No. I know exactly what I am saying, if you don't knowingly kill someone, you may be guilty of something, but it isn't murder. If you don't know its outcomes are going to be evil, then you are not willingly doing an evil act; you are not choosing to do something evil in full knowledge that is what you are doing.You're thinking of "knowingly". Willfully merely implies agency.If the paladin doesn't know its an evil act, then they aren't willfully committing an evil act. Willfully committing implies that you know its evil but do it anyway.Paladins can never willfully commit an evil act. Doesn't matter how minor. That means if I do anything I think is fine but my GM thinks is evil I fall/have a long discussion about morals that probably ends up with me leaving the table(example in thread. I think it's fine not to listen to hostage takers. Plenty of people don't agree with that and think it is a reckless action to take with the lives of the hostages).>f I want role-play a paladin how I want, I would also have to enforce my view of right and wrong on the GM.
Can you give an example?
You did choose to do the act that happened to be evil. You willfully did the act. You did not willfully commit evil, but the act you did do was evil. Therefore you willfully commited an evil act even though you did not willfuly commit evil.
The paladin's code has little to do with actual morality or alignment. That is one of its problems.
Except for the fact that the paladins code as a whole entity doesn't exist.
All that exists is a broad summary of things it contains.
Bad rules are bad.
|
Talk of one action by one player can swing a game or encounter.
But this is a group of pathfinders bound to each other who through Thick or thin I'm bound to protect and have faith in.
Wizard/sorcerer I'll take him with MM before he can shoot
Rogue I'll sneak in and stick him before he knows what hit him.
Barbarian CHARGE !
Cleric I'll create water over the hostages if he fires.
We are not alone to make this huge call why make it so !
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.
Is that so unusual in a 'team game'? Isn't needing some healing, someone to find traps, someone to do diplomacy, someone to identify the magic... Isn't all that assuming you have someone else there to bail you out?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk of one action by one player can swing a game or encounter.
But this is a group of pathfinders bound to each other who through Thick or thin I'm bound to protect and have faith in.
Wizard/sorcerer I'll take him with MM before he can shoot
Rogue I'll sneak in and stick him before he knows what hit him.
Barbarian CHARGE !
Cleric I'll create water over the hostages if he fires.
We are not alone to make this huge call why make it so !
The game presents a village full of orcs. Not one. Dozens of orcs. Spread out across an entire village. Try to drop all of them before one of them gets a shot off.
This isn't me being convoluted. This is a published and mass produced video game by wizards of the coast presenting something where if the orc had actually made you promise to leave and not interfere or alert anyone else any paladin would have fallen.
I still don't see why the party is responsible for the actions of orks or why the orks are more concerned about killing peasents than perserving their lives.
Is that so unusual in a 'team game'? Isn't needing some healing, someone to find traps, someone to do diplomacy, someone to identify the magic... Isn't all that assuming you have someone else there to bail you out?
Healing = wand of UMD
Traps = anyone can take perception and Disable device, and magical traps are higher CR
Diplomacy = not necessary, but even so anyone can do
Identifying magic = not necessary, even then, anyone can do.
If you're trying to suggest that no one can solo an AP, you're kinda wrong.
And making a character useless in any situation is not a mark of good game design. Removing a player's agency from the game is pretty much straight up bad design. One of the reason they've been restricting save or sucks more and more since the beginning of d&d.
I think there is a difference between 'well rounded' and 'good at everything.' If Player A can solo an AP... (Which I personally think is a bit far fetched...) then Why are Person B,C, and D even playing?
Paladins come close to being able to do REALLY well at a LOT of things... but even they have their weak spots. Any paladin wasting his measly skill points on Perceptions and Disable Device... is going to be VERY lacking in the skills he's actually going to need...
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.Is that so unusual in a 'team game'? Isn't needing some healing, someone to find traps, someone to do diplomacy, someone to identify the magic... Isn't all that assuming you have someone else there to bail you out?
It is when the Paladin class says they cannot associate with people who consistently break their code, yes. Not only is the argument stupid, but it also ignores the fact that such a thing is already called out. Your bard steps up and does the lying for your party regularly? Nope! Can't do it, Paladins don't associate with even good or neutral characters who constantly offend his own code.
Which also adds to a problem with Paladins. Their class restricts other players if you want to follow the book. It's comparable to a wizard saying that they won't associate with characters wearing armor, where having a wizard in the party means not getting on with fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see why the party is responsible for the actions of orks or why the orks are more concerned about killing peasents than perserving their lives.Talk of one action by one player can swing a game or encounter.
But this is a group of pathfinders bound to each other who through Thick or thin I'm bound to protect and have faith in.
Wizard/sorcerer I'll take him with MM before he can shoot
Rogue I'll sneak in and stick him before he knows what hit him.
Barbarian CHARGE !
Cleric I'll create water over the hostages if he fires.
We are not alone to make this huge call why make it so !
The game presents a village full of orcs. Not one. Dozens of orcs. Spread out across an entire village. Try to drop all of them before one of them gets a shot off.
This isn't me being convoluted. This is a published and mass produced video game by wizards of the coast presenting something where if the orc had actually made you promise to leave and not interfere or alert anyone else any paladin would have fallen.
Because the orcs might not kill the people if the party does make the promise and leave. But if they take the action in question they are assuredly killing them. Yes its a powder keg full of tnt. Its not all that dangerous until someone actually starts waving fire around it.
Because its 4 people against a village of orcs and nothing in the game at all (short of the detect spells and measuring auras) ever allows you to gauge how powerful your opponents are. They might as well be a bunch of level 1 commoners with good equipment, because the orcs cant really tell the difference.
If the people didn't live there then they wouldn't have been killed by orcs, so are they to blame for their own deaths?
You are placing the murder on the party when someone else is doing the killing.
NOTE: This discussion is exactly why I don't play paladins. People have these moral theories that I think are just completely off base, but no one would have to talk about it unless there was a paladin in the party where the code wasn't hand-waved.
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.Is that so unusual in a 'team game'? Isn't needing some healing, someone to find traps, someone to do diplomacy, someone to identify the magic... Isn't all that assuming you have someone else there to bail you out?
It is when the Paladin class says they cannot associate with people who consistently break their code, yes. Not only is the argument stupid, but it also ignores the fact that such a thing is already called out. Your bard steps up and does the lying for your party regularly? Nope! Can't do it, Paladins don't associate with even good or neutral characters who constantly offend his own code.
Which also adds to a problem with Paladins. Their class restricts other players if you want to follow the book. It's comparable to a wizard saying that they won't associate with characters wearing armor, where having a wizard in the party means not getting on with fighters.
I beleive the code says do not associate with evil, not do not let people break your code.
Now if your GM thinks having people lie for you is dishonorable then you still fall.
|
|
Sorry the barbarian would of always charged the orc you are a party of adventures a paladin would back off if his group were sure it was the only way.
I could offer single combat if all else failed. Thinking he or they would backdown if I won well that again is not my call but in the hands of my goddess. This is a roleplaying we just do our best!
If the people didn't live there then they wouldn't have been killed by orcs, so are they to blame for their own deaths?To some extent, yes they are.
<insert example: the crime that means forcible sexual intercourse and the defendants plea of she was asking for it>
Paladins aren't allowed to drink alcohol of any kind, not even in moderation.
|
|
Final point in my code to emulate her perfection if I fail I die death before dishonour ! Knowing that in my failure will result in the innocent's being admitted to her realm. Duh roleplay game. Oh and as I said at the start I'm 1st level no higher it would still not change a thing.
Gnight all sleep well
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a difference between 'well rounded' and 'good at everything.' If Player A can solo an AP... (Which I personally think is a bit far fetched...) then Why are Person B,C, and D even playing?
Paladins come close to being able to do REALLY well at a LOT of things... but even they have their weak spots. Any paladin wasting his measly skill points on Perceptions and Disable Device... is going to be VERY lacking in the skills he's actually going to need...
If you believe that soloing an AP is difficult you may want to look again at what builds are capable of doing.
Though I might say after reviewing your 2nd paragraph, if you're suggesting perception is a waste on anyone then I see where you might need teammates to get through the published AP's.
As for me, my barbarian healed the party last AP I ran. Solo'd 4 of the 5 encounters and did over 60% of the killing in the last one. Our trapfinder never managed to disable a single trap so I healed the entire party from that too.
Hell the fighter wouldn't even enter the boss chamber for fear of *gasp* having to make a will save. AP's aren't hard dude.
Sure there are some min/maxed builds out there that can do anything... depending on game style. There are a LOT of threads on here that talk about some serious TPKs and epic battles... the ideas that 'AP's aren't hard' or could easily be solo'ed... just sounds VERY wrong to me.
I've gone through three of them, and haven't had a death-free campaign yet...
It could be DONE... I've heard barbarians are good for that.. Summoners are good... maybe Druids still... but the average player in the average game?? The game is DESIGNED around needing a party. There should be a balance of combat and non-combat.
We're playing kingmaker, and there are a LOT of diplomatic skills that my paladin needs. Perception? That seems to fail for even the characters who have specialized in it. Their rolls get into the 30's... but still fall short.
Dabbling in it wouldn't help me at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's you all really, because the vast majority of the problems people scream about as "OMG system is fatally broken! must FAQ NOW!!!!" are mostly issues that I don't see as relevant in the hundreds of PFS tables that I've run, nor is it echoed to any significant extent to the Pathfinder community I know in New Jersey, New York City, nor eastern Pennsylvania. I've come to the conclusion that the Paizo message board represents a distinct and separate population of gamers from any other group that I've had familiarity with since the late '70's.
Also, where is this messageboard population you're talking about?
When you encounter more people who have a greater level of system mastery, its only naturally that you are going to get hit with facts that require a significant amount of effort put into understanding the game to read. To most casual players of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metaknight is likely a strong, but fair character. Ask someone who competes at the game though and they will tell you that Metaknight is extremely powerful and his tournament ban is well deserved. Honestly, even checking messageboards for this game makes everyone on here "irregular", but that's the first step to gaining knowledge. It's not like I spawned an account with knowledge of stuff like Paragon Surge in my head. I had to learn about it, break down how it could be used and apply that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's you all really, because the vast majority of the problems people scream about as "OMG system is fatally broken! must FAQ NOW!!!!" are mostly issues that I don't see as relevant in the hundreds of PFS tables that I've run, nor is it echoed to any significant extent to the Pathfinder community I know in New Jersey, New York City, nor eastern Pennsylvania. I've come to the conclusion that the Paizo message board represents a distinct and separate population of gamers from any other group that I've had familiarity with since the late '70's.
Also, where is this messageboard population you're talking about?
Want to buy "Skill Focus (Reading Comprehension)"! :D
I didn't say the system was fatally broken. In fact, I said I like Paladins. I've been GMing for a great Paladin for quite a while. However, a large part of the reason the game has been going so smoothly is because I threw out all the mechanics for the code and such, because they don't work unless you don't follow them.
Which has been my entire point in the thread. I don't dislike Paladins, I like them having the ability to use their judgment on things, and I dislike the silliness that is pussyfooting around a badly written mechanics.
I think the Pathfinder changes to the Ex-Paladins rules are pretty dumb. There was nothing gained by changing the rules to make Paladins auto-fall for breaking their code, even in the slightest. All it does is make asinine situations that break immersion, and create potential that would cause a catch-22 situation.
And those situations are not so uncommon. In the campaign I've been running for a while, the party which includes a Paladin, has had to do things like go undercover (PF Paladins cannot); has had to put aside their differences when dealing with evil doers to help someone (the Paladin stayed his hand at punishing an evil doer because it would put another person in danger, so instead the party parlayed with the evil doer and bought his slave from him to free her); and opted to show mercy where mercy wouldn't have been shown to him had the tables been turned. He, and the party, are involved with the redemption of several NPCs (another thing which RAW PF would fell him for, as he has not punished them for their past transgressions, but instead forgave them). He has been found himself at conflict with his own order on some occasions as he sometimes gets stuck between his duty as a knight and his moral ideals (one example is that he currently has a vampire that he has declared under his protection, which caused strife between him and his order).
During this time, he would have fallen for...
A) Helping people whose aid would result in a chaotic end (the liberation of slaves)
B) Lying (he has been in cases where he had to pretend not to be a member of his order to not tip off the people he was investigating, or put innocents at risk)
C) Not punishing those who harm or threaten innocents (he has liberated several vampire spawn and refuses to pass judgment on them as their will was not their own, he has forgiven transgressions against himself and his party with their consent, he let an antagonist go with a second chance in exchange for his cooperation to help save some slaves).
D) Associating with evil characters for reasons other than defeating a greater evil (he has had several characters that he has allowed to remain in the party who are evil, with the express purpose of both redemption and keeping an eye on them, to great success, as most have shifted to Neutral or better in their attitudes and actions, and are friendly towards the party).
E) Not respecting legitimate authority (he has in at least one case stood down a higher ranking officer in his order because he told them if they wanted to stake the former vampire spawn, they'd have to go through him, and the two ended up coming to blows about it; but when he defeated the officer, he healed him and picked him up off the ground, making the officer realize he was not a traitor).
In virtually every case he did so by sticking true to the spirit of his code and alignment, everyone in the group was certain that he was probably the best example of a Paladin. He was selfless, put others before himself, a defender of the innocent, a slayer of big evils, an absolver of transgression, a defender of the innocent, a rational man, and someone who is thoroughly strong in his convictions and faith, even though it is challenged heavily from time to time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it all boils down to the fact that, as written, the rules for the Pally's fall can be taken far too many different ways. In a system where even scratching your rump requires rules, you cannot be vague like the PF paladin is. Okay, so, you don't need rules to say "I'm scratching my tookus", but there have been several things that people were doing via house rules and handwave that suddenly cropped up as requiring feats to do. Unfortunately I cannot seem to recall them myself, but I know there was quite a big stink about it around here back at the time.
And I quote:
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Ex Paladins: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
See? VAGUE! "And so forth"? This stuff does NOT belong in a system that seems to be trying to take anything you can think of and slap a set of rules on it. The simple addition of "and so forth" means that they are open for interpretation, and as this thread has proven, everyone has their own interpretation.
So, while you certainly CAN run a Paladin via RAW, there will be conflict between the player and the GM unless specific code rules are written for use.
The "willful" part only applies to committing an evil act. If you help a peasant, who then uses the result of that help to go knife their ex husband in the back one day... That's an evil end, and pop, fallen. Even if you were not willfully committing the act yourself.
Sad fact is, they're poorly written. The simple addition of "and so forth" violates the basic understanding that RULES are RULES, and NOT to be 'interpreted', for that could lead to much abuse. With the Paladin, this abuse comes in many of the forms commented within this thread.
So, yes. By RAW for a Pathfinder pally, you pretty much have to toss the rules out if you don't want to fall by yawning during the Chieftain's dull speech, or accidentally insulting their wife. Acting with honor depends on what honor you're following! In Tian Xia with Samurai, you'd pretty much never be able to walk away, surrender, or lose, because that would count as 'dishonor' to PF's bushido code. See my example above for helping those in need. If you see someone so much as punish a house servant with a few lashes, you're to "Punish" them for the abuse, which could be read as anywhere from a stern talking to and a serious fine, to flat out smiting them from the face of the planet. Hell, even picking up one of the rogue's daggers and using it, only to be surprised it has poison, would, by RAW, zap you of all your powers.
There is no "willfully" in those parts of the code. People an argue to hog heaven about the intent of the code, but the fact of how the code and ex-paladin sections are written are staring you right in the bleedin' face.
Which is why, as much as I would want to play a Paladin in PF (Stone Lords sound awesome!)... There would have to be some serious fixing going on by the DM.
Why in god's name would an orc accept single combat if its an entire village with hostages to boot against a party of 4-6?
Generally how you won in the game was lie "ok i'm leaving."
Sneak back in because they had specifically made it in the game so that there were 2 separate palisades that encircled completely different areas, one with the orc chieftain, the other with about 20-30 orcs and the humans plus the blasting powder. You snuck into the orc chieftains base which was for some reason left with the gate completely open, opened the other gate, then snuck into the other palisade and blew everyone up.
In their own game they had to create a ridiculously contrived scenario with seriously flawed and illogical defenses for you to get around the problem.
Contrived, indeed. So there are so many orcs that, even if you stop the fire, you can't fight them off without killing most of the peasants... Why the hell is the orc chieftain wasting time trying to cow you into leaving? Are his orc drudges unionized? And what kind of orc chieftain has such a hard iron grasp of the paladin code that he doesn't just know the code, he has a hypothetically iron-clad promise that prevents the paladin from doing anything against him?
This is reminding me more and more of the "evil villain has a magic trap activated when he gets out of bed so never show mercy" argument.
That's you all really, because the vast majority of the problems people scream about as "OMG system is fatally broken! must FAQ NOW!!!!" are mostly issues that I don't see as relevant in the hundreds of PFS tables that I've run, nor is it echoed to any significant extent to the Pathfinder community I know in New Jersey, New York City, nor eastern Pennsylvania. I've come to the conclusion that the Paizo message board represents a distinct and separate population of gamers from any other group that I've had familiarity with since the late '70's.
Also, where is this messageboard population you're talking about?
Want to buy "Skill Focus (Reading Comprehension)"! :D
I didn't say the system was fatally broken. In fact, I said I like Paladins. I've been GMing for a great Paladin for quite a while. However, a large part of the reason the game has been going so smoothly is because I threw out all the mechanics for the code and such, because they don't work unless you don't follow them.
Which has been my entire point in the thread. I don't dislike Paladins, I like them having the ability to use their judgment on things, and I dislike the silliness that is pussyfooting around a badly written mechanics.
I think the Pathfinder changes to the Ex-Paladins rules are pretty dumb. There was nothing gained by changing the rules to make Paladins auto-fall for breaking their code, even in the slightest. All it does is make asinine situations that break immersion, and create potential that would cause a catch-22 situation.
slightest. All it does is make asinine situations that break immersion, and create potential that would cause a catch-22 situation.
And those situations are not so uncommon. In the campaign I've been running for a while, the party which includes a Paladin, has had to do things like go undercover (PF Paladins cannot); has had to put aside their differences when dealing with evil doers to help someone (the Paladin stayed his hand at punishing an evil doer because it would put another person in danger, so instead the party parlayed with the evil doer and bought his slave from him to free her); and opted to show mercy where mercy wouldn't have been shown to him had the tables been turned. He, and the party, are involved with the redemption of several NPCs (another thing which RAW PF would fell him for, as he has not punished them for their past transgressions, but instead forgave them). He has been found himself at conflict with his own order on some occasions as he sometimes gets stuck between his duty as a knight and his moral ideals (one example is that he currently has a vampire that he has declared under his protection, which caused strife between him and his order).
During this time, he would have fallen for...
A) Helping people whose aid would result in a chaotic end (the liberation of slaves)
B) Lying (he has been in cases where he had to pretend not to be a member of his order to not tip off the people he was investigating, or put innocents at risk)
C) Not punishing those who harm or threaten innocents (he has liberated several vampire spawn and refuses to pass judgment on them as their will was not their own, he has forgiven transgressions against himself and his party with their consent, he let an antagonist go with a second chance in exchange for his cooperation to help save some slaves).
D) Associating with evil characters for reasons other than defeating a greater evil (he has had several characters that he has allowed to remain in the party who are evil, with the express purpose of both redemption and keeping an eye on them, to great success, as most have shifted to Neutral or better in their attitudes and actions, and are friendly towards the party).
E) Not respecting legitimate authority (he has in at least one case stood down a higher ranking officer in his order because he told them if they wanted to stake the former vampire spawn, they'd have to go through him, and the two ended up coming to blows about it; but when he defeated the officer, he healed him and picked him up off the ground, making the officer realize he was not a traitor).In virtually every case he did so by sticking true to the spirit of his code and alignment, everyone in the group was certain that he was probably the best example of a Paladin. He was selfless, put others before himself, a defender of the innocent, a slayer of big evils, an absolver of transgression, a defender of the innocent, a rational man, and someone who is thoroughly strong in his convictions and faith, even though it is challenged heavily from time to time.
A. Choatic ends don't make you fall unless the act is severe enough to change alignment. In that case the whole part turns chaotic.
B. Omitting is not lying. Never will I approve the two as the same.
C. Compassion is okay in 3.5 (see BoED).
D. Redemption not evil.
E. No he respected him, but not his arrogant nature.
Going undercover is allowed, but requires omitting (and I dare say omit not lying).
|
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.
Actually, that seemed pretty ironclad, but then I realized that the Orc never said leave and don't come back.
Step 1: Leave.
Step 2: Find some Rogues (Lawful, of course!), Rangers, or whatever other sneaky-stealthy types float your boat. Heck, if this is a small settlement in the middle of the woods then a Druid would work with its trackless step. Maybe a Wizard for added Invisibility goodness.
Step 3: Tell them about somebody who needs saving, say that on your honor you cannot divulge all the details - suffice it to say, it'll be dangerous, but it is ultimately for a good cause and you will reward them to the best of your ability. I imagine if there's a good aligned Ranger or Wizard around, they would trust the word of a Paladin.
Step 4: Sneak back in, spirit away a few of the hostages. (They are held illegally so there's no violation of law by taking them.) Bring those hostages to the nearest large city settlement and let them tell the city guard about what's happening.
Heck, even if he did say never come back you could rig a fairly airtight plan without accompanying your associates.