| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would however say that at some point, Alicia better come up with a whoopass deed of consummate evil to make up for the good she left behind. Because despite her intentions, she did leave those areas better off for her presence, and that's a big no for the Anti-Paladin.It is really funny that antipaladins are better team players than paladins. They have abilities that combo with allies more readily, don't get bent out of shape because someone else isn't following their ideals, and would happily save puppies and kittens if it meant getting what he/she wanted. Hell, they could do it just because they wanted the self indulgence of doing so.
Almost every act of heroism can be de-goodified by simply removing the altruism aspect of it. An antipaladin could go around doing tons of acts of daring do, as long as it was for selfish motivations.
Party: "Why did you save this town?"
Anti: "Now they owe me,"
Party: "What about that baby that the kobolds were going to sacrifice?"
Anti: "I reminded them that their god is weak,"
Party: "Why did you use a potion of infernal healing on that maiden's injured horse? That was awfully nice of you,"
Anti: "Because she was hot, and I piss potions of infernal healing,"
Party: "Damn Alicia, don't you ever do anything nice for anyone?"
Anti: "Of course I do. I just bought myself this new sapphire studded skirt and this strawberry icecream topped waffle,"
Alicia killed everyone in the next town to try to hit her consummate Evil quota, but little did she know that she just opened up some prime real estate for others to move into, leaving them better off for her presence. Why is evil so difficult @_@
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I had to remake the paladin, I would probably get rid of the written part about the paladin's code, and instead replace it with a mechanic a bit based off of oracles curses. At various levels they take 'vows' which define limitations upon their behavior which are not connected to just being lawful or good. Each of the restrictive vows has a corresponding benefit; if you took the vow "cannot tell a lie" then you get a bonus to sense motive or some such. And so on.
I actually think this would be really cool.
I really think you could just write up the code as
1) Never willfully and knowingly commit an evil act
2) Respect authority in such a way as to promote stability and order as long as such actions do not interfere with the first tenant.
3) Strive to do good as long as such actions do not interfere with the above tenents.
4) Always strive to act with honor as long as such actions do not interfere with the above tenents.
5) Do not knowingly associate with evil individuals as long as such actions do not interfere with the above tenents.
I think this code is vague enough not to be accidentally broken, since the code mainly sets goals of intent instead of guidelines of behavoir. I also think a multi-tiered approach would prevent contradictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IF a PFS Paladin falls, it's due to either a lousy GM or more likely, a willful Player.
In forty years I have never had a Paladin fall, unless it was something I wanted.
The ugly child example was just to demonstrate the lack of flexibility. According to the Code as written in the rules there is none. That said I am starting to go back to thinking that maybe Paladins shouldn't be able to lie for any reason.
It goes back to the greater good. If a paladin can not lie, no matter what, then you can trust a paladin to do what he promises to do, no matter what. If a paladin negotiates a treaty and promises to ensure that it is carried out, you can trust that he will. If he can lie for the greater good then you can't trust him. He might decide that party A is right and party B is wrong and as soon as the agreement is made he will make sure A gets what it wants but will double-cross party B. Knowing this is a possibility party B will just not agree to anything at all. This might even cause a war that could have been averted if the paladin could actually have been trusted to do as he said he will.
So in the case of lying to protect innocents. He can't. If he lies to protect them then he can lie about holding up his end of an agreement (if he thinks it is for the greater good).
Let's change the scenario a bit. Guards looking for refugees finds paladin. The paladin swears that he will remove the refugees from the Guards' country and ensure they cause no harm. The guards might accept this, except that the paladin might be lying just so the guards won't take the refugees to some horrible interment camp. Since the paladin can't be trusted they take the refugees anyway.
So for paladins everywhere to be trusted, none of them can lie. Ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A DM who'd make that kind of ruling is a DM for players to avoid in general, not just those playing Paladins.
I would tell every one of my nieces and nephews that they were my special favorite. And I'd mean it each time I said it. What's ugly? What's beautiful? We can spawn many threads that go nowhere on the nature of such judgements.
"The GM can fix it" doesn't mean it isn't broken. The paladin's code would be a lot more fun if it were usable in game, rather than requiring GMs to mentally replace it with something less damning.
Some good arguments. I am kinda on the fence. I do see a difference in degrees of a lie. So saying, "Good morning!" when it isn't going to cause you to fall. Even saying "You look beautiful!" is fine. Maybe the person is still ugly, but slightly better looking before? It doesn't matter, I am not going to make you fall for something stupid like that.
I'm not so sure about the "Well I won't lie unless it is for the greater good" argument. I think it would just be better if the paladin avoided lying at all, except, maybe, in the most extreme circumstances. And they he would need to atone for it.
The lack of flexibility is in the DM's who can't go beyond the straightjacket of a fundamentalist style literal interpretation of text. You and I are looking at the same code and are taking different things from it. What you forget is that the code as written in the book is speaking in general and figurative terms because that's the writing style. If you're taking the code as someone who should strip Paladins totally as much for removing furniture tags as they would for murdering innocent nuns, then you're a great example of a DM that no one should run a Paladin under. And threads like this are a confirmation of why the Paladin class is the most disruptive in the game.... it's a problem that comes up with players and GMs with that kind of mindset which seems to be common with the message board population.
There should be no such thing as "a DM that no one should run a Paladin under", even if that GM and/or group use "the rules are the rules", which humorously is actually a very fair and common gentleman's agreement. That's kind of the point of the rules is to be functional and actually rule.
Also, where is this messageboard population you're talking about?
Maybe its not the paladin people hate.
Maybe its the player playing the paladin that people hate.
Sometimes I play paladins.
I sometimes wonder if that means everyone hates me.
I think I'm going to grip my holy symbol and ask for atonement.
Some good arguments. I am kinda on the fence. I do see a difference in degrees of a lie. So saying, "Good morning!" when it isn't going to cause you to fall. Even saying "You look beautiful!" is fine. Maybe the person is still ugly, but slightly better looking before? It doesn't matter, I am not going to make you fall for something stupid like that.
I'm not so sure about the "Well I won't lie unless it is for the greater good" argument. I think it would just be better if the paladin avoided lying at all, except, maybe, in the most extreme circumstances. And they he would need to atone for it.
Well I think the "paladins don't lie" thing is kind of a stupid argument anyway, unless you're playing in an order of the stick silly-style game where characters treat people as if they had big class signs on their hats.
In my campaign for example, there are many "Paladins". Some of them even have levels in the Paladin class. Others are psychic warriors, others are clerics, some are monks (psychic monk). A lot of them are multiclass combinations. A lot of them are NPC classed (often with levels of warrior and adept).
Even when it's the actual Paladin class, there's nothing preventing a typical NPC Paladin lying over a treaty. He can get atonement later. If Paladin is only a small portion of his overall character (such as the case of a multiclassed character) then the Paladin can bald-faced lie and not even worrying about losing out on much, and then just get someone to atone him later (even if that's just paying a chaotic evil cleric to cast atonement for him, because...yeah).
The only way the "Paladins can't lie" thing works is if everyone knows what and how the class features of a Paladin works. Even then, someone might be called a Paladin and not have the class, or might have the class and not be called a Paladin. I mean, there is functionally very little difference between a battle cleric and a paladin beyond the metagame differences in their classes.
Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).
The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.
As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure lying is defined as chaotic, unless you are lying to actively do harm.
Carry on!
==Aelryinth
Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).
The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.
As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.
When the code conflicts, there is no judgment available to choose a path. In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way. It has nothing to do with the code's wisdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the code conflicts, there is no judgment available to choose a path. In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way. It has nothing to do with the code's wisdom.Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).
The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.
As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.
See, and this is where I disagree. Instead of lying he can tell the truth then protect the innocent. He might fail, but it is not Evil to do Good and fail. It is Evil to do Evil, even if you succeed.
Just to respond to something from last night (I was at work and couldn't respond then).
The paladin does not value the code over other people. The paladin trusts in the code's wisdom over his own judgement. The paladin doesn't ponder "is this lie for the greater good." The paladin knows lying is evil because of the code. This is the Lawful part of the paladin's Lawful Good alignment. The paladin may think, "surely this lie is justifiable" but he knows the code forbids it. You don't lie to save the innocent because then you have corrupted yourself.
As an aside; these fall/fall scenarios are ridiculous. I have never seen one that didn't have multiple ways out without falling. Most are given solutions within a post or two that are then ignored by the "anti" paladin crowd.
When the code conflicts, there is no judgment available to choose a path. In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way. It has nothing to do with the code's wisdom.
"Tell me a lie or I'll do something evil" is not a conflict. The paladin doesn't lie. The paladin also doesn't fall because of someone else's actions. Yes the paladin should try to stop those evil actions but not by violating his code.
In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.
There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.
The debates I see about the Paladin's code is simaliar to the debates I see about the meaning of religious text.
Perhaps that is not accidental.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.
If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.
I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
Once again, ridiculous abstract scenario, easily answered, answers ignored or dismissed.
The debates I see about the Paladin's code is simaliar to the debates I see about the meaning of religious text.
Perhaps that is not accidental.
I'd rather have good rules. I enjoy talking about religion, but religious debates are rarely much fun (they can be if the other guy isn't a douche). I'd rather be enjoying a game with other people who enjoy a game.
GMs aren't the only ones who deal with the code thing. Having been discussing this thread on skype with some friends, one of them commented that he doesn't play Paladins anymore in online games, particularly in persistent world campaigns, because there was no telling how others were going to react to him. Some people would give him crap over the Paladin's code, and some wouldn't.
To me, as a someone who loves games and tinkering with them, my beef with the Paladin code is that the mechanics basically require me to ignore the rules and do something different to make it playable in a non-asinine manner, or to stay to the spirit of the idea. To me, that is a mark of a bad rule, and one that should be changed.
If you have to house rule for the rule to function, it's broken.
The debates I see about the Paladin's code is simaliar to the debates I see about the meaning of religious text.
Perhaps that is not accidental.
I'd rather have good rules. I enjoy talking about religion, but religious debates are rarely much fun (they can be if the other guy isn't a douche). I'd rather be enjoying a game with other people who enjoy a game.
GMs aren't the only ones who deal with the code thing. Having been discussing this thread on skype with some friends, one of them commented that he doesn't play Paladins anymore in online games, particularly in persistent world campaigns, because there was no telling how others were going to react to him. Some people would give him crap over the Paladin's code, and some wouldn't.
To me, as a someone who loves games and tinkering with them, my beef with the Paladin code is that the mechanics basically require me to ignore the rules and do something different to make it playable in a non-asinine manner, or to stay to the spirit of the idea. To me, that is a mark of a bad rule, and one that should be changed.
If you have to house rule for the rule to function, it's broken.
Whereas I just wouldn't play a game with people who are giving me crap...
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.
If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.
I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker.
Paladins don't have that luxury. They did in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder, because the Paladin is required to protect those innocents, but is required to not lie, or is required to not use poison, etc.
It's actually really not complicated either. Anyone who's ever read a comic book could fathom BBEGs who would put a hero in a situation where they might have to compromise their ideals to get something that the villain wants, or in some cases, such as with the Joker, just for the jollies of it.
It's kind of like with Princess Leia in Star Wars. Sure, Darth Vadar blew up Alderaaan anyway, but the threat was that he would blow it up unless she told him where the rebels were. She lied, and he blew it up anyway, but at least she tried. The Paladin couldn't have tried to lie, but is also required to protect the innocents, and the best chance they have would be to give the bad guy what he wants. There's no certainty that he'll blow up the planet. Some badguys wouldn't (many of the villains in my campaign are pretty good at keeping their word, because it makes it powerful).
Whereas I just wouldn't play a game with people who are giving me crap...
And I just said that he didn't. At least with Paladins. Fireball does Xd6 points of damage is pretty straitforward and isn't subject to this "bull-shittery" that the Paladin code has written into it.
In another scenario. If the Paladin could choose between using tranquilizer gas on a room full of badguys and hostages, the Paladin can't use the gas, despite it being a safer way of ending a fight without much loss of life, because his code says he can't use poisons. Which means that the alternative is either giving into the demands, letting the hostages sit there, or putting them at risk by fighting the bad guys directly.
There's also the fact that most of the excuses don't work either, since the Paladin class also has a clause that says they avoid working with anyone that consistently offends their moral code, which means if you have a liar bard in the party, then...oops, bummer.
That said, the associates clause doesn't even do anything so...yeah, it's bad rules too. >_>
Honestly, it really just needs better rules concerning all the falling and code and associates stuff. It's just really dirty.
EDIT: No bards, no alchemists, etc.
|
I'll be playing my first pathfinder event at Paziocon UK on the 26th and it will be a paladin. I will always fail the code because I'm slow and battle is not always planable. But I would expect to die rather than fall. Paladins are not normally stupid as they require Wisdom and Charisma to be reasonable.
A Paladin when asked about a ugly child would say "All are beautiful in the Inheritor sight." He tells no lies and avoids a question he is ill equipped to answer.
Codes are guidelines. I guess is up to the GMs we play with as to how strict they want to play but a normally a rouge will outstrip a paladin into battle and wont hang back just because I Ask/demand/instruct.
I can draw up many plans but others may not or cannot employ them.
but my code says I have to have faith in them as well so if they fail to uphold my plan it is other circumstances that prevent it from happening.
Every part of a code at one stage will conflict and that's part of being a paladin we seek perfection when we can truly reach it will be the time we can reach for the Starstone.
I'll be playing my first pathfinder event at Paziocon UK on the 26th and it will be a paladin. I will always fail the code because I'm slow and battle is not always planable. But I would expect to die rather than fall. Paladins are not normally stupid as they require Wisdom and Charisma to be reasonable.
A Paladin when asked about a ugly child would say "All are beautiful in the Inheritor sight." He tells no lies and avoids a question he is ill equipped to answer.
Codes are guidelines. I guess is up to the GMs we play with as to how strict they want to play but a normally a rouge will outstrip a paladin into battle and wont hang back just because I Ask/demand/instruct.
I can draw up many plans but others may not or cannot employ them.
but my code says I have to have faith in them as well so if they fail to uphold my plan it is other circumstances that prevent it from happening.Every part of a code at one stage will conflict and that's part of being a paladin we seek perfection when we can truly reach it will be the time we can reach for the Starstone.
You're planning on spending half your time as a warrior NPC, with a bad distribution of ability scores, following a code that punishes those following the spirit of it, so that you can try to touch a magic rock?
Whereas I just wouldn't play a game with people who are giving me crap...And I just said that he didn't. At least with Paladins. Fireball does Xd6 points of damage is pretty straitforward and isn't subject to this "bull-s@#*tery" that the Paladin code has written into it.
So just appease the bullies?
I know that was probably just an off hand comment meant to point out why you dislike the paladin (or the code) but I see it a lot in threads dealing with paladins. "I don't like paladins because the people who play them are jerks!" Well, don't play with jerks. "I don't like paladins because when I play one other people are jerks!" Well, don't play with jerks.
If your friend wanted to play a female character but the people he played with were sexist and gave him crap, would you say don't play a female?
If your friend wanted to play a dark skinned character but the people he played with were racist and gave him crap, would you say don't play a dark skinned character?
Why is someone being a jerk because of paladins okay but being a jerk for some other reason okay? Why not, don't play with jerks?
What you don't seem to grasp Ashiel is that a Paladin is obliged to do good, not to take the most effective way to do good.
Your scenarios all hinge on that distinction.
There's also the fact that most of the excuses don't work either, since the Paladin class also has a clause that says they avoid working with anyone that consistently offends their moral code, which means if you have a liar bard in the party, then...oops, bummer.
That said, the associates clause doesn't even do anything so...yeah, it's bad rules too. >_>
Honestly, it really just needs better rules concerning all the falling and code and associates stuff. It's just really dirty.
EDIT: No bards, no alchemists, etc.
Why is the paladin consistently in these situations? How often does "lie or I'll kill them" come up?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.
If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.
I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker.
Paladins don't have that luxury. They did in 3.5, but not in Pathfinder, because the Paladin is required to protect those innocents, but is required to not lie, or is required to not use poison, etc.
It's actually really not complicated either. Anyone who's ever read a comic book could fathom BBEGs who would put a hero in a situation where they might have to compromise their ideals to get something that the villain wants, or in some cases, such as with the Joker, just for the jollies of it.
It's kind of like with Princess Leia in Star Wars. Sure, Darth Vadar blew up Alderaaan anyway, but the threat was that he would blow it up unless she told him where the rebels were. She lied, and he blew it up anyway, but at least she tried. The Paladin couldn't have tried to lie, but is also required to protect the innocents, and the best chance they have would be to give the bad guy what he wants. There's no certainty that he'll blow up the planet. Some badguys wouldn't (many of the villains in my campaign are pretty good at keeping their word, because it makes it powerful).
I don't follow. Nothing about listening to a hostage taker can be seen as protecting innocents.
The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X. Doing ~Y doesn't mean you were protecting inocents just because they also did ~X. Your actions do not control theirs. You have no reason to think so either.
If they die because you attack him you have failed in the "protect the innocents" clause. You have done something that you knew would harm innocent people.
Ok, icewind dale 2 example. Actual example from a game based off of 2e. Orc chieftain takes over a human village and has put the entire populace into a little circle surrounded by barrels full of blasting powder. There are scouts all along the wall as well as several mages in the encampment.
The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.
Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.
"and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
"If you kill them, you will die, Foul orc!".
Or come back with overwhelming force. Or send a angel to rescue them or...or...
Every day innocents die. A Paladin can't protect them all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
To be fair, whenever a demon or something makes up these situations, I almost expect good characters to the take the "we don't negotiate with terrorist" approach.
If a bad guy says he will kill hostages unless you lie to him, as a paladin or a LG fighter you are well within your rights to just start attacking him instead.
I also don't see it as wrong to not believe the words of a hostage taker.
If they die because you attack him you have failed in the "protect the innocents" clause. You have done something that you knew would harm innocent people.
Ok, icewind dale 2 example. Actual example from a game based off of 2e. Orc chieftain takes over a human village and has put the entire populace into a little circle surrounded by barrels full of blasting powder. There are scouts all along the wall as well as several mages in the encampment.
The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.
Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.
Using this example, only a slight deviation off of something that actually exists in a published game, if your paladin does not agree on the spot hundreds of people will die. If he attacks, well I don't think you can kill an entire village full of orcs before...
THANK YOU FOR GETTING IT.
It's not about the specific scenario. It's not even about doing the most good. It's the fact that as written, the Paladin can end up in a catch-22, and it's not even hard to do so. There are examples in the campaign that I've been running (which includes a Paladin) where the party had to do things like take civilians, hostages, and so forth into consideration. It's not that unlikely, it's a pretty standard trope.
In 3.5, the Paladin could try to do his best. The Paladin could weigh his options. The Paladin could try to follow his code in the direction he felt would be good (okay, try to punish the evil and save the people, but put them at risk, or promise to leave and come back later to rescue them, or whatever). The Paladin had to seriously FUBAR his code, and as a result couldn't get stuck in the legalese of it.
This is all about the rules here. People pussyfooting around the issue in an effort to defend bad rules, while insisting that those rules are just to be ignored, while betraying the spirit of the code to begin with (by having party members to murder, lie, use poison, and so forth by proxy for the Paladin, which is also a no-no), etc.
This isn't about making the Paladin fall. This is about the absurdity that is the absolutism of the PF version of the Ex-Paladin's clause of the class.
If they die because you attack him you have failed in the "protect the innocents" clause. You have done something that you knew would harm innocent people.
Ok, icewind dale 2 example. Actual example from a game based off of 2e. Orc chieftain takes over a human village and has put the entire populace into a little circle surrounded by barrels full of blasting powder. There are scouts all along the wall as well as several mages in the encampment.
The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.
Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.
Using this example, only a slight deviation off of something that actually exists in a published game, if your paladin does not agree on the spot hundreds of people will die. If he attacks, well I don't think you can kill an entire village full of orcs before one of them looses a flaming arrow. If you retreat, saying nothing, they all die.
No matter whether you say nothing, whether you lie, or whether you keep your promise and leave these people to their fate (and I'm pretty sure we all know what that will be), or whether you attack you're going to fall.
In 3 of the choices you're abandoning innocents to die. That's a fall.
In 1 of them you're lying. That's a fall.
You could certainly loophole the whole thing, find a hole in the wording. But as many of the pro code people in here have stated. "Paladin's don't use loopholes." That seems fairly chaotic to me, doesn't it to you
You attack the orc with the flaming arrow. That's the only way to protect the people. Lying doesn't protect them. All it does is appease the hostage taker, who can then kill them anyways.
This isn't a moral delima, it's "magical thinking" where you assume your actions control things they do not.
So many wonderful excuses that require you to either A) ignore the scenario, or B) assume you have someone that may or may not be going to bail you out.There is never that choice. He just says nothing. Or a platitude. Or lets the Bard lie.In one of the most basic examples the Paladin is if the Paladin has to choose between protecting innocent lives or lying. He's damned either way.
I am not ignoring the scenario. You do not have to give a answer.
And D&D is based upon a 4 player TEAM.
The first time in the game you approach he orders you to leave or they all die. One flaming arrow is all it takes to kill every single human in there.
Lets alter that slightly. Your paladin is recognizably a paladin, and its known in this world paladin's cant lie. Orc orders him to promise to leave, not engage in any hostile actions against them, or tell anyone else about the encampment of orcs and humans.
Using this example, only a slight deviation off of something that actually exists in a published game, if your paladin does not agree on the spot hundreds of people will die. If he attacks, well I don't think you can kill an entire village full of orcs before one of them looses a flaming arrow. If you retreat, saying nothing, they all die.
No matter whether you say nothing, whether you lie, or whether you keep your promise and leave these people to their fate (and I'm pretty sure we all know what that will be), or whether you attack you're going to fall.
Roll Diplomacy
"What is it that you wish to gain from this scenario? Do you wish to go free? Give me the civilians and I promise you may leave without harm. Do you wish to call this palce your home? Give me the civilians and I promise to leave it to you."
A Paladin would simply not accept that choice. A smart Paladin would engage in to a dialog. "No, I will not leave these people at your mercy. Where I to turn around and leave, who would guarantee those peoples safety?"
If at any point of the dialog the Orc attacks, the whole thing becomes quite easy.
"I will not promise any such thing, but I will leave now and spare your life if you spare them!"
You can not trap a smart Paladin.
The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X.
You're right. You're not guilty of murdering the hostages, but if you didn't try to protect them, you're sure as hell guilty of not trying to protect them. If you try to protect them and the BBEG murders them anyway, you're in the clear, but if you didn't, you broke your code, Paladin falls.
Before you had to seriously FUBAR. Paladins had some room to make judgment calls, including the sort of judgment call that you're describing, where the Paladin weighs that the BBEG may not keep his word and simply refuse to say anything (as others seem very happy with suggesting) and y'know what? That would work. But in PF, it doesn't, because you have no judgment calls.
It's the fact that as written, the Paladin can end up in a catch-22, and it's not even hard to do so.
It must be hard as you guys haven't even come up with one.
"Surrender or the puppy gets it!" is not a Catch 22, the paladin simply tries to punish the killer as best the Paladin can. The paladin can only try to dissuade the killer,(or punish him after) he is not responsible for the killers actions- only the killer is.
Again, I have never seen a paladin fall IRL gaming except where the DM and Player both wanted it to happen. Ever.
The star wars example is a great one. You control your actions and they control their actions. If they say they will do X if you do Y and you do Y you are not guilty of X.You're right. You're not guilty of murdering the hostages, but if you didn't try to protect them, you're sure as hell guilty of not trying to protect them. If you try to protect them and the BBEG murders them anyway, you're in the clear, but if you didn't, you broke your code, Paladin falls.
Before you had to seriously FUBAR. Paladins had some room to make judgment calls, including the sort of judgment call that you're describing, where the Paladin weighs that the BBEG may not keep his word and simply refuse to say anything (as others seem very happy with suggesting) and y'know what? That would work. But in PF, it doesn't, because you have no judgment calls.
Well of course she would fall. She lied.
Later in the series Luke is offered the darkside or see the deathstar fire on the rebel fleet. He refuses and instead tries to turn Vadar to the light and eventually ends up attacking the Emperor. Luke would not have fallen since he was trying.
I'm not arguing for the Paladin's code, but these "hostage" examples are BS.