If we're going to be getting definitional here then a lie of omission is also a lie, so your evasive answers aren't allowed either.
By what definition? The dictionary definition I just posted does not agree with that. If you say nothing, it's not a statement, and if you change the subject to something else, it's not a falsehood.
Actually, if he tells the truth 99% of the time, with the other 1% being times when he needed to do so in order to save a life... I''m pretty sure his word is still gold. And so is his heart.
If he's lying that infrequently, then he probably won't fall, but every lie still moves him more towards chaotic. If he makes a pattern of lying, then he'll fall, even if every single lie was the best possible option to achieving the greater good. Once again, being good does not mean you no longer have to be lawful.
You do realize Paladins may not have a dictionary to define what is or is not a lie, right?
You do realize he shouldn't need one. Neither should the player.
A Paladin who needs all that explanation to justify an act of deception sounds way more like a devil than a holy warrior.
And, yes I agree that he shouldn't fall if he's lying so rarely and only for a good reason. That my g#*%!+ point! Ever since my first post!
A paladin always tell the truth as he knows it. He may decline to speak or choose to withhold information, but he will never intentionally mislead anyone, even his enemies. He may ask permission not to answer a direct question, but if pressed, he'll tell the truth (however, he may frame his answers in such a was as to withhold vital information). A paladin does not make promises lightly, once he gives his word, he keep it.
So you support lies by ommission aren't lies jusy like me?
Because once you withhhold info you lied by omission.Did you lie?: no. Were you honest? Nope.
But the code doesn't require perfect honesty.
You do realize Paladins may not have a dictionary to define what is or is not a lie, right?
You do realize he shouldn't need one. Neither should the player.A Paladin who needs all that explanation to justify an act of deception sounds way more like a devil than a holy warrior.
I don't know anyone who would consider silence to be a lie. That's just common sense. I only invoked the dictionary because he was trying to redefine it.
And, yes I agree that he shouldn't fall if he's lying so rarely and only for a good reason. That my g@*!*$ point! Ever since my first post!
And my point is that it is against his paladin nature to lie under any circumstance. You're not being a "good paladin" by lying to protect the greater good, you're being a good-aligned character who is beginning to lose his paladinhood.
Wait now the paladin's mistake is rescuing slaves and not funding slave-traders?
There's some seriously upside-down morality at work here.
The paladin would be morally obligated to lie. He would lose his powers though.
I don't know what you are trying to argue. Are you saying the rules allow you to lie(which contradicts the rulebook) or that the rules are bad and Paladins should be allowed to lie?
A bit of both actually.
You know... I was gonna post a reply to RumpinRufus. I wanted to answer him and try and make my point clear.
But it's very clear already. You guys can go and read all tht I said from my frist post to last. My point is pretty clear and consistent in all of them, unless you're being obtuse on purpose, which is what I think many people here are doing.
I'm tired of this discussion. You may consider this your win if you want. I'll continue to play my Paladins without being Lawful Stupid because the code says so and I'll continue to be pissed if my GM tells me I lost my powers because I refused to fund slavers or told my wife she's not fat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sir Geffen has been captured by an evil army. The commander demands to know the whereabouts of the paladin's companions. Sir Geffen says nothing.
"My spies inform me that your colleagues plan to arrive at King Relhane's castle by dawn tomorrow," says the commander. "Is this true?"
The commanders information is accurate, but Geffen remains silent.
"If you say nothing, I will conclude that I am correct."
"You may conclude whatever you wish," says Geffen.Sir Geffen's companion, Prevost, asks about his performance in battle. Geffen believes he fought ineptly.
"With your permission," says Geffen, "I prefer not to answer."
"Please," insists Prevost. "I want to know."
Geffen looks him in the eyes. "Very well. You allowed an opponent to escape. You dropped your sword at a crucial moment. Your performance was poor."
Prevost glowers at Geffen, then angrily stomps away.
DnD Complete Book of Paladins, Second Edition. Excellent go-to guide for this thing.
My favorite example was Sir Geffen with the Lizard King "RENOUNCE YOURS!" :D
But time again for my flammable hat in the ring. The paladin issue here as with all, comes from people not having solid grasps on what defines good and evil. Wars have been fought over this. I have however noticed some common pitfalls in the falling argument.
1.) The Fallacy of Effectiveness: Your paladin falls because he undertook the correct action, but was incapable of pulling it off. AKA the Sir Dump Stat failed a will save and was /sleeping on the job/ when people got murdered! fallacy.
2.) Fallacy of Consequence: You gave 2cp to that beggar, which he used to buy a shiv. You are not responsible for the actions of others. Take that phrase and pound it into the DM's skull. You are not responsible for the actions they undertake with their own free will. If you know he plans on buying a shiv, its different.
3.) The false dilemma #1: Kill Raistlin (used to avoid Godwin) as a baby. If you kill him, its a baby, if you don't then its Raistlin! The child is not a moral actor and hasn't done anything requiring him to be attacked or stopped. That he /will/ is without consequence. This falls into fallacy 2 above.
4.) False dillema #2: Ignorance is a sufficient defense: If you don't know that a course of action results in something bad happening, you aren't morally culpable for it (although a good paladin will still try to rectify the situation). The knight in Dragonheart saving his prince did not commit a fall-worthy act just because the Prince turned out to be a jerk.
5.) Paladins are anti-matter to evil: It is not a paladin's job to go around like some celestial hitman hitting everyone with an E attachd to their alignment. That jerk who shorts your milkshake? He might be evil. To show my anime geek side, Miss Yukari from Azumanga Daioh? Probably Chaotic Evil. This is where the lawful of the Lawful Good comes in. Being evil is generally not against the law, and a country where it is probably has LE issues of its own (THOUGHTCRIME! WRONGTHINK!).
6.) DMs and Players not agreeing on what construes good and evil. I had a DM once who argued paladins automatically fell as the only true good was total freedom. I've got people grumble at me when I've DMed historically because I demand chastity, charity and honesty as core virtures of a paladin. And some people in 2e, who wrote official books and stuff were under the belief your paladin could run an oppressive police state (hello Planescape's harmonium). This is really the main issue. This is where paladins fall.
A paladin PC doesn't know what the DM construes as 'good' in the campaign. Truth and good are objective. The observation of the objective truth can be as flawed as two men observing a very real ship through a fog, they're observing the same goal but differently.
At the core, my flammable comments are meant to basically exemplify that the problem with paladins falling in most cases is because most people in the hobby just don't have an equivalent basis on moral approaches.
Paladins cannot break their vows out of expedience - that's what makes them vows. The paladin has several good options:Again, Good before Lawful. Vows are okay as long as they don't stop you from doing Good. Vows are there to make the Paladin a better person, not a shady silver-tongued snake who only speaks in riddles and half truths.
1) Say nothing. Let others do the talking.
2) Use an evasive answer, or distract the guards with something else.
3) Knock out the guards, then relocate the refugees.
4) Knock out the guards, then Lesser Geas them into reporting that nothing was amiss.
1- That may not always be a viable tactic. Maybe the party doesn't have a Bard (Paladin/Wizard/Druid/Ranger is a very possible team). Maybe the Paladin is alone.
2- So the Paladin thinks omissions and half-truths are that much more acceptable than lies... Huh, suddenly he sounds a lot more like a Devil than a Paladin.
3- Again. Attracts attention to where the refugees are and brings harm to a innocent guard.
4- This one not only has the same problems of #3, but it's also a lot more difficult (where does the paladin get Lesser Geas?) and mind controlling people is pretty dishonorable in my view. Lying is insta-fall, but violence+mind control+forcing people to lie for you is not?
Lying is a violation of the paladin code, and while a single instance of lying in a situation like this isn't grounds for falling, if it became a pattern it would be.Agreed.
Part of being a paladin is having a code, and part of having a code is that you cannot break it, even for the greater good.Can't agree with this one. Paladins should value Good and the well being/safety of innocents above his code.
If he has to choose between Good and Order, Good should win every time!
It can't be Good before Law, they are equal. That is what the Alignment is. What you are describing is Neutral Good with Lawful tendencies. You have to balance the Law and Good.
From the Core Rulebook:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
also
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
The biggest problem here is that they are trying to make a one size fits all Paladin. The deities are different, why would their Paladins follow the same strictures?
The deities are different, why would their Paladins follow the same strictures?
Because they're not their Paladins. A Paladin is beholden to ideals greater than even the Gods. The Paladin code is absolute. Their vows are absolute. No question that starts with "Yes, but what if..." is ever relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to remember that a Paladin isn't just any old holy warrior; a role that could be technically filled by a religious fighter, a pious ranger, a battle-hardened inquisitor, shamanistic barbarian, warrior-monk, etc... A paladin is a very specific type of holy warrior who has a very specific code of ethics that he or she must follow. The idea that paladins cannot fall without player consent is, however, a complete truth, but not in the way that some players or GMs think that it is.
When a player commits their character to an action, they have every ability to reason whether that action will violate the paladin's code and/or the laws of the land and/or what is just and righteous and good. It is the challenge that players willingly undertake when they assume the role of the paladin. If this is not acceptable to the player, then they should play another class; perhaps a fighter/cleric or an inquisitor would suit their style of play better. There's nothing wrong with that at all, and players, ultimately, get to choose what role they would like to play. Should the player decide that their character takes actions that are not in keeping with what would not trigger "Falling circumstances", that is the player's choice, and they cannot claim that they didn't mean it. Players make mistakes. Characters make mistakes. This is part and parcel of the role-play experience. If your only goal as a role-player is to "win", then perhaps you may need to reconsider what type of game it is that you're playing. "Winning" is a very loose concept in tabletop RPGs.
However, Paladins can atone for misdeeds, and this is also a feature, not a bug, in the same way that Falling is a feature, not a bug. Not every paladin will fall, but not every paladin can avoid falling, either. This is something that should be discussed with players choosing to play paladins; "You know, the possibility that you may Fall and lose your powers exists in this game, but you can atone for your sins and get your powers back. If you're not okay with this, you may want to choose to play another class..." They need to understand that playing the Fall is okay, especially if they want to descend into the role of the antipaladin eventually. Even if they do not wish to become an antipaladin, playing through the Fall and rise back to the shining grace of paladinhood can make for a very interesting and fulfilling game. "Actions have consequences" is a valid role-play rubric for GMs and players alike.
This is not intended to be a "gotcha" to players, though. There should be sufficient role-play opportunity (or a very thorough pre-game discussion) about what the GM considers "good" to be, if that "good" is an ambiguous or ephemeral sort of zone of action that requires clarification. Yes, the no-win situation does exist, both in real life and in role-playing games. You shouldn't make the attempt to railroad your players (if you're the GM) into this type of situation, but it can inadvertently be set up. This is just one reason why atonement is a feature of the paladin; using an example from earlier in the thread... Should a paladin be caught between the rock and the hard place of lying to lawful guards about the presence of slaves in the house, the paladin is put in a very delicate situation. Should the paladin attack the guards to defend the slaves, this could be considered evil. Should the paladin lie to protect the slaves, this could also be considered evil. Should the paladin act in defense of the slaves, the paladin is in clear territory; the same could hold true if the paladin acts to disarm or disable the guards without inflicting unnecessary harm. There's no universally satisfactory answer, but there's no universally satisfactory answer to many situations in real life. This is part of the inherent challenge in playing a paladin; again, a feature, not a bug. I could tell you what course(s) of action that I would recommend in my games, but your mileage may vary.
I would suggest that this particular guide may need some revision work before being considered a complete, unbiased guide to determining whether a paladin should fall or not. They are arguable guidelines, but not completely unreasonable. However, they do not suit all gaming styles or GMing styles and should be used with caution.
Happy gaming,
Bodhi
johnlocke90,
Atonement is quite difficult at lower levels, yes, but it is still possible. If you, as a player, Fall in those lower levels, I might suggest that you may not understand the unique set of challenges that are presented when playing a paladin or that you have been careless in your style of play.
Besides, I would suggest that a paladin's first atonement should probably be a significant character event, not just something that they buy out-of-pocket.
I think atonement should always be a somewhat significant thing. I personally think if a Paladin is wandering around with an atonement scroll "just in case", then the scroll shouldn't work. Keeping a way to recover from breaking your code on hand at all times may be practical, but I feel it breaks the spirit of the Paladin code. It could start to feel like the paladin is planning for when he falls, which I'm don't think is appropriate.
I am also not a huge fan of lose-lose situations. Yes, they can happen organically, but I feel unless they are engineered with input by the player, the GM should be wary of intentionally throwing them out there. I also feel that there are many lose-lose situations where honestly, the paladin should not fall. I don't think the paladin's god is constantly watching him looking for a chance to remove his powers regardless of context. If a paladin is in a lose-lose situation and does his best to uphold his code, maybe that should be good enough. I feel consequences of such situations should be handled more by roleplay (the paladin should be haunted by his decisions), rather than mechanics. Maybe Sarenrae is actually ok with the paladin lying to save the slaves, maybe Iomedae knows how awful war can be and accepts that the paladin had no choice but to do a minor evil. But the paladin could have internal struggles with whether he is actually worthy of the power being bestowed upon him.
The tricky part with the paladin code is that there is a lot of grey area regarding falling. GMs can set different standards for the code, and players can have different types of paladins. A religious zealot paladin can be as valid as a pacifist paladin, and could have different interpretations on the code and fall for different reasons.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think atonement should always be a somewhat significant thing. I personally think if a Paladin is wandering around with an atonement scroll "just in case", then the scroll shouldn't work. Keeping a way to recover from breaking your code on hand at all times may be practical, but I feel it breaks the spirit of the Paladin code.
I don't want to say that this is wrong; I would just like to offer another POV.
It's easy to be cynical about the Catholic construct called 'Confession'. Very easy. But, like any religion, to understand the concept you must understand how they think of the concept, not how a non-believer thinks of it.
A catholic goes to confession. Confesses his sins. The scale of sins include sins so minor that even the most paladin-hating DMs out there would be hard-pressed to make him fall for such a sin. The paladin is then assigned an 'atonement', such as saying the phrase 'Hail Mary' or 'Our Father' a number of times appropriate to the sin. The catholic is then forgiven.
Okay, so it's more easy to be cynical than I thought! The point is, that the religion is entirely happy with the concept that you can sin as much as you like, knowing that forgiveness is just a cubicle away!
William the Conquorer paid money to loads of monks, so that that would do his praying for him! This was not strange, it was one of the benefits of being Catholic, and rich.
The purpose of this is not to knock Catholics, but to provide a counter to the view that paladins who know they have easy access to the atonement spell should not benefit from it. From a POV of a member of the paladin's religion (whatever that may be) then he is acting in accordance with the precepts of his own religion, and that cannot be a reason for atonement not to work!
I think atonement should always be a somewhat significant thing. I personally think if a Paladin is wandering around with an atonement scroll "just in case", then the scroll shouldn't work. Keeping a way to recover from breaking your code on hand at all times may be practical, but I feel it breaks the spirit of the Paladin code.I don't want to say that this is wrong; I would just like to offer another POV.
It's easy to be cynical about the Catholic construct called 'Confession'. Very easy. But, like any religion, to understand the concept you must understand how they think of the concept, not how a non-believer thinks of it.
A catholic goes to confession. Confesses his sins. The scale of sins include sins so minor that even the most paladin-hating DMs out there would be hard-pressed to make him fall for such a sin. The paladin is then assigned an 'atonement', such as saying the phrase 'Hail Mary' or 'Our Father' a number of times appropriate to the sin. The catholic is then forgiven.
Okay, so it's more easy to be cynical than I thought! The point is, that the religion is entirely happy with the concept that you can sin as much as you like, knowing that forgiveness is just a cubicle away!
William the Conquorer paid money to loads of monks, so that that would do his praying for him! This was not strange, it was one of the benefits of being Catholic, and rich.
The purpose of this is not to knock Catholics, but to provide a counter to the view that paladins who know they have easy access to the atonement spell should not benefit from it. From a POV of a member of the paladin's religion (whatever that may be) then he is acting in accordance with the precepts of his own religion, and that cannot be a reason for atonement not to work!
Not to knock Catholics as well, but the historical abuse (for lack of a better term) of mechanisms like the Confession is part of what makes me skeptical of most organized religions. Paying monks to pray for you, getting regular Confessions to wipe clean those murders you have been committing; such things strike me as more of a perversion of the religion rather than the appropriate use of the mechanisms of religion. If your weekly plan is: "Thursday: Murder Joe, Friday: Go to confession to be absolved of murder", there is a problem in my mind. Again, my opinions, so your mileage may vary.
I personally just don't like the duplicity of "I'm going to strive for following this code" with the "I know I am going to break it". It just seems a bit . . . off to me. I suppose scroll would be acceptable as a "just in case the unthinkable happens, I want to be able to aid my allies" type of deal, but if a paladin loads up on a bunch of Atonement scrolls before going on an adventure . . . then something is hinky. If, in character, part of his adventuring preparation is "well, I better prepare for all the times I won't live up to my ideals", there is a bit of a problem in my mind. It is not a type of paladin that I think I would like to play (though maybe I should try it sometime), and it is one I would discourage my players from playing. It is a valid type of paladin, but I personally find it hard to believe a true champion of good and law would consider scrolls of atonement as part of their standard adventuring kit. Plus, after he burns through the 10th scroll on one adventure, the forces of Good and Law must be wondering why they picked this guy to be their champion.
I have my own views of paladins, that are completely different from other GMs. I GM paladins with a fair amount of leeway for the fall, and require more than a simple "I use an atonement scroll" for full atonement (not necessarily a quest, having the paladin roleplay his atonement appropriately could be enough depending on the magnitude of the transgression). Other GMs have perfectly valid views of Paladins. They could have paladins fall at the drop of a hat and have atonement be as simple as shelling out the gp for the scroll. Perfectly fine, though I would probably choose a different class when playing at their table due to conflicting views. Paladins are really the only class that can change drastically table-to-table because the paladin code is so vague and open to interpretation. It is why there is so much consternation regarding paladin falls. It is why I consider it imperative that the player and GM discuss the paladin code to make sure they are on the same page prior to playing a paladin.
I think a discussion between the GM and the paladin should be almost mandatory when falling is a possibility. Though an omniscient meta-being who controls all within the game world, a GM is only human, no better than the player of the paladin. It's very possible, almost likely, that at some point, the GM will either misinterpret or otherwise misunderstand a deity, and a discussion between them and the player might lead to a better understanding for both (not only of the deity but of the character).
For example, I played a paladin of Sarenrae who was a "swing first, ask questions later" type of guy, and he was designed as such. Situations that obviously called for tact over tactics, he dealt with accordingly, but any given situation where any other paladin of Sarenrae might be initiating a grapple while calling for the town guard, my character was already cleaning the blood from his blade as he uttered a prayer for the lost souls.
My intent was actually to walk the line of between righteous and fallen, though due to miscommunications between myself and the GM, it never happened, but the reason he was so aggressive to begin with (instead following Sarenrae's policy of offer surrender and if refused, destroy) is because -he- always considered surrender an option. The concept of it was so ingrained within him, he could not and did not fathom the idea of an enemy not realizing that the fire-scimitar-wielding beacon of light coming at him would accept a surrender. Obviously, this mentality is incredibly flawed, but in my opinion, it works for the purposes of wanting to walk the line mentioned previously.
Surrender isn't something that must only be accepted when first offered. Surrender is something that can be offered so that one's opponent may accept the opportunity.
Then again, a "walk-the-link" "swing first, ask questions later" character concept is an especially difficult one to play as a paladin who intends to never Fall. I can see some fault with your GM, Mordred Ozio, but if what you're posting here is the whole story, I would find it very difficult to reconcile a paladin of Sarenrae's ethical code with your stated actions and not rule that you'd Fallen. Assuming, for the moment, that you are an experienced player and assuming, for the moment, that I'd warned you that Falling was a possibility when you created your paladin character, that would be sufficient baseline understanding to confidently make such a ruling.
Thank you, Malachi Silverclaw, that was clear. I am saying that he was equally capable of offering surrender and is therefore equally at fault, if not more so, since he controlled the character.
The GM Is not responsible for being JC (Jiminy Cricket).
|
|
Thank you, Malachi Silverclaw, that was clear. I am saying that he was equally capable of offering surrender and is therefore equally at fault, if not more so, since he controlled the character.
The GM Is not responsible for being JC (Jiminy Cricket).
Ah, I see!
Wait, are you saying that entering combat without offering the baddy a chance to surrender, in any circumstance, constitutes an evil act?
I understand that a paladin is responsible for his own behavior, but he can't fall because of a choice that an opponent makes.
I'm not sure I understand your position.
Surrender isn't something that must only be accepted when first offered. Surrender is something that can be offered so that one's opponent may accept the opportunity.
Then again, a "walk-the-link" "swing first, ask questions later" character concept is an especially difficult one to play as a paladin who intends to never Fall. I can see some fault with your GM, Mordred Ozio, but if what you're posting here is the whole story, I would find it very difficult to reconcile a paladin of Sarenrae's ethical code with your stated actions and not rule that you'd Fallen. Assuming, for the moment, that you are an experienced player and assuming, for the moment, that I'd warned you that Falling was a possibility when you created your paladin character, that would be sufficient baseline understanding to confidently make such a ruling.
Oh, I would have been perfectly fine either being confronted with the possibility of falling or actually falling. As I said, the character -was- designed with fundamental flaws, and I don't do that unless I intend for them to come into play (I have the same feeling about dump stats).
I am someone who finds both the strengths and weaknesses of a character appealing to roleplay, and I leave room for some of them to develop as a reaction to the events the character goes through. This can lead to annoyances for my GM, though, because sometimes characters are too bland to begin with, or he wants to do something that I don't really care for. For example, the paladin I'm speaking of was confronted a couple of times with loose women, but that was not really something I wanted the paladin to struggle with, so it led to my GM saying my character was "perfect" in that he was able to simply brush them aside without a second thought. Had he dropped a goblin baby in front of him, he would have seen just how screwed up he actually was, but nothing like that sadly never happened.
Ah, I see!
Wait, are you saying that entering combat without offering the baddy a chance to surrender, in any circumstance, constitutes an evil act?
I understand that a paladin is responsible for his own behavior, but he can't fall because of a choice that an opponent makes.
I'm not sure I understand your position.
Allow me to explain my position more clearly.
A "swing first, ask questions later" paladin of Sarenrae could quite easily violate one of Sarenrae's paladin codes, namely: "I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword." This code suggest that they should be given an opportunity first, though only if circumstances permit, of course. This is a matter that must not be taken lightly; should the paladin of Sarenrae consistently fail to make an attempt to redeem the ignorant with their words and actions rather than draw their blade as a first solution, this would constitute a Fall condition. Should circumstances not permit surrender to be offered, then the paladin of Sarenrae is permitted (and required) to fight fairly so long as their opponent does, or strike quickly and without mercy if the fight is not fair.
Ergo, should the paladin consistently fail to offer the opportunity to avoid a fight and instead talk things through (ultimately, to find redemption), then the paladin's own behaviour (which they are responsible for) triggers the Fall and the paladin must then atone. However, it is not a universal truth; a "offer the baddy a chance to surrender, in any circumstance, or you're an evil person". For a paladin of Shelyn, that would be a universal truth, however, as they must accept surrender if their opponent can be redeemed, and they must never assume that they cannot be.
|
|
I understand now. Thank you for your post.
I admit that I was half expecting the 'inflexible' attitude that does the paladin concept such a great disservice, but your approach is similar to mine.
The crucial difference between the two attitudes is the opportunity for the paladin to exercise judgement, and for his fall, if any, to be a consequence of a misjudgement. A paladin may frequently find himself in a tricky situation, where it may seem that he must choose the 'lesser of two evils'. There are those (players and DMs) that would not exercise any judgement, and say the paladin falls as soon as he makes either choice. But that is lazy and shows a misunderstanding of what the paladin's challenge actually is.
Unlike thought experiments where everything relevant is known, actual situations are infinitely more complex. The 'lose/lose' scenario is rarely so clear cut or devoid of the possibility of forging a third choice. The burden on the paladin, the standard to which he is compared, is that he must use his judgement, not hide behind hollow principles. Those principles must be applied to the situation in front of him. His knowledge of the situation, his understanding of how his religion, alignment and code all interact with that situation, and his wisdom in choosing the solution, are how he is judged by his god, and if his judgement proves to be unsound by those criteria he falls, or at least is on the path to a fall.
Paladins are not there to avoid making those difficult choices, they are there to make them! If the paladin's god were in his place, whatever solution the god would have chosen cannot be the cause of the fall of the paladin who makes that same choice himself! If the god were in the lose/lose situation, and the god chooses to take the Orc baby back to an Orc community, then the god won't make the paladin fall for making the same choice, even if that baby grows up to be an evil conqueror. If the god would have killed the baby knowing it's (likely) future, then the god won't make the paladin fall for killing that baby. Gods want paladins! It is not in their interest to make it impossible to be a paladin by requiring the paladin to succeed where even the god itself would fail!
It's true that there is no "lesser of two evils" clause in the paladin code; this is a feature, not a bug. However, telling the truth which results in someone getting killed is not an inherently evil act and would not necessarily constitute a Fall condition. If the paladin stands idly by and does nothing to prevent innocents from being killed, that may constitute a Fall condition.
johnlocke90, this is a risk that every hero/adventurer may face. Paladins are not specifically granted immunity from the consequences of their choices.
While that's true, as I have made mention of before, paladins are not your ordinary class of adventurers; neither mechanically nor thematically. Paladins may have to come up with a more complex solution.
I view the entry on the paladin code as "intentionally unfinished."
Paladin's are already probably the class that results the most similar characters, in terms of roleplay, simply because there is actual text in the book mandating how they respond to situations. If a paladin of Abadar and a paladin of Torag act very much like one another, how does it make any sense that the core principle of their character and class design - the deity they fight for - has such little impact? Sure, you might have variance, and the Gods and Magic book is great to make those distinctions, but from the outside looking in, all you need to know is that there's a paladin, so you know how he's going to respond to things.
The game designers are very much aware of lose-lose situations, and do you think they really set up an entire class to be destined to fail? I think they had more situations like this in mind. The vagueness of the code is for each player to view it in their own light, to allow the Miko Miyazakis and the Sir Peter Fairgraves of the world to coexist.
Again, if you scroll up, you'll see that the issue I believe arises with this design is that a GM and a player (or, heck, even other players) have a differing view on paladins, and it can lead to some tension. That being said, I still much prefer this interpretation of the rules over the strict "This is all a paladin is, period." one.
Mordred Ozio,
I do not believe that designers intended to convey the thought that "this is all a paladin is, period", nor is that a position I advocate. However, the specifics of a paladin's code that are clearly spelled out are inviolate. That does not mean that paladins will form universal responses to particular situations; there will always be variance, and clever players will find ways to respond that conform to their paladin codes and solve their problems.
The situation that you link to, Mordred Ozio, is one that as a GM, I would find the actions of the paladin to be out of character for a paladin in general. Looking forward to falling? That suggests either that the paladin is not dedicated to the ideals of their god, as they are easily forsaken (and as gods in this game are responsive entities, the god would likely not tolerate insincere atonement for long, if at all), or that the paladin is lying, which the god may or may not permit. A paladin should not want to fall; I doubt they'd be bragging about walking along the razor's edge, either. While I do not feel that paladins should universally be played as viewing everything in shades of only black and only white, to be so cavalier about one's faith does not suggest the depth of faith that a paladin in good standing should possess. Unfortunately, paladins are either in good standing with their god and retain their powers, or they are not, and they lose said powers. There is not a middle ground in that. Had the character's god been there to witness the paladin's soliloquy, I think it would be more than reasonable for the god to withdraw their blessings from the paladin.
I think it's important to note that the paladin class has a restrictive set of role-play options on purpose. This is not a design flaw, it is a design feature; one that dovetails nicely with the thematic design of the character class. The cleric is, in many ways, similarly bound, but not quite to the same extent. Again, this is a feature, not a bug.
If you're interested in playing a holy warrior, you have a multitude of options by which you may accomplish this, though not necessarily through the paladin class. I get the sense that you feel that paladins should play like any other class, but it's a perspective that I do not find compatible with my understanding of paladin design and purpose. There's nothing wrong with how you want to play a holy warrior; provided said holy warrior is not specifically a paladin. On a lark, I'd recommend playing a semi-religious warrior class. Saying things along the lines of, "I will not be stopped by my God" do not exactly show faith and devotion to said god, and in return, why would the god grant their powers and blessings?
The paladin class is not destined to fall in lose/lose situations, but it is a role-play opportunity that would be lost to not work through the lose/lose situation and still manage to not fall. It's a character specific challenge; intended or accidental. I personally find the belief that a lose/lose situation is designed to make the class fail and that this is an error that escaped decades of design theory that went into the eventual formation of the Pathfinder paladin to be a failure of imagination. There is variance within the confines of the paladin code; the experience is to work through them effectively.
After such a statement as the one made in your linked story fragment, I would inform the player that further repeated or similar statements would be taken as honest (unless they were specifically making Bluff rolls, which may or may not cause other issues) and that it would constitute a Fall condition; one that would not be resolved by use of the atonement spell. The character would have to go on a specific quest of redemption and purification to restore themselves as a paladin, and that such a quest would require a permanent devotion to their paladin code; any further violations would result in the inability to be redeemed. I am a firm believer in the necessity of player choice and the natural response of the universe that actions have consequences.
It's one thing for paladins to err... It's another thing entirely for them to err on purpose and blaspheme their god's ideals at the same time. I do recognize that this may not be how other GMs would handle this issue, but from my point of view, you either have (and show) faith and piety, or you are simply playing the character class (and/or archetype) for the powers that are subsidiary to the nature of the class. The powers are the reward for devotion, not separate benefits that have nothing to do with it.
Mordred Ozio,
...
No disrespect, but I feel like you missed key aspects of the story I linked. The paladin's statement of "I look forward to falling." is not one that is disregarding or otherwise not adhering to his god's ideals. It is shown through his explanation of his declaration that he is willing to sacrifice himself - in the form of his powers and even his eternal afterlife - to break the words that bind him to fulfill their intent. It may very well be that the god he worships sees this as a sign of true faith, and the inverse of this is a common troupe (to lose sight of the purpose of the law in order to simply follow it), accepted by most with an educated and open mind to be a poor choice of path.
I think we agree that a paladin should be and very much is more varied than might be commonly misunderstood as, and this is interestingly enough falling back to my previous statements about multiple viewpoints on the subject, but I agree to disagree on the bounds you place on them. I think the story linked previously is a great example of what a paladin can be, just as much as the paladin archetype you describe in your posts, and I think I know the point at which our views diverge.
You say if a person wants to play a holy warrior, a paladin is not the only option. I definitely agree. However, there is something to be said about a paladin, which can be seen as a subcategory of holy warrior, versus a generic holy warrior, which might simply be a battle cleric/oracle or maybe a non-divine class with which the player devotes the character to a god and fights in their name.
The poor concept being fulfilled in the latter is that in most fantasy worlds, a god literally grants powers to those that worship them. Why does the fighter who worships Sarenrae with all of his being receive no spells, while the cleric who does puts an equal amount of faith into the goddess? Should the fighter simply reroll cleric? Well, the player wants to play a more specific version of a holy warrior, one who is more combat and less magical (but not without magic), and keeps refining his class choice recursively, until finally, paladin is truly the only option.
It might be a small selection of folks who decide their character concept fits a paladin better than any other choice (including the mechanical archetypes in the books), as opposed to the people who see the full BAB, high saves, and ridiculous sustain and then choose paladin, but in these two cases, the roleplay aspect obviously appeals much more to the former, and there's no reason to restrict them in a way that makes roleplaying the character less desirable, especially when it's something that can be and should be left to discussions of interpretations between the player and GM (which is very close, if not, the exact same as to what the OP was talking about).
You're misunderstanding having a code that by following it, leads to good deeds and doing good deeds, while following a code. They can be the same thing, but they also can be very different.
The deities are different, why would their Paladins follow the same strictures?Because they're not their Paladins. A Paladin is beholden to ideals greater than even the Gods. The Paladin code is absolute. Their vows are absolute. No question that starts with "Yes, but what if..." is ever relevant.
But they are, you play a Paladin of Torag, Iomedae, or some other deity. If they were beholden to ideals greater that the Gods, then they wouldn't have a deity in which they follow. In Faiths if Purity different Paladin codes are given for different deities. Paladins of Shelyn cannot strike first except to save an innocent. Paladins of Torag have direct permission to mislead others. This directly contradicts what you wrote.
You're misunderstanding having a code that by following it, leads to good deeds and doing good deeds, while following a code. They can be the same thing, but they also can be very different.
My apologies, Mordred Ozio, but in this case, johnlocke90 is quite correct. That would be more in keeping with a Neutral Good philosophical outlook.
In any case, I do believe we may have to agree to disagree. I am not able to reconcile your explanation of ideals and the breaking of "words" with the intent of the paladin code. If a paladin agrees to uphold the ideals of their god/goddess, it is not simply a matter of "breaking them in order to fulfill their intent"; the intent is that the paladin will do exactly what the god/goddess wills him to do. These are not empty words to be uttered and then forgotten; they are directives to be followed. You cannot "break them" and remain a paladin, and in knowing that, a paladin is not likely to put on and take off their paladin powers as they would a cloak. This is who they are and it is an integral part not only of their faith, but of their expression of that faith. It is not faith to be conveniently discarded when the acts of upholding that faith become uncomfortable, for that is neither faith nor devotion at all.
Breaking the concept (and the role-play aspects inherent to paladins) down into mechanical choices devolves into another argument; one that was not specifically relevant to the original post. In fact, the original poster made mention of that fact. However, if a player feels that they want all the good saves and powers and the full base attack bonus, that's fine. They should approach the paladin class with the understanding that it does carry some inherent role-play restrictions... by design. Should they be unwilling to play by those restrictions, perhaps they should choose another class. Should they choose to violate those restrictions, then they must do so with the knowledge that they will not consistently have access to all of their class abilities and powers.
This class bears specific challenges in playing it that most other classes do not have, and that's fine. It was designed to be that way. I understand that you would like to break out of those boundaries, and I can respect that as a fellow player. If you want to house rule that into being acceptable behaviour for paladins, then I sincerely hope that you enjoy your games all the more. It would be helpful to note that in your postings so as to not confuse others or cause conflict at other gaming tables, given that you're giving advise to others. However, as paladins are written (and I believe, intended), your particular philosophy regarding their belief system as relevant to their actions and related to their state of In-Good-Standing/Fallen is not congruent with published material.
But, if you enjoy it, then it's all good, my friend.
|
For what it's worth, I believe I may be able to shed some light on the Paladin in the story linked by Mordred Ozio.
The Paladin in question had a very different approach to Paladin Psyche to how most people think of it. That Paladin, to me, looked to have a very fatalistic view on life. "I will uphold the tenets of my faith, and of my Code as given to me by my God, and I will lay down my life in its defense." Except in this case, life means more than just physical life, it means his entire wellbeing. That Paladin is looking at every scenario in life and asking himself, "Is this where God will ask me to give it all up? Is this the time when I have to lose everything to protect those I care for?" I don't see anything inherently wrong with that approach to Paladins, and I may adopt in in Paladin characters I play in future. But it isn't a wrong approach, it's just a highly non-standard one.
Paladins have a double-edged facet to them: purpose. On one hand, they know their purpose. Holy Warrior of God/-dess, protector of the innocent/weak, etc. On the other hand, they have no idea what their purpose is, why they were called to this lifestyle. The Paladin in Mordred's linked story has found his approach to the problem of purpose, which is he believes his purpose will, ultimately, be to lay everything on the line to save the world.
That said, he also walked in with a jug in hand. He may have been extremely drunk. ;)