Paladin hate.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 1,121 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
There is no such thing as a ruleset that's proof from deliberate malice.

The problem is that with how the world works, villains who don't use tactics like that to shut down paladins are bumbling idiots. I'd rather just change the rules than turn my bad guys into Mugatu.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
LazarX wrote:
That's a strawman argument, because quite frankly a villain who's holding hostages is going to do it for a real reason other than for the sake of manipulating game mechanics.
Of course not. He's doing it to be a douche, because that's what badguys do. Or he rolled a successful knowledge (local) check versus the Paladin and knows that if he breaks his code he loses his powers.
Knowledge local will give a bad guy information of the character in the world. It does not however give an NPC a knowledge of game mechanics. The main issue I have with Paladins is that it seems to inspire situations like this which are nothing more than Jerk DMs going after players, instead of their NPC's being an appropriate c hallenge to the player characters.

True. You would probably want Knowledge (religion) to know how best to cause a divine casting class to fall. Or Knowledge (history) if any notable paladins have ever fallen because of an insoluble dilemma in the past.

Either way the paladin code isn't some unknowable metagame construct like hitpoints. It's something all paladins are taught in training and they are also taught that violating it causes them to fall.


Ashiel wrote:
brewdus wrote:
While perusing the boards, it seems there is much disdain for the paladin class. Why is this? Is it because people perceive them as too powerful or do people think playing a character seen as the pinnacle of good isn't "cool"?

There's several reasons.

1. People think Paladins are OP (they aren't, they're balanced alongside classes like Barbarian and Ranger).
2. People think the Paladin code and/or alignment based mechanics are poorly written, overly restrictive, or disruptive to games.
3. People have had bad experiences with Paladins in their campaigns due to stereotypically bad Paladins (the smite-happy fanatics).
4. Preconceptions as to what a Paladin must be that are not associated with their mechanics at all (such as Paladins being required to have deities by default, or GMs or players creating strife by enforcing things that are not part of their code or philosopy, such as insisting Paladins cannot use ranged weapons due to it being cowardly).

Usually some combination thereof. For example, by combining #1 and #2 you can end up with the sub-idea that Paladins are overpowered but that's okay because they're balanced by their special roleplaying restrictions (which is false, but still something you hear often).

Paizo's Paladin vs 3.5 Paladin
In some cases, part of this is Paizo's fault. While I hail the Paizo Paladin as being a great improvement overall from the sad, pathetic, pitiful class that was the core 3.5 Paladin from a mechanical perspective, they screwed the pooch on the code revision.

PF SRD wrote:
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (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
...

Yeah, when people say the pally is a problem and op, I get to thinking well if you have a non-evil barbarian he will mince the pally pretty quick. If an evil barbarian, they will be wounded at the end.

Might want to hire one for the job, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How can anyone say the paladin is OP? -.-... Have you NOT SEEN AM BARBARIAN?

As for the comments of "If you want to play a holy warrior play a cleric." I raise you the question of, "What if I want to play a holy warrior that is actually good at fighting (i.e. not having 3/4 BAB and a D8 HD)?" The cleric a warrior does not make. The poor BAB and HD makes a cleric a HORRIBLE substitute for a paladin.


Clerics are good at fighting and have been for a while, those sweet buffs. For a better melee cleric you could go barb (of course), but I still like Fighteric. Saw a mean one of those cleave through two dungeons (until a snake killed him in an oddly Eden turn).


Noireve wrote:

How can anyone say the paladin is OP? -.-... Have you NOT SEEN AM BARBARIAN?

As for the comments of "If you want to play a holy warrior play a cleric." I raise you the question of, "What if I want to play a holy warrior that is actually good at fighting (i.e. not having 3/4 BAB and a D8 HD)?" The cleric a warrior does not make. The poor BAB and HD makes a cleric a HORRIBLE substitute for a paladin.

Paizo has heard your pleas and is coming out with a war-priest class.

Barring that, a cleric is still pretty good a fighting if you spec him for just that.

Silver Crusade

No paladin hate here, though I do have a strong dislike for badly played "detect evil smite evil" paladins.

Honestly, the only thing I'd say I dislike about paladins isn't something that can be laid at the class' feet but rather on those that use its presence to push "Lawful Good = Best Good". That's not so much a problem with the paladin as a problem with a lack of support fro the broader spectrum of Good, but that's gotten a LOT better lately.(WOO CELESTIAL TOTEMS! :D)

Silver Crusade

Also, @#$% YES REDEEMERS.


Noireve wrote:

How can anyone say the paladin is OP? -.-... Have you NOT SEEN AM BARBARIAN?

As for the comments of "If you want to play a holy warrior play a cleric." I raise you the question of, "What if I want to play a holy warrior that is actually good at fighting (i.e. not having 3/4 BAB and a D8 HD)?" The cleric a warrior does not make. The poor BAB and HD makes a cleric a HORRIBLE substitute for a paladin.

Yeah, it's a shame clerics don't have dozens of spells that make them better combatants.


My characters tend to land on neutral good.

I do think that a paladin isn't one of those things you just add to a par haphazardly. If one person is going to pay a paladin, it should effect others choices to a degree, because there needs to be a functions party. If the rest of the party isn't willing to make character that could get along with a paladin with at least a working relationship, then the paladin just isn't going to work. Because the party isn't going to work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:

My characters tend to land on neutral good.

I do think that a paladin isn't one of those things you just add to a par haphazardly. If one person is going to pay a paladin, it should effect others choices to a degree, because there needs to be a functions party. If the rest of the party isn't willing to make character that could get along with a paladin with at least a working relationship, then the paladin just isn't going to work. Because the party isn't going to work.

The fact that one class, by design, mandates everybody build their characters around him IS the problem. No class should do that.

And for that matter, why is it always 'Someone's playing a Paladin, roll over for him' and not 'no, we don't want a paladin in this group, YOU redesign YOUR character'? Fair's fair, after all.


I just read the earlier post about the 'int as a dump stat paladin' and I find it hillarious...

If only they could also use 'perception' as a dump skill in the same manner. Extra points in other skills for taking negatives in perception...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:

The catch is that the restrictions are questionable. In previous editions they were a means of balancing a class that was essentially Fighter++. Today many of those restrictions exist but without the balancing aspect, and for most the restrictions don't really add much to the game. If anything, it's just another thing that makes it harder to fit a Paladin into your group, and comes with a lot of different hangups and extra work for the player and GM (even if that extra work is having to have a 1 on 1 so they can even figure out if they see eye to eye on what the code means or what parts of the code take priority, etc).

The problem is that restrictions do not really create roleplaying. They could be - at best - a springboard for ideas on how to roleplay something, but the restrictions do not a Paladin make. Let's be real. Paladins are based on crusaders who aren't even close to Paladins in terms of their morality or D&D alignment, so it's about as silly to say that there is only one way to play a Paladin as it is to say barbarians must be crazed illiterate psychopaths, or that rogues must be thieves.

As an example, my brother at the age of 5 played the most lawful good paladin I've ever seen. Followed the code to the letter. Never cheated, never stole, never lied. He gave to the poor, and rode children around town on his warhorse. His name was Sir Wallace Van'tiel. He was a human Fighter. The moral of this story? The restriction adds nothing to roleplaying because if you want to roleplay that way you're going to. What it does do is prevent roleplaying the deeper stuff like temptations or struggling with what's wrong and what's right, because due to how the mechanics work there is no slippery slope that could lead to evil, no risk of temptation.

The Paladin restrictions now are laughable. Frankly unplayable if used as written. It's entirely too easy to set up some situation that forces a Paladin to fall. Literally a villain can say "I'm going to ask you a question. You are then going to answer it with a lie. If you don't, my men are going to kill this hostage". Either way the Paladin falls (if he lies he's broken his code and unlike in 3.5 he can't break it if necessary) but if he doesn't he breaks his code (because he's putting himself and his powers before the safety of an innocent).

I respect your opinion on this matter, but the above is just your opinion. Quite frankly, I disagree.


Is it also just opinion that there are lose-lose situations where a Paladin will fall no matter what choice he makes?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Is it also just opinion that there are lose-lose situations where a Paladin will fall no matter what choice he makes?

Oh, absolutely.


So how is Ashiel's example situation opinion and not a fact, when by the rules a Paladin would fall whether he lied or not?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
So how is Ashiel's example situation opinion and not a fact, when by the rules a Paladin would fall whether he lied or not?

It's an opinion because it presumes that the paladin is trapped in that (false) dichotomy. There's no reason for him to play along with that scheme instead of, say, saving the person in distress.

I believe that all Ashiel's example showcases is the failure of hypothetical situations; namely that when you create a scenario which exists solely to try and prove a point, it's not going to relate to actual game-play very well at all.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

The Paladin restrictions now are laughable. Frankly unplayable if used as written. It's entirely too easy to set up some situation that forces a Paladin to fall. Literally a villain can say "I'm going to ask you a question. You are then going to answer it with a lie. If you don't, my men are going to kill this hostage". Either way the Paladin falls (if he lies he's broken his code and unlike in 3.5 he can't break it if necessary) but if he doesn't he breaks his code (because he's putting himself and his powers before the safety of an innocent).

Sorry, this 'conundrum' has absolutely no effect on the paladin at all.

What the paladin has here is a problem. His options are never, ever in any way restricted to what the murderer is giving him.

i.e. option 3 is 'rescue the hostage.' Option 4 is 'silence the villain'. Murdering the hostage is completely on the evil person who does it, it has nothing to do with the paladin. If he can't get there in time to rescue them, it's a heroic failure, not a code violation. The paladin isn't putting his powers and code before the life of the peasant...the Villain is. The paladin is never, ever obligated to, or punished for, not playing villain's game.

It's the fact that all this is the villain's responsibility that people tend to ignore when making lose-lose scenarios.

Furthermore, lying is a chaotic act that does not cause a loss of powers, and you can lie for extremely good purposes. You can also lie blatantly, so everyone knows it is a lie, which means its not a lie at all. When Sir Gofindel the Valorous answers the above villain's question with "I am Nibby Gockelschmear Twibblewodder, wife to the Eversinful Graptrop the Ineffible, and grandmother of four!", that's an outright lie. An outright lie that everyone knows is a lie is an amusement, and no paladin is going to Fall for such a thing. Heck, even paladins can exaggerate to embellish a story. It may well be uncharacteristic, but that makes it all the more fun.

Also, it's pretty clear that the paladin code emphasizes good over law...a paladin can commit some minor chaotic acts and hold onto their paladin hood, but doing evil is a WHAM stick beat down.

I do like how Ashiel pointed out that associating with chaotic/evil characters is NOT a violation of their code...it's more a preference. I do believe that no paladin should willingly adventure with an Evil person without massive overriding circumstances...if nothing else, the distraction when Detecting Evil would be deletrious to their relationship.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
So how is Ashiel's example situation opinion and not a fact, when by the rules a Paladin would fall whether he lied or not?

Because it's a false choice.

The paladin doesn't have to answer the question at all. Instead he should say, "I'm not going to play your sick games" (or even say nothing) and then strive to stop the killing of the innocent. If he fails to save the innocent he at least tried his best.

No need for a fall.

It is VERY difficult to set a paladin up for a fall so long as a thinking player is running it.

Edit: Darn my slow-typing ways. Point already made before I got here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

My characters tend to land on neutral good.

I do think that a paladin isn't one of those things you just add to a par haphazardly. If one person is going to pay a paladin, it should effect others choices to a degree, because there needs to be a functions party. If the rest of the party isn't willing to make character that could get along with a paladin with at least a working relationship, then the paladin just isn't going to work. Because the party isn't going to work.

The fact that one class, by design, mandates everybody build their characters around him IS the problem. No class should do that.

And for that matter, why is it always 'Someone's playing a Paladin, roll over for him' and not 'no, we don't want a paladin in this group, YOU redesign YOUR character'? Fair's fair, after all.

Well. The same would be true if you made a chaotic evil rage monster, no?


I love paladins, but then I play only non-evil games where evil PC actions are harshly punished. So the whole "the paladin's not letting me torture anybody!" complaints are irrelevant; it's the game itself that's not letting you do that, bub.


Icyshadow wrote:
Is it also just opinion that there are lose-lose situations where a Paladin will fall no matter what choice he makes?

There aren't lose lose situations.

In the example provided where the paladin is asked to answer a question with a lie, he can ignore the question and charge the villain.

No situation is lose lose, because the paladin can assume none of the words the constructor of the situation says are true.


I have some level of hate for the paladin class. Not because of the class itself, but because of the arguments it brings into being.

I have been in 5 different groups that have had paladin PC's. Some groups have had more than 1 player play the paladin. (Different campaigns though, not at the same time.)

Every single time it has been almost continuous arguments. "Paladins can't do that... you're a paladin you have to... There's no way a paladin could justify... That's not lawful good let alone following the code... Etc..." Every time the plot got even slightly morally ambiguous, play would grind to a screeching halt. Sometimes the arguments would carry on for more several play sessions. They only seemed to really stop for a newer argument (but it was really the same old argument).

Even when I was GM and agreed that the PC had sufficiently justified his actions. I still couldn't get everyone else to just shut the heck up and keep playing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From the "Pathfinder Lexicon" thread:

Alignment Violation: An excuse to take time out from arguing about math, physics, and strategy in order to have an argument about morals, ethics, and philosophy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

The Paladin restrictions now are laughable. Frankly unplayable if used as written. It's entirely too easy to set up some situation that forces a Paladin to fall. Literally a villain can say "I'm going to ask you a question. You are then going to answer it with a lie. If you don't, my men are going to kill this hostage". Either way the Paladin falls (if he lies he's broken his code and unlike in 3.5 he can't break it if necessary) but if he doesn't he breaks his code (because he's putting himself and his powers before the safety of an innocent).

Sorry, this 'conundrum' has absolutely no effect on the paladin at all.

What the paladin has here is a problem. His options are never, ever in any way restricted to what the murderer is giving him.

i.e. option 3 is 'rescue the hostage.' Option 4 is 'silence the villain'. Murdering the hostage is completely on the evil person who does it, it has nothing to do with the paladin. If he can't get there in time to rescue them, it's a heroic failure, not a code violation. The paladin isn't putting his powers and code before the life of the peasant...the Villain is. The paladin is never, ever obligated to, or punished for, not playing villain's game.

It's the fact that all this is the villain's responsibility that people tend to ignore when making lose-lose scenarios.

Thank you for illustrating my next point beautifully. I knew merely stating it wouldn't get the point across so I was waiting for a response like this. See, one of the biggest problems with the Paladin is that we can't agree.

You say murdering the hostage is completely on the head of the villain and this it's not the paladin's responsibility. One could say the same thing about orcs attacking someone. Truly, your rebuttal can be used to excuse literally any event that the Paladin does not put others before himself to protect them from another sentient party.

The problem is that the code strait up says:

Quote:
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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

But the Big Picture Is...
The code as a mechanic is a failure. Because it's not clear on what you are supposed to do, or not supposed to do. It's a good guideline or suggestive piece, but when they removed the option to violate the code based on good judgment they complicated it.

For example, if a Paladin finds a group of escaped halfling slaves who are hiding out in a warehouse while trying to get to free lands, and later has to report to the authorities what he's seen, he can omit the part about the halflings (protecting innocents) but in doing so he is lying (a lie of omission) and thus falls. But if he tells the whole truth and does not commit a lie of omission then he falls for not protecting the innocents.

Meanwhile, the lack of wiggle room makes literally every case an all or nothing affair. If a Paladin does not bring justice to a villain, no matter how small, the Paladin falls. If the Paladin lies, no matter how small, the Paladin falls. If the Paladin is upset and says something rude to an authority figure, he falls. Or he can, because there's no wiggle room. It's binary. It is Y/N.

Which is the complaint. But since Pathfinder's Paladin has emerged, I've seen more complaints and arguments as to whether someone was doing something correctly with their Paladin than I have before. They have been more disruptive if you follow the rules than they have ever been before, and it's very easy to lose your paladin powers because virtually every option that you have results in the required loss of your Paladin powers (yet ironically you can ignore the entirety of the associates portion of the class because it does nothing at all).

Quote:


Furthermore, lying is a chaotic act that does not cause a loss of powers, and you can lie for extremely good purposes.

Not the Paladin. You used to be able to, but you can't anymore, because there is no wiggle room. If you lie, you fall, the end. It's not a matter of gross violation, it's a matter of any violation.

Quote:
You can also lie blatantly, so everyone knows it is a lie, which means its not a lie at all.

Maybe, but it can cause discord around the table as some people think one thing and others think another, and none are actually wrong or right on the matter because...well it's too vague.

Quote:
When Sir Gofindel the Valorous answers the above villain's question with "I am Nibby Gockelschmear Twibblewodder, wife to the Eversinful Graptrop the Ineffible, and grandmother of four!", that's an outright lie. An outright lie that everyone knows is a lie is an amusement, and no paladin is going to Fall for such a thing.

You say he's not, but he just broke the Paladin's code. It doesn't make exceptions, and does not leave room for exceptions (unlike the old Paladin's code which allowed Paladins a bit of their own judgment and interpretation as to what their code meant. Except as written, sorry, your Paladin's act of being a smart-ass is also lying, and he falls. End of story. Is it stupid? Of course it is, but that's what we've got.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I just read the earlier post about the 'int as a dump stat paladin' and I find it hillarious...

If only they could also use 'perception' as a dump skill in the same manner. Extra points in other skills for taking negatives in perception...

He ways a fairly simple and naive creature. Combat was a lot of, "Hey, those are the bad guys that need smiting." I was playing a CG rogueish type, so I didn't really want to see him fall. I watched out for him, and made sure we always pointed him at actual bad guys. If there was a morally ambiguous situation, the rest of the party would handle it off the books, and it was really easy to say, "Hey, I think we need a guard posted at the front door, never know when evil might try to sneak up on us." In character, the paladin really believed that we were all upstanding LG upholders of law and justice just like him. The end result was just hilarious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


Quote:


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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

You are basically saying that a Paladin must help anyone in need, and merely making your best attempt to help is not sufficient.

Sorry, but if that is true, then all paladins fall the very moment they take their oaths, because there is someone somewhere in the world who needs help and is not getting it.

The code of honor must be interpreted as an ideal to strive toward, because interpreting it as a literal "You must succeed at this goal or you fall" results in an absurd conclusion that results in no paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delthyn wrote:
Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

Correction. The younger generation doesn't accept someone else's idea of absolute right or absolute wrong without a good position. For example, most of us can agree that hurting people is wrong. Most of us cannot agree that having your daughter marry her rapist after the rapist pays you 20 silver sheckles is absolute right.

Back in D&D-Land, there is absolute right and wrong. It's defined in the alignment section is what is probably the best morality system that I've ever seen that spans virtually all cultures.

PRD wrote:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

There you have it. Absolute morality. Are you hurting, oppressing, or killing someone? No? Then you're not doing evil. Are you acting with altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings? Yes? Then you're doing good. Are you not doing evil, but aren't actively doing good? Welcome to most of humanity.

Quote:
In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

The thing is, most people - young or not - who believe killing is wrong tend to believe it's wrong for everyone. Same with slavery. Most people I've met, young or old, have a conscience, and do have norms of what is good or evil in the world. However, they might not have the social engineering for all the stuff that frankly has nothing to do with good or evil.

For example, using words some find obscene in front of anyone (not just women, that's sexist man) is rude. It's not evil, nor is it good. It might offend you highly, but that same person who is saying things "And then, this guy jumped out from around the corner and I was like aw s*** f*** d***!" might be the same person who pulls someone out of a fire, or puts off buying a new video game for themselves because they purchased food for the homeless.

There are things that are evil and there are things that aren't. Honestly, I'm amazingly happy we as a people actually try to decide why something is or isn't evil rather than just letting other people tell us it is. I mean, it was once considered the decent thing to make dark-skinned people eat outside of restaurants, or sit at the back of the buss, or indecent to ask for your daughter's hand it marriage. I'm ecstatic that such things are no longer considered indecent!

Quote:
Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

There has never, ever, been a prime moral law. Ever. Not once in the entirety of our recorded history is there a universal law shared by people. The closest is during ages of religious oppression but that only extended as far as those religions reached, before being replaced with a different "prime moral law" of somebody else's religion.

Quote:
In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

The Paladin, if not for his poorly written mechanics is actually in the best place ever in terms of moral values by being in a D&D game. See, in D&D, morality is set and most can agree. It's broken down to its most fundamental levels that most everyone can agree with. This makes it incredibly easy for Paladins to function if not for their blasted code.

Good Alignment in a nutshell: Avoid hurting, oppressing, or killing others whenever possible, promote altruism, respecting life, and dignity of others.

Quote:

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

The biggest thing murdering the Paladin's roleplay opportunity is when Paizo turned them into machines with bad programming.


Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Quote:


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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

You are basically saying that a Paladin must help anyone in need, and merely making your best attempt to help is not sufficient.

Sorry, but if that is true, then all paladins fall the very moment they take their oaths, because there is someone somewhere in the world who needs help and is not getting it.

The code of honor must be interpreted as an ideal to strive toward, because interpreting it as a literal "You must succeed at this goal or you fall" results in an absurd conclusion that results in no paladins.

I think to satisfy some people they need to hi a lawyer to draw up an official code with exceptions and by laws. It will be, oh, 42 pages long ...


Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Quote:


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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

You are basically saying that a Paladin must help anyone in need, and merely making your best attempt to help is not sufficient.

In the context being used, Aelyrinth basically said the Paladin could take a third option and refuse to play along with the badguy's game, and thus let the badguy kill the hostage (because it's on the badguy's head, not the Paladin's). But I pointed out that the Paladin is obligated to try and save the hostage, so simply refusing to play his game and let him kill the hostage is against his code. Likewise, many GMs could justifiably question a Paladin if he attempted to reclaim the hostage by force to avoid losing his powers if that put the hostage in further danger (because that would arguably be the Paladin sacrificing the life of an innocent for himself and his own code).

It's a complicated animal. No, a Paladin doesn't have to rescue every person ever, but the Paladin also has no means in Pathfinder to use their better judgment on things, because it's either Y/N. In 3.5, the Paladin could just lie to protect the innocent (not a gross violation of his code) and then try to rescue her later, or make the hard choice of risking her life in an attempt to stop the badguy from taking more lives (since the Paladin without his powers would have less chance of bringing him to justice). In either case the Paladin makes a choice based on what he thinks is right or best for the situation.

But in Paizo's Paladin, Paladin's don't have choice. It's either Y/N, and if it is ever the wrong one, they lose all Paladin powers immediately. That's the rules. It's a stupid rule. It's also a good lesson as to why words matter. They removed 1 word from the text and broke the whole thing.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Quote:


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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

You are basically saying that a Paladin must help anyone in need, and merely making your best attempt to help is not sufficient.

Sorry, but if that is true, then all paladins fall the very moment they take their oaths, because there is someone somewhere in the world who needs help and is not getting it.

The code of honor must be interpreted as an ideal to strive toward, because interpreting it as a literal "You must succeed at this goal or you fall" results in an absurd conclusion that results in no paladins.

I think to satisfy some people they need to hi a lawyer to draw up an official code with exceptions and by laws. It will be, oh, 42 pages long ...

Or, y'know, you could give Paladin player's their choices back instead of this stupid binary nonsense. That 1 word in the text gave Paladins a lot of leeway to use their judgment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AM PALADIN not fall


Ashiel wrote:
In the context being used, Aelyrinth basically said the Paladin could take a third option and refuse to play along with the badguy's game, and thus let the badguy kill the hostage (because it's on the badguy's head, not the Paladin's). But I pointed out that the Paladin is obligated to try and save the hostage, so simply refusing to play his game and let him kill the hostage is against his code. Likewise, many GMs could justifiably question a Paladin if he attempted to reclaim the hostage by force to avoid losing his powers if that put the hostage in further danger (because that would arguably be the Paladin sacrificing the life of an innocent for himself and his own code).

In context, Aelyrinth is refusing to play the game by not taking either of the two options offered. Refusal to play by someone elses dictates is not the same as refusing to help. The paladin can attempt any number of others things to help the hostage(brute force, diplomacy, etc). Just about the only thing the paladin can't do in that situation is walk away and leave the hostage in peril.


Ashiel wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Charender wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Quote:


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.

But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

You are basically saying that a Paladin must help anyone in need, and merely making your best attempt to help is not sufficient.

Sorry, but if that is true, then all paladins fall the very moment they take their oaths, because there is someone somewhere in the world who needs help and is not getting it.

The code of honor must be interpreted as an ideal to strive toward, because interpreting it as a literal "You must succeed at this goal or you fall" results in an absurd conclusion that results in no paladins.

I think to satisfy some people they need to hi a lawyer to draw up an official code with exceptions and by laws. It will be, oh, 42 pages long ...
Or, y'know, you could give Paladin player's their choices back instead of this stupid binary nonsense. That 1 word in the text gave Paladins a lot of leeway to use their judgment.

Or the gm and player should act like real people and not lawyers.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel, this one is easy.

If there is no other possible choice, the paladin accepts the bad guy's deal and lies. He falls and loses his powers. And magically, because he did his utmost to respect his code, his god (aka me, the GM) gives him his powers back (and maybe a mythic tier just for the encounter).

Of course, if the GM wants the paladin to fall for no purpose, it is another story. But then that is just bad GMing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
... Of course, if the GM wants the paladin to fall for no purpose, it is another story. But then that is just bad GMing.

The issue is that many people read the book and think that is exactly what they are supposed to do. Simply because that is how it is written.

Liberty's Edge

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
The black raven wrote:
... Of course, if the GM wants the paladin to fall for no purpose, it is another story. But then that is just bad GMing.
The issue is that many people read the book and think that is exactly what they are supposed to do. Simply because that is how it is written.

People who think that reading a book is enough to know how to live or how to play are missing the point completely.


Ashiel wrote:


The problem is that the code strait up says:
Quote:
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.
But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

This isn't a problem at all. The hostage isn't in so much danger that it require the paladin to fall. In the world of PF/D&D it is known for a fact that there is an appropriate afterlife for all sentient beings.

Should the paladin fail to save the hostage through diplomacy or might of arms the hostage will go to his just fate, and the paladin will have tried his best within the strictures of his code.

Either way he is free to mete justice on the bad guy - who will also meet the fate after death that he deserves.


I don't think this thread was started to talk about paladins. I think it was started because OP got pissed at something and instead of letting it go or fixing it, he wanted to complain people don't play his way. The entire premise of the discussion is off.

But as for the actual subject of paladins, just like kitsune and chaotic neutral and really difficult campaigns, it depends on the player, and the group. I find it very hard to say anything is good or bad in tabletop games (Other than the ALCHEMIST CLASS) Without knowing the group well


Democratus wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The problem is that the code strait up says:
Quote:
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.
But you say one thing, and the code says another. The paladin is required to help the hostage, and putting the hostage in further danger (as would likely be in any situation where the hostage was a good hostage) is not in keeping with the code.

This isn't a problem at all. The hostage isn't in so much danger that it require the paladin to fall. In the world of PF/D&D it is known for a fact that there is an appropriate afterlife for all sentient beings.

Should the paladin fail to save the hostage through diplomacy or might of arms the hostage will go to his just fate, and the paladin will have tried his best within the strictures of his code.

Either way he is free to mete justice on the bad guy - who will also meet the fate after death that he deserves.

The point that's being overlooked here is that we can take 10 different players and sit them around and while trying to stick to the rules may not be able to agree on whether or not a paladin falls. Likewise, spontaneous re-paladinization doesn't occur within the rules (though I like that idea :P).

Liberty's Edge

To be honest I think the OP wanted to complain and as usual on these boards also wanted to get validation on his point of view. Which I respect yet why post on a forum if your mind is set up on a subject than when asking a question don't like the answers one is given.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
karlbadmannersV2 wrote:
AM PALADIN not fall

AM PALADIN AM AGREEING WITH FELLOW POSTER. AM PALADIN DO AMPOSSIBLE AND KICK FALSE DILLEMMA TO THE CURB.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lessons for Paladins by Peregrine (Rules discussion disguised as prose) wrote:

Welcome, initiates, to the beginning of the rest of your life. Today you begin your new life as a paladin, the strong right arm of God. I see that you have been issued with your swords and armour; leave them at the sides and sit down. You will not need them yet. Here, in this class, you will learn about the life of a paladin. You will learn about honour, justice, mercy, duty; above all, though, you will learn about the code to which you will dedicate your life. You may call me Teacher, or Master; I pray for your swift elevation to full rank, when you may call me Brother.

Of humility befitting a paladin (Paladin's Rule 0: Don't be a jerk.)

You know of course that you are here because you have been chosen. But lest any of you fall into pride because of this, remember that you have been chosen by God to serve in a specific capacity to use certain gifts given to you. The governor, the scholar, or even the farmer, who seeks to honour God in his labour, is chosen and gifted as surely as you. You may find yourself lifted higher than they because of your calling, but you will also ever be in peril of falling lower. Remember this, and be humble.

Of the paladin's code and the truth it stands for (Don't let the code choke you or your game.)

It is because we are chosen, and called, that we must live by our code. The essence of the code is simple: do no evil; respect authority; act with honour; help the needy; punish the wicked. But you are not here just because you are capable of following rules. The code is more than rules. It is the expression in words and deeds of a deeper truth. It is the violation of that truth, not of the mere rules that express it, that will distance you from God should you transgress against the code.

The truth of righteous living is universal, but it is essentially unutterable. The more we try to describe and define it, the farther we stray from its universal nature. Yet because we are only mortal beings, we must try to define it in order to conceive of it and follow it at all. Thus, what the code means for me may differ from what it means for you. But this must not be the shifting, relative morality of whim and passion that you may have heard preached, for we must seek our path from God, not our worldly wants and desires. Particularly to those who have come from afar to learn with us for a time, I say: Discuss earnestly the particulars of your own code with a mentor before you begin your duties as a paladin. In this way, you may avoid the troubles of vagueness and doubt on the one hand, and the poison of lawless self-will on the other.

Notwithstanding all that I have said, I shall try to clarify what it is to conduct yourself righteously, as befits a paladin, and God willing it shall light your path somewhat.

You have no doubt heard in tales and such that it is a noble thing to die by the code. Put that out of your minds. I shall endeavour to teach you to live by the code; if you do, you will be ready to die when your time has come, but you shall not be tempted to court death for your own glory. More importantly, you must know how to live by the code with every breath you take, every deed you do, even when death is not an immediate danger. Those who only know to die by the code will stand firm in battle and hard deeds, but swiftly fall to the subtler seductions of evil.

Of honourable combat (Stop shouting challenges before every fight. War is not a duel is not an arrest.)

But let us first look at battle, for we are the soldiers of God in a world of danger and war. You have heard that you should give the enemy a fair fight, yes? Open challenge, equal readiness, and God will decide? Utter rubbish. Put it out of your minds at once. The only time you are obliged to give this sort of 'fair fight' is when you are honour-bound to do so: that is, in a duel. The principle you must instead observe might be called the 'rules of engagement'. This is the term used in open warfare, but it will serve for all forms of combat and confrontation. The rules of engagement for a duel call for a 'fair fight'. No other rules do.

The most basic rule of engagement is that you must have due cause before doing violence to a foe, and you must do your diligence to make this cause known to the foe. In warfare, this is often twisted to demand a duel-like challenge, no ambushes, and other such absurdities. It is the declaration of war itself that serves to make your cause known. After that, anyone who is a soldier or partisan in the war may be considered to be legitimately informed, and you may attack in any manner that is suitable, observing only the mercies of your conscience and a rigorous effort to ensure that you only attack soldiers and partisans.

It is likely that you will spend more time in commonplace enforcement of the law than in open warfare -- and here too the 'rules of engagement' have been twisted to make you believe you must duel every lawbreaker and murderer that crosses your path. Your duty in upholding the law is to uphold the law. In the process of apprehending a culprit, you must make them aware of the crimes with which they are charged -- but you may, indeed should, use sufficiently overwhelming force to ensure that they are apprehended. Letting them escape from a 'fair fight' is a travesty of justice, not a deed of honour.

Of duels, and of the related trial by combat, the less said the better. If you should find yourself in one, let it be because a trusted and neutral authority called for it. If you declare that God will see you victorious, when you declared the duel to satisfy some slight to your own honour, your judgement is clouded and you are almost certainly not acting in submission to God's will.

Of justice tempered with mercy (Lawful AND Good, people.)

Enough said of combat and violence, even if it is just. Justice alone is not enough. A paladin is a champion of righteousness, which is justice tempered with mercy, law balanced with love. Meditate often on this. Those who revere justice without compassion will tell you that your law is made imperfect by your mercy and restraint. Those who celebrate loving-kindness above all will say that your good deeds are fettered by your strictures and principles.

The truth that the first error will deny is that the law is imperfect, an imperfect expression of the truth of righteousness. Law without love serves no purpose but itself, and is futile. Law and love together serve to better the giver and the receiver of justice.

The second error denies the truth that love without stricture is defenceless. Quite apart from defending against all the evils of the world -- and as paladins we must maintain our vigilance always, and be bound to order and principle to do so -- we ourselves are not perfect. To defend the goodness of love in our own hearts, we must be mindful of lawfulness, not so that love becomes diminished, but so that it may be perfected, and not sicken or stray into a cruel parody of love that, all unawares and unresisting, harms others in the pursuit of the beloved, even harms the beloved thing itself.

Always strive for the way that upholds law and good. But the perfect way is narrow and hard to find. If you are ever caught between them, remember that the second error is the less. Imperfect good is preferable to imperfect law. Remember the first rule of every paladin: do no evil.

Of resisting evil (Why we do not detect-and-smite.)

More than this, of course, we are called to actively resist evil. You will learn to sense the presence of evil; indeed, part of your training here will be in recognising the aura that evil presents to your supernatural senses. This, however, should be your first clue to the limitations of this gift: It is quite hard to actually get evil people to willingly come inside our walls and be test subjects. Therefore, we use magic to present differing auras to you, for your training. Learn from this that the semblance of evil is not itself sufficient grounds for violence. (Learn also that the absence of the semblance of evil is no cause for complacency.)

Moreover, the taint of evil on a being's soul is not itself a crime. We punish deeds, not souls; souls, we strive to redeem. Evil can be mundane; it can even -- but never be complacent -- even be beneath our immediate concern. A malicious misanthrope who spitefully abuses and spreads lies about his neighbours is a wicked person, and you will sense the evil in him, but misanthropy is not -- not in our region, at any rate -- sufficient cause by itself to do more than verbally chastise a person. And that will itself likely do little to help. Unless you can find evidence of evil deeds that have gone unpunished, you will do well to leave the matter alone.

Take from that, this lesson: Your awareness of the presence of evil is a warning, not damning evidence. Treat it as you do your other senses and support it with sound reason.

Of obedience and the law of the land (No, you don't breach the code by wearing a hat of an illegal colour while passing through the Duchy of Frivolia.)

Our fight is not against evil alone, however, and you will go astray if you fail to also uphold the law. Does this mean that you must obey every jot and scruple of the law of the land wherein you find yourself? No -- but you should strive to do so regardless.

The code is the heart of your law. But if the code itself is an imperfect expression of universal righteousness, how much more will the law of the land be imperfect, when it may be written by fools or tyrants? Seek for the heart of justice that underlies the law, and remember that where the written word departs irreconcileably from just governance, it is no longer truly a law.

Nonetheless, we are called to respect the authorities, so unless their injustice makes it impossible to do so in good conscience, endeavour to obey their laws. If you were to flout the law in the sight of others, even if you knew you were justified before God in doing so, others who do not know or hold your principles will be led astray by your actions. For their sake, obey law and uphold tradition.

I shall stress this theme on a particular point: the use of poison. The ethics of poison are oft-debated, and it must be conceded that there are times when it would be permissible for us to use it for good and just purposes. However, because of the stigma attached to poison's use, it remains proscribed in the codes of most paladins, lest those lacking our scruples should feel free to use it at whim, thinking they follow our example.

And likewise, concealing the truth -- if not, on occasion, outright lying -- is often all but necessary to prevent harm coming to others. But something of upholding the truth is said by most paladins' codes, because failing to uphold the truth will often lead to deeper and more subtle harms. But this is such an occasion as I described, where you may struggle and fail to see the righteous path between practicing deception, and giving power to your foes. Do no evil.

That is enough of a lesson for this morning. Go, attend to your midday meal, and discuss among yourselves what you have heard here. I pray you shall find some small kernel of wisdom in these words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I just rule "grossly" right back in that sucker.

Well, that, and I create a whole host of different paladin codes, depending on the order and the campaign world.

That's just me, though.


I think it's a problem to have a class that automatically cares a lot about what the rest of the party is doing. I think at this point if someone else in a party I was playing in was playing a paladin I'd tell them not to if they wanted me around. Too many campaigns I've been in take it as a class requirement to play morality police to the rest of the players. Also, in general, I don't think that just killing people because they're evil is ever really defensible, but most people play paladins that way.

As a GM, it's a hassle, since I have to be the arbiter of whether or not a player's class abilities work or not, and they invariably get pissed when I tell them that their god is unhappy with them. In Jade Regent a paladin in the party snuck in and killed some of the corbies in the first adventure, in the very first encounter with them. Yeah, they're evil, but they're just squatting in an abandoned castle, which isn't really enough to justify summary execution.


Tacticslion wrote:

Personally, I just rule "grossly" right back in that sucker.

Well, that, and I create a whole host of different paladin codes, depending on the order and the campaign world.

That's just me, though.

I do it the easy way.

No paladins allowed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Personally, I just rule "grossly" right back in that sucker.

Well, that, and I create a whole host of different paladin codes, depending on the order and the campaign world.

That's just me, though.

I do it the easy way.

No paladins allowed.

That option makes me sad. It's totally fine for you guys if your group's cool with it, but personally... sigh. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I will now ask you a question" Morgu'ul the Malefactorial Manipulator shouted, the serrated blade of his sacrificial dagger poised at the young man's throat. "And you will answer with a lie. If you do not, I will cut this fool's pretty throat!"
Pally knew that she couldn't make it to Murgu'ul in time, he was clearly out of charging range and even if she could have made it, she couldn't have taken him out in one blow. But she also wouldn't lie. To play the twisted games of minds malicious and criminal was a slippery slope. It was admitting, in actions if not in words, that they were right. That the world was just as horrible as the wanted it to be, in order to justify their own wickedness. But how could she refuse and risk the live of an innocent and lovely young man?
She remembered a lesson her mentor Sir Stickarse had taught her - If in doubt, go on the offensive! Truth be told it was more like "If in doubt, detect evil and proceed to smite!" but she believed that there was a just a little more to it than that.
"Let her go," she shouted across the battle field, strewn with the corpses of many an evil henchmen, "and I will lay down my sword and hand myself over to you. I swear it by my honor as a paladin!"
Morgu'ul's malefactorial face twisted as he considered this. If the paladin was unarmed and in his power he could sacrifice her to the Mz'zzglzzkltrrpklptz the Elevenheaded Eater of the Shackled and Father of Foulness. A much more worthy sacrifice than one meager peasant virgin. And if the paladin broke her oath, he could easily overcome her with a spell, for then the divine grace of Lawfullian the Good, her despicable god would protect her no longer. Fickle and arbitrary where those gods of good, ever willing to let their servants fall like a hot potato at the first sign of dishonorable behavior.
So Mogu'ul let go of the young man, who stumbled away in a very virginal way.
"By your oath, you are bound, you stupid paladin! Drop your sword and surrender yourself to me!" He shouted, his voice raw with excitement.
Pally dropped her sword of righteous reckoning and, raising her hands high, she walked slowly towards the evil wizard. As she reached him, she said: "I am now in your hands."
"Yes," Morgu'uls voice rose several octaves "you are in my hands at last!" He laughed nefariously.
But Pally said calmly. "In that case, I hereby smite thee, evil one!" and punched him in the face repeatedly.


Noireve wrote:
How can anyone say the paladin is OP? -.-... Have you NOT SEEN AM BARBARIAN?

I think pretty highly of the paladin's mechanical power. Too many people think of the higher level paladin as just becoming a greater and greater anti-evil engine... the truth is that as he grows into higher levels the paladin can become a versatile and effective warrior against foes of all alignments, especially as his spells and weapon bond come into their own.

I mean, as a high level paladin you can be ignoring a bunch of enemy AC while dumping your own attack bonus into Dazing Assault Power Attacks with your brilliant energy weapon... without rendering it often useless like a conventionally enchanted one, because yours is only brilliant when it needs to be, due to Divine Bond. Just as one trick that is good vs all alignments.

The higher paladin spells offer some powerful effects useful in a duelish sort of combat as well. AM BARBARIAN himself might be tough (if that build is still legal?) mostly due to the capabilities afforded by his mount, but I suspect a well optimized paladin could hold his own against a more typical version of the Beast Totem/Superstition style barbarian. Even a nonevil one. And certainly a paladin is capable of holding his own and then some against any other full BAB class when it becomes a question of what you are mechanically contributing to a party.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terraneaux wrote:

I think it's a problem to have a class that automatically cares a lot about what the rest of the party is doing. I think at this point if someone else in a party I was playing in was playing a paladin I'd tell them not to if they wanted me around. Too many campaigns I've been in take it as a class requirement to play morality police to the rest of the players. Also, in general, I don't think that just killing people because they're evil is ever really defensible, but most people play paladins that way.

As a GM, it's a hassle, since I have to be the arbiter of whether or not a player's class abilities work or not, and they invariably get pissed when I tell them that their god is unhappy with them. In Jade Regent a paladin in the party snuck in and killed some of the corbies in the first adventure, in the very first encounter with them. Yeah, they're evil, but they're just squatting in an abandoned castle, which isn't really enough to justify summary execution.

IMO, that is a problem with the players, and not with the class itself. Note also that some players go out of their way to have their characters make problems to the Paladin.

As always, refer everybody to the great golden rule of "don't be a jerk".

BTW, a GM should ALWAYS clarify what the alignments mean to him before the game starts, so as to avoid any such misunderstanding. This goes doubly for classes with restrictions such as Paladin, Druid, Cleric ...

Also any change alignment or fall risk should be made clear to the player beforehand.

Nothing worse than springing a surprise houserule or RAI on a player midway into the game.

401 to 450 of 1,121 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards