Yes, another Paladin thread. We haven't filled the quota for this month yet.
Now, I've seen a lot of things going around about the Paladin's Code is of the utmost strictness. Things like uttering a white lie (even to save an innocent) will cause the Paladin to fall.
The part I don't understand is why everyone gets so rules anal about Paladins when they do not do so with other things. Even GMs you might consider lax, or otherwise very good GMs stick to the Paladin's Code like it's glue, or they do away with paladins/The Code completely (I see very little middle ground here).
Nobody sticks by 100% RAW. Nobody. Even if they intend to do so, they're going to go off-book eventually, even PFS GMs.
So why is it that a Paladin's Code is always held to the letter exactly, seemingly universally across people who enforce it?
People talk about RAI vs RAW all the time, but it seems like nobody ever considers that distinction when it comes to the Code, ANY violation of the Code is considered to be grounds for a Fall. It's RAW or nothing. It is my belief that you should always use some common sense, IDGAF if it's the Rules Questions forum or the Slappy's Day Camp forum, but that seems to be an unpopular opinion in these here parts.
If you want to go by RAW, it seems to me that sticking to the Code as an excuse to not further the cause of Good is also violating it (to fail to show proper respect for), since the entire purpose of the Code is to ensure the Paladin stays on the path of Good. Which seems, perversely, to also be the opinion of Code of RAW GMs, which leads to the majority of perceived "Fall or Fall" scenarios that people come up with.
The problem with the Paladin's Code of Conduct is not the Code itself, it's how unbelievably strictly people try to hold to that Code.
/rant
Am I just talking to the wrong people? Are the "Paladins Code is rigid and inflexible" people just a vocal minority, or is it really that common of a sentiment?
And why is it that all of the complaints about Paladins being so hard to GM for comes from people who insist on taking that interpretation of the Code?
I have no idea why people do it. Personally, I'd just go off the reasoning. If I were GMing and a Paladin told a white lie to save an innocent, I would chalk that up as for the greater good, but I would definitely have his diety/forces of good tell him to try and not make a habit of it. Ultimately, I'd just do it on a case by case. I generally try to be a nice guy (although I think I might fall around/between LG/NG/LN/N).
--
In all of my experience as a player, I've only seen one paladin out of like 5 that actually deserved to lose their powers, and it wasn't any strict code adherence, but it was the idiotic belief "killing=honor" which I'm pretty sure that is Chaotic, if not Chaotic Neutral. On the other hand, he also thought it was ok as a Chaotic Neutral Druid to send his animal companion to go eat zombie meat and kill itself.
The only problem in my experience as a GM was a monk using a captured guy as a "Prisoner of War" (There WAS no war, just raiding a sewer cult to stop them.) by having him be used as trap fodder. Really sucked for me because the scenario as written (PFS) didn't give him a personality or anything, it seemed like he was just supposed to die: It didn't give any information as to "What if the PCs capture him?"
PS: I really REALLY want to see a thread that gives "Fall or Fall" scenarios for Anti-Paladins :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No-one in my group ever plays a Paladin. It has been considered a couple of times, but ultimately the person always chooses something else.
So... hard to say from my group's perspective. If we ever did have someone play a Paladin we would probably apply the "illegitimate" label to authority fairly liberally and give a little bit of leeway as to exactly what "honorable" means.
I think the thing that ultimately leaves people in our group unwilling to play Paladin is that it has a built in contradictions between its code and alignment, or even just within its code. For example, if a legitimate authority asks that they step-aside so that they may kill a man the Paladin knows is innocent. Either they disrespect the authority to protect the innocent (and thus fall) or allow the authority to kill the innocent (and thus fall). Any other options are just lucky loopholes.
To me it seems completely unfair that the class has such contradictions, especially given the severity of the fall. If nothing else, the class should contain some kind of rules hierarchy (protect innocents trumps respecting authority, for example).
TL;DR - We aren't strict at my table, but even without that no-one wants to play one.
In this case, I am the GM. Seems like our "Two games, run on alternating weeks" may become "One game run every week".
I was just remarking on this odd trend I've seen around here. There's a bunch of people on this sight who seem like normal, reasonable, capable people and all around good GMs. But they can become complete hardasses when the Code of Conduct (or Paladins in general) is mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group tends to prioritize the Paladin's Oath. If saving an innocent requires a lie, then he won't fall. Equally, having the team Rogue rig a gambling game to free a dozen slaves won't make him fall, even though it classifies as cheating. Saving lives is a Paladin's priority, as far as we're concerned - they should rarely fall in scenarios where he's trying to save people, even if he violates the other parts of his Oath. Unless he resorts to underhanded techniques that violate his oath for no good reason...
If a Paladin does head for a fall, we also tend to use the Wayward Paladin Archetype by Epic Meepo, where the Paladin retains most of his abilities but gains an Oracle's Curse (in our case chosen by the GM to most closely fit the Paladin's crime - so if he lied without need, or defaulted to lying without searching for other options, he'd get the Legalistic Curse) to show his patron's not impressed.
I think where our opinions differ is whether a more liberal interpretation of the Code of Conduct is "houseruling" or just a different interpretation of what it means to be honorable or violate the Code.
That, and a less stringent interpretation of a Code is a lot less work than overhauling entire classes, assuming they need to be changed at all. Well, I think Rogue does, but I've never had a problem with Fighters. Rogues are way too damn squishy for where they're supposed to be in combat and even out of it, since I know a lot of parties put them directly on point in dungeons so they can spot traps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group has had two paladins. One (Curse of the Crimson Throne) managed to play the code (which I gave guidleines of "If you can see Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson, Clark Kent, Steve Rogers, Billy Batson and/or Benton Fraser doing this, it's probably within the code"). He also justifie working with Lori as follows: "You are now on my list. However, it is a long list and there are more immediate things at the top of it to deal with. Pray to your dark god that you do not reach the top of it."
The other (Council of Thieves) fell after breaking into someone's house and killing them when they came to attack them. Granted he was working for the big bad but they didn't know that and still burgled and murdered him. That cmapaign ended in a party wipe pretty soon after (in the basement, actually).
I think Carrot is the perfect example of a Paladin.
He can and will use underhanded tricks in the most innocent way possible (a lie of omission is still a lie), but all in the service of Good and Law.
As a GM I am very lax with the paladin code. It would require a lot to fall.
This is because I like to think of paladins as very ruthless and brutal enforcers of what they or their god believe.
I personally rule "good" over "law". Lies by omission and white lies are acceptable if they're for the greater good.
I actually rule nonlethal poison isn't even evil either
For me one basic point of falling is "willingly" and "even if he has another coice".
So if a paladin is pressed into doing something evil and had no choice to not doing it - he will not fall. But on the other hand if he could decide between "do something evil and solve the issue easily" and "do the right thing even if it's more difficult/fdangerous for you" and he decided for the evil ones he will fall (because this is willingly and he had the choice do not do it).
Also "Good > Law" and I always have a talk with a Paladin player before the first session to explain it (and if he want to abuse the "for the greater good thing" I will do something against it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that people see the Law part of Lawful Good as adherence to a land laws, while it has nothing to do with that.
Take Stabbity example of a fail/fail scenario:
"For example, if a legitimate authority asks that they step-aside so that they may kill a man the Paladin knows is innocent. Either they disrespect the authority to protect the innocent (and thus fall) or allow the authority to kill the innocent (and thus fall). Any other options are just lucky loopholes."
The paladin code: "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."
Respect is not "bow to the wrong request by legitimate authority."
In Stabbity scenario the paladin would first try to reason with the authority figure, getting the time for a proper defense of the presumed innocent (the paladin can be wrong); then he would try to stall the killing while he tries for a better solution; then he would use non lethal methods to stop the killing.
None of that would make him fall.
Look the military code of conduct: if you get a doubtful order you can ask to get it in writhing. Every sane commander will pause before that request as it is a clear sign that you feel strongly that its a questionable order. Even after getting a order in writhing you should not obey it if you feel that it violate the laws governing warfare.
Doing that can get you in trouble but it is within your rights and even your duty.
Same thing for a paladin.
|
|
I believe you have your answer right in this thread.
Most people who play the game and/or GM it have a strong opinion on what a Paladin should be and represent that goes real further than the mere mechanics of the class.
This usually does not happen with other classes. They are seen for the abilities they grant and usually not for what they are supposed to represent.
I believe that the reason for this is that the Paladin's stress on alignment and the code resonate strongly with what each of us feels it means to be good and to be lawful. In addition, the Fall for failing the higher power that grants your abilities directly confronts us to our own notions of authority, freedom and rebellion, as well as the place we give to perfection in our own very personal view of the real world.
In other words, the Paladin class plays so strongly on notions that are critical to ourselves in the real world that we cannot help but have a very strong opinion on how they should be played if at all.
In a scenario where they're going to execute an innocent man, the paladin showing up and saying 'don't execute him because I know he didn't do it' should be good enough for most local communities. They would simply ask him 'how do you know that' and he should be able to give a legitimate answer, which they will believe because they know the paladin is trustworthy and honest... The paladin's shining reputation should work in his favor. Diplomacy rolls where everyone in the community has positive opinions of the paladin... That kind of thing.
One of the benefits to being a paladin is everybody else knows what your code is. They're going to trust when a paladin vouches for you because he always does the right thing and is always looking out for everyone's best interest.
There is rarely anyone in a community that runs around mortified going "The paladin is LYING! Dont trust him! Cant you see he's FULL OF LIES!" and anyone who did would be getting some pretty raised eyebrows in his own direction.
In the case of the goblin babies I believe the paladin would spare them even if it was a common trope in your world that 'all things inherently evil grow up to be evil themselves'
First a paladin wouldnt believe the trope even if it is starkly adamantly true. He would always believe redemption is a possibility. Like sam and dean winchester on supernatural he'd basically say 'I'll give you a pass this time but if I hear for one second that you're up to no good I'm coming back here and we're gonna settle this."
I used to have a philosophy for paladins that went 'If you told your mother how the paladin handled the situation would she say she thought he did the right thing'.... It was a pretty good philosophy until I met mothers that were different than mine.
I will admit that i'm one of the gms that really gives players a hard time if they use their paladinhood as a no questions asked licence to lawnmow everything in their path. Hard moral choices are the whole point of being a paladin, so a person should never play one lightly or 'just because it gets to smite stuff'. Playing a paladin like its a barbarian is what makes me upset.
"I am a holy representative of the gods of law and good. Arg bargle bargle. slash slash slash."
The problem with saying that a Paladin's word is going to be good enough to stall punishment in a community is that all local communities are run by a GM, who may not think the same way. There's no reason to think that if a Paladin vouches for them, people will immediately back down on something like that.
Personally, if I were GM'ing in such a case, I doubt I would let a person's class choice immediately speak for their honesty or trustworthiness. That would be a right that characters, Paladin or otherwise, need to earn in any given community.
A rogue could easily pretend to be a Paladin if they bluff well enough, or a Paladin could be mistaken in the case of this person being innocent. Unless they've proven that they are reliable to the mayor, or townspeople, or whoever, I see no reason to believe "I'm a Paladin, and you're wrong," should be good enough to convince anyone.
Oh I agree, if the paladin had no reputation in town his paladinhood wouldnt mean much unless the local paladins of the same order vouched for him. Now if paladinhood is like freemasonry with secret handshakes and litanies... "We make the hard decisions for the greater good kind of thing." I can see a community not automatically giving the paladin any credence. Not everyone trusts freemasons.
Its true I suppose. Before you think about playing a paladin you have to establish which alignment your GM is first.
Lawful Good gms will probably be fine with barbarian paladinism.
Chaotic Good gms will probably hold you to a higher standard and give you a hard time.
Lawful Evil gms will let you do whatever you like and stick it to you with their version of the paladin code.
Chaotic Evil gms will let you do whatever you like and stick it to you all the time every time even when you're not a paladin...
Or is it that I only break it down this way because i'm a chaotic good gm... Down the rabbit hole!
@ Jhidurievdrioshka: So then what's a Paladin to do if the town wants to execute Mr. Joe Schmoe, despite the Paladin being entirely convinced that Mr. Schmoe is innocent? If no one's there to vouch for them (it doesn't seem terribly far-fetched to assume out of the way places won't have an order of Paladins hanging around), that execution is going forward, when the Paladin may have options to save an innocent life, but they would also go against the code.
That's one of the spots where the Paladin code, as is, tends to break down, in my opinion. In a lot of cases, there may be good options for them to take. But it's just as possible for there not to be, and the Code doesn't tend to allow enough flexibility in such cases. As written, I think GM's really need to be more lenient with the code at times, or the Paladin's kinda screwed :/
Also, you just keep adding things to posts, huh? :P I like the breakdown of GM alignments though.
I like the idea that a paladin who puts more stock in lawful would let the execution stand, but he would hold the local government responsible for the resurrection if the victim were found innocent later... A paladin who puts more stock in good wouldn't be bent out of shape for falling by violating the law and rescuing Joe. He knows there's a price to pay for doing what's right and he's willing to pay it. The question of course becomes is the law that the paladin follows the local law, or his own personal internal law, and I think the answer to that question is always is own personal internal law. In the example of freemasonry... If you were to ask the same question of does a paladin follow the local definition of good or his own personal internal definition of what is good he'd always say he goes with the personal internal version.... This is where certain GM's start deciding to pull their own hair out or pull the paladin player's hair out.
If and when this dichotomy comes up it goes down 3 ways.
If the paladins follow the local idea of what is law and good then people will automatically trust the paladin because they know he's doing what the local folk expect to be right and good.
If the paladins follow an internal personal code then the local population isn't going to give 2 shakes of credence to paladins. I'm not sure if the Core book still includes the notion that everybody loves paladins and thinks the best of them.
The big trouble is when you decide to follow your own internal code and it doesn't line up with the gm's ideas of what your gods believe.
Fair point, but as you said, the Paladin who saves him just fell for doing so, which seems kinda backward, doesn't it? If a Paladin falls whenever such situations come up, that's gonna get old fast, at least in my opinion.
Hence why I think either the Code of Conduct itself needs more leeway, or the GM needs to at least sort of not worry about it to the exact letter (back on the OP). As is, like Lazar says, it's a built in self-destruct button, and one which is a bit too touchy, I think.
Of course, just my opinion though.
A paladin that does what he feels like on the inside and it doesnt match his god (the gm) will get fallen.
A paladin that does what he and his god think is right but doesnt match local law will become known as a brigand, making paladins not the respected members of the community that I suppose I personally think they should be...
A paladin that lets local law proceed with things that are not good in his own personal eyes will know that good doesnt always win.
A paladin that lets the local law proceed with things that are not good in the eyes of himself AND his diety would hold that town accountable.
I think heres where it would end up for me.
A paladin who rescues his buddy and rides away a brigand in the eyes of the community would fall because he's decided not to bother making sure him and his god are seen as doing the right thing. He's half @ssing his alignment and unlike non paladins he is held to both ends of the bargain. Unless your god is the lawful good god of brigands which makes no sense.
A paladin who lets the innocent be executed falls because he let laws trump good. He's half @ssing it again.
A true paladin would not only save the day but then go the extra mile to prove that he did the right thing so the locals wouldnt think less of him and his diety.
If this dichotomy were going down in private (like the goblin babies) then the only concern is whether the god (dm) agrees with the player's assessment, and i think that should be made starkly clear to the player before its too late or its a bait and switch which i will call wrongbadfun even if I shouldnt... Ok. Fine fine. Maybe forcing a paladin to fall being a surprise isnt wrongbadfun. Maybe someone out there really enjoys it. But if only the gm is enjoying it when the player or players are not... it certainly doesnt seem like rightgoodfun.
Paladins don't have the lock on being the lawful good alignment, but these questions never come up for lawful good clerics, or lawful good rangers, or lawful good whatever.
It is interesting that clerics of a lawful good diety aren't held to the same high standards as paladins of that same diety isnt it... Is that true? I haven't read the pathfinder version of clerics to see if a god can refuse to grant a cleric's spells if the god thinks the cleric isn't doing something right.
I think the issue is, most GM's don't sit down and work out the Paladin code for each god in their world. Each god would have varying rules/requirements for their paladins. It may be that one of the gods in the world who's very lawful would smack a paladin down for lying to save an innocent, while another might smack them down for not lying. The secret I've found over the years is to lay out the paladin codes ahead of time, let the player read them, and discuss it with the player before the game starts.
The second secret is, unless it's an egregious violation, a few nasty dream until the Paladin get's a freebie atonement works well. If it is egregious, then smack the ever loving heck out of the paladin, shut down his abilities, and make him do a quest to get an atonement to work. It's usually as easy as that.
Here it is. Page 41. Ex clerics. Grossly violates... Loses all spells and class abilities until atoned... And thats even if your alignment or diety's alignment isnt lawful good. If a chaotic evil priest does something his god 'grossly disapproves of' he loses his spells and class abilities.
Not only is it possible to hold clerics to the same high standard, it applies to more alignments... All of the alignments... Might even go so far as to say if you have been letting your clerics get away with stuff maybe you've been going easy on your clerics...
So in private i'd say a paladin would be held to the same restriction as a cleric. Just do what your god (the gm) thinks is the right thing to do, and in public, do the right thing but then go the extra mile to prove to the locals that it was the right thing. A lawful god would want/expect you to make sure, as their representative, that the player and his god were seen as not just benevolent but also just.
Now, I've seen a lot of things going around about the Paladin's Code is of the utmost strictness. Things like uttering a white lie (even to save an innocent) will cause the Paladin to fall.The part I don't understand is why everyone gets so rules anal about Paladins when they do not do so with other things. Even GMs you might consider lax, or otherwise very good GMs stick to the Paladin's Code like it's glue, or they do away with paladins/The Code completely (I see very little middle ground here).
Because PF Designers removed grossly as a requirement to fall.
In 3.5, Paladins by RAW can 't fall unless it is a 144 acts against code or if DM interprets it a gross act (hereby referred to as a a major breach of code).
This small change removes any leeway a Paladin has in PF, they must now follow the code or get out. They purposely changed the rules pertaining: why did they change it if it was supposed to be the same? Obviously, they want it to be harder to be a Paladin.
I rest my case (for now).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are codes of conduct for the major gods in the "Faith of purity" btw :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because its the paladin's code, thats why.
In 4e, WotC decided Paladins didn't need any 'silly code'. Pathfinder is the most popular RPG in the world. Yup... that went over well.
Its hard to live by because its supposed to be hard. Thats the choice you made when you decided to play a Paladin. You know why we have such mamby-pamby dark elves these days? Because people wanted to play Drow, but it was too hard. So they nerfed the hell out of the drow and now they can be 'nice' (although I am not familiar-enough with Golarion yet to know if thats the case here).
If every class worked precisely the same way, and they were all easy to play (because none of them had any 'code' they needed to adhere to), we'd all be playing 4e. When you try to level the playing field too much (in other words, 'balance'), what you do is suck all the flavor right out of the game.
Paladins are the brunt of many jokes, and they are hard to play (correctly); you try to stay righteous while the peasants are snickering behind your back. But thats part of RPing, and part of the fun.
I am not so unwavering as to say a paladin can't tell a white lie (or even a non-white one if the circumstances call for it). I think in cases like that its all about good GMing - its situational. This also includes what god you worship. If you are a follower of 'the god of absolute truths' then No, you can't tell any lies. Thats just the way it is. But if you are a paladin of a healing god, and you tell a sick patient "everything will be alright" (even when you know its not) then why should you be penalized for that? if anything, telling the poor bastard "your gonna die" is downright cruel, and thats evil. But once again, its highly situational; the dying man may be the type to want to heart the truth, for instance. This is something rules simply cannot cover, and GMs have to learn how to be good GMs (and by 'good', I don't mean the alignment, I mean the ability to run a game that EVERYONE can have fun playing).
I think the thing that ultimately leaves people in our group unwilling to play Paladin is that it has a built in contradictions between its code and alignment, or even just within its code. For example, if a legitimate authority asks that they step-aside so that they may kill a man the Paladin knows is innocent. Either they disrespect the authority to protect the innocent (and thus fall) or allow the authority to kill the innocent (and thus fall). Any other options are just lucky loopholes.
To me it seems completely unfair that the class has such contradictions, especially given the severity of the fall. If nothing else, the class should contain some kind of rules hierarchy (protect innocents trumps respecting authority, for example).
TL;DR - We aren't strict at my table, but even without that no-one wants to play one.
It's easy to parse the code in that scenario. First, the code:
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.
So, as the pally goes along it sees the authority as legitimate and thus respects it. However, the code requires them to punish those who hurt or threaten innocents. Punishment is not disrespect. It doesn't mean you have to be the lap dog for all rightful kings everywhere. So, after they kill/threaten the innocent you can reasonably say as a paladin that this authority, while once just, has become wicked and no legitimate leader would needlessly kill those they lead. From then on you're free to do according to the dictates of your god and code. If your god is the embodiment of justice type then you very well may lead a campaign against that ruler. If your god is the they can be redeemed type then you'll probably plead and beg with the rulership trying to redeem them until it becomes obvious they are corrupt to the core at which point you'll probably excise the rot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 4e, WotC decided Paladins didn't need any 'silly code'. Pathfinder is the most popular RPG in the world. Yup... that went over well.
What exactly are you implying by this? If you're implying that the Paladin code is single-handedly (or even non-trivially) responsible for the popularity of Pathfinder then I have no choice but to call you insane.
The rest of your points are more-or-less sensible, though I would point out that by RAW (as far as the Core book goes) there is no difference between Paladins based on their god. There isn't even a requirement that they have a god, though such a requirement can be applied by the wording of a couple of abilities. You've basically added-to/modified the code, which is a house-rule. It may well be that this modified version is perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't help the unmodified version.
So, as the pally goes along it sees the authority as legitimate and thus respects it. However, the code requires them to punish those who hurt or threaten innocents. Punishment is not disrespect. It doesn't mean you have to be the lap dog for all rightful kings everywhere. So, after they kill/threaten the innocent you can reasonably say as a paladin that this authority, while once just, has become wicked and no legitimate leader would needlessly kill those they lead. From then on you're free to do according to the dictates of your god and code.
Yeah, that's called being reasonably lax in your interpretation. There is no RAW definition of "respect" or "legitimate" or any of the other terms in there. If you tried to be even the tiniest bit strict in your interpretation, the paladin falls in situations with even a little bit of gray area. That was all I was trying to say with my example.
Actually, that last bit goes out to all those responding to my post: My point wasn't the particular situation, but rather the category of situations which can force a Paladin's hand. Not all players are going to be creative enough to find or outgoing enough to argue your loopholes (which may not even exist in all situations), they're just going to see the two obvious choices and be forced to fall.
Actually, that last bit goes out to all those responding to my post: My point wasn't the particular situation, but rather the category of situations which can force a Paladin's hand. Not all players are going to be creative enough to find or...
Yeah I have seen DMs mess with paladins consistently. It's always something like this. Innocent, say Anne Frank, in attic is going to be killed on the spot as that is the law of the land. Overwhelming forces come in and ask, where is the girl? Paladin then falls, or falls and then dies in a hopeless battle, regardless of what they do because that is "fun" for the DM.
|
|
Yeah I have seen DMs mess with paladins consistently. It's always something like this. Innocent, say Anne Frank, in attic is going to be killed on the spot as that is the law of the land. Overwhelming forces come in and ask, where is the girl? Paladin then falls, or falls and then dies in a hopeless battle, regardless of what they do because that is "fun" for the DM.
The right question to ask is whether it is fun for the Paladin's player.
Because its the paladin's code, that's why.
In 4e, WotC decided Paladins didn't need any 'silly code'. Pathfinder is the most popular RPG in the world. Yup... that went over well.
Its hard to live by because its supposed to be hard. Thats the choice you made when you decided to play a Paladin. You know why we have such mamby-pamby dark elves these days? Because people wanted to play Drow, but it was too hard. So they nerfed the hell out of the Drow and now they can be 'nice' (although I am not familiar-enough with Golarion yet to know if that's the case here).
If every class worked precisely the same way, and they were all easy to play (because none of them had any 'code' they needed to adhere to), we'd all be playing 4e. When you try to level the playing field too much (in other words, 'balance'), what you do is suck all the flavor right out of the game.
Paladins are the brunt of many jokes, and they are hard to play (correctly); you try to stay righteous while the peasants are snickering behind your back. But that's part of RPing, and part of the fun.
I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
My OP was not in any way an advocation of a removal of the Code or making it "easier" for the Paladin.
It was advocating GMs not needlessly making it HARDER for the Paladin than it needs to be. Constantly coming up with Fall or Fall scenarios or making the Paladin fall for trivial offenses by adhering strictly to RAW is what makes playing a Paladin almost impossible under some GMs.
A fair GM would allow a Paladin to follow Good over Law when it comes to the Code. If doing the right thing means going against authority or the ONLY (and I mean only) reasonable option is to break the Code to save someone/something important, then he should be able to do it. It doesn't make sense to me that some a*~@%&*-ish god up there on Olympus or wherever would be like "Paladin, go here and save this woman, for she is key to the survival of the world." and if the Paladin, say, lies about his identity in order to get in safely rather than fighting against literally impossible odds the god says "Paladin, you have been a faithful member of my service and you are on an important mission to save the world at my command. But lying that is UNACCEPTABLE! I have stripped you of your powers so that you may contemplate your folly in the hours before the imminent death of the world."
The second type is a GM who is out to get a Paladin and they will, let's say "creatively parse" the rules of the Code, and make a Paladin Fall for something both out of his control and completely ludicrous. An interesting one I can think of is "help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends)". Let's say the Paladin sees a man drowning in a river and throws him a rope to help him out, and then lets the man keep the rope in case he gets into further trouble in this dangerous area. The man then goes into town and strangles a man with the rope, and the Paladin falls for allowing his aid to help someone commit an Evil act.
But it's mostly Type 3 that this thread is about, those GMs who are not out to get the Paladin, per se, but who require a ludicrously strict adherence to the Code. Under these GMs it is incredibly easy to Fall, because a white lie (or even a slip of the tongue or lie of omission) can make them fall, acting dishonorably including using stealth and guile can make them fall, and failing to help an innocent OR respect an authority will make them fall.
And it is this third type I find to have the most issues with Paladins in general, which baffles me since they almost seem to be looking to be frustrated.
I can honestly say I've never done a Fall or Fall situation. I have put people in difficult situations. Both Paladins and Non-Paladins. However, I usually warn people how I run my games ahead of time.
For example, I play my world as that groups develop reputations. Reputations, for example, if the group always coup-de-gras's fallen enemies, then they get a reputation for ruthlessness, which means nobody who knows about them is going to surrender or even try to withdraw, as they know they can't, so they fight to the death. On the other hand, if the party develops a reputation for sparing surrendered enemies, and not killing downed opponents, then they get a reputation for that instead, and it can make fights easier down the road. It also means that 'honorable enemies' (IE: LN, LE, or just NN or NE with lawful tendencies) are more likely to offer them quarter. If they want to have the reputation for killing downed opponents, they get to live with it. No skin off my nose, actually makes my job easier on the motivation/fight/flight front.
When it comes to Paladin's, I've had 3-4 over the years, and the closest any of them have come to falling was one guy who got ticked off and attacked someone who was negotiating with the party. I forget the situation, but basically the Paladin attacked without warning, started a big fight, got one of the party killed, and some hostages died. The player was having a bad day, but his character was the impetus in the game. He lost his powers for awhile, until he paid for all the hostages to be resurrected, and then paid for an atonement. Took 2-3 games, so he was a hobbled fighter until then.
In general, I find that if you want the Paladin to fall, just leave him to his own devices, the player is human, eventually he's going to do something dumb, and unless he has a phylactery (which is in the game to give the player a way to say 'Hey is this ok?'), he's going to fall. It might be minor (just a no-cost atonement) or it could be major (go assault the 9th plane of hell!) to make up for it. But let the player hose his Paladin over. Not the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those tags are only illegal for couch sellers to remove. Consumers can remove them at will. So if he took one off and fell, it must have been one that wasn't sold yet, and that's vandalism...
Seriously though...
I run a campaign with a paladin in it. I'm not very rigid about alignment, and in fact it is the player who precipitates most conversations about paladin conflicts.
For example, I introduced a character that the party needed to convince to do something, but the character was consorting with goblins, orcs and trolls, so had what I called a "taint of evil" when the paladin detected evil on him.
The player spent several minutes agonizing over whether the paladin would cooperate with the NPC before the rest of the party convinced him that saving the world was "the greater good".
I frankly didn't give a fig about the paladin's internal struggles. He could have danced the tango with the NPC and he wouldn't have fallen. Unless the paladin takes a deliberately evil act in full knowledge of doing so, he's not going to fall in my campaigns.
And I'm damn sure not going to waste my or the other players' time on devising come contrived "lose-lose" scenario to force the paladin to fall. I've got better things to do.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A Lawful Good Cleric can perform the occassional Chaotic ... act.
Paladin's can't. Any violation is enough according to the SRD.
Most of what you said was true, but not this part. A paladin is not prohibited from performing chaotic acts. As long as his chaotic acts aren't egregious/frequent enough to actually shift his own alignment out of LG, he's fine. An evil act is "one strike and you're out", but not chaotic acts.
This is one of the most frequent mistakes I see people here on the boards making with the paladin code.
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.
I am not sure why it is hard to DM this. The Paladin can NEVER willfully commit an evil act, must respect the legitimate authority and must act with honor above all else.
This doesn't mean they are lawful stupid, nor are they saints. They must "respect" the legitimate authority but that does not mean they cannot work around it when they have to to serve the cause of good. Cutting off the tab on a pillow or couch or similar isn't grounds for atonement but willfully stealing,lying or disrespecting legimate authority is. Nor would I consider a white lie always grounds for one either if it was done to keep someone from needless suffering. Telling the Chr 8 Lady of the Manor that she is most beautiful is a white lie, but does no harm. Or the child that has been badly burned on her face. if he acts with honor doing it I don't have an issue doing it and I have my paladins follow 1E codes of conduct!
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
This is the important part RAW we need to consider when considering the paladin code.
Note that working with evil characters for some greater good requires an atonement spell. This suggests that breaking parts of the paladin code should also necessitate an atonement spell.
In moral terms, whenever a paladin acts as a utilitarian (and commits an act that violates their code) they need atonement. It does not matter that it was for the greater good. Only consistently acting in this way would result in an actual fall (I would distinguish between a temporary revocation of paladin powers and "No, you can't take paladin levels anymore. I don't care if you thought that one of those babies was going to be Hitler. You can't kill all the newborns in Austria in 1889.").
Paladins are meant to be paragons of honor and good and are thus hard deontologists. They have specific rules they must live by. If you believe in Kant's philosophy, for instance (and I think Paladins would), it is immoral to tell a lie to a murderer even if it was to prevent a murder (you could, however, refuse to answer a murderers questions or actively oppose them).
I believe paladins are meant to represent this sort of (what I believe to be unreasonable) deontoligcal moral code.
That being said, I just chat with people who want to play paladins and make sure we have similiar expectations. That is the absolute easiest thing to do. I have a paladin in my current game, but the campaign is so strange (in a demiplane fighting against daemons while trying to eek out and survive over a long period of time) that the code hasn't even come up yet.
Telling the Chr 8 Lady of the Manor that she is most beautiful is a white lie, but does no harm. Or the child that has been badly burned on her face. if he acts with honor doing it I don't have an issue doing it and I have my paladins follow 1E codes of conduct!
Lying is specifically against the code. While this kind of white lie should not cause a fall, a paladin should not feel free to lie whenever they want. That would be lazy, imho.
Its not hard to get around this sort of situation anyway. Tell the lady a compliment about her personality or character that is not a lie "I would be delighted to kiss the hand of a lady who has created such beautiful paintings" (if the lady in question is an artist) or tell the burnt child that you see an inner strength in them that you think may one day shine brightly if they choose to follow the path of the paladin.
Nor would I consider a white lie always grounds for one either if it was done to keep someone from needless suffering. Telling the Chr 8 Lady of the Manor that she is most beautiful is a white lie, but does no harm. Or the child that has been badly burned on her face. if he acts with honor doing it I don't have an issue doing it and I have my paladins follow 1E codes of conduct!
But any lie is breaking the code. It isn't a interpretation thing as it says no lying. So he fell so hard the crator was the size of australia for those whire lies.
But any lie is breaking the code. It isn't a interpretation thing as it says no lying. So he fell so hard the crator was the size of australia for those whire lies.
Nor would I consider a white lie always grounds for one either if it was done to keep someone from needless suffering. Telling the Chr 8 Lady of the Manor that she is most beautiful is a white lie, but does no harm. Or the child that has been badly burned on her face. if he acts with honor doing it I don't have an issue doing it and I have my paladins follow 1E codes of conduct!
And here's where we have a perfect example of how strict adherence to RAW causes some mind boggling departures from common sense.
Thanks Starbuck.