No I'm saying a paladin has to do so in order to follow the code of conduct and I quote "Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor ..."
Showing blatant disregard towards and taking unilateral action opposing legitimate authority is not respecting it therefore a paladin who does what their God wants when it opposes legitimate and just authority should become a fallen paladin.
You're stating that this is a no-win scenario, and the paladin will fall regardless of what happens.
If the paladins abides by the ruling of the courts he is violating the tenets of his deity. As a result he would fall. If the paladins follows his deity's will he would be violating the law of the land, in which case he should also fall. Does that make any sense to you?
The point you're missing it that you haven't asked who gets to define "legitimate authority" in the first place. It's very conceivable that legitimacy, to a paladin worshiping a particular deity, is defined in terms of compliance with that deity's tenets.
Exactly. The ultimate authority for a paladin that worships a deity is that deity. This can lead to some interesting contradictions of the basic paladin code, especially when a paladin's deity is neutral good, but a paladin must follow his deity's teachings. To quote JJ (link; emphasis mine):
If you're a paladin, and you're being lawful, then you're devoutly upholding the teachings and philosophies of your deity. If you worship a deity who isn't LG, NG, or LN, you're either shirking your duties as a paladin by straying too far from your LG alignment, or you're shirking your duties to your deity by straying too far from the DEITY'S alignment, which isn't lawful behavior, which means you're ALSO not a paladin.
No I'm saying that the win scenario is the opposite of what you think it is please re read the rules nowhere in the code of conduct or ex paladin section does it say you must follow the tenets of the deity.
Dude I quoted the section that says that a paladin must respect legitimate authority like 3 posts up on this page it says it in the paladin's code of conduct section and it says if they do not follow the code they are fallen in the ex paladin section.
Now a quick check on the definition of legitimate via google tells us that legitimate means conforming to the laws or the rules and therefore a consistent code of laws upheld by the locals which is also just must be respected aka must be recognized and abided by, by the paladin or he falls.
This isn't about lawful or legal or any of that junk it's about not outright ignoring what is said in the rulebooks.
And I posted a quote that clarifies that the ultimate legitimate authority for a paladin that worships a deity is that deity; a paladin that serves a deity is not being lawful unless he follows the teachings and philosophies of his deity. Hence, a paladin that does not follow his deity's will is violating the code.
JJ is not a rules source. I've disagreed with people, and for that matter with him about this before.
Hehe, this is the response of someone who can no longer disagree with a conversation but refuses to admit defeat. And in this instance, it's a statement that has no ground to stand on; SKR agrees with JJ later in that thread.
There are already means in place to amend the rules if they do not suit his vision, it's called errata and new releases. If he erratas that line into the paladin's code section I'll gladly give up the argument.
But lacking that it is only the opinion of another man, now given you may wish to place more or less faith in his opinion than that of some other since he makes the rules to begin with. But when you do so you are not following the rules you are creating houserules based on his opinions.
However I don't have the faiths of Golarion book so if it says something that effect in there I'd be glad to be proven wrong.(We don't actually play in Golarion because our GM made his own world sometime back and none of us saw any reason to change setting)
This will never be officially changed. There's no need to. It's one of those common sense situations; a paladin that serves a deity derives their power from that deity, or at the very least knowingly follows that deity's teachings. Violating those teachings would, as a result, indicate that the paladin was no longer behaving as a lawful-aligned character would. As such a paladin that doesn't follow the desires of his deity is going to fall.
You argument may have had merit if this was an instance of a paladin that serves no deity, but in this case the paladin in question serves the Dawnflower. If he doesn't do what she wants, the paladin would fall.
Pfft that's pansy new age good. I like to think of Pathfinder as medieval old school good with a healthy helping of smiting and burning in hell for the wicked for sullying their immortal souls.Isn't good also about redemption and forgiveness for those that repent?
Mmm, a fun day when lawful courts prevent good from being achieved.
It is better to turn an evil agent to good, than kill them. Now whether that can be achieved, whether the checks are passed, that all depends on the game, the characters the dm.
Taking them to -10 can be easy, role-playing turning them to a better path is a lot harder, and will take longer. As a pc, I've done it only a few times (praise diplomacy and the mighty carrot).
|
Legitimate authority is not a subjective thing. It means the authority is valid and legal. Likewise, what establishes something as valid is also not a subject thing. The paladin doesn't get to decide who is legal and who is not. They can disagree, and they can not like it, but that doesn't change the facts. An evil, demon/devil worshiping antipaladin legitimate first son to the late King and Queen is the valid heir to the throne unless there is some reason against it.
The paladin not liking it doesn't change that fact.
Likewise, a LG warrior of the people that come in and ends the reign of tyrrany and cruelty of the last rules and claims the throne, no matter how much the Paladin might like it and dream of the day, is not the legitamate authority, (until made so, which is possible).
I think you are confussing legitimate authority with perferred rulership.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Legitimate authority is not a subjective thing. It means the authority is valid and legal.
I agree, but you can have conflicting legitimate authorities. In this instance we have a local government that is legal and legitimate. Additionally we have the teachings of the paladin's deity, which is also legitimate authority.
The paladin is going to have to follow one or the other. A choice has to be made, because the paladin cannot follow the rulings of both authorities. The paladin should not be punished for this selection alone; neither choice is better than the other from a basic rules standpoint. Other factors, such as the specific rules of the setting, should hold weight in this decision but the character should not be punished due to the very nature of the challenge the GM presents.
An evil, demon/devil worshiping antipaladin legitimate first son to the late King and Queen is the valid heir to the throne unless there is some reason against it.
Indeed, the heir's background and alignment alone would not be enough to allow the paladin to overstep the local authority. If the paladin served a deity, however, and the heir did something that went against that deity, the paladin would likely be within his right to act. Drawing upon Glendwyr's example, if the heir was fond of eating babies most paladins would be within their right to smite the would-be-king where he stands; most deities that call paladins demand a strict child-free diet.
The paladin is not a paladin of the local council of evil. They are a paladin of a good deity, whose codes, laws, structures and teachings come first.
This of course is not getting into paladins of slaughter and the like.
I can see plenty of potential for paladin conflicts, arguments, and if you do expand out the types of paladins, serious paladin combat. I've seen a dm that got a little too excited about it, mostly scrapped clerics in his world and made paladins for the various gods a lot more common (and into fighting each-other). This isn't the standard paladin and all that, but the paladin is under no obligation or risk of losing their powers, if they don't respect the laws and authority of evil, chaotic or radical neutral bodies. These are not legitimate (for the paladin and the faith) if they are against lawful good and or the religion behind the paladin. Paladins for instance, can easily come into conflict with druids fighting against the expansion of a lawful good kingdom which is a patron of the paladin's church. Smite doesn't work, but hopefully you can wrestle bears. Roll initiative!
|
No I'm saying that the win scenario is the opposite of what you think it is please re read the rules nowhere in the code of conduct or ex paladin section does it say you must follow the tenets of the deity.It does state you must remain lawful good and cannot take an evil action but neither of those is relative unless you wish to assume that adherence to the law of the land somehow makes you unlawful or evil.
To paragraph 1: if you derive your powers from a Deity, common sense says you MUST follow the tenets of that Deity.... or that Deity will stop empowering you to act in his/her/its name. Call that a house-rule or something they just left out if you like-- having a Deity grant Paladins divine powers, and NOT hold them accountable as Champions of that Deity's faith, makes no sense whatsoever. What this also means, is that the Deity's "Laws" are the laws the Paladin must uphold, first and foremost-- and where divine law conflicts with mortal law-- Divine law takes precedence.
To the second paragraph: if the "Law of the Land" is evil, then yes, following it makes you evil. Not all laws are good.
I would think that a Paladin should make his/her best effort to reconcile divine law and mortal law, so that he can follow both-- but if that is not possible, the Deity who empowers him, is the source of legitimacy for any and all laws, as far as the Paladin is concerned-- and yes, that absolves him of the need to follow local authorities if they are in violation of his Deity's view of right, wrong, and legitimate law and order.
|
|
With that in mind, we have paladins of Abadar, who is LN, and Law, nobility, and civilization are part of his portfolio. That means that a paladin might be required to, as part of his "priestly" faith in Abadar, follow/uphold/judge evil laws.
So, according to your interpritation, the deity authority part is more important, and the paladin who chooses to follow LE authority over non-evil actions is ok, or rather is acting in accordance with your view of a paladin?
|
|
I also agree with Gnomersy, and no offense meant, but JJ, SKR, or whoever have plenty of oppertunity to change the rules. Their opinions about what they actually say and what they want them to mean are two different things, and they aught to change what they say if they expect everyone else to rule as they do when it contradicts what is actually written. I respect their opinions, but that doesn't make them right, unless they errata it so everyone is on the same page.
I think that the spirit of Paladin over the last 30 years in this game and its predecessor was that of a Holy Warrior. The paragraph about law and following legal authority are included to further define the paladin's code from beyond lawful obedience to the tenents of the paladin's faith. You are free to reat the text ridgidly and ignore the spirit of the class which has always been tied to that of a religious fighter.
I also agree with Gnomersy, and no offense meant, but JJ, SKR, or whoever have plenty of oppertunity to change the rules. Their opinions about what they actually say and what they want them to mean are two different things, and they aught to change what they say if they expect everyone else to rule as they do when it contradicts what is actually written. I respect their opinions, but that doesn't make them right, unless they errata it so everyone is on the same page.
There's nothing to change, though. They don't make alterations if such a change is unneeded, especially when they can simply clarify it on these boards; official posts on these forums are considered valid changes/clarifications to the rules. In this case a paladin must remain a lawful good character, per the rules as written. If they serve a deity they should be taking on that deity's teachings as the basis for their own personal moral code. A character that does not follow their own moral code is not being a lawful-aligned character.
If a paladin that worships a deity fails to uphold his personal beliefs, which should embody the teachings and philosophies of his deity, he is not behaving as a lawful-aligned character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you guys need to keep in mind is that alignment is terribly subjective, as is the Paladin's code of conduct. The fact that we have a total failure to reach a consensus, as in all the previous Paladin threads, is a symptom of this. That, I think, is the problem here. The Paladin has a very strict code, but exactly what violates it is up to a great deal of debate. Personally, I'm inclined to think that the Paladin should do as she feels is correct. The death penalty is not evil, and a Paladin can support it or participate, but if it fits the character's personality to argue for mercy, that is what she should do.
Really, though, there's just too much room for interpretation here, and in fact with most Paladin debates. We can all give you our opinions, but nobody can give you a RAW answer, because there isn't one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, alignment is not subjective in the game. In Pathfinder, certain things are evil, period. Undead, for example, and Evil subtype Outsiders, are always evil, even if their actualy individual alignments are not. The fact that they exist, draws upon the very energies of evil and spreads it's corruption throughout the material plane. Killing evil, is a good act, as is casting a [Good] spell. The intentions might be evil, but the act itself is good.
The only room for interpritation exists if you ignor one portion of the code. Doing what they feel is correct is not part of their code.
If you ignor a portion of the code to make it more what you want to play, then you are not upholding the strict code, and not being a paladin. If paizo wants paladins to have a less strict code, or intends it to be less specific/more open to interpritation, they should probably change the book to state this so that people are on the same page. So, I disagree. There is a RAW answer, it's just not what some people want, and house ruling it, is the way to go.
Actually, alignment is not subjective in the game.
However, the definitions that exist in game are open to out of game subjectivity. The fact that we are having this argument demonstrates that.
|
|
Not really, not by RAW, at least. No matter what my Cleric thinks about raising Undead, no matter what the intent behind it is, (like raising a zombie to last-ditch guard the orphanage against the baby-killing Orc ravagers comming), it is still an Evil Act that my good Cleric of a good deity can never do.
However, when we get into questions of just how much wiggle room there is when it comes down to Law versus Good, things become very subjective. What a Paladin should do when she has to choose which part of the code to uphold is very different than a Cleric raising undead.
The only room for interpritation exists if you ignor one portion of the code. Doing what they feel is correct is not part of their code.
It is part of the code, actually. As I noted previously the code requires that a paladin maintain a lawful good alignment. A paladin that does not follow his convictions is not behaving as a lawful-aligned character would.
|
|
The only room for interpritation exists if you ignor one portion of the code. Doing what they feel is correct is not part of their code.It is part of the code, actually. As I noted previously the code requires that a paladin maintain a lawful good alignment. A paladin that does not follow his convictions is not behaving as a lawful-aligned character would.
Not so much. As I mentioned above, a Paladin of Abadar would feel that even Evil laws, (which are legal and legitamate), are the right thing to do, because that is what Abadar's LN teachings would say. If thay do what they think is right, they are not acting in accordance with what a paladin stands for, which is purely LG. Let me be clear, I am saying that being a paladin, and upholding the L and G part of LG does not always coincide with the teaching of their deity(s).
Likewise, a paladin that "feels" an irredeemable criminal caught in the act got off ease and plans on raping/killing/demon-worshipping again goes and takes care of the problem outside of courts, they are wrong, (even if I think they are right), because that is not the code that paladins adhere too.
Let me be clear, I am saying that being a paladin, and upholding the L and G part of LG does not always coincide with the teaching of their deity(s).
Upholding the lawful aspects of the paladin code does dictate that the paladin follows his deity's teachings and guidelines. A paladin cannot be a lawful character unless he follows his own beliefs, which in the case of a paladin that worships a deity should embody the deity's will.
Being lawful-aligned entails much more than simply following the legitimate laws of the land, and a paladin is required to maintain a lawful alignment.
"As I mentioned above, a Paladin of Abadar would feel that even Evil laws, (which are legal and legitamate), are the right thing to do, because that is what Abadar's LN teachings would say. "
LG is not upholding LE.
The LG paladin of a mostly LN faith cannot abide by and believe in, respect and protect LE beliefs.
It is a great role-playing opportunity for a paladin of Abadar to be stuck in the position of choosing LG, LN or LE. Unfortunately, if they don't go along the LG path, they may steadily lose their abilities or suffer an alignment change. This explains why some dms make paladins rigid followers of a gods ethos, and not LG.
I've seen a NG cleric support and nurture CE abberations. Which later attacked and massacred the lizard people of a LG town. Sh*t got weird.
That has not been demonstrated in this case. It's not against the code of Sarenrae that those who are guilty should be punished and no matter what alignment tone he might be singing now, the wizard in question is no doubt guilty of some truly heinous crimes, which by any standard of law and good are things he must be held accountable for.
It depends on the area of Golarion. In some regions Sarenrae's church focuses more on the redemption aspect of her portfolio, and if that's the case here then a mandate to see a truly repentant man go free falls well within the teachings of the Dawnflower. As you stated, what needs to be considered is the interpretation of the goddess' philosophies. Except in extreme climates Sarenrae's church tends to focus more on the virtues of passion and peace, embracing the idea that anyone willing to repent should be saved.
The "cheat" I always use for this kind of problem is that it's less about following a legal code and more about submission to the idea of a code of laws. Using the original example, paladin who broke the wizard out of jail to achieve the wizard's redemption would, following said redemption, go back to town to turn himself into the authorities. It's respect and honor, not slavish adherence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had an interesting concept that I thought I would share.
The party (including a Paladin of Sarenrae) are sent to defeat an evil wizard. They end up beating him in some way that makes him decide to repent and try to be good. The wizard willingly lets you turn him in to the authorities. Despite his desire to change, the court sentences him to death. The party thinks he should be allowed to make up for the evil he has done so they break him out of prison. The local lord sends an enemy party (including a paladin) after them. Thus, you would have the enemy paladin fighting to uphold the laws of the land versus the party's paladin fighting to uphold the laws of his god.
I figure it would lead to interesting RP opportunities, if nothing else.
Of course, good luck trying to get your party to go along with this plan without heavy prompting.
As long as you're the GM, you can make this happen and be a very cool thing. Good doesn't always see eye to eye with other Good. Sometimes wires get crossed. There's actually a recurring paladin antagonist in an online game I've been running for a while. She's something of an enforcer for a powerful church, and also an investigator of sorts. She has been tasked with hunting the mysterious "Wraith", who has been associated with several possible murders and was wanted for questioning - but turns out to be an undead creature who appears to be stalking the criminal underworld, and has been wrongly associated with the maiming of a woman she actually saved (a summoned fiend tore a woman's arm off, Wraith killed the demon, stabilized the woman and intimidated her way into the courtyard of a nearby church to have her healed before vanishing; but she was blamed for the maiming).
The party, who counts "Wraith" among their associates and allies actually has helped her escape and/or evade capture several times, much to the frustration of the Paladin who hunts her. Incidentally, the Paladin knows they are aiding the fugitive, but also questions the motivations of the incidents, as the party always seems to conveniently be around when Wraith was, and always just happened to miss where she went. Given that Wraith seems to be targeting the criminal underworld, and slavers, the Paladin questions her motives. Turns out, the party discovers that Wraith refuses to fight with the Paladin, because the Paladin is her sister from before her death; and slowly the Paladin is piecing together evidence that the fugitive she is stalking may be connected to her sister's death; which is creating a crisis of faith at the moment.
The Paladin has thus far been a reoccurring antagonist who has threatened to run them up on charges for aiding a criminal, and told them once or twice that "I have my eye on you", but she hasn't actually followed through with such threats. The party has no particular interest in fighting with the Paladin (she's actually exceptionally dangerous) but may end up doing so if it comes to defending their friend. Incidentally, more recently, they have aided the Paladin indirectly with several things, which has been shifting the Paladin away from antagonist to wild-card.
It's been a fun ride. :P
Very cool story and characters you have there. Lot of different sides in play.
Very cool story and characters you have there. Lot of different sides in play.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. I'm currently writing it into a novel, loosely based on the events of the game, that revolves around the paladin and her undead sister, because my friends and I really enjoyed the game in the city. During their adventures, they broke up a slave den, uncovered a plot against the royal family, and determined that there was someone pulling the strings behind the scenes to try and start a war for their own ends. They haven't yet discovered who the big bad is yet, since the person pulling the strings has seemed to have different aliases and identities.