presence because of a minor philosophical difference is the one who isn't. They are the poster children of not cooperating. Which is why a lot of people don't like them.
I said generally, not ALWAYS. As for that "Paladin-Necromancer" example, I don't think the Paladin needs to object unless the Necromancer gives reason for that by raising undead or casting evil spells, for example. Then again, someone really needs to make a Necromancer who has a similar reaction to a Paladin using Lay on Hands or something, just so we can be fair about it :D
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think it bears pointing out to Midnight Angel & Icyshadow that you are posting in the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign forum. I'm not telling you not to post, just that you may be posting thinking you are in a different section of the forums. There are no Evil characters allowed in Pathfinder Society, and really alignment is a topic that has been argued to death elsewhere.
While we've gone from 'smelly half orcs' to 'stick in the mud paladins, and how to make them fall' this issue remains the same in Society. There are no evil characters true, but there are evil acts, including the faction missions in some cases. While any good character should be opposed to an evil faction mission (as discussed elsewhere to death) only the Paladin has as part of their class an obligation to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Whether it be a Scarzini or Andoran faction mission, or it is a written encounter, "You see two thugs roughing up a half orc boy," the Paladin must respond.
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.
This is much different than "You're playing a cleric of Asmodaeus invited to the Saranae Paladin convention, and your mission for the Society is to get them to turn over an artifact of pure good. Good luck!"
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.
You seem to have suddenly forgotten the very line from the Paladin's code that you already quoted and bolded; it says they're required to act if someone harms or threatens innocents, not if someone does something evil.
So when your necromancer creates undead or casts some other evil spell, the paladin is not required to do anything about it.
Similarly, when you decide to kill rather than capture an enemy (who is not "an innocent"), the paladin is under no obligation to stop you.
Again, the ONLY time the paladin is compelled to take action against a PC is if the other PC is specifically harming or threatening innocent people.
If there's no harming/threatening going on, the paladin is NOT in an "intervene or fall" situation.
If the person being harmed/threatened doesn't qualify as an innocent, then again, the paladin is not in an "intervene or fall" situation.
EDIT: Note that the paladin may not APPROVE of your actions, and your actions might be something that the Paladin couldn't do (or request someone do for him), but there's only one "intervene or fall" section of the Code, and it's pretty specific.
I said generally, not ALWAYS. As for that "Paladin-Necromancer" example, I don't think the Paladin needs to object unless the Necromancer gives reason for that by raising undead or casting evil spells, for example. Then again, someone really needs to make a Necromancer who has a similar reaction to a Paladin using Lay on Hands or something, just so we can be fair about it :D
The undead master is PFS legal and has an undead companion wandering about all the time unless the module makes it difficult. A player is just as entitled to bring a bloody skeleton companion as a paladin is entitled to bring a holy sword.
But yes, a paladin who objects to people casting evil spells is no different from a necromancer who objects to paladins smiting evil or laying on hands. Imagine the GM telling the spell casters they can't cast any spells with alignment descriptors because the barbarian objects to lawful spells, the Asmodean inquisitor objects to chaotic spells and so forth. It would be mental, but is kind of where the paladin insists on treading!
|
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.
This sums things up and brings me to the point "Why is this a surprise for anyone?" It's assumed that players have access to the Core Rules and have read the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Possible solutions go in two directions; 1) Define "Evil Acts" in the Guide to PFS Organized Play and forbid them in the campaign. 2) Waive/ease the paladin's code so they may cooperate with PCs who commit 'evil acts' in their eyes.
Neither solution is going to make everyone happy. So here we are spinning our wheels again.
This is how I see it. My character douses himself with oil then tells everyone else in the party not to use fire around him because he doesn't want to get burned. Unless I take pains to play with PCs who use darkvision to see and never cast a spell involving fire, am I really entitled to complain when I get burned? A rational person might believe that as a player, I must enjoy the challenge of avoiding immolation since I have made this choice.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be mental, but is kind of where the paladin insists on treading!
No, it's not. See my earlier posts: the paladin is not required to intervene just because someone casts a spell with the evil descriptor. Only if they harm or threaten innocents. Everything else in the Code is about the paladin's own behavior, not what he has to intervene against.
It would be mental, but is kind of where the paladin insists on treading!No, it's not. See my earlier posts: the paladin is not required to intervene just because someone casts a spell with the evil descriptor. Only if they harm or threaten innocents. Everything else in the Code is about the paladin's own behavior, not what he has to intervene against.
I agreed with your post completely Jiggy, I was replying to the earlier comments*. The paladins in my local group never give me cause for concern and we execute prisoners all the time (well, assuming they weren't possessed or dominated etc). But some people believe a helpless prisoner is innocent and there's the rub...
*and playing devils advocate, but that's not always clear on a message board.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.You seem to have suddenly forgotten the very line from the Paladin's code that you already quoted and bolded; it says they're required to act if someone harms or threatens innocents, not if someone does something evil.
You seem to have missed my point. It's understandable the thread has been bouncing all around.
You had said earlier "Given that harming or threatening innocents would be evil (banned in PFS)"
I replied, "There are no evil characters true, but there are evil acts, including the faction missions in some cases. While any good character should be opposed to an evil faction mission (as discussed elsewhere to death) only the Paladin has as part of their class an obligation to punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
"Whether it be a Scarzini or Andoran faction mission, or it is a written encounter, "You see two thugs roughing up a half orc boy," the Paladin must respond."
Note that in my first example I'm referencing an evil mission hard coded into the adventure as a faction mission, in my second example I'm specifically calling out an innocent being roughed up.
Same thing holds true for character actions. If, in Savage Tide for example
When you rescue the book guy, he's innocent. If your scarzini thug dangles him off the cliff 'tell me where the book is, or swim!'
I don't have my society PDFs with me (been holding off on rereading since I'm playing now) to provide examples.
But some people believe a helpless prisoner is innocent and there's the rub...Then that's on them, not "where the paladin insists on treading". It's not the class's fault if the player/GM can't read.
A helpless prisoner is at least partly the responsibility of the paladin. If its inappropriate for a prison guard to turn away when his colleague is abusing a prisoner then by the same logic it is equally inappropriate for a paladin to turn away when the party are abusing a prisoner.
Now, for someone who just tried to kill the party and has no redeeming argument, then summary execution does not necessarily fall into the abuse category and I see no reason for a paladin to try and stop it. But if the paladin, or any other player, feels that by taking an enemy as a prisoner makes them innocent (by interpreting helpless as innocent) then they are indeed required to intervene. Its a question of how innocence is defined and responsibility towards people in your care.
Whilst the paladin isn't responsible for the CE PC running off and killing random people, that's different to accepting responsibility for a prisoner. IMHO at any rate.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your point was "evil acts aren't forbidden", then why did you say that the "punish" clause kicks in for any evil act? That's the only part I took issue with; what's it got to do with whether or not evil acts are allowed in PFS?
The statement "when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause" has nothing to do with whether or not evil acts are allowed in PFS. But it does clearly indicate a belief that "something evil" invokes "the 'punish' clause", which is what I was saying was incorrect.
So I guess I don't really see how the above post is really replying to me at all.
EDIT: Ninja'd. This was a reply to Matthew Morris, a couple of posts up. Sorry for any confusion.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A helpless prisoner is at least partly the responsibility of the paladin. If its inappropriate for a prison guard to turn away when his colleague is abusing a prisoner then by the same logic it is equally inappropriate for a paladin to turn away when the party are abusing a prisoner.But some people believe a helpless prisoner is innocent and there's the rub...Then that's on them, not "where the paladin insists on treading". It's not the class's fault if the player/GM can't read.
A paladin is required to act with honor, not intervene every time someone in line of sight fails to do so themselves. He can't abuse (such as torture, etc) the prisoner, or ask anyone else to do so, but there's nothing requiring his protests to extend to force against his companions.
But if the paladin, or any other player, feels that by taking an enemy as a prisoner makes them innocent (by interpreting helpless as innocent) then they are indeed required to intervene.
No. What another player thinks the paladin has to do has no bearing on what the paladin actually has to do. Ultimately, even the player of the paladin can unknowingly take the Code further than is necessary. The only one who gets to decide what actually counts as innocent is the GM. There doesn't need to be a consensus. You could even have two paladins with different personal levels of strictness, and have one do something against the protests of the other, and still not be violating the Code. The Code is not dependent upon other characters' interpretation of it.
|
|
I have seen a cleric loose their casting of doing something in game the GM didn't think was right. The player was fine with getting an atonement.
I have sat at a table where I would of took a paladins power. Same with a monk. These character specifically ask the laws about fighting in a street, as well as attacking unprovoked and later did that task.
I have an inquisitor that changed alignment, for cg to lg, due to seeing players break their word to npc, later resulting in the deaths of pathifinders.
As far as playing in a group with evil pc's if I am playing my inquisitor don't expect me to help.
I haven't yet been to a table I would walk away from. There may be a couple GM's I don't want to sit with. But as a whole I really enjoy PFS.
|
but evil people are generally less keen on co-operation than good guys.I disagree. The evil necromancer isn't complaining that there's a paladin present and is therefore cooperating. The paladin who's objecting to the necromancer's presence because of a minor philosophical difference is the one who isn't. They are the poster children of not cooperating. Which is why a lot of people don't like them.
But that isn't a trope of the Paladin class. That is a trope of people who may not understand what the Paladin code actually is, or what Lawful Good represents. Jiggy had a very nice post regarding what the Paladin code is.
And if you are a player, playing a paladin, and you come into Pathfinder Society, you should know that your Paladin's personal code is going to have to jive with what otherwise may be undesirable company.
Roleplaying aside, this shouldn't be an issue. But many people like to roleplay their Paladins extremely rigid in personality and as preachers to the morally gray. This sort of, "my way or the highway" can be as disruptive and annoying as the guy who chooses to play his morally gray guy who really should be evil, but evil isn't allowed in PFS, so I'm gonna play Chaotic Neutral or Lawful Neutral and do evil things.
You could even have two paladins with different personal levels of strictness, and have one do something against the protests of the other, and still not be violating the Code. The Code is not dependent upon other characters' interpretation of it.
If a character takes responsibility for somebody who's helpless then that includes their protection. If they give up that responsibility by allowing others to harm their charge, then as a GM even I would be asking the paladin if he was sure he was walking away /turning the other cheek. I consider that to be dereliction of duty and dishonourable.
If neither paladin is willing to take responsibility for the prisoner (nothing forces them to do so as the prisoner isn't innocent) and they just kill him, then that's fair enough in a brutal game-world like Golarion, so I have no problem with it.
The question then becomes, does the paladin feel that he has *automatically* taken on responsibility for an enemy that is taken alive? I say no, execute away. But others may disagree.
Anyway, playing characters on the edge of evil has none of these problems so I recommend it to everyone :-)
|
|
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.
Ruthless slaughter of helpless and surrendered badguys is not equal to hurting innocents.
I'm not sure where people got innocent confused with helpless.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The catch 22 for a Paladin player is that when character X is doing something evil, they're caught between the 'punish' clause and the 'PVP clause.
Ruthless slaughter of helpless and surrendered badguys is not equal to hurting innocents.
I'm not sure where people got innocent confused with helpless.
Good thing I didn't give that as an example.
Though if you accept their surrender, isn't then callously killing them chaotic? Isn't a helpless foe 'in need' and needing help from being killed in cold blood? Maybe I'm quibbling here.
But we're talking about player or GM actions here (originally). Again, putting a Paladin in an unwinnable situation. "The guy you're supposed to rescuse is being a small child, what do you do?" is different than players trying to make a Paladin fall. "My 'chaotic netural' character is going to kill the guy we're protecting to keep the bad guys from getting him." OR, back to the original topic, making the adventure an autofail because you have a half orc in Ustlav or a paladin and your mission is to smooth things over with the Chelish Embassy.*
*
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Though if you accept their surrender, isn't then callously killing them chaotic?
1. Only if their survival was part of the terms of the surrender.
2. More to the point, committing a chaotic act doesn't cause a paladin to fall. Ceasing to be of Lawful Good alignment does. But a single act does not (except in the most EXTREME cases) alter your alignment to match; if it did, there would be no such thing as being Neutral.Let me reiterate: committing a chaotic act does not automatically cost a paladin their powers.
|
What another player thinks the paladin has to do has no bearing on what the paladin actually has to do.
This treads very closely to meta-gaming. What I mean is that traditionally, the paladin IS a holier than thou character who operates at a state of borderline zealotry. They DO largely believe that they are right and you are wrong. Just because the official code says one thing, did not mean that, from the paladin's perspective, he could just turn a blind eye to evil acts and say, "well, I'm not the one going to hell for doing that." It all depends on your opinion of the role of the paladin.
With the advent of 3E, the role of the paladin has eased a bit because we recognized the inherent challenges with party unity and existence in a world of violence and vigilantism. Heck, for a while we even had paladins with alternate alignments, including evil. Personally, I liked some of those concepts. I prefer that my paladins remain Lawful, whether that be good/neutral/evil, but that is just my perspective of what a paladin is.
The issue is not with the paladin class as written, it is with a player's interpretation of what the "code" means and how he perceives it. There is no greater hot-button item in fantasy gaming than alignment and how it works. Since a large part of what a paladin is, is defined by your view of alignment, it goes to reason the paladin will always be the most argued over class.
Doug makes a good point. If you knowingly create a character that is going to be at odds with other characters or with the world around him, you cannot blame others when you get burned. That could go for other classes as well. Clerics of deities with extreme views, uber-naturalist Druids, super-Chaotic Barbarians, ultra-Lawful Monks, etc.
I have a paladin in PFS, but I built him not to be a evangelizing zealot. He adhere's to Jiggy's idea of 'live and let live' while still protecting the innocent AND the helpless. I won't let my party members kill an incapacitated prisoner unless it is an inherently evil creature like a demon/devil. Demihumans/Humanoids should be given the opportunity to repent their ways. Especially if they are just hired thugs. Luckily, no one I have played with has pushed the issue to the point of PvP. We have always been able to compromise. While I cannot, by rule, physically stop another character from taking evil (in my mind) actions, I can choose not to directly support that character. I could see myself withholding healing or helping another character in combat over the "evil" one. I definitely would not help him with a faction mission. And if the player was being douchy about it, I would leave the table.
|
|
Let me reiterate: committing a chaotic act does not automatically cost a paladin their powers.
Sure this is fluff, but it goes to the thematic role of the paladin,
"Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice, but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."So while you could say that a paladin wouldn't loose their powers for performing a chaotic act, the question is, would they allow themselves to do it. Hence the problem we face. It becomes the player's opinion how far their character would be willing to go and still consider himself adhering to the laws and tenets of his faith.
The part that aggravates me is when the player, OOC, actively discusses with the other players how he can skirt his tenets without it affecting him IC. That does hold true to the character. The old, "ooh, look over there" while the party rogue slits a guys throat. *eyeroll*
I can choose not to directly support that character. I could see myself withholding healing or helping another character in combat over the "evil" one. I definitely would not help him with a faction mission
Refusing to help with faction missions is fair, but refusing to heal a fellow pathfinder is surely going against the wishes of the society in terms of working together as a team? And whilst you and the other character continue fighting side by side refusing to assist him is borderline evil, surely? Every character has a duty of care to their fellow team mates, and that's true regardless of alignment or differences of opinion. It might be hard for a paladin to provide that support, given the circumstances, but he's the one I would expect to continue providing it. The evil necromancer would be the one most likely to leave team members to die - thus making him the evil one... :-)
|
|
Only if their survival was part of the terms of the surrender
I am confused by this comment. The very nature of surrendering to your opponent seems to have some level of expectation that they will not just kill you anyway. Hence the reason for the surrender. Otherwise, why not just fight to the death in the first place?
And I would argue that an enemy that has willfully surrendered has placed their life in the care of the paladin's protective graces. Of course, that could be "played" by an evil NPC, but those are the breaks for playing a paladin.
I don't see how a paladin can allow a captured, helpless enemy be executed with nothing more than "he attacked us first" as a justification. But I see that all the time.
The point is, every situation needs to be evaluated individually based on the factors. I am not going to condemn a GM for ruling something did or did not contribute to a paladin loosing his powers, even if I disagree with his reasoning.
I am also not going to tell a player they are wrong in how they play their paladin or any other character. If it clashes with my style to the point that I cannot get past it, then I just won't play with that person.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let me reiterate: committing a chaotic act does not automatically cost a paladin their powers.Sure this is fluff, but it goes to the thematic role of the paladin,
"Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice, but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline."So while you could say that a paladin wouldn't loose their powers for performing a chaotic act, the question is, would they allow themselves to do it. Hence the problem we face. It becomes the player's opinion how far their character would be willing to go and still consider himself adhering to the laws and tenets of his faith.
Sure, but I haven't been speaking to that topic. ;)
To sum up my stance on that: if you're at my table and technically fulfilling the mandates of being a paladin while not really acting like one*, I'm probably not going to be happy about it. Even so, I'm not going to cheat as a GM and take your powers if you haven't actually violated your code, no matter how much you might be bugging me.
*When I say "not acting like a paladin", I mean the character you portray is someone I can't really believe would even want to be a paladin in the first place, not that you're failing to adhere to ridiculous stereotypes. I hate stereotypes. My fighter is smart, my rogue is strong, and my druid doesn't like animals.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Only if their survival was part of the terms of the surrenderI am confused by this comment.
I included it for this reason:
The point is, every situation needs to be evaluated individually based on the factors.
Perhaps the surrender was conditional (i.e., "I'll spare you if you tell me X"), or there was some other factor involved. Just a caveat to avoid a blanket "surrender = can't kill" type of idea.
Sometimes I overdo the caveats - I'm kind of anti-assumption/anti-blanket categorization. ;)
|
|
Refusing to help with faction missions is fair, but refusing to heal a fellow pathfinder is surely going against the wishes of the society in terms of working together as a team?
I disagree. If I can continue to try and complete the primary mission while not directly assisting someone with whom I disagree, I see no issue with that as long as the players are adult enough to deal with it. The problem is that these types of actions are usually considered "jerky" and set the players at odds. Makes it bad for the whole table. The moral of the story is that both sides, the LG zealot and the CN (with evil tendencies) need to give a little in order to work together.
The cooperation aspect of the PFS code can be taken to a lot of different degrees. Some focus on the non-interference part, which doesn't require you to act in favor of another member, just not stop them. So not healing would not violate the expectation, unless it directly prevented you from completing the primary mission.
Only if their survival was part of the terms of the surrenderI am confused by this comment. The very nature of surrendering to your opponent seems to have some level of expectation that they will not just kill you anyway. Hence the reason for the surrender. Otherwise, why not just fight to the death in the first place?
Because they clearly have no chance of winning, so hope of clemency is all they have left. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see why anyone is obliged to meet their expectations. In the modern world we have laws about that sort of thing, but I suspect most of Golarion doesn't.
|
|
ridiculous stereotypes
I think that the paladin code is a bit more than a standard character stereotype. The part that bugs me is, from the character's perspective, they WANT to be a paladin and would not actively seek out way to skirt the "rules" so they can do whatever they want and not be punished for it.
If the GM, who acts as your deity by proxy, decides that you are not adhering to the heart of the code, then I do not feel it is cheating to strip you of your powers. To me the key is "willful."
|
|
Because they clearly have no chance of winning, so hope of clemency is all they have left. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't see why anyone is obliged to meet their expectations. In the modern world we have laws about that sort of thing, but I suspect most of Golarion doesn't.
* emphasis mine*
You are correct, most don't, but it is more than likely that paladins do. Hence, it is reasonable for paladins to have a problem with the execution of some prisoners. Regardless of how you view this issue, one side is forcing their view of morality on the other. Let the prisoner be executed, the paladin has to relent. Don't kill him and the others have to relent. Either way, someone's actions are being dictated by the views of another.
The cooperation aspect of the PFS code can be taken to a lot of different degrees. Some focus on the non-interference part, which doesn't require you to act in favor of another member, just not stop them. So not healing would not violate the expectation, unless it directly prevented you from completing the primary mission.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, as I see cooperation as meaning far more than 'not interfering'. It does in my place of work too. If I simply didn't interfere with my colleague's work and refused to help when asked (within reason) then I'd be out on my ear...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
ridiculous stereotypesI think that the paladin code is a bit more than a standard character stereotype. The part that bugs me is, from the character's perspective, they WANT to be a paladin and would not actively seek out way to skirt the "rules" so they can do whatever they want and not be punished for it.
If the GM, who acts as your deity by proxy, decides that you are not adhering to the heart of the code, then I do not feel it is cheating to strip you of your powers. To me the key is "willful."
To be clear, the phrase "ridiculous stereotypes" was not meant to imply that every idea of what paladins are supposed to be like is ridiculous; just that if an idea is both ridiculous and a stereotype, I will not punish a paladin for deviating from said idea. Basically, there are some GMs who will strike down any paladin who isn't a clone of Sir Osric. I am not one of them.
Additionally, in Organized Play, I will never revoke a paladin's powers for anything other than what the rules say he has to do to keep them. That said, though, one such requirement is to be Lawful Good, and I'm having trouble thinking of how someone would "skirt the rules" on the Code for an entire scenario without their alignment changing.
So... I think you and I are pretty close to the same page here, aren't we?
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree
Note that I said "some." I am not espousing the idea (nor am I condemning it). Just pointing out that things like alignment, cooperation, morality, etc are all very subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. In a fantasy world devoid of real consequences, we are free to explore it from our own perspective. More often than not, you are going to encounter players who's opinions differ from your own, sometimes extremely so.
Can an undead creating necromancer and a zealot paladin exist together? Sure. But only if the players WANT them to. The game is set up such that they would not, likely, be friends or even acquaintances, but we create environments where they are. My advice to all is, if you play a paladin, try not to be a 'holier than thou zealot' condemning anything morally ambiguous someone does. And if you are skirting the line of evil and dark magic, have some compassion for the paladin player. Don't do things so egregious that he has to stop and consider their moral implications.
I think you and I are pretty close to the same page here, aren't we?
At least as far as the fundamentals go, I would agree. Were we to play at the same table, I'm sure their would be some differences on where the line rests, but we'd be fine.
|
|
Point one.
This is why I said that each occurring has to be evaluated individually. On the surface, this sounds like a no-brainier. But what if there are other issues that I am not aware of? Who pronounced the death sentence? Is the paladin (and his companions) empowered to carry out the judgement? Is it within the realm of possibility to take the BBEG back to face a public execution (if that is the prevailing condition)?
The point is, there are a lot of aspects that make it nearly impossible for us to adjudicate the correct resolution to all these hypotheticals regarding paladins, morality, Lawful Goodness, etc.
Point two.
Yeah, that would be a player being douchey not a flaw with the alignment system or the paladin class.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it might add to the discussion, particularly on the topic of conflicting alignments and the prohibition against PvP, former Campaign Coordinator Josh Frost was asked about somebody spending the money and magic to animate dead.
He explained that a good-aligned colleague would be within her rights to destroy the undead, and that the necromancer PC wouldn't be able to counter-attack because of PvP.
(Josh didn't care much for folks wandering around with undead minions.)
|
For what it might add to the discussion, particularly on the topic of conflicting alignments and the prohibition against PvP, former Campaign Coordinator Josh Frost was asked about somebody spending the money and magic to animate dead.
He explained that a good-aligned colleague would be within her rights to destroy the undead, and that the necromancer PC wouldn't be able to counter-attack because of PvP.
(Josh didn't care much for folks wandering around with undead minions.)
Personally, I feel if we're going to say no evil alignment, then we should also say no evil alignment spells. That would resolve a lot of the necro/pally issues right there.
If I were playing in PFS as a DM, I would also restrict people from playing Neutral and committing too many Evil acts. Using Neutral as an excuse to be Evil is the same as saying "Neutral is the new Evil, because normal Evil is apparently not allowed". It's like the whole legalized drug issue, with cocaine being Evil and cigarettes being Neutral. They're both bad for you, but one of them has been allowed.
Exploiting loopholes is kinda pathetic if you ask me.
|
Give me one single instance where a paladin lost his/her powers in PFS organized play. Just one. Not something you heard about from a friend. Not a time that it almost happened. A time that the GM actually documented it on the Chronicle sheet and you were there to witness it. Unless someone can, then this discussion is completely academic and people are getting worked up over a mere idea.
I have stripped one Paladin hood so far in PFS. It took the actions of several scenario's but the player just wanted the powers of the paladin and not the role-playing responsibility.
Player in question killed two prisoners and was was tortured first.
Killed a NPC due to not giving information quick enough.
Laughed at NPC's dying and not providing aid (NPC's were not the bad guys)
Stealing everything he could places during social encounters
The player really should have been playing a fighter as he truly didn't understand the class (he was also new to the game). After enough sessions and killing the second prisoner I awarded he the the title of Fallen Paladin on his "Conditions Gained" area.
He learned from the problem and he even played through the circumstance and got an atonement so it all worked out in the end.
If this was my home game he would have lost it much sooner but the GM's stripping things like that is a slippery slope but I felt I was more than justified in this case.
|
|
I have stripped one Paladin hood so far in PFS.
Thanks for sharing your experience Paul. I think that it is a rare occasion in PFS and that players behavior, as in your example, has to be pretty blatant for the GM to intervene. I also think a lot of players have negative fantasies about the chances their PC actually losing paladin status. It's really an extension of personality conflict at the table, which can happen no matter what character people play. Paladins are just easier targets since they have a code they must live by. Play a Lawful Good fighter and there will be far less angst at the table.
The only time that I have seen players walk away from the table is due to already existing personality conflicts. Often these people refuse to play together so the problem was solved. Many PFS players come from other OP backgrounds and bring those old rivalries with them to the table. There is no forgiveness in the hearts of gamers.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Doug,
If it helps, I attended a convention a couple months ago, intending to play my Paladin PC in a Season 3 scenario. The GM mentioned, before the play started, that he felt a paladin would not be able to complete the assignment without falling. So I played something else.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Personally, I don't like the GM steering the decisons of the players. IMO, it would have been better to let the paladin hear the VC's into and then decide for himself if the mission was acceptable.
And that beings up the question, what if you had played the paladin anyway? Would he have questioned your adherence to the paladin code? Would you have lost your powers?
People have stated numerous times that a paladin should not be stripped because of following instructions for a faction mission. Using that logic, how could completing a primary goal do otherwise? I am not saying that I agree/disagree with the idea, just asking the question.
|
|
Doug,
If it helps, I attended a convention a couple months ago, intending to play my Paladin PC in a Season 3 scenario. The GM mentioned, before the play started, that he felt a paladin would not be able to complete the assignment without falling. So I played something else.
** spoiler omitted **
I played my paladin in that scenario, and here is how I swung it.
|
|
You know, from reading some of these comments, I'd think maybe some people missed that Pathfinder allows paladins to adventure with evil allies if necessary, without losing their powers.
True to a point... as long as they are periodically seeking an atonement spell..
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.