|
What?
Aside from Wizards, Clerics, and other memorization-based spellcasters, you mean?
I was assuming you'd heard of the fifteen minute adventuring day and its impact on, say, a Fighter's behavior. They get to make camp after every fight due to other people's class restrictions, which should it total be WAY more restrictive than the Paladin's behaviors.
Neither of which are required to do this by their class. A rogue could be built to be Indiana Jones, while a barbarian could be built as a Samurai. Paladins are required by RAW to disassociate with anyone who cannot follow their Paladin code regularly.
And a Paladin could fall. Or multiclass Sorc, or whatever. But the classes are 'flavored' to go a certain way, and they usually do. Your point is technical, but I appeal to your actual experience playing the game.
Get better players?
Since this applies equally well to the Paladin's situation, and was also ruled out back on page 1, I won't address it.
Your comment is about as insightful as saying someone who doesn't play Chess anymore doesn't know how to play Chess. Sorry, but it's kind of silly.
...or someone saying Ford sucks when they've never owned one. I'd take the word of someone using the system and trying to make it work over someone who poo-poo's it from the sidelines every day and twice on Sunday. You and I have locked horns on the issue of alignment before, and I am under the assumption that you don't use it because you feel it is broken. If this is not the case, then I apologize. Just so long as it is consistently not the case, and not only situationally - for this discussion.
And while I'm at it if you should ever suspect me waffling on issues, please do also call me out on those as well. It makes things go so very much more smoothly when we know where everyone stands...
Speaking your mind about the mechanics on the general discussion of the forum does seem like a logical step to take to discuss the game.
It does seem that way, but some times discussions happen in a very meta place, and for their own sake. I suspect that we went around that bend a while back, and are only recently showing signs of returning.
If you were following the context, you would notice that I was discussing the concept of Power vs Responsibility and how relevant it is to the Paladin's code and alignment. A discussion I was having with mdt, and one in which I used the cleric as an example as having overall more world-changing power as a good guy, and noted that fallen Paladins that retained their powers would have difficulties using them recklessly anyway.
The context, within the entire thread, is what I was actually calling to your attention. Your opinion that the class power levels aren't an issue isn't necessarily shared by everyone, and isn't even a solution worth considering in the eyes of the OP. Context - yes mam, indeed.
So yeah, by terms of hard logic and D&D alignment, chopping a corpse into tiny chunks might be squicky, gross, scary, and maybe even disturbing to watch, but it's not evil.
Culturally, this might be the case, and certainly from your own view, it is. But from the PoV of the typical D&D-living citizen, it is evil. You may not feel it is so, but then neither would someone with a NE alignment in the game. They'd just see it as expedient, useful, or what have you.
As a Christian, I see where you're coming from. But let's actually think logically here, and outside our own little box of views on the world we live in, and extend our thoughts a bit further than if we think something is gross or icky.
That's an interesting point. As a matter of fact, Christians in the real world are in no way the minority on this matter. Even the Egyptians you cite are never known to have impaled heads on pikes as a warning. Their mummification rites are holy to them, and other mutilations most likely would not receive carte blanche approval. Even the Native Americans saw it as a despicable thing to do, which is precisely why they did it to their enemies. And they certainly weren't culturally influenced by any Westerners before developing such a belief.
Point being - cannibals and other cultures who have no respect for human remains are rare. And Western culture is not nearly the only example of the opposite belief.
It was a joke. Jeez. Lighten up, Francis.
I mean... seriously? Seriously? But you don't get my joke. Oy.Ashiel writes too much! I need a synopsis or something. Demonic bears only have an attention span... Ashiel writes too much! :DSorry Chubbs. ^.^
Sorry. I didn't realize it was a joke. In hindsight, with it pointed out as a joke, actually yes it's hilarious. :P
Just there's a lot of people who do that seriously, and it really drives me crazy. Sorry I mistook your joke for something it wasn't. :o
So long as we're talking about equally rigid codes with some opportunity for fair application, then yeah, I'd totally permit that in any game of mine. And I'd support that change to RAW, even if only as official archetypes for the Paladin class.I have a proposition for you guys. What if a neutral version of the Paladin/Anti-Paladin with similar crunch was made that could be a Law supporter, Balance supporter, or Chaos supporter? Then, we could eliminate the entire Paladin class, combine the good, evil, and neutral versions into one class, and call it the Champion. Using this new class, you could still play the classic highly strict LG Paladin, but you could also be NG or CG, or neutral if you wished, and the class itself wouldn't actually be called the Paladin, so you could reserve that name for LG characters in your world if you wanted to.
Would this work for you guys? I'd be willing to get behind it.
Then we are in agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, all that posting for my benefit, and all it does is highlight that you are still in the same position you were in, which is flip-flopping around in inconsistenceies trying to assert that your reading and biased interpretation is the 'one true word of Paladinhood' that we are all stuck with and therefore reason to change.
Whereas us non-Taliban version Paladin players just don't seem to have the same problems your fundamentalist models 'cause'.
And at the end of the day Players create the problem, not classes.
And at the end of the day Players create the problem, not classes.There are certain players I have known where the addition of a paladin in the party seems to inspire them to be as evil as they can try to be.
Oh I agree, there seem to be a lot of players who either take a Paladin just so they can be a PITA to the party, or players who upon seeing a Paladin decide to spend a significant amount of their time and effort being as beligerent and disruptive as possible just to cause grief.
Thats a player issue, not a class one.
I usually get other warning signs about players such as them picking CN as an alignment, it is often an indicator of future horrible attitudes and cheeze. Or someone asking to play a Necromancer (becoz they aren't evil, just really misunderstood, rly!).
Once again, its not the Class or the Alignment system at fault here - just red flags from the Players themselves.
I was assuming you'd heard of the fifteen minute adventuring day and its impact on, say, a Fighter's behavior. They get to make camp after every fight due to other people's class restrictions, which should it total be WAY more restrictive than the Paladin's behaviors.
Assuming that your game supports the fifteen minute adventuring day, it just means that the party has a bit more downtime. It doesn't mean the party cannot be, or is it necessarily disruptive since it doesn't prevent any of those other classes from actually doing their things.
The 15 minute adventuring day is also not something that is new. It exists in any game where resting can recover your resources, and is likewise relevant to martial characters who lose resources such as hit points, which can be (quickly) recovered by resting or resting to recover spells which can be spontaneously converted into healing, etc, etc.
None of those classes are specifically not allowed by the RAW to associate with characters who don't at least try to follow their own code of conduct.
And a Paladin could fall. Or multiclass Sorc, or whatever. But the classes are 'flavored' to go a certain way, and they usually do. Your point is technical, but I appeal to your actual experience playing the game.
A Paladin falling and giving up all his class features to turn into an NPC class so you can remain in the same group with your friends who are playing a Lawful Good Alchemist, a Neutral Good Barbarian, and Chaotic Good Bard is not acceptable. Multiclassing sorcerer does nothing. Likewise, even the examples you used such as a stealing rogue or a hot-headed barbarian may cause consequences in game, but none of them bar the rest of the party from playing their classes - except for the Paladin.
Since this applies equally well to the Paladin's situation, and was also ruled out back on page 1, I won't address it.
No it doesn't apply equally well to the Paladin. A Paladin may be played without being Lawful Stupid. However, the Paladin class itself, the mechanics, demand their allies attempt to follow their Code of Conduct or else the Paladin must leave them. That means if you are playing a Paladin strait and following their code, but the rest of your party is not, either the Paladin or the other character must go, regardless of alignment.
...or someone saying Ford sucks when they've never owned one. I'd take the word of someone using the system and trying to make it work over someone who poo-poo's it from the sidelines every day and twice on Sunday. You and I have locked horns on the issue of alignment before, and I am under the assumption that you don't use it because you feel it is broken. If this is not the case, then I apologize. Just so long as it is consistently not the case, and not only situationally - for this discussion.
No, that would be like me saying "Man, Shadowrun sucks, D&D is better" and never having played Shadowrun. What I'm saying is "Man, I've been using Ford vehicles for a decade, and still do, but Dodge does this, this, and this better".
I don't use alignment in my online games because I typically have a fairly large and sometimes shifting playerbase (as player schedules change and such) and I found that alignment was doing little more than just causing problems within our game. So I revised the alignment system in a series of house rules and posted them on our gaming site, noting that regardless of actions anyone who was not directly connected to those alignments was considered for all mechanical purposes to be Neutral. That means that being a corrupt businessman might make you a bad guy who might even go to hell later on, but you are Neutral for all mechanical effects. Meanwhile, Paladins, some Clerics, and creatures that were innately connected to Law, Chaos, Good, or Evil gained the appropriate alignment subtype (so a cleric Good gains the Good subtype), which allowed them to be treated as aligned for purposes of effects like Smites, Spells, etc, and gave them a bonus of having their attacks be treated as aligned (so a LG Paladin can grab a club and in his hands it is treated as a Lawful and Good weapon, even if in the hands of anyone else it is just a stick). To balance out some of the good / evil mechanics (so as to make it so that Paladins weren't useless against most things), I adopted the same standards as most aligned spells like Holy Word for effects based on alignment. Smites were 1/2 as effective vs Neutral foes, Anarchic, Axiomatic, Holy, and Profane weapons dealt half their bonus damage to Neutral foes, etc.
I changed the way alignment worked in my online games to address several problems that were continuously coming up with the playerbase, and was surprised to find that it had nothing but a positive result. Instead of diminishing the value of alignments, it made them more pronounced and profound in their use. It was a far more major thing to be truly aligned. Plots ran more smoothly, and it dropped metagaming alignments down, and arguments between players over their characters and their personalities ground to a halt. It removed many of the issues that seemed to crop up with alignment, but it neither removed it completely, nor did it require large re-writes of the game, removal of creatures and so forth.
My tabletop games went largely unchanged, since most groups can get their ground rules and expectancies aligned with one another at least to a level of tolerance if not perfection. However, some of the house rules had such profound effects on the game, opened up a number of interesting options, and generally has just been so good in their results, that I have begun adopting some of those house rules in my tabletop games as well. One of those house rules includes the option to play Paladins different alignments or Paladins of different gods, with the option to devise a code of conduct appropriate for the character in question (so a Paladin of a Chaotic Good elven deity may have a code of conduct and even alignment subtypes reflecting that Paladin's faith).
It by no means should suggest that I am somehow disqualified from speaking on matters of alignment. I the core rulebook just as you yourself likely do, and if I didn't, I still have access to the rules because of the SRD (thanks Paizo!).
Also, my apologies if we have butt heads before over alignment. I honestly do not remember having a conversation with you.
The context, within the entire thread, is what I was actually calling to your attention. Your opinion that the class power levels aren't an issue isn't necessarily shared by everyone, and isn't even a solution worth considering in the eyes of the OP. Context - yes mam, indeed.
Sometimes during a discussion, sub-discussions of varying relevance to the primary discussion occur. This is normal. It happens both in verbal conversation, and it happens in other forms of engagements as well (from political, to legal, to martial, etc). Mdt brought up a point, and I addressed a point, which while a micro-conversation was indirectly relevant to the macro-conversation going on at hand. You questioned the relevance of the conversation because I mentioned a Cleric's power versus a Paladin's power, when the OP said they were not interested in merely playing a Cleric instead of a Paladin for a different reason. While Cleric and Paladin were mentioned in both cases, both the context and reasoning behind them were so different as to no longer be related to each other. One was discussing alternatives, one was a comparison of capabilities, which was being connected to the Paladin's code.
Culturally, this might be the case, and certainly from your own view, it is. But from the PoV of the typical D&D-living citizen, it is evil. You may not feel it is so, but then neither would someone with a NE alignment in the game. They'd just see it as expedient, useful, or what have you.
The onus of proof is on you sir. I have explained why according to the D&D alignment system is not an evil act. Your saying that it is, and then saying because people would socially believe it to be evil, does you no service. You merely parroted my point about social norms and different societies, which are neither inherently good or evil, but merely based on a set of pre-established norms or expectancies based on fears, personal religious beliefs, and so forth. Just as in one culture eating your dead is considered a holy funeral right, another culture finds it evil and disgusting.
You will find no favor with me while making such baseless arguments.
That's an interesting point. As a matter of fact, Christians in the real world are in no way the minority on this matter. Even the Egyptians you cite are never known to have impaled heads on pikes as a warning. Their mummification rites are holy to them, and other mutilations most likely would not receive carte blanche approval.
Which is exactly my point. They condone certain forms of mutilations and not others, not because it is inherently more or less evil, but because that is their way. Born out of their beliefs, their concepts, and their traditions. While some beliefs even think your body reflects your condition in the afterlife, more gnostic traditions would see your body as little more than a useless shell that housed your spirit, cast off like the cocoon of a butterfly emerging as a spiritual being.
If we attempt to define what is universally good, it generally comes down to:
Especially when it comes to D&D. Kindness, respect for life, mercy, and such virtues are all directly connected to - and aspects of - altruism. Killing, oppression, and cruelty are all directly connected to - and aspects of - selfishness.
If you can contest this, let it be so.
Wow, all that posting for my benefit, and all it does is highlight that you are still in the same position you were in, which is flip-flopping around in inconsistenceies trying to assert that your reading and biased interpretation is the 'one true word of Paladinhood' that we are all stuck with and therefore reason to change.
Whereas us non-Taliban version Paladin players just don't seem to have the same problems your fundamentalist models 'cause'.
And at the end of the day Players create the problem, not classes.
I will request, only once, that you cease attempting to connect my posts with any organization such as the Taliban, and while I am at it, that includes any with religious, racial, or gender based bigotries, including but not limited to: Nazis or Supremacist groups such as the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and so forth. I do not appreciate the insinuations and I believe that it is neither warranted here, nor respectful to the severity of those subjects.
If you wish to disagree with my interpretation of the RAW, then bring it. Bring it hard. Let the words flow from your fingertips, and cite the rules of the pages, and show me why I am wrong, rather than belligerently saying I am being inconsistent (without demonstrating how) and referring to extremist Islamic militant groups (or any other similar organization).
I just read the rules as they were written. If you've got a problem, take it up with the rules, man up and discuss it like an adult.
Kels, I don't know what to tell you here; you want to go to blogspot and put up that class, you might get some traction with the player base, maybe even enough to get some decent play-test information.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to start a grass roots movement with the goal of Paizo rewriting the character class chapter of the CRB and outmoding every published reference to the paladin, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Call LG Champions Paladins, and nothing is outmoded at all. Even their class features remain the same.
You have a point about homebrewing. No promises, but I just may do that.
Why are you suddenly receptive to this suggestion to homebrew the rules as you see fit, but argumentative to all of the other suggestions to do so?
Why are you suddenly receptive to this suggestion to homebrew the rules as you see fit, but argumentative to all of the other suggestions to do so?Kels, I don't know what to tell you here; you want to go to blogspot and put up that class, you might get some traction with the player base, maybe even enough to get some decent play-test information.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to start a grass roots movement with the goal of Paizo rewriting the character class chapter of the CRB and outmoding every published reference to the paladin, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Call LG Champions Paladins, and nothing is outmoded at all. Even their class features remain the same.
You have a point about homebrewing. No promises, but I just may do that.
I'd like to see some sort of RAW alteration, that's why. Even if I do homebrew this, I'd like to see something RAW.
I will request, only once, that you cease attempting to connect my posts with any organization such as the Taliban, and while I am at it, that includes any with religious, racial, or gender based bigotries, including but not limited to: Nazis or Supremacist groups such as the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and so forth. I do not appreciate the insinuations and I believe that it is neither warranted here, nor respectful to the severity of those subjects.
If you wish to disagree with my interpretation of the RAW, then bring it. Bring it hard. Let the words flow from your fingertips, and cite the rules of the pages, and show me why I am wrong, rather than belligerently saying I am being inconsistent (without demonstrating how) and referring to extremist Islamic militant groups (or any other similar organization).
I just read the rules as they were written. If you've got a problem, take it up with the rules, man up and discuss it like an adult.
And I will give that request all due respect as soon as you kindly consider not trying to ram down your arbitrarily fundamentlist views of Paladins Codes - in just the sort of way the taliban would indeed carry it out. At no point have I inferred you are a member of or affiliated with any of those organisations, merely that your interpretation of a particular ethos is done in such a way as it would readily find a way into any of those said such fundamentalist groups and that I do NOT agree with your view or interpretation and that my interpretation is no less valid than yours. Your continuous stance that yours is the one true interpretation and trying to argue down to others from your self delcared moral high ground is way off tap.
As I have not affiliated you with any of those organisations you have no grounds to complain, and as such I will merilly exercise my "Right of Free Speech(tm)" (or are you trying to take that away?)and argue against your interpretations and call them out for what they are. Deliberately misleading.
If you wish to talk about people showing respect, and manning up and being an adult, perhaps you could start by setting a better example than your beligerent posting standards currently convey.
I'd bring you RAW to argue over, but yuo have posted the RAW already, all half a dozen lines of it, which you have taken in the most hardline way in order to support your case. I just read the same sentences and see them as the guideline of the code. It's a Code, not a hardcore set of Legislation.
|
It was a joke. Jeez. Lighten up, Francis.
I mean... seriously? Seriously? But you don't get my joke. Oy.Ashiel writes too much! I need a synopsis or something. Demonic bears only have an attention span... Ashiel writes too much! :DSorry Chubbs. ^.^Sorry. I didn't realize it was a joke. In hindsight, with it pointed out as a joke, actually yes it's hilarious. :P
Just there's a lot of people who do that seriously, and it really drives me crazy. Sorry I mistook your joke for something it wasn't. :o
Ah, it's cool. I might've been a little pushy on the retort too. I'm used to posters who shoot back on my humor being absolutely humorless and can't stand that someone could think something less than ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS. >_< GAH!
And I will give that request all due respect as soon as you kindly consider not trying to ram down your arbitrarily fundamentlist views of Paladins Codes - in just the sort of way the taliban would indeed carry it out.
Ok, whoa, slow down Hoss. First off, I just read the code, and presented the rules as written. I have issued no more or less an empirical statement than if I had said "To make an attack roll, you roll a d20. Here is the relevant text". You need to calm down and stop calling me and my posts Fundamentalist, as they have quite literally nothing to do with taking religious texts for the literal truth. The D&D rules are not a religious text, and your comparison is unwarranted.
At no point have I inferred you are a member of or affiliated with any of those organisations, merely that your interpretation of a particular ethos
Look man, I'm not interpreting an ethos, I'm reading the damned rules. I'm discussing those rules as they are presented. The core rules. Exactly what those rules say. If you want to prove that the rules do not say what they say, then bring it on.
is done in such a way as it would readily find a way into any of those said such fundamentalist groups and that I do NOT agree with your view or interpretation and that my interpretation is no less valid than yours. Your continuous stance that yours is the one true interpretation and trying to argue down to others from your self delcared moral high ground is way off tap.
Prove it.
As I have not affiliated you with any of those organisations you have no grounds to complain, and as such I will merilly exercise my "Right of Free Speech(tm)" (or are you trying to take that away?)and argue against your interpretations and call them out for what they are. Deliberately misleading.
You shame your right to freedom of speech. You aren't arguing. You are blabbering. You have made no argument yet, other than saying what I am doing, but not providing a tattered shred of proof or evidence for whatever it is you are blowing up about.
I shall take this time to not exercise my "right to free speech" because this board is owned by Paizo and is not subject to free speech, and I am (willingly) held subject to their rules, which prevent me from addressing you as I would truly like. Fortunately for everyone, I will not try to make any colorful interpretations as to what those rules might actually mean besides what they actually say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be incapable of understanding intent verses definition. You seem to refuse to allow people to interpret vague statements a different way than yours. Since your evidence consists solely of well this is what these words mean and when you string them together this is what I read and since what I read is the only way to interpret then describing you as a fundamentalist is quite accurate.
The "damned rules" are open to interpretation, much like every other form of communication other than mathematics, and until you get a dev to comment every interpretation is as valid as yours happens to be.
You cannot prove interpretation without a statement of intent. Which we don't seem to have.
If you want to cite your "interpretation of the rules" as empirical fact get some evidence other than "It means this because I think that it means this."
Thanks Jak,
That was a succint summary frankly.
I also note that Ashiel comes across as abrasive, then when challenged just becomes downright abusive. Yet somehow seems to try to hold themselves up as 'having an argument', yet detractors are simply blathering. Tells people to mind their manners and behave a certain way, then acts out with name calling and labelling.
Small wonder then when such things as a Paladins code cause such a trip.
I'm playing a Paladin right now, and I swear by all that is holy that I will disrupt the game I'm in at all costs. >:D
Mwahahahaha!
God Willing! Dirka-Dirka!
You seem to be incapable of understanding intent verses definition. You seem to refuse to allow people to interpret vague statements a different way than yours. Since your evidence consists solely of well this is what these words mean and when you string them together this is what I read and since what I read is the only way to interpret then describing you as a fundamentalist is quite accurate.
There is rules as interpreted/intended, and then there are rules as written. I have not discussed "vague statements". In fact, I have included the very definitions of the words and phrases as presented to reduce or remove any confusion or chance of misinterpretation.
You say that my interpretation of reading these words, taking their meanings, and understanding them is wrong. Then tell me what your interpretation is. If you can make a good argument, then I will listen. However, no one has yet to do that. Mdt and Finn K have both discussed - at length - the Paladin's code with me, but have yet to actually contest the reading of the rules, despite openly noting that they do not see the RAW as I have presented it as how Paladins work (or at least are intended to work), and I have said I agree that the RAW is not conductive to the game.
If you have an alternative, and you'd like to discuss the validity of one interpretation against the other, then you are free to do so. In fact I welcome you to do so, if you find fault in my reading of the RAW.
However, it has gone without contest. An alternative reading that does not either ignore, remove, or add to the text that is presented has not been put forward for discussion. Until it has been, and evidence and explanation made for it, then the reading I have presented is currently the only one.
The "damned rules" are open to interpretation, much like every other form of communication other than mathematics, and until you get a dev to comment every interpretation is as valid as yours happens to be.
No, you do not need a developer to comment on every interpretation of the language. If you did, then the language would be useless. It is easy to prove than language can be both binding and also logically in error. If a text says "The color of this is red", I cannot realistically interpret it to mean that it is blue. I could attempt to argue that it was, but the argument quickly falls to logical scrutiny of the text and the meanings of the words within it.
This is the english language, and while versatile and not always perfect, it is not some sort of interpretive dance or modern art that requires people to stare at it for several hours before deciding what it means to them.
You cannot prove interpretation without a statement of intent. Which we don't seem to have.
Rules as Intended are not Rules as Written. There is a difference, and the difference is clear. The rules as presented are very strict, and are defined. Maybe they did not intend for Paladins to be played strictly by the rules, but that is not what they presented. It is not what is written within the rules.
What is presented is the rules, and the words and language used to describe those rules. Each word has meaning, definition, to prevent confusion, to promote understanding. Knowledge, education, learning, and the ability to reason serves us well.
If you want to cite your "interpretation of the rules" as empirical fact get some evidence other than "It means this because I think that it means this."
Not everything requires you to say "I think it means this". That's foolish. People cite the rules on a regular basis. One does not have to say "I interpret that you must roll a d20 when making an attack roll", people say "The rules say to roll a d20 to make an attack roll, here is a quote of the relevant text".
If you don't want me discussing the rules as I read them as empirical, then explain the correct wording. Prove me wrong. Until you do, all you two are doing is complaining that i am talking about the rules and holding them to what they actually say. Dust and sound, and little more. So prove me wrong, or get out of my way, because I will continue to do so until you give me reason to give pause.
======================================================================
Just to re-iterate for anyone who isn't caught up.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
This is the Paladin's code. It explains that Paladins must be Lawful Good, and that their code carries a number of additional restrictions beyond merely holding the Lawful Good alignment.
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.
This is the associates clause which determines who Paladins may associate* with. Notice that it says "While she may adventure with good and neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or anyone who consistently offends her moral code.", which means even non-evil associates are not legal for her to remain with if they consistently* offend her moral code (as defined above). It then notes that under exceptional circumstances that the Paladin can circumvent some restrictions of this clause, but only when presented with a greater evil, and should seek atonement spells periodically, etc.
Now just so there is no confusion, let us look at some critical words in these rules, because the game rules are defined by standard language when they do not specifically define something as a game term.
First, associates. I address associates because someone suggested that the Paladin while the Paladin doesn't have to like them, and thus avoid them, they can remain with them. I shall prove that this is false by the rules.
Associates
[v. uh-soh-shee-eyt, -see-; n., adj., uh-soh-shee-it, -eyt, -see-] Origin
as·so·ci·ate
[v. uh-soh-shee-eyt, -see-; n., adj., uh-soh-shee-it, -eyt, -see-] Show IPA verb, -at·ed, -at·ing, noun, adjective
verb (used with object)
1. to connect or bring into relation, as thought, feeling, memory, etc.: Many people associate dark clouds with depression and gloom.
2. to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause.
3. to unite; combine: coal associated with shale.
verb (used without object)
4. to enter into union; unite.
5. to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally: He was accused of associating with known criminals.
6. to join together as partners or colleagues.
Next, "While" is used as a conjunction to express a condition.
While
[hwahyl, wahyl] Example Sentences Origin
while
[hwahyl, wahyl] Show IPA noun, conjunction, preposition, verb, whiled, whil·ing.conjunction
3. during or in the time that.
4. throughout the time that; as long as.
5. even though; although: While she appreciated the honor, she could not accept the position.
6. at the same time that (showing an analogous or corresponding action): The floor was strewn with books, while magazines covered the tables.
Ergo, even though the Paladin may adventure with Good and Neutral characters, certain conditions apply to that association.
It goes on to say that she avoid working with evil characters OR characters who consistently offend her moral code.
"Or" being a conjunction indicating a condition.
or
[awr; unstressed er] Example Sentences Origin
or
1 [awr; unstressed er] Show IPA
conjunction
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands.
3. (used in correlation): either … or; or … or; whether … or.
4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication.
5. otherwise; or else: Be here on time, or we'll leave without you.
Which clearly indicates she must avoid evil characters or people who consistently offend her moral code. So let's have a look at what it means to "avoid".
avoid
[uh-void] Example Sentences Origin
a·void
[uh-void] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to keep away from; keep clear of; shun: to avoid a person; to avoid taxes; to avoid danger.
2. to prevent from happening: to avoid falling.
The Paladin must remain away from, keep clear of, and shun the character. The very nature of avoidance means you are not associating with that character any longer. You must leave.
So what is "consistently"?
consistently
[kuhn-sis-tuhnt] Example Sentences Origin
con·sist·ent
[kuhn-sis-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.
2. constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.: a consistent opponent.
3. holding firmly together; cohering.
We can see that constantly adhering to the same action is consistent. If someone does something repeatedly, it is consistent. Thus a Lawful Good alchemist who regularly makes use of their Poison Use class feature is consistently violating the Paladin's code.
And finally, to "offend".
offend
[uh-fend] Example Sentences Origin
of·fend
[uh-fend] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in: Even the hint of prejudice offends me.
2. to affect (the sense, taste, etc.) disagreeably.
3. to violate or transgress (a criminal, religious, or moral law).
4. to hurt or cause pain to.
5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.
verb (used without object)
6. to cause resentful displeasure; irritate, annoy, or anger: a remark so thoughtless it can only offend.
7. to err in conduct; commit a sin, crime, or fault.
Ergo, if anyone in the Paladin's party regularly transgresses against the Paladin's code, even though they themselves are not required by their alignments, classes, or any other force other than the Paladin's own class to do so, the Paladin must leave their association. Meaning that per the rules, a Paladin can very well have difficulties existing in even a party of all Lawful Good characters if they do not all share the Paladin's code of conduct, and by merely being a different class and using their own class features (such as a Bard's bluffing, glibness, and misdirections, or an alchemist's poisons) causes the Paladin to either leave their company until the individual offending their code either changes their ways or leaves.
By observing this, we can see that by RAW, a Paladin is probably the most disruptive class in the game by default, as unlike any other class in the book with restrictions, his restrictions are not only extraordinarily strict, but apply limitations to his companions merely for him to remain within contact of them.
To give a comparison, druids are not allowed to wear metal armor or they temporarily lose their powers. This would be akin to a druid being required to leave the party because other members of the party were wearing metal armor, and not just the druid.
======================================================================
The floor is open for anyone wishing to contest this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting run of continued comments on this thread. So-- rather than repeat everything, just a few notes, then a response to Ashiel's reading of RAW.
In general-- I think I've stated well enough (as have others) why I feel Paladins should be Lawful Good, rather than 'Any Good'. I still have not seen sufficient arguments to convince me otherwise. I also don't see any need to make 'Paladin'-type classes for every alignment either (YMMV, and my way of playing isn't the "only right way", so if you want that in your game-- go for it, but I'm not in support of the idea, and I'm not going to raise my voice in support of a request to change RAW to accommodate such ideas). I've also explained how I feel (LG) Paladins should work in game. :)
Ashiel--
On the RAW discussion, here's why I think my interpretation of the restrictions/code issues on Paladins is a reasonable interpretation of the Rules As Written.
First the Code:
(From the book) "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
Okay, that's black-and-white, no room for error. No evil acts, period.
(From the book)"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
If you delete the stuff in parentheses, that's "respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I think it's perfectly reasonable to take the stuff in parentheses as *general guidelines* about what it means to 'act with honor' and how to apply 'help those in need'. Means, I don't think it's at all necessary, while admitting those paragraphs are the RAW, to take the stuff in parentheses as absolute "don't ever"s... for the most part, that is. Poison's out, period-- because it's usually evil. Cheating, kind'a the same thing. Lying-- not so much, though avoid it if you can. And, while 'punish those who harm or threaten innocents' is straight up-- not only is there a wide range of punishments that can be applied (gotta be flexible, depends on the situation), there's no dead-set time limit on how long you have to impose punishment on the guilty in this case-- and I don't think anyone's going to read the RAW, and presume that means a Paladin's going to get boned because he/she can't carry out the 'punish those who threaten innocents' mandate without committing chaotic or evil acts. Same goes for the Paladin not helping someone in need because he or she CAN'T-- 'help those in need' does presume the capability to help, which does mean the Paladin will be in jeopardy if he/she fails to help someone in need WHEN he/she does have the ability to do so, AND stopping to help will not cause greater evils to occur due to the Paladin not taking care of something else of legitimately higher priority first.
Take the example of members of the United States Military, the oath of enlistment we take, and how that affects our duties: The oath of enlistment requires that I will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, bear true allegiance to the same <meaning the Constitution>, and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America and the Officers appointed over me". Support and defend the Constitution, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, comes FIRST-- before anything is said about obeying the orders of the President and any/all officers superior in rank to me. While (when I was in the military that is-- I'm done with it now) I was bound to obey the orders of the President and superior officers-- if the President and/or any officer ever gave an order that went against the Constitution, I was obligated to disobey-- report the person who was trying to give an Unconstitutional Order-- and if it got to where it was necessary, take that person down as an "enemy, domestic" to the Constitution. Allegiance and true faith to the Constitution gives us the obligation to uphold and obey U.S. Law, including all military regulations and the UCMJ, and to obey all U.S. treaty obligations that apply to the military. That is why, if the President or an officer gives an illegal order, we don't accept the order, we certainly don't carry out the order, and we report (and if necessary, deal with) the offending officer.
How does that example relate to the Paladin? Pretty clear: a Paladin will NOT violate a higher obligation in order to carry out a lesser obligation, and no reading of the 'law' (the RAW, here) should carry the interpretation that the Paladin can be pushed into no-win situations because of conflicts between different parts of the code. DO NOT COMMIT EVIL ACTS clearly comes first-- that ALWAYS has priority. You can follow that down the whole chain-- but (to me) that principle holds true whenever there's questions-- for instance, the Lawful act is evil; the Good act is Chaotic-- what do I do? The Good act that happens to be chaotic-- Do no evil (and the implication that I must do good) takes priority.
On to associates: Says nothing about who a Paladin can or cannot associate with in relation to the Law/Chaos axis of alignment. The book does say "a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code."
Okay, here's the critical point that I think some others have already touched on. "Code of conduct" (the Paladin's personal code for how he behaves) is not necessarily the same as "moral code" in the paragraph above. RAW does NOT require any of us to interpret "moral code" in relation to associates as meaning the Paladin's own "code of conduct". I think that relates much more nearly (as it's right next to "avoids working with evil characters") to characters who keep sliding along the line of evil actions, rather than characters who are more individualistic than the Paladin likes to see.
Now, for the "How to become an Ex-Paladin" segment: (from the book) "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features."
Note the chain of priorities here... and what it says and does not say. Ceases to be LG-- okay, that's a given-- blow the required alignment, you're done. Willfully commits an evil act-- look on the bright side, at least in PF you might be allowed to atone for that. Violates the code of conduct-- 1st, ain't violating the code if you technically broke lesser obligations under the code to uphold higher ones; 2nd, violation need not mean every last little nitpicking infraction-- takes a real 'violation', and (including the interpretation I give above for the code itself) 'Act with honor' is a little more flexible than people here seem to think it is (while staying entirely within RAW); 3rd (and MOST important here)-- the paragraph regarding a Paladin's associates is a SEPARATE paragraph from the paragraph discussing the Paladin's code-- what a Paladin's associates do, does NOT fall into the list of things that will inherently cause the Paladin to lose his powers. The 'Associates' paragraph even gives coverage (in PF's version) for associating with evil characters, if it will serve the greater good!
That, plus the fact that the associates paragraph speaks of characters who constantly offend the Paladin's MORAL code (not necessarily the code of conduct) makes it perfectly reasonable for the Paladin to view his companions on the 'whole person' standard to make that "morally okay or morally offensive" judgement. A Paladin generally avoids working with people who offend his moral code (and may well also avoid people who keep taking actions that would violate the Paladin's code of conduct if he committed them) because those people are quite likely to lead the Paladin "into temptation" if not into actually violating his code himself. Associating with questionable characters in and of itself is NOT a violation of the Paladin's code or an evil act for purposes of determining if the Paladin loses his powers or not-- that is straight from RAW.
Comments? Questions? Counter-Arguments?
|
|
The floor is open for anyone wishing to contest this.
I just did, below your post. Short re-cap (when I say 'you' I am giving my interpretation of what you've had to say-- no offense is intended, so please forgive me if I get some of that wrong):
You take the strictest possible interpretation of RAW, which is a legitimate interpretation, but it's not the only possible legitimate interpretation. This is especially true in regard to the "Code of Conduct" paragraph. I think a looser interpretation is still legitimate.
The associates paragraph is NOT the Code of Conduct paragraph, and does NOT get mentioned again in the Ex-Paladins paragraph, therefore it is advisory on what a Paladin should do, but if a Paladin doesn't rigidly follow it, it's NOT punitive. AKA, a Paladin gets zapped for what he/she does, NOT for what his/her companions do. The associates paragraph also mentions the Paladin's 'moral code' not the Paladin's 'code of conduct'-- it is a legitimate interpretation of RAW to presume they are the same thing, but it is also a legitimate interpretation of RAW to presume they are different. If one takes it as the 'moral code' but not the 'code of conduct' and presumes that moral offense can use the 'whole person' approach-- it's a rather looser requirement than your interpretation allows-- and is still one legitimate way to interpret RAW.
For the Ex-Paladins paragraph-- observing that the associates paragraph restrictions aren't part of the code of conduct, and are not mentioned in and of themselves in this paragraph, thus they aren't reasons in and of themselves for why a Paladin will lose his powers, and taking a legitimate less-strict read of the code of conduct-- takes care of making that easier on the Paladin's player and the rest of the group too.
(of course, having seen a couple of other lines in several posts -- not only by you-- I should make clear again that I do place more importance on RAI than on RAW, and if the two conflict, I'll take RAI pretty much every time and 'house-rule' the elements of RAW that conflict with the RAI. Even though I am making an argument on interpretations of RAW here) :)
As is, the Paladin is the most disruptive class in Pathfinder, and I blame the part of the code of conduct that mandates lawful behavior. Too many players see this and either go full blown lawful stupid or spend all their time annoying the less lawful members of the party. This causes a lot of problems. The non-Paladin players hate having to tailor their every little action to avoid pissing off the Paladin, and may very well quit the game or retaliate, and lawful stupidity easily gets in the way of good. Even in those instances where a Paladin doesn't fall into this trap and is played the way a lawful good character should be played, plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff. Then we have the fact that lawful good isn't an easy alignment to RP, and not all gamers can handle the Paladin class's strict moral guidelines. That's what causes so much lawful stupidity.
I think that it's time to pull law from the code of conduct, and make Paladins of any good alignment. After all, neutral good and chaotic good characters are rarely seen as particularly disruptive. This would alleviate these issues a good bit, and it makes sense in game terms. For example, neutral good deities like Shelyn have Paladins. If Shelyn would be willing to create a lawful good Paladin, why wouldn't she be willing to create a Paladin who shares her alignment? It makes no sense whatsoever that she wouldn't, and it makes no sense that she'd take away a Paladin's powers for adopting her alignment later on. What about chaotic good deities like Cayden Cailean? If Paladins are so useful to good deities, why wouldn't he want a few of his own?
Back in the day you needed a 17 charisma to qualify for the Paladin class. They are special, called by their deity and the bedrock of a lawful society. I say leave the class unchanged.
In your case you have to ask yourself why a Paladin is traveling with I assume a bunch of Chaotic Neutral PC's?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There should be a thread thats titles:
"My Paladin Hate masks my real world personal hang ups"
@ashiel
basically you are interperating that a code of conduct is the same as a moral code
when they are not the same thing
Main Entry: code of conduct
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: rules of conduct and behavior
Synonyms: code of behavior, custom, decorum, diplomatic code, etiquette, formalities, guideline, manners, protocol, rules of conduct, social code, social procedures, standard procedure
Main Entry: moral code
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: value system
Synonyms: code of conduct, ethicalness, good morals, ideology, moral philosophy, morality, morals, principles, standards, values
I mean if you want to get into it a paladin has a strict code of conduct
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
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.
However a paladins Moral code is defined by the deity that they follow.
as Finn has pointed out
the way a paladin falls
is based soley on the Code of conduct and not the moral code
Most people get fired from a job for violating thier jobs rules of conduct, and not because they didnt maintain thier personal values.
|
<on interpretation of the rules>
No, you do not need a developer to comment on every interpretation of the language. If you did, then the language would be useless. It is easy to prove than language can be both binding and also logically in error. If a text says "The color of this is red", I cannot realistically interpret it to mean that it is blue. I could attempt to argue that it was, but the argument quickly falls to logical scrutiny of the text and the meanings of the words within it.
The problem is an alignment discussion is not similar to a developer saying "The color of this shirt is red" but rather the rules saying "The color of this shirt is pleasing."
If you can't get past that, then there's not much more else anyone can say that Jak didn't cover in their reply, which was damn near prophetic if you read your own response.
No, you do not need a developer to comment on every interpretation of the language. If you did, then the language would be useless.
And the language of the rules very often is useless, because the lead developer is not a technical writer/editor and has no interest in learning to be one, nor in hiring one.
That's why, according to the strict RAW, bonded items are automatically intelligent. Because the RAW state very clearly that you can "enchant" a bonded item. The RAW state very clearly that "enchantment" is defined as a school of magic (as opposed to being, say, the act of imbuing an item with magic). And the RAW state very clearly that spells in the school of enchantment are mind-affecting spells.
Granted, some of the 3e splatbook writers were almost as bad, which is why, according to the strict RAW and some metamagic feats, you could use the locate city spell to destroy entire nations.
Following the rules exactly as they are written, using the strictest interpretation, results in a game so littered with inconsistencies and brokenness that it's unplayable. Because the people writing those rules generally don't really give a damn what the rules actually say, as long as they think it's clear enough what they were probably supposed to mean. And then they write rules that are vague enough to mean many different things, and trust the reader to somehow divine their intent.
Ashiel--
On the RAW discussion, here's why I think my interpretation of the restrictions/code issues on Paladins is a reasonable interpretation of the Rules As Written.
Firstly, before I go further - thank you Finn. Thank you for discussing this with me. I appreciate your patience, and your courtesy. Thank you, for discussing it with me, like people.
First the Code:
(From the book) "A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."Okay, that's black-and-white, no room for error. No evil acts, period.
Agreed 100%.
(From the book)"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
If you delete the stuff in parentheses, that's "respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
I think it's perfectly reasonable to take the stuff in parentheses as *general guidelines* about what it means to 'act with honor' and how to apply 'help those in need'. Means, I don't think it's at all necessary, while admitting those paragraphs are the RAW, to take the stuff in parentheses as absolute "don't ever"s...
Fair enough. Though to be fair, you yourself do admit the parenthesis is RAW as well, and it sounds to me like a description of the types of things that are considered dishonorable to the Paladin code. So do you feel that the Paladin can work by RAW if you do not ignore the sub-text in parenthesis, which you agreed was RAW?
Because, as I've noted, I believe that the RAW should be deviated from in this specific instance because of the gameplay problems that arise from that RAW, and I actually prefer your thoughts on it to what I'm reading with the RAW.
for the most part, that is. Poison's out, period-- because it's usually evil.
Actually, I have to step in here and open another can of worms. Using poison is not evil in Pathfinder. In fact, not only is there any instance of using poison being called out as an evil act in Pathfinder, the developers have also noted that it isn't when the question arose without any rules related to it. So it's not evil, just the Paladin code seems to consider it dishonorable (perhaps due to defeating a foe through trickery rather than skill or something).
Cheating, kind'a the same thing. Lying-- not so much, though avoid it if you can.
Well cheating and lying are closely related to the point of being the same thing. In both cases they are deceiving others for your own purposes, and both can lead to denying someone else something more often than not.
And, while 'punish those who harm or threaten innocents' is straight up-- not only is there a wide range of punishments that can be applied (gotta be flexible, depends on the situation), there's no dead-set time limit on how long you have to impose punishment on the guilty in this case-- and I don't think anyone's going to read the RAW, and presume that means a Paladin's going to get boned because he/she can't carry out the 'punish those who threaten innocents' mandate without committing chaotic or evil acts. Same goes for the Paladin not helping someone in need because he or she CAN'T-- 'help those in need' does presume the capability to help, which does mean the Paladin will be in jeopardy if he/she fails to help someone in need WHEN he/she does have the ability to do so, AND stopping to help will not cause greater evils to occur due to the Paladin not taking care of something else of legitimately higher priority first.
I agree. I see no reason, even with a strict reading, to believe that the Paladin would have to punish individuals violently; and likewise I agree that the helping innocents thing would at least require the ability to do so, or at least the attempt to aid them. I have no problems with this portion.
Take the example of members of the United States Military, the oath of enlistment we take, and how that affects our duties: The oath of enlistment requires that I will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, bear true allegiance to the same <meaning the Constitution>, and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America and the Officers appointed over me". Support and defend the Constitution, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, comes FIRST-- before anything is said about obeying the orders of the President and any/all officers superior in rank to me. While (when I was in the military that is-- I'm done with it now) I was bound to obey the orders of the President and superior officers-- if the President and/or any officer ever gave an order that went against the Constitution, I was obligated to disobey-- report the person who was trying to give an Unconstitutional Order-- and if it got to where it was necessary, take that person down as an "enemy, domestic" to the Constitution. Allegiance and true faith to the Constitution gives us the obligation to uphold and obey U.S. Law, including all military regulations and the UCMJ, and to obey all U.S. treaty obligations that apply to the military. That is why, if the President or an officer gives an illegal order, we don't accept the order, we certainly don't carry out the order, and we report (and if necessary, deal with) the offending officer.
How does that example relate to the Paladin? Pretty clear: a Paladin will NOT violate a higher obligation in order to carry out a lesser obligation, and no reading of the 'law' (the RAW, here) should carry the interpretation that the Paladin can be pushed into no-win situations because of conflicts between different parts of the code. DO NOT COMMIT EVIL ACTS clearly comes first-- that ALWAYS has priority. You can follow that down the whole chain-- but (to me) that principle holds true whenever there's questions-- for instance, the Lawful act is evil; the Good act is Chaotic-- what do I do? The Good act that happens to be chaotic-- Do no evil (and the implication that I must do good) takes priority.
While I'm not convinced it's RAW, that definitely would play very effectively I think. The more I read your posts, the more I believe I would love to play in the same group as you on day. ^-^
On to associates: Says nothing about who a Paladin can or cannot associate with in relation to the Law/Chaos axis of alignment. The book does say "a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code."
Okay, here's the critical point that I think some others have already touched on. "Code of conduct" (the Paladin's personal code for how he behaves) is not necessarily the same as "moral code" in the paragraph above. RAW does NOT require any of us to interpret "moral code" in relation to associates as meaning the Paladin's own "code of conduct". I think that relates much more nearly (as it's right next to "avoids working with evil characters") to characters who keep sliding along the line of evil actions, rather than characters who are more individualistic than the Paladin likes to see.
You make an interesting point. But if it is not referring to the Paladin's code of conduct, which by definition is a set of morals (see morals), then to what code of morals is it referring to? Alignments do not have codes unto themselves, so much as general traits that are consistently shared by those of a certain alignment. It specifically calls it out as the paladin's moral code.
While it seems to me a great stretch to assume it means any other code, could you provide some proof to the claim that it is referring to another code entirely?
Now, for the "How to become an Ex-Paladin" segment: (from the book) "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features."
Note the chain of priorities here... and what it says and does not say. Ceases to be LG-- okay, that's a given-- blow the required alignment, you're done. Willfully commits an evil act-- look on the bright side, at least in PF you might be allowed to atone for that. Violates the code of conduct-- 1st, ain't violating the code if you technically broke lesser obligations under the code to uphold higher ones; 2nd, violation need not mean every last little nitpicking infraction-- takes a real 'violation', and (including the interpretation I give above for the code itself) 'Act with honor' is a little more flexible than people here seem to think it is (while staying entirely within RAW); 3rd (and MOST important here)-- the paragraph regarding a Paladin's associates is a SEPARATE paragraph from the paragraph discussing the Paladin's code-- what a Paladin's associates do, does NOT fall into the list of things that will inherently cause the Paladin to lose his powers. The 'Associates' paragraph even gives coverage (in PF's version) for associating with evil characters, if it will serve the greater good!
Please understand, if I somehow implied that Paladins lose their powers from their allies not following the paladin's code, that was not my intention. I was commenting on the fact their associations clause notes that they must disassociate with anyone who regularly offends their code. Not that they lose their powers, but that they must avoid those individuals, creating an inevitable party-split unless the group is playing to the code. It notes that they may work with evil characters under a specific circumstance, but that doesn't release them from consistent breaking of their code (presumably because as soon as possible the Paladin will resume shunning the evil character by default).
That, plus the fact that the associates paragraph speaks of characters who constantly offend the Paladin's MORAL code (not necessarily the code of conduct) makes it perfectly reasonable for the Paladin to view his companions on the 'whole person' standard to make that "morally okay or morally offensive" judgement. A Paladin generally avoids working with people who offend his moral code (and may well also avoid people who keep taking actions that would violate the Paladin's code of conduct if he committed them) because those people are quite likely to lead the Paladin "into temptation" if not into actually violating his code himself. Associating with questionable characters in and of itself is NOT a violation of the Paladin's code or an evil act for purposes of determining if the Paladin loses his powers or not-- that is straight from RAW.
Comments? Questions? Counter-Arguments?
Again, before I continue, I'd like to address this "moral code" business. The argument seems to rely on this idea that it is not speaking of the Paladin's code of conduct, which based the definition of morals is in fact a moral code. Since this argument is referencing a code that presumably does not exist, could you provide a source or alternative code that it means?
Thank you again, Finn K. I'm going to head to bed, and hopefully see your replies later today. ^-^
That's why, according to the strict RAW, bonded items are automatically intelligent. Because the RAW state very clearly that you can "enchant" a bonded item. The RAW state very clearly that "enchantment" is defined as a school of magic (as opposed to being, say, the act of imbuing an item with magic). And the RAW state very clearly that spells in the school of enchantment are mind-affecting spells.
*snicker* :3
Granted, some of the 3e splatbook writers were almost as bad, which is why, according to the strict RAW and some metamagic feats, you could use the locate city spell to destroy entire nations.
Actually, wasn't that combo actually debunked due to being illegal due to the strict RAW? I do recall it was determined to not work due to a very minor mechanical oversight in the combination.
Following the rules exactly as they are written, using the strictest interpretation, results in a game so littered with inconsistencies and brokenness that it's unplayable. Because the people writing those rules generally don't really give a damn what the rules actually say, as long as they think it's clear enough what they were probably supposed to mean. And then they write rules that are vague enough to mean many different things, and trust the reader to somehow divine their intent.
Hence why I recommended that the RAW be deviated from (which is highly unusual for me to suggest) purely for sake of gameplay and possibly sanity. :P
|
|
Just putting this out there in regards to Paladins some of the codes in the Faiths of purity book which leads me to believe that the code in the core rulebook is more a catchall guideline than a hard and fast set of rules
but defending the works and traditions of her culture
follow at a close second. These paladins are dedicated
to protecting not just the lives but the lifestyles of those
under their charge and hold the ways of their chosen
people as holy, especially when they are the centuries-old
ways of an entire race. Their tenets include:
• My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I
defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or
thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
• I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright,
but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is
necessary to serve them, including misleading others.
• I respect the forge, and never sully it with half hearted
work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I
will not allow flaws save in direst need.
• 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. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.
art and beauty. They see the ugliness in evil, even
when cloaked in the form of beauty, and their job is
to prevent the weak and foolish from being seduced by
false promises. Their tenets include:
• I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent
conflict before it blossoms.
• I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect
the innocent.
• I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and
I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live
love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
• I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come
to harm unless greater art arises from its loss. I will
only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for
untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
• I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond,
a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
• I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade
passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for
beauty is lessened.
• I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it.
When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works
I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support
to the righteous. Their tenets include:
• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my
actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
will not turn back into the dark.
mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root.
They are crusaders and live for the joy of righteous battle.
They serve as examples to others, and their code demands
they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources
of oppression, rather than the symptoms. They may back
down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched,
but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they
must give them. Their tenets include:
• I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart
to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my
sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a
tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
• I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her
strength through my body. I will shine in her legion,
and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
• I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
• I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not
surrender those under my command.
• I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor
sacrifice freely given.
• I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought
and deed, and I will have faith in them.
• When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender,
but I am responsible for their lives.
• I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give
honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
• I will suffer death before dishonor.
• I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my
behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae's perfection.
There should be a thread thats titles:
"My Paladin Hate masks my real world personal hang ups"
The more you antagonize Ashiel, the longer Ashiel's posts get. Anybody remember that part in Fifth Element when they fired the missiles at the dark planet and it swelled up?
PS - since someone mentioned the Taliban, the Nazis, and liberal/conservative labels...Godwin's Expanded Law.
PPS - The quoted text is what it really comes down to.
PPPS - Hugs and Kisses
|
|
There should be a thread thats titles:
"My Paladin Hate masks my real world personal hang ups"
The more you antagonize Ashiel, the longer Ashiel's posts get. Anybody remember that part in Fifth Element when they fired the missiles at the dark planet and it swelled up?
PS - since someone mentioned the Taliban, the Nazis, and liberal/conservative labels...Godwin's Expanded Law.
PPS - The quoted text is what it really comes down to.
PPPS - Hugs and Kisses
That might be a valid tactic, tho - at some point Ashiel just might let go due to lack of time to write another post. :P
You make an interesting point. But if it is not referring to the Paladin's code of conduct, which by definition is a set of morals (see morals), then to what code of morals is it referring to? Alignments do not have codes unto themselves, so much as general traits that are consistently shared by those of a certain alignment. It specifically calls it out as the paladin's moral code.
While it seems to me a great stretch to assume it means any other code, could you provide some proof to the claim that it is referring to another code entirely?
What makes you say that they're the same? Any other time a rule references another rule it is specifically stated. Why wouldn't they just say "the paladin's Code of Conduct" like the way they specifically state they must keep a LG alignment? To me it seems like they are saying the character's moral code (or how the player feels they should act), otherwise they would have said "anyone who consistently offends her Code of Conduct".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it is possible to overthink things in regards to an RPG.
If someone truly belives the code for paladins was written to be so rigid and with no room for interpretation to the point of alienating a single character class from a group, when the entire game is supposed to be for group play, you have either grossly overthought things, or are being willfully obtuse in order to support a false premise.
Just my 2 cp.
Not sure if anyone's interested, but here's the thread I did last year working up my paladin codes for my homebrew.
I'm highly self-disciplined. I also have very little respect for traditional authority. What alignment am I? Or do I not exist?
... or is the D&D alignment system just not really useful for modeling realistic people, as opposed to 2-D fantasy archetypes?
I think the problem is that people don't realize that it is a sliding scale. Everyone is going to have some chaotic inclinations and some lawful inclinations. If you character and personality are principally lawful in nature, you are lawful. If you are generally chaotic, there you are. If you're balanced in the middle somewhere, you're neutral.
They can model real people quite well, provided that you bear it mind that the model isn't the person. It just describes them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See we have already had extensive discussion of what the following things mean.....
Other threads too numerous to mention....
respect legitimate auhority....
Does that mean following the law of the land regardless of the nature of that land?
....examples
1) a land were it is not illegal to murder, but you are punished for being caught.....
2) a land where thieves are hangedOR
Does that mean following the tenets of the pallys diety?
OR
Does that mean persons above the Pally within his/her order?
Can a pally spring a thief from the local jail (against all manner of illegitimate authority) to save a person from a death sentence?
Who is making the determination the authority is legitimate or not?
Authority is legitimate if it establishes order to the benefit of the general good. A paladin doesn't have to follow orders from policemen in Mordor.
That said, there will be grey areas. Innocent persons arrested erroneously, draconian punishments, etc. In the event that the society in question is legitimate, the paladin will generally confront such issues within the scope of the legal system. Paladins recognize the great importance that law and order have in safeguarding the well-being of people, and seldom are willing to destabalize it.
Legitimate authority includes societies laws, the laws of the paladin's deity, and should the paladin belong to an order, that order's laws. The paladin must respect them all, provided they remain legitimate.
They can model real people quite well, provided that you bear it mind that the model isn't the person.
It's about as useful as lumping pro-life laws and financial deregulation together as "conservative."
"Lawful" is a catch-all for a number of totally independent, unrelated character traits.
They can model real people quite well, provided that you bear it mind that the model isn't the person.It's about as useful as lumping pro-life laws and financial deregulation together as "conservative."
"Lawful" is a catch-all for a number of totally independent, unrelated character traits.
They are related in that they promote order, either personally or for society as a whole.
Whether or not you deem such modeling useful or not is, I admit, entirely up to you. In the example you cited, lumping such disparate characteristics together as conservative is very useful. It enables republicans to secure votes from they very people that are harmed by their economic policies.
They can model real people quite well, provided that you bear it mind that the model isn't the person.It's about as useful as lumping pro-life laws and financial deregulation together as "conservative."
"Lawful" is a catch-all for a number of totally independent, unrelated character traits.
So wait Kirth, the LG alignment doesn't in and of itself make a Paladin a party-wrecking boor?
Just checking /wink.
So wait Kirth, the LG alignment doesn't in and of itself make a Paladin a party-wrecking boor?
It CAN lead to that, when disruptive players get a hold of it... and it serves as a magnet for drama queens. But I've said clearly that it doesn't HAVE to to that all by itself -- I've seen plenty of paladins participate as excellent group additions. I still think the alignment restriction is mechanically pointless (and therefore poor design overall), but people seem to like it, so whatever.
They are related in that they promote order, either personally or for society as a whole.
Circular reasoning -- first define "Lawful" as traits X, Y, and Z, and then claim that XYZ are all related because they're all Lawful.