I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 659 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This happens alot.


JCServant wrote:
First of all, I never, ever said anything about him being more evil than chaotic (in fact, I said he wasn't evil at all according to RAW and I never mentioned L vs. C.

Actually, you described him as being good, and then downgraded that to neutral because he would act as a loner which may indirectly put his allies in danger. I was just observing what you had already implied.

Quote:

"Happily killing people, but with compunctions against killing certain types of people, is pretty much definition Lawful Evil"

That's your interpretation, not RAW.

Actually, that's the definition of lawful evil by the book. They are evil which is described primarily as hurting, oppressing, and killing, but are noted to have compunctions against killing certain people or in certain ways.

Quote:
An LE person kills in a way that is lawful. In other words, if there's no laws agianst killing, an LE person kills if it helps him get what he wants.

And yet killing is not required to be lawful evil. One can be lawful evil without ever killing anyone. This is not only supported by the alignment rules which describe good as being altruistic (and thus the opposite must be selfish) but also in NPCs which appear in published materials.

Quote:
That is NOT Wolverine. It IS Sabertooth (actually, Sabertooth doesn't care about the law at all..hates it..so he's more CE). Wolverine protects the innocent and his team, regardless of whether or not it's the law, and puts his life on the line doing so. That's "Good."

You yourself said Wolverine likes killing. He has no compunctions against it, except for killing those he deems innocent. He likewise has little respect for the law or authority, and obeys if convenient. That is why Sabertooth taunts him, because they are more alike than Wolverine would care to admit. Sabertooth is just a little deeper in the alignment pool.

Quote:
Since he is now know more for sticking with the team and defending the innocent than in the past (where he is telling everyone on the X-Team to leave him alone while he marches off and does pursues his own goals), he's more of GOOD now than a Neutral.

Yes, character development is good. Though sticking with the team is not inherently a good or evil thing, and arguably would be Law vs Chaos (again) if anything. Not every choice has to be an alignment choice though. If his motivations don't jive with the party, he might just take a hike because he feels like it at the time (again, very N or C).

Quote:
Look, I don't disagree, on a personal level, that a person's motivations define who he/she is. The reality is that, in our heart of hearts, most of us are PRETTY selfish even when we are nice, but, we don't go around killing others.

That's probably true. I know I view my own moral guideline based on altruism. Being a Christian, altruism is pretty much the main aspect of my entire religion, so perhaps my views on alignment are colored by this fact. If you are doing good things for evil reasons, then you are merely going through the motions.

I even know people who I would deem as good people, who would love a chance to engage in some serious bloodshed and battle, but won't because that means hurting people. Give them some sort of realistic simulation program like the X-Men's danger room and they would battle and chop foes to bits all day long, with a huge grin on their face, because it's not a real creature and they're not really hurting anyone (notice they obviously do not desire to hurt, oppress, or harm anyone for real). Then again, I also know people who are in the military just so they can get the chance to legally shoot people with live ammunition.

So I don't feel that suggesting that the rogue who happily murders orcs because he enjoys killing in a way that he can get away with, or even praised as a hero for, is evil is wrong. In fact, I think it shows that someone who has no compunction or remorse against killing or harming others they have no direct bonds with can exist in a society that openly frowns upon such things.

Quote:
If you want to say that's Good, neutral, evil or whatnot, go ahead. If you want to say that, in your mind, Wolverine is an evil character, that's your opinion.

Personally I see Wolverine as being more Neutral. He's pretty indifferent to most, brutal to his enemies, and good to the people he cares about. He tolerates some allies even if he doesn't like 'em, and would probably punch their lights out as soon as share a beer with them. He has a soft spot for the ladies, and for kids, and he does do a lot to try and curb his bloodlust rather than giving into it like Sabertooth does. Sabertooth gets under his skin though because they really are so very much alike. The only difference is sabertooth embraces that bloodlust, and wolverine doesn't.

Quote:
I respect that. However, according to PF rules, what makes an Evil character is that fact that they have very little respect for human life and/or don't mind making others suffer to get what they want.

Which is not contrary to what I've said at all. All of that goes hand in hand with selfishness, and if you read the entire alignment section, you realize that a lot of stuff goes into that hurting, oppressing, and killing category. Evil by its nature, even in Pathfinder, is about getting what you want without regards to others. I.E: Selfishness.

Quote:
When you change that, based on your own perception, then camplain that the Paladin cannot work the way you think it should when you have changed the mechnics underneth based on your own personal perceptions, you have chanced the game.... and you are now bringing up a concern about a gameplay mechanic on something that you have effectively houseruled.

Nay. I merely agreed with Kelsey because she has a point, and because everyone was misrepresenting her point to try and make her look bad. That doesn't jive with me. The fact remains that no matter how you play your Paladin, by the rules, they do not associate with anyone who doesn't play like they want to play. That's a problem.

See, it would be like Cyclops quitting the X-Men because Wolverine was in the X-Men. They don't see eye to eye, because Cyclops seems very Lawful Good and Wolverine is very Neutral with Chaotic and Evil tendencies, and is constantly offending Cyclops's values, but at the end of the day they end up working together anyway - despite their differences - because they are a team.

Paladins can't do that. It's in the books. Right there in Black and White. They do not associate with and will not work with people that are either evil or consistently offend their moral code. That's actually far less than "just evil" right there. That's actually half of the whole freakin' book.


ashiel wrote:
That means if you have a rogue in the party who uses poisons, that doesn't jive. Bard in the party is a liar? No jiving. Your sorcerer likes to cheat at cards? No dice. The barbarian acts without honor?

paladin code:
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.

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.

Other characters do not have to follow the paladins code and nowhere does it say a paladin has to force his/her code on others.

besides how does teh paladin know teh rogue is using poisons or stealing things, if the rogue is smart about it he would do it when No one is a witness, if the bards lie will get you past a set of gaurds so the party can free some slaves so be it, hes doing it not the paladin.

If the Fighter of the group makes some stew and it tastes horrible but the sorc wants to be nice and say its the best tasting thing ever, the Paladin doesnt have to flip a table, Yell at how awful the other party members are and deuce out.

The fact is the paladin knows his own code and that he cant expect others to follow it.

If the party is constantly doing evil things then he has the right to try and talk to them about thier actions.

also there is a reason it says in the code that when working in parties that conflict with this code a great deal he is to seek atonement periodically.

And since you dont actually want to read the alignments before you try and argue them here is a link to all of them.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules


I also have a difficult time seeing how an Evil person can work long term with a Good person without a change of dynamic between the two. I think there are a lot of behaviors that are attuned to Evil, that truly are on the Neutral spectrum. (I do agree that most of the confusion is because of the subjective nature that alignments should have, but the objective nature they have by Raw.)

At the end of the day an Evil person would not be able to form significant or meaningful relationships to any large degree. LE, NE, and CE, would at some point would predicate there definitions of how they relate to others by how they further their own power and goals. In essence, other people, have no intrinsic value. There is no hesitation to crush or destroy others in the right circumstances. (One could argue this for Neutral or Good Characters, however that window would be much smaller, especially when compared to Evil Characters.)

Because Evil is objective in nature in D&D, any character who associates someone who is committing Evil Acts and is not attempting to stop said repeated acts is moving towards an Evil alignment. Working with someone who casts Animate Dead (which is an evil act in the core rules) is assisting with an evil act. It is the objective nature of the alignment system that is the true straight jacket, not the Paladin. The Paladin, and those characters based around raising undead and utilizing certain negative energy spells, that lose out on power when their alignment is changed.


Also note that 'Poison' in Pathfinder is a slippery thing.

Anything that does attribute damage is called 'Poison', but it's not really exactly poison.

My personal take on it is that the 'Evil' entry for 'Poison' is the classical poison, that is, something designed to kill someone. I take that as Con Poison. This is because Con poison basically lowers your HP. The weird thing is, unless I missed it, reducing a stat to 0 never actually kills you, so Poison in PF isn't actually poison. You'd need one that actually did HP damage for it to be poison.

All the drain poisons in PF are actually sophoriphics (sp?). They're basically various forms of narcotics that make you weak (Str drain), or act as a parlytic (Dex drain), Confused (Int drain), Suggestible (Wis drain), or Drunk (Cha drain). None of them actually kill you. Even the Con drain one doesn't.


Why not petition for a new arch-type rather than a revision of the class entirely? That would probably be much more likely to happen in the grand scheme of things.


Quote:
" The fact remains that no matter how you play your Paladin, by the rules, they do not associate with anyone who doesn't play like they want to play. That's a problem. "

And my point is, that if you define the alignments the way they are written, rather than personal definition, than the above is more of a statement of logic rather than an artificial enforcement...because GOOD characters, the way they are defined in RAW are, by their very nature, are going to have serious issues about partying with Evil characters other than extenuating circumstances as listed for the paladin. I've mentioned before how even a NG or CG would simply not want to hang around with an E character, as written by RAW. A G characters has a high value on respect for the rights, freedoms and lives of the innocent. An E character does not. Even an LE character doesn't... the only difference between an LE and a CE is the LE's evil/selfishness is limited to an extent by tradition or law... however, change the law, or give him and loophole, and he WILL take it regardless of life/liberty/well being of those in his way (innocent as they may be).

Speaking of LE: To recap: "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life."

You're right in that he doesn't have to have killed in his background... however, as it says above, he Ddoes not care about freedom, dignaty or life. If someone is in his way (of his happiness) he will take away any of those without compucture to get what he wants as long as he can techincally do it via whatever law/tradition he is beholden to. The acid test is simple. If he could get whatever he is seeking in life (gold, power, etc) by destroying the life/freedom/etc of an innocent, AND his personal code/law/tradition (The L part of his alignment) allowed him to do it (The law changed, or he could get away with it through a loophole) would he do it??? If so, he is an LE. If NOT, he is a LN or an LG.

Anything more you add to that not only changes how alignment works on PF, but has very complex and far reaching effects...not only for Paladins but for spells like Detect Evil.


StealthElite wrote:
ashiel wrote:
That means if you have a rogue in the party who uses poisons, that doesn't jive. Bard in the party is a liar? No jiving. Your sorcerer likes to cheat at cards? No dice. The barbarian acts without honor?
Other characters do not have to follow the paladins code and nowhere does it say a paladin has to force his/her code on others.

You're absolutely right. It doesn't say she must force her views on others. But...

Paladin Associates: wrote:
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.

She cannot adventure with people who are either evil characters or anyone who consistently offends her moral code. That means anyone who is acting not-like-a-Paladin is not someone that she can hang around for very long. That means the Paladin mechanically has issues with Bards if they lie or steal. It means they have problems with the Alchemist who uses poisons. Etc.

Even if they are good or neutral, if they consistently offend the paladin's code, they have to go or the Paladin does. That's RAW.

Quote:
besides how does teh paladin know teh rogue is using poisons or stealing things, if the rogue is smart about it he would do it when No one is a witness, if the bards lie will get you past a set of gaurds so the party can free some slaves so be it, hes doing it not the paladin.

What a slippery slope you are treading. You are basically saying it's ok to offend the paladin's code as long as you do it liberally. Hiding and deceiving the Paladin. How do you think the Paladin will react when he finds out that you've been offending his code all this time, and intentionally keeping it a secret from him. The Paladin doesn't tolerate the bard lying because that bard is offending his the paladin code. The paladin, by RAW, can no more remain in the party with the bard lying to the authorities than he could watching someone commit burglary or acting evil in his presence. That's RAW. Deal with it.

Quote:
If the party is constantly doing evil things then he has the right to try and talk to them about thier actions.

Now who is adding non-RAW stuff. The paladin class says she must actively avoids associating with them. That means that if the Paladin can't get them to change their ways, then she has to go.

Quote:
also there is a reason it says in the code that when working in parties that conflict with this code a great deal he is to seek atonement periodically.

You left out the part where it says that they only tolerate this behavior temporarily, and only if it is in the direct conflict of a greater evil; which requires specific circumstances for this to work.

Quote:

And since you dont actually want to read the alignments before you try and argue them here is a link to all of them.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

I've read the alignments, repeatedly. Maybe you should do the same.


"They do not associate with and will not work with people that are either evil or consistently offend their moral code."

This is inaccurate. It states that they avoid working with people that are either evil or consistently offend their moral code. It goes further to state that to associate with evil without cause is to risk the need to atone. You'll note that it mentions nothing about leaving that party because the rogue is flippant towards all authority.

I avoid certain types of people. That doesn't mean that I cannot work with them if I need to. It means I don't generally like them very much and would much rather associate with someone else.

You keep stating that avoid means that she has to go. Why? I avoid my family, but I still show up for the reunion and if my sister, who is constantly screwing up, needs me I answer. I do avoid her if I can though.


JCServant wrote:
Quote:
" The fact remains that no matter how you play your Paladin, by the rules, they do not associate with anyone who doesn't play like they want to play. That's a problem. "
And my point is, that if you define the alignments the way they are written, rather than personal definition, than the above is more of a statement of logic rather than an artificial enforcement...

Nope. Sorry, not working here. Paladins cannot associate with evil or anyone who offends their moral code consistently, regardless of their actual alignment. That means if the barbarian doesn't respect legitimate authority, consistently, the Paladin has to go. If the bard is particularly fond of his glibness spell, the Paladin has to go. If the alchemist uses poisons regularly, the Paladin has to go. If the Neutral wizard often summons fiendish creatures via Summon Monster spells, the Paladin has to go. If the Rogue steals, the Paladin has to go.

Either that, or all of the above must change their actions to be in accordance with the paladin's code, else the Paladin cannot associate with them. That's RAW, Mr. Smarty pants.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

"They do not associate with and will not work with people that are either evil or consistently offend their moral code."

This is inaccurate. It states that they avoid working with people that are either evil or consistently offend their moral code. It goes further to state that to associate with evil without cause is to risk the need to atone. You'll note that it mentions nothing about leaving that party because the rogue is flippant towards all authority.

I avoid certain types of people. That doesn't mean that I cannot work with them if I need to. It means I don't generally like them very much and would much rather associate with someone else.

You keep stating that avoid means that she has to go. Why? I avoid my family, but I still show up for the reunion and if my sister, who is constantly screwing up, needs me I answer. I do avoid her if I can though.

Quote:

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 avoid anyone who is evil or consistently offends her Paladin's code. Them's the rules.

EDIT: The fact we can't even agree on the RAW concerning Paladins further illustrates one of the biggest problems with them, and much of what Kelsey is saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure that if the dev's intended the paladin to leave whenever some did something that they didn't like they would have openly stated it as such.

Avoiding something does not dictate absolute action.

We disagree on what Kelsey is saying. I find that you are pigeonholing paladins into a particular role that is not intended and not generally used. By your definition paladin's are unplayable unless everyone hides everything from them. This is complete nonsense. No offense intended, but to me that is what you're saying.

If a paladin leaves the party because she caught the bard lying then she is violating the Lawful part of her alignment, assuming they've been adventuring for long enough for her to consider them team mates, by betraying her loyalty to the team. According to your absolute interpretation it is quite impossible for one to play with just about any other class without visiting a cleric periodically for an atonement.


Quote:
She cannot adventure with people who are either evil characters or anyone who consistently offends her moral code. That means anyone who is acting not-like-a-Paladin is not someone that she can hang around for very long. That means the Paladin mechanically has issues with Bards if they lie or steal. It means they have problems with the Alchemist who uses poisons. Etc.

Now, this much is true. However, it does get away from the original topic.

However, I will say, that the Paladin in PF has a lot fewer "codes" than in the past. And, keep in mind, they only have problems if the party member CONSTANTLY offends her moral code. That word is VERY important.

But, yes, if the bard lies, steals and/or poisons "Constantly," and the Paladin is knowledgable of this and willing doesn't take progressive steps to address it, it certainly can result in needing some atonement action. With that being said, characters who do that stuff consistantly to innocents are evil (Causing others to suffer for their own game) and ANY good character is going to have a problem with that (or they become Neutral). And since most parties don't go around "consistantly" stealing from evil people (though that can be fun, it's never consistant...it's more like you get their stuff when you kill them anyway under most rustic laws), the only issue I've run into is with poison. The alchemist in our party was careful not to tell the paladin exactly HOW his "magic" was weakening his foes...and the Paladin didn't have enough Spellcraft to figure it out.

Now, if you want to have REAL fun, read the faiths of purity books. There are some very original and fun Paladin codes...for those Paladins who get their direction from specific deities. :D


Quote:

Nope. Sorry, not working here. Paladins cannot associate with evil or anyone who offends their moral code consistently, regardless of their actual alignment. That means if the barbarian doesn't respect legitimate authority, consistently, the Paladin has to go. If the bard is particularly fond of his glibness spell, the Paladin has to go. If the alchemist uses poisons regularly, the Paladin has to go. If the Neutral wizard often summons fiendish creatures via Summon Monster spells, the Paladin has to go. If the Rogue steals, the Paladin has to go.

Either that, or all of the above must change their actions to be in accordance with the paladin's code, else the Paladin cannot associate with them. That's RAW, Mr. Smarty pants.

LOL...I know I'm winning when people resort to such witty retorts as "Mr. Smarty Pants" hahahahahaha.

RAW: "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.

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.
"

First of all, it says right there, she can party with good or neutral characters. Obviously, most Neutral characters do NOT agree with an LG point of view. So, how does that reconcile with teh later statemetn that says they avoid working with anyone who consistently offend their moral code?

There's two ways to look at it. It states that they can't travel with those who offend their code...it does not say they can't travel with those who don't live according to the LG alignment. Their alignment (and the behaviour that implies) is NOT their code. Their code is that 2nd paragraph. Don't *constantly* break those four or so codes listed in that tiny paragraph.

Another way. The people they travel with don't have to believe in their values, or live an LG life. A paladin or an LG is NOT offended by the N person who lives his life for himself, selfishly. He may travel, hire them, etc. However, he IS offended by the person who oppresses the innocent and kills them to get their way.


To recap, and bring this back on topic, the OP started this whole thing saying , "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. "

While the pladin class description mandates that the PC maintain an LG alignment (which, by logical extension means they exhibit LG behaviour), no where in the Paladin Class description in RAW does it say that the Paladin must enforce LG behavour on his team, or that she must leave if the party does not demonstrate constant LG behaviour themselves. Therefore, I submit that the OP's arguement, as stated, is incorrect before it even gets started.

As many have pointed out, the Paladin rules do say that they cannot tolerate constant infraction of their "code" which is defined by "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. "

And, even then, the paladin can tolerate occasion infraction in this area....it's clear they have an issue with those who offend this code on a "Consistant" basis. That leaves a LOT of wiggle room. Any additional burden on Paladins to be MORE than what's written right there is artificial (and old school/version D&D). That, IMHO, causes more misunderstandings than anything else.


JCServant wrote:

And, even then, the paladin can tolerate occasion infraction in this area....it's clear they have an issue with those who offend this code on a "Consistant" basis. That leaves a LOT of wiggle room. Any additional burden on Paladins to be MORE than what's written right there is artificial (and old school/version D&D). That, IMHO, causes more misunderstandings than anything else.

Any character that has shown sufficient behavior to have a Chaotic alignment has shown that they will consistently offend the Paladin's code. If the character were not doing so consistently, then they would most likely not be Chaotic but Neutral (regarding Lawful/Chaotic). Since 1/3 of the PC-friendly alignments fall into the Chaotic side, this does pose some restrictions on the other players.


Note it says 'who consistently violate her moral code'. Morality is the good/evil axis, not the law/chaos axis.

So if they're dealing with a character who consistently does evil acts, without actually being evil, they can't associate with them. Law/Chaos is not morality.


HappyDaze wrote:
Any character that has shown sufficient behavior to have a Chaotic alignment has shown that they will consistently offend the Paladin's code. If the character were not doing so consistently, then they would most likely not be Chaotic but Neutral (regarding Lawful/Chaotic). Since 1/3 of the PC-friendly alignments fall into the Chaotic side, this does pose some restrictions on the other players.

The "Code" does not mean the LG requirement of the Paladin. It simply means those few things listed in the paragraph about code. Poison use, honesty, etc. The closest you could say here regards the code for respecting authority. An LG paladin MAY have issues with a CG Robin Hood deal if that CG is clearly and consistantly disrespecting legitamite authority.

That's the only place you could say the waters get murky...was the authority in charge of Sherwood, at the time, "Legitimate"? If so, than a "Robin Hood" campaign may not be the best place for the Paladin. If not, then there's clearly no issue with the Paladin code. Again, the LG alignment, and what it implies, is NOT listed as part of the code. Therefore, a paladin CAN hang out with any G and N alignement character as long as they don't *consistantly* disrespect legitimate authority, refrain from poison use, etc.


@Ashiel

If the Paladin can't be in a party with anyone that might go against his code, then why would the good people of piazo make campaigns such as CotCT where the pregens/iconic characters in it include a Paladin and a Bard that has heavily invested in his bluff skill and according to his background description, has a high disdain for law and order.

and as far as i can tell They lasted a full 6 books and then continued thier partnership in other adventures.


"Note it says 'who consistently violate her moral code'. Morality is the good/evil axis, not the law/chaos axis.

So if they're dealing with a character who consistently does evil acts, without actually being evil, they can't associate with them. Law/Chaos is not morality."

I think this is a good point too.

If you want to go with the spirit of what's written there, rather than tearing into every word...I would agree, the spirit of the Paladin is that they can't hang with those who consistantly offend their G vs E (moral) belief system. While following a personal/traditional/faith based/law based code is an important part of being a paladin, the impression I get from reading the whole thing is that, when it comes to companions, that part isn't as critical. A Paladin conceivably can run with a CG or CN character (It says, they can party with G or N, implying ANY G or N type), but evil is excluded. They get smite bonuses vs. Evil, not Chaos. Etc.,etc.


JCServant wrote:
LOL...I know I'm winning when people resort to such witty retorts as "Mr. Smarty Pants" hahahahahaha.

I'm glad you found it as humorous as I. :P

Quote:

RAW: "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.

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.
"

First of all, it says right there, she can party with good or neutral characters. Obviously, most Neutral characters do NOT agree with an LG point of view. So, how does that reconcile with teh later statemetn that says they avoid working with anyone who consistently offend their moral code?

Neutral characters can agree or even follow the Paladin's code. Doesn't mean they aren't Neutral. There is little to nothing in the Paladin's code that doesn't lend itself to Lawful Neutral characters wither. Evil characters can respect legitimate authority, have compunctions against lying, and Lawful Neutral is the iconic alignment for Judges.

The fact of the matter is they are allowed to party with Good or Neutral characters under these conditions. The conditions being that the paladin's associates cannot consistently offend his code. Now technically, yes, the Paladin's refusal to commit any evil act is obviously part of the Paladin's code. Notice it's right there under Code of Conduct, as is their alignment (which makes the Code break the 4th wall but whatever). The second paragraph says "Aditionally", as in addition to the first part of the Paladin's code, noting other things within the code that the Paladin must follow.

By the rules, anyone who consistently offends the Paladin's code is someone the Paladin is not allowed to adventure or associate with. That includes anyone who commits evil acts, uses poison, lies, cheats, steals, acts without honor, and so forth, on a fairly regular basis. That is the rules. This is spelled out under the Associates feature of the class, and even goes on to say Paladins cannot recruit followers or cohorts unless they too are of Lawful Good alignment.

Dictionary.com wrote:

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.

It's pretty clear.

The worst part is the amount of people who seem to think this is supposed to be some sort of balancing feature. That may have been the case way back in the day, when Paladins were basically Fighter+, but not today. Not when the Paladin is considered to be the same with the other classes. No when they don't get any special perks or benefits that make them the best.

They should probably also have the Law aura, and get a lot more law-based spells, and get Smite Chaos alongside Smite Evil, and so on and so forth. They are required, stringently, to adhere to a peculiar code and to have their allies do the same, and to be Lawful Good; and yet their actual class features only represent a portion of this type of thing. If this is a balancing feature then by all accounts they should be buffed, and buffed hard! They should be walking paragons of law and righteousness, and they should receive the benefits for being Lawful as fiercely as they do for being Good. Especially since their class demands more out of the Lawful aspect than out of their Good aspect from them.


JCServant wrote:

"Note it says 'who consistently violate her moral code'. Morality is the good/evil axis, not the law/chaos axis.

So if they're dealing with a character who consistently does evil acts, without actually being evil, they can't associate with them. Law/Chaos is not morality."

I think this is a good point too.

If you want to go with the spirit of what's written there, rather than tearing into every word...I would agree, the spirit of the Paladin is that they can't hang with those who consistantly offend their G vs E (moral) belief system. While following a personal/traditional/faith based/law based code is an important part of being a paladin, the impression I get from reading the whole thing is that, when it comes to companions, that part isn't as critical. A Paladin conceivably can run with a CG or CN character (It says, they can party with G or N, implying ANY G or N type), but evil is excluded. They get smite bonuses vs. Evil, not Chaos. Etc.,etc.

Aren't you the guy who accused me of not following the raw for alignments, and arguing that if it wasn't killing stuff then it wasn't evil? Is that within the spirit of the rules, despite the fact it implies that a tyrannical landlord, full of bigotry and disdain for lower citizens would be Lawful Evil?

You guys wanted RAW, you got RAW. You might want to check the chains on your bike, as it seems to be back-pedaling.

StealthElite wrote:

@Ashiel

If the Paladin can't be in a party with anyone that might go against his code, then why would the good people of piazo make campaigns such as CotCT where the pregens/iconic characters in it include a Paladin and a Bard that has heavily invested in his bluff skill and according to his background description, has a high disdain for law and order.

and as far as i can tell They lasted a full 6 books and then continued thier partnership in other adventures.

CotCT:
The same reason that the Queen was described as evil without ever having killed anyone, or a good and friendly undead fortune teller who gathers the party together to begin their heroic journey. Because they wanted to. I just got done speaking with James Jacobs in another thread where he noted that they will intentionally ignore the status quo if they feel like it gives a good story.

You can't whine and moan about alignment not being RAW and then turn around and complain about RAW with with the Paladin class itself in the very next breath. Pfft.


JCServant wrote:

To recap, and bring this back on topic, the OP started this whole thing saying , "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. "

While the pladin class description mandates that the PC maintain an LG alignment (which, by logical extension means they exhibit LG behaviour), no where in the Paladin Class description in RAW does it say that the Paladin must enforce LG behavour on his team, or that she must leave if the party does not demonstrate constant LG behaviour themselves. Therefore, I submit that the OP's arguement, as stated, is incorrect before it even gets started.

As many have pointed out, the Paladin rules do say that they cannot tolerate constant infraction of their "code" which is defined by "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. "

And, even then, the paladin can tolerate occasion infraction in this area....it's clear they have an issue with those who offend this code on a "Consistant" basis. That leaves a LOT of wiggle room. Any additional burden on Paladins to be MORE than what's written right there is artificial (and old school/version D&D). That, IMHO, causes more misunderstandings than anything else.

In other words, figure out a reason for the paladin to be there and lead by example. This comes back to the idea of paladins being Judge Dredd. Nobody wants to be like Judge Dredd because he's a jerk. But even superheroes idolize Captain America and Superman. They are good, honest, trustworthy, and always put others before themselves. They do their best to follow the laws of the land so long as Law serves Good. Paladins should be the rock of the party, the big brother who'll stick by you no matter what. If you can't trust the paladin, you have problems. This is what a paladin IS. The mechanics of the class are what a paladin DOES and how he accomplishes his goals.

Directed towards Ashiel: In regards to my original post, the people who play paladins like disruptive jerks do not get why paladins do what they do. They are the same people that play evil like jerks.


Ashiel wrote:


You guys wanted RAW, you got RAW. You might want to check the chains on your bike, as it seems to be back-pedaling.

Please point out to me where I ever said Law/Chaos was part of a moral code in the thread Ashiel. If you can point it out, I'll admit I backpedaled on something. If not, I suggest you more specifically address who you're talking about rather than saying 'You guys' when addressing a response to something I posted.


ashiel wrote:
Neutral characters can agree or even follow the Paladin's code.

I would have to say a neutral character that has chosen to follow the paladins code has effectly become lawful good, as they are not really neutral.

I Know youve "read" all of the alignments

but for poops and giggles ill post these up again

Lawful Neutral
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

if your Character follows a Lawful good code then they are lawful good, you cant have your cake and eat it too


Individual gods may or may not emphasize Lawful more or less. Some gods may stress the Lawful over the Good. These are hard gods for Paladins to follow, as they will routinely have conflicts between the two. Note that in these cases however, the Paladin usually is taking Atonement for Good acts, not Lawful ones. A good example of this is a LN god of justice.

A Paladin may have the opposite problem with a NG god, where he is emphasizing Lawful concepts that the god's Paladin code does not include, and may need to get an Atonement for Lawful acts that are minor infractions of his god's code.

However, in all of these, Law/Chaos has more to do with discipline, structure, and adherence to tradition than it does to Morality. Morality, and a moral code, by definition is good vs evil.


I've never seen any of the Paladin problems listed here actually occur on any meaningful level. Nor have I ever seen Paladin behavior enforced to the ridiculously absurd levels some posters here are ascribing to "the RAW". Neither the old RPGA nor PFS society have done so; nor have I ever seen such behaviour encouraged (hell, not even in Hackmaster).

If a player/GM is a jerk/moron, it won't matter what changes you make to alignment, class, or anything else for that matter. If you don't like alignment (or whatever) change it or drop it. But coming here and trying to portray alignment (or whatever) as some kind of mind-controlling Godzilla crushing the Tokyo of player imagination and freedom is silly. And, to be honest, no one has made an arguement for this that wasn't old and tired before 1E ended. If you're holding out for a universal game design change I wouldn't hold my breath.

It's both depressing and amusing to here people argue that a certain position is valid (when it isn't) just because a) that's how their group perceives it; b) that's how "lots of other" unnamed groups perceive it; c) lots of people are complaining about it on the Internet (my personal favorite and one of the few things that can make me laugh and cry at the same time).

Considering the remarkably thin skin and anger gamer's seem to have nowadays and how many other quality games are available in the highly balkanized rpg market, it makes me wonder why some people are playing PF at all.

Well, I would stay and talk more but a) the angry people aren't intellectually listening to me anyways; b) I have to go and play a LG Paladin of Shelyn that (continues) to have fun; c) after that I have go and play Spirit of the Century or possibly Legends of Anglerre depending on our mood and (continue to) have fun and, now that I've thought about it, d) I'm going to watch Godzilla vs. Megalon. I do promise that when Gigan and Megalon are kicking the snot out of Jet Jaguar, I'll view Jet as a metaphor for player creativity and Megalon and Gigan and the "evils" of LG Paladininess (well, until Godzilla, representing the 99.99% of the players who don't give a crap, comes up and makes the whole thing moot).


This thread looks like it has the legs to break 500 posts. But can it do 1,000? That's what I want to know.

I feel so evil rubbernecking this thread. But, I am CE or LE?

And whose definition should we use?

Drat. I'm concerned that Sir Jolt's mature and level headed perspective may be the undoing of this thread.


mdt wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


You guys wanted RAW, you got RAW. You might want to check the chains on your bike, as it seems to be back-pedaling.
Please point out to me where I ever said Law/Chaos was part of a moral code in the thread Ashiel. If you can point it out, I'll admit I backpedaled on something. If not, I suggest you more specifically address who you're talking about rather than saying 'You guys' when addressing a response to something I posted.

My apologies mdt. I had addressed two posters with my quotes in that post. I had meant "you guys" in relation to those posters. Any similarities to other people or characters, real or imagined, is merely a coincidence. :P


StealthElite wrote:


would have to say a neutral character that has chosen to follow the paladins code has effectly become lawful good, as they are not really neutral.......
..if your Character follows a Lawful good code then they are lawful good, you cant have your cake and eat it too

Someone could choose to follow the code, but due to a lack of discipline or dedication not really hold themselves to the standard. That is how.

Choosing to do something, and actually making it happen are not the same things.

I think that is what she was getting at.

Other than that if you follow the code to the T, and are as dedicated as the paladin is then you would be LG.


StealthElite wrote:
I would have to say a neutral character that has chosen to follow the paladins code has effectly become lawful good, as they are not really neutral.

Not really buying that. Someone can be neutral or evil and still follow the tenants of a Paladin's code, barring the metagame portion which says they must be lawful good. EDIT: For example, a Lawful Evil member of a church might obey all of the rules, and even extend aid to innocents where it is needed because it is expected of him, not because he wants to. He might even be the one who issues the orders to go out and fight other evils, or save innocents, because that is what tradition dictates, and because it suits him. In fact, a lawful evil ruler actually benefits this way, because this apparently kind and good act garners him more power, eliminates rivals, and garnishes supporters; even if he's doing all of it for very not-good reasons.

Quote:

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

First off, that actually sounds like a Paladin. She acts in law, tradition, and has a personal code to direct her. She lives in personal order and lives by a code or standard.

It then says you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. Well let's look at what Zealot means.

Dictionary.com: Zealot wrote:

zeal·ot

   [zel-uht] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. ( initial capital letter ) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
Origin:
1530–40; earlier zelote < Late Latin zēlōtēs < Greek zēlṓtēs, equivalent to zēlō- (variant stem of zēloûn to be zealous; see zeal) + -tēs agent suffix

Related forms
un·der·zeal·ot, noun

Synonyms
2. extremist, crank, bigot. See fanatic.

Ok, so barring extremism, that fits. Heck, Lawful Neutral with good tendencies probably bro-fists Paladins except when they are being overly zealous.

Quote:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral means you act naturally in any situation, without prejudice or compulsion.

Ok, so we can assume most folks are probably neutral. They act naturally. So what is naturally? Well I guess it would be what ever comes natural to you. You might lean more towards good or evil, without being overly focused on either. The guy who pushes a child out of the way of an out of control wagon, but might ignore some drug dealers in the alleyway peddling to some teens, might be Neutral. He does what comes natural, and while he wanted to save the kid, he doesn't see it worth the effort to start a fight with some drug dealers, or whatever. Later he might end up homeless without money, so he steals some dude's burger when he's not looking. Not because he actively wants to steal from people, but 'cause he's really hungry. Whereas if he had money, he might have actually bought the guy a burger if the tables were turned.

He could probably live by the Paladin's code to appease the authorities, but wouldn't really care. A fair-weather type. Sure he might act one way in front of his boss or co-worker who really hates alcohol, but then go home and pop open a six pack of cool owns, kick his feet up, and watch gnomish mud-wrestling on pay per scry tonight.

Quote:

A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.

Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.

Sounds like a rebel, possibly without a cause. Probably would not get along with a Paladin at all, since he'll do what he wants, when he wants, and and doesn't sound like he gives a damn as to who says he can or can't do it. He might not have the evil bent that most evil folks have, 'cause he's still just a normal person with a chip on his shoulder when it comes to authority or rigidity. He might push the kid out of the way, and he might go into the alleyway to see what the guys were selling, or to let them know "Hey guys, you shouldn't be sellin' that stuff around here since there's kids about, but I respect your freedom and all, so I'm lettin' you know that some guards are coming this way". When his co-worker comments that he doesn't like alcohol because it corrupts the spirit, he smiles and laughs and offers the dude a beer.

Quote:
if your Character follows a Lawful good code then they are lawful good, you cant have your cake and eat it too

Unless you're just keeping up appearances, or doing it because it is convenient. Lawful good extends beyond just being a Paladin. You can have Lawful Good anything, and most of them don't have codes, and if they do have codes, they might be something more or less restrictive than the Paladin's code. If following that code makes your life easier, such as say, following the 10 commandments of your religion, you might be following them for less that noble reasons (because it's convenient, because you follow the rules and expect others to do the same for your protection, or because you're afraid of some sort of divine wrath or karma).

Additionally...
I noticed one or two people talking morals vs ethics or whatever. Morals and ethics are more or less the same things. In fact, ethical is used to describe moral.

Dictionary.com: Morals wrote:

moral

[mawr-uhl, mor-]   Example Sentences Origin
mor·al
   [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
EXPAND
noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
Dictionary.com: Ethical wrote:

ethical

[eth-i-kuhl]   Example Sentences Origin
eth·i·cal
   [eth-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
3. (of drugs) sold only upon medical prescription.
Origin:
1600–10; ethic + -al1

Synonyms
2. moral, upright, honest, righteous, virtuous, honorable.

That is why some people have different morals or ethics, or a different sense of morals and ethics, because they are not by any means exclusive to good and evil, nor order or chaos. What is ethical or moral to a Chaotic Good character is not going to be ethical or moral to a Lawful Good character. They might share some overlap, but the lawful good character might believe that a son should respect his father's wishes and take over the family business, while the chaotic good character might believe that the father should respect his son's wishes and let him live his own dream.

Anyway...that's enough blabbering from me, for now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's some confusion on paying Lipservice to an ideal, and to actually following the ideal.

A neutral character can pay lipservice to an ideal, they can pay their taxes, they can give some money to charity, but don't have to actually FOLLOW that credo. For example, if I'm NN, but I live in a LG society, I'll make a token donation to the local orphans fund, and I'll obey the laws. Not because I believe in them, but strictly out of selfish desire not to be ostracized or put in jail.

It doesn't mean I'm LG, even though I follow the law and give some charity. I don't go out of my way to be kind and generous, I don't stick my neck out for other people. I don't call the city guard if I see someone getting raped/mugged/murdered/beaten in an alleyway. If I know someone in town molests their kids, or I know someone's cheating on their taxes, or I know someone beats their wife, I don't report them to the authorities.

So while I adhere to the LG rules around me, I'm not lawful or good. I could care less about anyone who's not my immediate friend or loved one. I don't really care about the laws, I only obey them to avoid going to jail or being punished.

So yes, a character can take actions not of their alignment, as long as doing so is because of their alignment. If they start actually 'living' the alignment, instead of merely doing the minimum necessary to get by without getting in trouble, then their alignment begins to shift.

Remember, Alignment is a description of how you live and what you believe. Your own personality and beliefs determine your alignment, not the other way around.

A lot of these arguments come from people who want to redefine what LG is, so that their beliefs and actions can fit into it. That's the absolute bassackwards way to look at it. Behave however you want to, then pick the alignment that meets it. If the alignment doesn't match a Paladin, don't play a paladin. If the alignment is Lawful, don't play a Barbarian. If it's chaotic, don't play a Monk (unless it's a martial artist). If it's not chaotic evil, don't play an anti-paladin.

If you want to play a smart but naive caster, don't play a WIS based caster. If you want to play a dumb but wise caster, don't play a Wizard or Witch. Really people, it's not that hard.

EDIT : Fixed a typo on the list of 'then don't play this'


Ashiel wrote:


I noticed one or two people talking morals vs ethics or whatever. Morals and ethics are more or less the same things. In fact, ethical is used to describe moral.

I may have, if I did, it was a typo. I was pretty sure I said Morals are Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos is adherence to discipline, adherence to tradition, and strict codes of conduct.

You can have a paladin who has no interest in Good/Evil, but who is strongly Ethical, and he wouldn't have an issue on the Good vs Evil axis. The big difference between Ethics and Morality is that Morality drags in a bunch of things about religious dogma that may or may not be involved in the Good/Evil axis. Like, having a holy day, or holy holidays, or one gender being in control of the other gender. Ethics will be involved in things that religion doesn't care about as well.

All in all though, both are ways of marking the same axis, just with different labels and different measurements.


The problem isn't with the mechanics - the problem is when players use a caricature of their alignment to throw games off the rails.

We've just finished hacking through dozens of waves of undead and reached the room with the necromancer, and NOW the paladin gets indignant when we start planning how to kill him.

Paladin: "Killing is evil and I can't allow it!"
Party: "He's a evil necromancer. Even if we take him alive, the town is just going to put him to death anyway."
Paladin: (continuing tirade about whether or not we're allowed to kill the guy that just threw 4 wights, 20 zombies, and an auditorium full of skeletons at some helpless farmers)


mdt wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I noticed one or two people talking morals vs ethics or whatever. Morals and ethics are more or less the same things. In fact, ethical is used to describe moral.

I may have, if I did, it was a typo. I was pretty sure I said Morals are Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos is adherence to discipline, adherence to tradition, and strict codes of conduct.

You can have a paladin who has no interest in Good/Evil, but who is strongly Ethical, and he wouldn't have an issue on the Good vs Evil axis. The big difference between Ethics and Morality is that Morality drags in a bunch of things about religious dogma that may or may not be involved in the Good/Evil axis. Like, having a holy day, or holy holidays, or one gender being in control of the other gender. Ethics will be involved in things that religion doesn't care about as well.

All in all though, both are ways of marking the same axis, just with different labels and different measurements.

This argument doesn't hold in Pathfinder. Here we don't have one measure of methodology and another of end result. Either can go either way. There may be some LG that are most concerned with promoting order and find it convenient to use benevolence to get there. They might have more in common with the LE guy that also wants to promote order and just finds that malevolence is the best way to get there. In both cases, the Lawful is the center of these characters' morality rather than the Good/Evil.


Quote:
Aren't you the guy who accused me of not following the raw for alignments, and arguing that if it wasn't killing stuff then it wasn't evil? Is that within the spirit of the rules, despite the fact it implies that a tyrannical landlord, full of bigotry and disdain for lower citizens would be Lawful Evil?

I was emphasizing killing as the primary gauge for evil because, RAW makes it very clear, in the paragraph about Good vs. Evil, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." The word kill is there times there. Hurting, Oppressing, lack of compassion are also mentioned. Clearly, killing for any of the reasons stated or implied here is the litmus test.

This includes LE.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

Again, the LE person clearly does not care for life like a G or N character. He only cares about his traditions and rules. IF the rules or traditions (or loopholes) allow him to "Kill, hurt, and/or oppress" to get what he wants, the LE person WILL do it because he has NO compassion for others. That's the spirit of the RAW for LE. Adding to that, is the problem that people seem to have here.

Calling Wolverine "Evil" in PF terms because he enjoys killing is like calling me a "Adulterous" because I enjoy sex and look at other women. From a Christian view, this makes sense. From a Pathfinder stand point, it does not. In PF, the emphasis is more on actions, and on whether or not the person ultimately values others life/freedom to the point of personal sacrifice (Good), de-values it to the point of actively imprisoning/robbing/killing/etc others for their own goal/selfishness, or pursues their own interest with no strong inclination towards self sacrifice or committing evil on others (Neutral)

Could someone be evil in PF and never have murdered or stolen? I'm sure it's possible. Obviously, some evil people want to but do not because they never had an opportunity without fearing immediate reprucution (from the law). However, again, if you put that person (like my LE examples before) into a position where they are the law, or the law has been changed to allow people to do whatever in the world they want, and were given the ability to carry those behaviors out, without penalty, would the person in question resort to the terrible behaviors described in the "Evil" section.

Back to the topic at hand...I really, really don't see how the fact that a Paladin cannot work with an Evil character to be that much of a problem. I've stated before that ANY Good character can have a huge problem working with Evil characters for long periods of time, and clerics as well as Paladins can lose their powers. Interestingly enough, even evil characters have challenges working together for long periods of time, lol http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz508x?Evil-parties-how-they-fail-and-how-to-fix- it


Quote:
Aren't you the guy who accused me of not following the raw for alignments, and arguing that if it wasn't killing stuff then it wasn't evil? Is that within the spirit of the rules, despite the fact it implies that a tyrannical landlord, full of bigotry and disdain for lower citizens would be Lawful Evil?

I was emphasizing killing as the primary gauge for evil because, RAW makes it very clear, in the paragraph about Good vs. Evil, "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." The word kill is there times there. Hurting, Oppressing, lack of compassion are also mentioned. Clearly, killing for any of the reasons stated or implied here is the litmus test.

This includes LE.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

Again, the LE person clearly does not care for life like a G or N character. He only cares about his traditions and rules. IF the rules or traditions (or loopholes) allow him to "Kill, hurt, and/or oppress" to get what he wants, the LE person WILL do it because he has NO compassion for others. That's the spirit of the RAW for LE. Adding to that, is the problem that people seem to have here.

Calling Wolverine "Evil" in PF terms because he enjoys killing is like calling me a "Adulterous" because I enjoy sex and look at other women. From a Christian view, this makes sense. From a Pathfinder stand point, it does not. In PF, the emphasis is more on actions, and on whether or not the person ultimately values others life/freedom to the point of personal sacrifice (Good), de-values it to the point of actively imprisoning/robbing/killing/etc others for their own goal/selfishness, or pursues their own interest with no strong inclination towards self sacrifice or committing evil on others (Neutral)

Could someone be evil in PF and never have murdered or stolen? I'm sure it's possible. Obviously, some evil people want to but do not because they never had an opportunity without fearing immediate punishment (from the law). However, again, if you put that person (like my LE examples before) into a position where they are the law, or the law has been changed to allow people to do whatever in the world they want, and were given the ability to carry those behaviors out, without penalty, would the person in question resort to the terrible behaviors described in the "Evil" section.

Back to the topic at hand...I really, really don't see how the fact that a Paladin cannot work with an Evil character to be that much of a problem. I've stated before that ANY Good character can have a huge problem working with Evil characters for long periods of time, and clerics as well as Paladins can lose their powers. Interestingly enough, even evil characters have challenges working together for long periods of time, lol http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz508x?Evil-parties-how-they-fail-and-how-to-fix- it


Ashiel wrote:
And an entirely true one. Their code is quite clear on it.

It's partially true.

The other side of the coin is that the players themselves likely have their very own Codes they bring to the table, and Paladin or not, I wouldn't be trucking with a granny-killing baby-eating sociopath, or Necromancer, just as any other right-minded individual might baulk at it. That the class may or may not also have a few restrictions is neither here nor there.

If I am playing a righteous and upstanding character, it won't be the Paladins Code that is bring the restriction into being, it will be my playstyle and taste on that day.

Whether its the class code, or my characters own moral compass makes not a zot of difference as the end outcome is identical - you won't be doing all that in my party because either you go or I do.

On the other hand, astute and intelligent people might recognise that in some parties they don't want to be the do-gooders, and we might want to be the 'shades of grey' or even bad guys, and in that case my moral high-horsing would not be appropriate, regardless of Paladin or not.

So your statement is erroneous, as you infer the restrictions come because of the Paladin; well actually they come from the PLAYERS decisions and choices. So yeah, I think your statement was misleading.

I would also posit that the 'Code' for the Pally in PF is poorly defined and cut down to the point it actually becomes an annoyance in its vagueness of detail, hence why I am still fine with players dragging out the 2nd Ed Paladins Handbook which was a fantastic guide to setting up the Paladins vows/orders/code etc.


HappyDaze wrote:


This argument doesn't hold in Pathfinder. Here we don't have one measure of methodology and another of end result. Either can go either way. There may be some LG that are most concerned with promoting order and find it convenient to use benevolence to get there. They might have more in common with the LE guy that also wants to promote order and just finds that malevolence is the best way to get there. In both cases, the Lawful is the center of these characters' morality rather than the Good/Evil.

Actually, you argue exactly what I said. Ethics and Morality are linked, to some extent, but Lawful vs Choatic are not linked to ethics.

Both character's you describe are mostly lawful, one because he has a personal belief system (The LE guy that finds that an adherence to a code keeps him from going off the handle and getting sidetracked), and the other who believes in an external sense of order (law and justice).

In both your situations, both characters (The LG and the LE) have strict codes of conduct they are following, in fact, it may be the exact same code of conduct (evil Knight vs good Knight is the classic example, both following the code of chivalry to the letter). One does it to oppress, the other to protect. They have opposite moralities, but the same dogmatic adherence to a code of conduct.


Shifty, have you read the "Faith of Purity" book by chance? That have an excellent couple of pages regarding paladin codes based on deity which can really help flesh those out for players.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:


They should probably also have the Law aura, and get a lot more law-based spells, and get Smite Chaos alongside Smite Evil, and so on and so forth. They are required, stringently, to adhere to a peculiar code and to have their allies do the same, and to be Lawful Good; and yet their actual class features only represent a portion of this type of thing. If this is a balancing feature then by all accounts they should be buffed, and buffed hard! They should be walking paragons of law and righteousness, and they should receive the benefits for being Lawful as fiercely as they do for being Good. Especially since their class demands more out of the Lawful aspect than out of their Good aspect from them.

I disagree with this part. The Paladin, as clearly stated, WILL lose his/her powers and need to atone if he/she ever commits an evil act. While Paladins shouldn't go around committing chaotic acts, there is no such "instant zap" prohibition on occasional bits of rather more chaotic than lawful behavior. While there is more spelled out on the lawful parts of the code, it is still not as all-encompassing or restrictive as the "do not commit evil acts-- ever" part of the code. I don't think they should have, or need to have, the specifically lawful powers, because (IMO) they are above all else, Good. Not coincidentally, I think the prohibitions are worded the way they are, because if the Paladin comes down to a choice between take a rather chaotic action, or allow innocents to die... I think the "not allowing innocents to die" part overrides any "don't be chaotic" part.


mdt wrote:

I think there's some confusion on paying Lipservice to an ideal, and to actually following the ideal.

A neutral character can pay lipservice to an ideal, they can pay their taxes, they can give some money to charity, but don't have to actually FOLLOW that credo. For example, if I'm NN, but I live in a LG society, I'll make a token donation to the local orphans fund, and I'll obey the laws. Not because I believe in them, but strictly out of selfish desire not to be ostracized or put in jail.

So yes, a character can take actions not of their alignment, as long as doing so is because of their alignment. If they start actually 'living' the alignment, instead of merely doing the minimum necessary to get by without getting in trouble, then their alignment begins to shift.

Pretty much this. While it's possible to have people who aren't Lawful Good behave in lawful good ways, it doesn't mean they actually are lawful good. Mdt makes this point quite eloquently.

Shiiktan wrote:

The problem isn't with the mechanics - the problem is when players use a caricature of their alignment to throw games off the rails.

We've just finished hacking through dozens of waves of undead and reached the room with the necromancer, and NOW the paladin gets indignant when we start planning how to kill him.

Paladin: "Killing is evil and I can't allow it!"
Party: "He's a evil necromancer. Even if we take him alive, the town is just going to put him to death anyway."
Paladin: (continuing tirade about whether or not we're allowed to kill the guy that just threw 4 wights, 20 zombies, and an auditorium full of skeletons at some helpless farmers)

A big issue with this is that, as some posters have argued, that the books mostly describe evil as killing. And killing as evil. Now, if you live in a world where Evil cannot be tempered to Neutral by Good, and vice versa, you end up with a situation where Paladins killing enemies is considered evil. Likewise, if tradition and authorities dictate that it is customary to have the Necromancer tried before his peers, then the Paladin must respect this.

Now in my games, I openly admit to weighing scenarios based on good and evil. That is, after all, what sentient creatures do. We look at things and given our experiences come out to a good or an evil decision; and through this we can determine what is good and evil.

If the Paladin cuts down an orc in the defense of innocents, the Paladin's motivations outweigh the act of killing, which is by D&D/PF Definition, the primary evil act. One might even call this a good act. Killing in self-defense, likewise, is killing that is justified by circumstances, making it a not-evil act.

The problem is that a lot of GMs don't want any gray areas in their games, and a lot of people on these forums demand that D&D/Pathfinder is a black & white game with no moral ambiguity in it. Firstly, if that's the case, and you don't need to think about morality, then there is no reason to even bother having it in the game because you can derive nothing from it. There is no learning, no role-playing, no growth. There is no putting yourself in someone else's shoes and looking at something from a new perspective. It becomes less about good and evil and more like red and blue in a game of rock'em sock'em robots.

While I am adamantly discussing the problems with the Paladin class, alignment restrictions, and Paladin codes as presented, I myself don't find a whole lot of trouble with Paladins for the following reasons:

  • I believe in objective morality, where intent, method, and result all play a part in the overall determination of alignment and behavior. Instead of looking for at only the action, I look at intent, use, and results as well. This is why Paladins in my games do not require an atonement spell after each slain orc, and why Necromancers can be good guys if they temper their actions with altruism and restraint.
  • I admittedly do not follow the RAW for Paladin codes. Generally, if someone wants to play a Paladin, I expect them to maintain their chosen alignment. Beyond that, the rest of their code is generally up to them, within reasonable limits of the alignment. This gives players a little more flexibility when making Paladins of different deities.
  • As I pointed out before, I house-ruled that Paladins get to pick the morality they wish to champion, so having a Neutral Good Paladin is fine, as are most any other non-neutral alignment. Such Paladins are romanticized champions of their respective creeds, and they have abilities based on their chosen championing (so if you're a Lawful Good Paladin in my games, you get stuff like Smite Chaos and Smite Good, Lawful spells in addition to Good spells, and have a Lawful and Good subtype, making you radiate a powerful aligned-aura and helping you penetrate alignment-based DRs).

    I actually do not dislike Paladins. I don't lie to myself as to what the rules say about them either, though.

  • Silver Crusade

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ashiel wrote:


    The best "Paladin" I've ever seen was played by a 5 year old with a Lawful Good Fighter. He was everything your iconic good Paladin was. He even had a warhorse, a lance, a sword, a shield. He fought goblins, felled ogres, and claimed treasure. When he had treasure, he gave a lot of it away to the poor, helped an old lady pay off the debts on her house, and rode children around the town square on his horse. He didn't lie, or cheat, or steal. He accepted surrender, and he acted with mercy. He was a truly good person. Truly wonderful is the mind of a child.

    "Paladin" is not a class. It is a concept. It does not require a code of conduct, it requires a mindset which the code of conduct does not really enforce, nor does it really go very far in defining it. To be a good Paladin, you have to want to be a Paladin for more than mechanical reasons. In the Star Wars d20 RPG, it talks about playing a Jedi, because Jedi have a lot of considerations, codes, and reservations, much like Paladins do. One of the things that has often been suggested is a simple test.

    Q: If you took away the lightsaber and force powers, but left the philosophy, order, and so forth, would you still want to play a Jedi?
    A: If not, then playing a Jedi probably isn't for you.

    Paladins are much the same. This is one of the reasons I prefer using Clerics as Paladins in both 3.x and Pathfinder. Paladins have nice abilities but they aren't stronger than other classes by any means. Clerics can be played with the same flavor, but are more customizable, get along better with parties, and are decently martial characters as well. The fact Paladins sucked eggs in 3.x was just the nail in the coffin.

    EDIT: I too am naturally lawful good, by the way (though I have Lawful Evil tendencies when it comes to designing encounters for my group >:} ). Kelsey has a point though....

    I can (kind'a/sort'a) see the point you and Kelsey are trying to make in most of your posts, but I do not think your points are adequately supported by arguments. This post you made however--

    Really, that's all you need to say about a Paladin. That 5 year-old's LG Fighter is all a Paladin needs to be-- no more, no less. A player who can't find that kind of good mindset and pull off a character like that, shouldn't be playing a Paladin. The point you make below that with the Jedi example-- hits the point again. Don't play a Paladin unless you want to play the paragon of goodness. You don't have to be a jerk, you don't have to bludgeon other people with your code... you do have some limitations on who you'll associate with, but IMO MOST GOOD CHARACTERS are going to have those same limitations, just not to as great an extent! (as many others around here have stated)

    Your examples of playing an evil character in the group don't just stop someone from playing Paladins-- you're really saying "don't play good characters" and/or one of our characters is going to have to change alignment when you insist in bringing in the evil character-- good characters cannot simply go tripping through the minefields and continuously ignore the evil right in front of them without steadily sliding away from good, and if the evil character keeps going along with the good character's desires, it's quite likely that eventually he's going to become neutral. It's just that the paladin is going to lose his powers for it, the other characters are simply going to lose or compromise their moral outlook.

    I don't think you need to change the Paladin class-- you just need to make it clear to the person who wants to play one, that if he or she only wants to play the Paladin for the cool powers/abilities package, he or she should really pick a different class and accept that the Paladin isn't a good choice. If (as with the Jedi above) the player gets the concept and wants to play a Paladin because he/she really does want to play such a paragon, with or without powers (but so long as he/she is gonna do it anyway, the powers are nice), then (and only then) that player should take up a Paladin character.


    Finn K wrote:
    I disagree with this part. The Paladin, as clearly stated, WILL lose his/her powers and need to atone if he/she ever commits an evil act. While Paladins shouldn't go around committing chaotic acts, there is no such "instant zap" prohibition on occasional bits of rather more chaotic than lawful behavior. While there is more spelled out on the lawful parts of the code, it is still not as all-encompassing or restrictive as the "do not commit evil acts-- ever" part of the code. I don't think they should have, or need to have, the specifically lawful powers, because (IMO) they are above all else, Good. Not coincidentally, I think the prohibitions are worded the way they are, because if the Paladin comes down to a choice between take a rather chaotic action, or allow innocents to die... I think the "not allowing innocents to die" part overrides any "don't be chaotic" part.
    Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Paladin: Ex-Paladins wrote:
    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

    /case

    Shifty wrote:

    It's partially true.

    The other side of the coin is that the players themselves likely have their very own Codes they bring to the table, and Paladin or not, I wouldn't be trucking with a granny-killing baby-eating sociopath, or Necromancer, just as any other right-minded individual might baulk at it. That the class may or may not also have a few restrictions is neither here nor there.

    Well who said anything about granny-killing baby-eating? You can be Evil without being stupid about it. Likewise, you can do things that are arguably evil from time to time and still be a good guy. Alignment works like that. :P

    Quote:

    If I am playing a righteous and upstanding character, it won't be the Paladins Code that is bring the restriction into being, it will be my playstyle and taste on that day.

    Whether its the class code, or my characters own moral compass makes not a zot of difference as the end outcome is identical - you won't be doing all that in my party because either you go or I do.

    But the Paladin class is the only one that prevents someone from manning up about it. If someone wants to act childish because somebody else doesn't follow their moral compass, well then they're free to either build a bridge and get over it or make some picket signs and protest.

    Quote:
    On the other hand, astute and intelligent people might recognise that in some parties they don't want to be the do-gooders, and we might want to be the 'shades of grey' or even bad guys, and in that case my moral high-horsing would not be appropriate, regardless of Paladin or not.

    Well if you were anything but a Paladin, you could man up about it, grow some brains, and realize that not everyone adheres to your viewpoint, and they might still be worth having around. Paladins aren't allowed to do that by RAW. If the party's Bard (which isn't exactly a dark shade of gray) regularly exercises his silver tongue, the Paladin either has to have the bard stop or the Paladin must dis-associate with the bard.

    I mean, my Lawful Good Necromancer might look at the bard and say "You know, I know you mean well, but your lies might come back to haunt you one day, or might end up breaking someone's heart.", Bard: "So what's your point? You walk around with magically animated corpses. That doesn't look too good either.", Necromancer: "Point taken. I was just concerned. I'm open about what I do, and I know the dead won't lie. Heh, sorry, bad joke. Anyway, I'll leave you to your work".

    Meanwhile, the Paladin: "Bard! That's the last straw! You've lied at least 33 times today, and that's just the ones I knew were lies. I've been counting. You always do this. I've told you before, I will not be traveling with liars. And you, barbarian! You have repeatedly disrespected the laws of this kingdom, and you threw dirt in the eyes of that hobgoblin in the last mission! And don't even get me started on you, you fat-freak--", Necromancer: "Y-you think I'm fat? Q.Q", Paladin: "Yes you, oh eater of souls and babies! The embarrassment of you prancing those vile abominations about in that village still haunts me to this day!", Necromancer: "B-but I'm a vegetarian, and they were carrying buckets of water, to put out a burning hospital!", Paladin: "EXCUSES!"

    :P

    Quote:
    I would also posit that the 'Code' for the Pally in PF is poorly defined and cut down to the point it actually becomes an annoyance in its vagueness of detail, hence why I am still fine with players dragging out the 2nd Ed Paladins Handbook which was a fantastic guide to setting up the Paladins vows/orders/code etc.

    Agreed here.

    Silver Crusade

    mdt wrote:

    Here's a Good vs Lawful scenario for a Paladin.

    A war widow took in several orphans. However, between her own kids, the orphans, and the fact that the economy busted over the now ended war (and her dead husband's side lost), she has no money. She can't pay her rent.

    The LN owner of the property goes to a court, has her evicted from his property. The LN sheriff sends his deputies to ensure she leaves the property after being served with her eviction.

    Now, it seems some people want to play a Paladin as someone who'd bust the heads of the sheriff and the landlord, threaten them (maybe kill the landlord and leave his mutilated corpse as a warning for other evil landlords who'd throw orphans out on the street).

    However, Good does not out weight Law if the Law is not Evil. In this situation, the Paladin cannot go 'stabitykill' the sheriff or the landlord, that would be Evil. The best he can do is go talk to the landlord and try to get him to be compassionate (note the landlord is LN, so has no reason to do so). Or the Paladin can pay her rent for a year, or the Paladin can go to his church and ask them to help the widow (although they're swamped probably due to the loss of the war and everyone else who needs help).

    In this case, the Paladin might just have to walk away without doing any 'good' for the widow and orphans, because there's just nothing he can do.

    Another scenario, the Paladin enters a country he's never been in before, but has heard that they condone slavery. He's on a crusade to topple this evil empire!

    But... when he get's there, he finds that the 'slaves' are actually indentured servitude criminals. Criminals get a trial, and if they're a danger to the populace, they're killed. If they're deemed not a danger, then they're enslaved for a number of years based on their crime. If they owe money, they're enslaved based on how much someone will pay for them for a given amount of time. So if someone is in debt for say, 5,000gp, and as an unskilled laborer they can make...

    Nice post-- all of it (including the rest of it that didn't follow through on the quote feature). I like grey areas, moral ambiguities, and tough challenges for thought and careful action like these in my games. Your comments about people wanting to play 4-color morality also ring true.

    That being said, however-- I still think Paladins are Good, above all else, and then Lawful. However, in your scenario of the widow-- while good is more important than law (but both are still important), it is true that the "good" action does not always outweigh the "lawful" (but not particularly good) action -- this is a bit situational. As you've noted, the Paladin can't go threatening or attacking the Sheriff and the Landlord (preventing a lesser evil can never justify the committing a greater evil; for that matter, even prevention of a greater evil cannot justify committing a lesser evil unless there really was NO other way to prevent it-- can't simply commit the lesser evil because it was the easiest way to prevent it if there were non-evil options that would have worked). The Paladin should try the other options... and the Paladin may have to walk away in the end, because there were no successful ways to intervene which would not have resulted in greater evils occurring to someone involved.

    Your Nation that uses 'slavery' but is not evil, is an even more interesting one.... and again, the Paladin cannot just go intervene indiscriminately.

    Great thoughts and examples-- If I were running such a game and someone were playing a Paladin in the game, I'd give some leeway for discussion and different choices... if the Paladin was always trying to do the right thing, stayed within his/her code and did no evil (this is a very important point, IMO-- the Paladin cannot go "ends justify the means" even in questionable situations and morally grey areas), I'd probably give him/her some leeway if the Paladin didn't always choose what I would have considered the best path... but the Paladin would always be zapped if he/she chose an evil path (such as going stabitykill on the sheriff and landlord).

    Silver Crusade

    Ashiel wrote:

    Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Paladin: Ex-Paladins wrote:
    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

    Hmmm... point. Yes it does say that under "Ex-Paladins", whereas under Code of Conduct it only says: "A paladin must be of lawful good

    alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies
    if she ever willingly commits an evil act", which is the part I was stressing.

    However, "violates the code of conduct", considering where that line is in the book, refers to this 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.
    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."

    Respect Legitimate authority: Authority ordering/compelling evil isn't legitimate (while this is a principle of Law, it's not incompatible with good).

    Act with Honor: Yes, a must-do for a Paladin. Since the main point is "act with honor", not "never ever lie" (although that's give as part of the examples-- inadequate-- for generally honorable behavior), I don't take that as "never lie" no matter what the circumstances.

    Help those in Need: actually, a requirement more based on being genuinely good, than on being lawful.

    punish those who harm or threaten innocents: more of a good than a lawful principle. Somewhat problematical, has to be moderated by the principle of not doing greater harm.

    Still doesn't change my thought, that a Paladin is above all else, Good, and that obedience to principles of Law come after the overwhelming commitment to good, and it also does not change my contention that do not commit evil is more important than the rest of the code, although the rest of it isn't incompatible (especially since, on examination, the rest of the code is still more about "good" than "law"). Notably, there is NOWHERE in or out of the code in the official material where it says the Paladin is going to lose his/her powers if he/she ever commits a chaotic act-- that is explicitly stated about evil acts.

    Also, relating it back to the post of yours that I was originally responding to for this argument: I do not agree with you that the Paladin should have any specific "Law/Axiomatic" powers, Smite Chaos, or Law-based spells; because (as should be obvious by now) while I agree with the game's making Paladins Lawful Good (instead of "Any Good"), Good is more important than Lawful in playing a Paladin (including by code of conduct).


    FinnK wrote:


    Nice post-- all of it (including the rest of it that didn't follow through on the quote feature). I like grey areas, moral ambiguities, and tough challenges for thought and careful action like these in my games. Your comments about people wanting to play 4-color morality also ring true.

    Thanks. I don't really consider it gray, so much as realistic. I never saw how things can always be black and white without a bunch of GM Fiating.

    FinnK wrote:


    Your Nation that uses 'slavery' but is not evil, is an even more interesting one.... and again, the Paladin cannot just go intervene indiscriminately.

    Thanks, it's actually a country in my game world. It's a cold desert country that started out as the dumping place for criminals. They didn't have a lot of order, and finally a group of LN mercenaries took over the country and turned it into a LN kingdom. The mercenary group didn't have time or inclination to deal with jails, those are just drains on resources. So they either killed or chained up the people that wouldn't behave. Over time, it became the law of the land. The land actually has a lot of freedom, in that they don't make many laws, but the laws they do make are enforced 100%, no exceptions. So chaotic folk can get by in the kingdom, but mostly by living in the desert and staying away from the main city (the entire country has one main city and a few dozen smaller cities near the oases).

    FinnK wrote:


    Great thoughts and examples-- If I were running such a game and someone were playing a Paladin in the game, I'd give some leeway for discussion and different choices... if the Paladin was always trying to do the right thing, stayed within his/her code and did no evil (this is a very important point, IMO-- the Paladin cannot go "ends justify the means" even in questionable situations and morally grey areas), I'd probably give him/her some leeway if the Paladin didn't always choose what I would have considered the best path... but the Paladin would always be zapped if he/she chose an evil path (such as going stabitykill on the sheriff and landlord).

    That's pretty much exactly what I do in my games. I have a paladin code for each god that can have paladins (LG, NG, LN). And I don't warn people before they do something that would cause them problems as a Paladin (that's what phylacteries are for), but generally I don't slam down their powers on first violation either, they usually get some warnings, like dreams, or they can't heal themselves out of combat, or something like that.


    Finn K wrote:
    Still doesn't change my thought, that a Paladin is above all else, Good, and that obedience to principles of Law come after the overwhelming commitment to good, and it also does not change my contention that do not commit evil is more important than the rest of the code, although the rest of it isn't incompatible (especially since, on examination, the rest of the code is still more about "good" than "law"). Notably, there is NOWHERE in or out of the code in the official material where it says the Paladin is going to lose his/her powers if he/she ever commits a chaotic act-- that is explicitly stated about evil acts.

    I agree with you, Finn, from a practical standpoint. RAW, mistep on the code and you fall off the ship, but I do believe that Paladins are supposed to be champions of good. That's basically what their abilities are designed for, so I'm fine with that. I was just commenting that if people really insist that Paladin restrictions are a game-balancing feature, then Paladins should be cranked up in general. If it's merely flavor, then I agree with you that Paladins are all about the GOOD as presented in Pathfinder, and should probably be any good alignment.

    Silver Crusade

    mdt wrote:


    Thanks. I don't really consider it gray, so much as realistic. I never saw how things can always be black and white without a bunch of GM Fiating.

    Grey. Realistic. Half-dozen. Six. :) I've always considered them the same thing, when talking about morality in a setting (except that one might imply more of a 'gritty' feel than the other).

    Totally agree with you on this point, regarding black/white morality in games, too.


    I disagree, I think Paladin's have the Lawful requirement for the same reason that Monk's have it.

    It's less about the lawful than it is about discipline. A Paladin wields a great deal of power, both martial and supernatural. A huge part of that Lawful is, I think, discipline not to misuse it.

    Think of Spider Man's 'With great power comes great responsibility', every time he's misused his powers, it's ended up bad. I think that's for Paladin's on steroids. They have such power that if they misused it they'd fall hard all the time.

    Imagine a CG Paladin that was fine with the ends justifying the means. As they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions. He's going to do what is good, even if it's not nice, or even acceptable. Like beating the landlord up so the widow and orphans can live in their house, or leaving mutilated bodies hanging around town to scare people into doing what they want. It's a very short road from doing things like that to using those tactics to solving every issue, and then bang zoom you have an Anti-Paladin. This is why Jedi have such rigid structures and restrictions on them, they wield great power, and it's easy to keep making a little concession here, and another there. Just watch Anakin in the last 3 movies, compromising his principles one step at a time in the name of 'good' and ending up an Sith.

    351 to 400 of 659 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.