|
1) Respects his elders/leaders.
2) Honors his tribe's laws and traditions.
3) Doesn't lie often or dislikes dishonesty.
4) Keeps his word.
5) Doesn't like things frowned upon in his culture.
If the person who followed these was a Wild Stalker, what alignment would you say he should be? What if he were a fighter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I am making a pretty dumb assumption in terms of a paladin's alignment being one axis step away from his/her deity's alignment because I am starting to think that does not actually exist and really is just an assumption
okay I am on board with the Cayden Cailean paladin thing now
which is a relief since I am pretty much on board with everything else about Cayden Cailean
For which part.Citation?To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
"the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct."
Uh...what is your citation that it is objective and not subjective?
All morality is subjective.
Except D&D morality. The alignment rules spell out what constitutes as aligned things. It is a game where chaos, evil, good, and law are forces. Forces that can be detected. It defines in terms exactly what is good (altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings) and evil (hurting, oppressing, and killing others). In D&D, merely thinking that you are doing good does not equate to doing good. Otherwise very few would be evil.
In fact, in the D&D novel Homeland, the drow are taught in their schools that their way is the noble and upright way and that surface elves are evil. That's right. The drow teach their children that they are the good guys (as bizarre as that sounds). It's all they know. But they're still evil because their lives revolve around hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Sounds a lot like a Paladin of Saranae to me. You have a code that you must follow, regardless of logic or reason. If you only sometimes wanted to "love and tolerate the s#$+ out of you" then I would have a problem with the concept.On the other side, you could fall if you were intolerent, which is just as challenging a restriction. And you were trying to work within the framework of the party and GM, which is exactly what being a good player is all about.
I didn't pray to a god, I followed a religion which worshiped sentient stars (DM setting thing), but I suppose Saranae would indeed be the closest. I still have a problem with the way the code of conduct is written, but from the way you describe how you handle the code of conduct it is both mutable and modular at your table. The level of modularity and mutability is much less than what I personally allow in my own campaigns, but I can get behind how you described the way you would handle it for your own.
That said, I think it wouldn't hurt to just re-write the code in a way that makes it okay. I myself would prefer that it removed personal interpretation from the mix all together. But I'd be satisfied with a version of the rules that just made it clear that there was more than one code of conduct that a paladin could adhere to. That not every paladin needs to copy and paste their values over one another. I have played paladins with traditional morals, but I've also played other paladins that defy convention. One of them was a serial killer
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I am making a pretty dumb assumption in terms of a paladin's alignment being one axis step away from his/her deity's alignment because I am starting to think that does not actually exist and really is just an assumption
It's not in the CRB, but IIRC it exists in PFS and James Jacobs believes it's obvious and "shouldn't need a rule".
To a Paladin of Cayden, Slavery is both illegal (regardless of local custom) and inherently evil.
To a Paladin of Abadar, Slavery is legal in some places, and as a part of commerce approved by the state, the greater good.
Nothing is altered but perspective, and the Paladin restriction requires them to be consistent, not correct.
Characters of all alignments can be consistent. Chaotic characters will be consistently unreliable and independent. LN and LE characters will be just as orderly as LG ones, and they may also mistakenly believe that they are good. Slavery is actually an excellent example. Some may culturally believe that it is an economic good, but according to the CRB "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others" and slavery qualifies as hurting and oppressing. A good character is therefore required to oppose slavery, because PF alignment defines it as evil.
A RAW paladin is not required to believe he is LG, he is required to be LG. Otherwise you get the problem players you were talking about saying "well my paladin believes that torturing that innocent was the right thing to do, so I'm fine." If you want to have paladins who support or even tolerate slavery you should field LN paladins, not pretend that the paladin is LG when he isn't.
However, I am getting the impression that despite a few minor differences in rhetoric how we see alignment and preferred paladin flavour, our behavior at the game table would actually look pretty similar because:
Let us consider WPharolin's paladin example. He proposed an idea that sounded to me like an op positional defiant Paladin, a non-starter to me in a "Golarionlike" setting.
A bad GM says "No" full stop, and tells the player to start over. A good GM says "I have concerns about the concept as I understand it. Here are my concerns." and then leaves it to the player to address the concerns or come up with a new concept.
This is pretty much how I think it should go and it's exactly what happened with my monkbarian.
"Dwarven Inquisitor of Torag, fighting evils of the land with hammer and shield while trying to spread the word about the benefits of actually building some damn walls, you stupid humans, did you not notice you're surrounded by trolls and witches and dragons and s#+!, really, at least put a bar across the gate or SOMETHING."
Well, that brightened my breakfast.
|
It is like I am a psychic!
Respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings is pretty relative in a game where you kill lots of sentient beings. One persons altruism is another persons oppression.
Your Drow example illustrates my point rather than refuting it. If you think about it, the surface elves lives often revolve around hurting, oppressing and killing drow...who are sentient beings...
Consider Javert from Les Mis. To me, he is Lawful Good rather than Lawful Neutral as he is often described.
Why? Because when he realized he was, in fact, evil in his actions despite his intentions, he felt he had no choice but to kill himself.
Because although he was the antagonist the whole time, he never realized it himself until the end.
ugh weirdo I do not know whether to thank you or curse you for showing me that James Jacobs post because now I am right back where I started
|
|
I didn't pray to a god, I followed a religion which worshiped sentient stars (DM setting thing), but I suppose Saranae would indeed be the closest. I still have a problem with the way the code of conduct is written, but from the way you describe how you handle the code of conduct it is both mutable and modular at your table. The level of modularity and mutability is much less than what I personally allow in my own campaigns, but I can get behind how you described the way you would handle it for your own.That said, I think it wouldn't hurt to just re-write the code in a way that makes it okay. I myself would prefer that it removed personal interpretation from the mix all together. But I'd be satisfied with a version of the rules that just made it clear that there was more than one code of conduct that a paladin could adhere to. That not every paladin needs to copy and paste their values over one another. I have played paladins with traditional morals, but I've also played other paladins that defy convention. One of them was a serial killer
I think Dexter could almost be a Paladin except for the lying and the many times he breaks his own code :)
To me, a Paladin by definition must have a code that they follow, regardless of logic and circumstances. They must follow it, even when it is inconvienient.
That is what makes them a Paladin and not just a guy with a sword who casts spells occassionally. That is why I think they needed to have an inquisitor class.
When you remove that, it ceases to be a Paladin to me. I think they made clear in the Golarion setting that Paladins of different gods act very differently, and if adding that one line "fixes" it for some people, that is fine by me.
But saying a Paladin doesn't need to follow a code, to adher to what they believe are the "laws" that define "morality"...bridge to far for me.
|
|
ugh weirdo I do not know whether to thank you or curse you for showing me that James Jacobs post because now I am right back where I started
And yet, there was a Paladin of Asomodeus in an AP.
That was 2009, we might want to check in with him again.
Like in 2010...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
man what the-
I mean other than the first sentence he still basically says the same thing as before, the Desna thing is pretty much the same stance which is the stance I had before I changed my stance
but now I am back in my original stance
(it is not the buffalo stance)
(yet)
|
|
However, I am getting the impression that despite a few minor differences in rhetoric how we see alignment and preferred paladin flavour, our behavior at the game table would actually look pretty similar because:
My thick red line is a Paladin without a code that they must adhere to and believe is Good and the correct "Law".
That, to me, is a non-starter.
Also, I love that Dwarf...I took profession engineering, which with Inquisitor wisdom and craftsman made me a damn good consultant even at 1st level.
It is like I am a psychic!
Respect for life and concern for the dignity of sentient beings is pretty relative in a game where you kill lots of sentient beings. One persons altruism is another persons oppression.
It's not relative at all. Doing all those things are quite evil. Just in general you're usually tempering it with Good, resulting in Neutral. Paladins fall for committing an evil ACT. For an act to be evil it needs to be in accordance with evil, and not Neutral or Good. Since Paladins generally are committing Neutral acts when they kill (because they are generally being altruistic, protecting the dignity of others being oppressed, etc) Paladins don't fall for simply fighting evil-doers.
However, that doesn't excuse the Paladin from their code of conduct which specifically says they must help those in need and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. It also requires that she act with honor but doesn't define that honor (which can result in stupid restrictions like no-flanking or other terrible things).
Your Drow example illustrates my point rather than refuting it. If you think about it, the surface elves lives often revolve around hurting, oppressing and killing drow...who are sentient beings...
It shows that while both races view each other as evil and themselves as good that evil is evil regardless. Yes, when the surface elves are hurting, oppressing, and killing sentients it's evil. But the drow's life revolves around it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Characters of all alignments can be consistent. Chaotic characters will be consistently unreliable and independent.
Under this assumption, chaotic characters are then objectively inferior to lawful ones. They also don't get hired to go on adventures because the are consistently unreliable.
Everything else you said I agree with (not with what James Jacobs said though. He deserves to have his bacon stolen from his plate for that).
|
|
To me, a Paladin by definition must have a code that they follow, regardless of logic and circumstances. They must follow it, even when it is inconvienient.
That is what makes them a Paladin and not just a guy with a sword who casts spells occassionally. That is why I think they needed to have an inquisitor class.
But saying a Paladin doesn't need to follow a code, to adher to what they believe are the "laws" that define "morality"...bridge to far for me.
Here we go again. What makes the Paladin class different from the Fighter class is not the Code. Anyone can follow that Code. What makes the two different is, yes, the spellcasting, but also every other mechanic that the two classes don't share (a new mechanic that further separates the two appears every single level!). Inquisitors are not just divine warriors that can be of any alignment. They are extremely different mechanically than paladins, as well.
No other class has such strict roleplaying limitations. Why does the paladin class, aside from adhering to tradition, and the implication of the word "paladin"?
|
|
man what the-
I mean other than the first sentence he still basically says the same thing as before, the Desna thing is pretty much the same stance which is the stance I had before I changed my stancebut now I am back in my original stance
(it is not the buffalo stance)
(yet)
I always hang in a buffalo stance. And I do the dive every time I dance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And they get those restrictions because of the adherence to the code.
Just like Druids can't wear metal and have to meditate, Wizards have to prepare, Clerics have to pray, Paladins have to behave according to the code or they don't get Paladin abilities.
Congratulations, every one of those but the paladin's is a mechanical restriction, which is different than a roleplaying restriction.
Yes, they can inform roleplay, but they don't dictate it (incidentally, they're all clearly defined, so they don't create the huge number of threads that the Code of Conduct does).
|
|
Congratulations, those are mechanical restrictions, which are different than roleplaying restrictions.And they get those restrictions because of the adherence to the code.
Just like Druids can't wear metal and have to meditate, Wizards have to prepare, Clerics have to pray, Paladins have to behave according to the code or they don't get Paladin abilities.
Not if you want to roleplay a Druid in full plate.
Or an atheist Cleric, which to me is about as silly a concept as a Paladin who doesn't follow a code.
|
No other class has such strict roleplaying limitations. Why does the paladin class, aside from adhering to tradition?
I'm jumping in kind of late in the game, but the class IS the code. The whole reason to play the paladin is the challenge to always do the right thing because it is the right thing to do!
A lot of the questions coming from what constitutes an "evil act" stem from a traditionally poorly described system called "alignment".
The only way alignment truly functions is as a roleplaying tool to describe a character's general motivations. You pick your alignment based off how you want to play the character. If you want the extra challenge of the paladin class then take up the gauntlet. When played and GM'ed properly, it is intensely fun. When done poorly, it sucks. Go figure.
I won't go into alignments here as its only marginally on topic.
Going way back to the OP's concern, the presence of the paladin often limits the choices of other character's actions. Consequently, at the start of each campaign, we vote by e-mail whether or not to allow paladins. One "no" and they are not allowed. That has worked for us for 20+ years.
Andy
|
|
Not if you want to roleplay a Druid in full plate.
Or an atheist Cleric, which to me is about as silly a concept as a Paladin who doesn't follow a code.
Atheist clerics can exist, by the rules (unless believing in a concept is the same as believing in a god). Druids can wear ironwood or dragonhide full plate. You were probably better off trying to argue that druid's aren't allowed to be CG by RAW. Even then, the druid could be NG leaning CG, and still be allowable by RAW.
I see the point you're trying to make, though. The problem with it is that these examples can not only be worked around, but they are very small groups of concepts that aren't allowed by the rules. The current Code of Conduct and LG requirement disallows so much more for no real reason except the class is called "PALADIN" and not some other alignment neutral word.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm jumping in kind of late in the game, but the class IS the code. The whole reason to play the paladin is the challenge to always do the right thing because it is the right thing to do!
Why can't the reason to play the class be about the mechanics, like it can be for every other class?
The fact that one entire class (not a subsection of a class like necromancer cleric or steal-from-my-buddies rogue) has you all emailing each other as to whether or not it should be allowed, when none of the others do, should raise a red flag.
I think Dexter could almost be a Paladin except for the lying and the many times he breaks his own code :)To me, a Paladin by definition must have a code that they follow, regardless of logic and circumstances. They must follow it, even when it is inconvienient.
That is what makes them a Paladin and not just a guy with a sword who casts spells occassionally. That is why I think they needed to have an inquisitor class.
When you remove that, it ceases to be a Paladin to me. I think they made clear in the Golarion setting that Paladins of different gods act very differently, and if adding that one line "fixes" it for some people, that is fine by me.
But saying a Paladin doesn't need to follow a code, to adher to what they believe are the "laws" that define "morality"...bridge to far for me.
If what defines a paladin is having a code of conduct that he adheres to regardless of logic or reason we have several problems.
The first is that everyone is a paladin. Wizards can be paladins, druids, etc. I played a dwarf artificer who would almost certainly be considered one.
The second problem is that what you just described makes having a code of conduct, at least in its current state, a meaningless thing. It isn't fixable with one line or even two or three. It just isn't fixable without a re-write. In fact, under your definition of what a paladin is, it would work better as a feat.
If "A paladin is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless ... blah blah blah ... Now rise as a member of the holy order of paladins," is all it takes to be a paladin then we could just move the code of conduct to a different part of the book and make it an option for anyone.
As for Golarion, I've never been a fan. But the idea of paladin's behaving differently based on who they worship is not a new one. But the base class never actually reflected this. So Paladins of the Silver Flame that behave very differently from paladins of Dol Arrah is just fluff. Nothing more. If the difference is an illusion than the code doesn't matter. If the difference between a paladin of one faith and another are distinct and real than the code actually does matter. And if the rules were changed to reflect that...well this thread wouldn't have been made. There would have been no need.
EDIT: Clarification.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I've been following the arguments from both sides, and the arguments themselves make sense. (Not that I agree with everything, but I can follow the logic of each post.) I'm a little confused about the purpose behind at least some of the arguments, however.
Over time, Ciretose (as this thread's primary champion of the traditional Paladin interpretation) has become subtly more flexible (permissive?) in his view. His overall point at this time time seems to be "Paladins should be LG, but except for the alignment and adhering to the Code everything is open to interpretation. The Code is there primarily as a tool to keep the Paladin's goals consistent. So long as he doesn't violate something that he has sworn to uphold, he won't Fall."
The 'stay within LG behavior' part of this view relies on trust. Players trust DMs not to deliberately arrange events that will cause the Paladin to Fall. GMs trust players to stay true to the character and concept that they outlined at character creation.
Basically it boils down to "Paladins must be LG, but there's enough room in that sandbox for everyone to play. Unless your goal from the outset is to play a character concept that violates the entire idea of a 'Righteous Crusader for Justice' in the first place."
The other side of that debate says that class mechanics of the Paladin shouldn't be tied to any particular image in the first place. (This leads to the in-built flavor and class mechanics discussion, which I will not rehash here.) They also seem to have a much stricter interpretation of the Paladin's Code and alignment restrictions than the traditionalists- which is interesting- but view the Code/restrictions as bad because of it.
As a solution to these alignment restrictions, this group advocates freeing the Paladin class of all alignment restrictions and allowing the player and GM to develop a flavor that would mutually benefit both the player's conception of his character and the GM's conception of setting. This would solve a situation in which the Player's conception of his character's Code clashed with the GM's conception of the RAW Code.
The underlying assumption/purpose of this side seems to come from two things: 1. Players who want to play with concepts that are quite different from the Class norm. 2. Players who have had negative experiences with GM's ruling that their Paladins have Fallen. This side of the argument does NOT assume a condition of trust exists between player and GM.
So what seems to be happening is that the traditionalist side has slowly become permissive in what they allow, while the non-traditionalist continue to argue a very strict interpretation of RAW. I understand the logic of the stance- "you can't have a traditionalist view of the Paladin while not adhering to a strictly RAW view." What's confusing me is the intent behind it. One would think that an opposing viewpoint slowly coming closer to your own point of view would be a Good Thing. But due to the underlying logic of the argument, the non-traditionalists are actually encouraging the traditionalists to be more traditional.
If it were me, I'd just call it a day after my opponent became more open/permissive and feel like I'd accomplished something.
So yeah, I'm confused about where this one is going.
|
|
Why can't the reason to play the class be about the mechanics, like it can be for every other class?
The fact that one entire class (not a subsection of a class like necromancer cleric or steal-from-my-buddies rogue) has you all emailing each other as to whether or not it should be allowed, when none of the others do, should raise a red flag.
To the first point, I don't know.
To the second point, I don't know. Why should it raise a red flag at all? The paladin has a code as part of the class. The paladin has to follow the code or he suffers a great deal of punishment. In following the code the paladin can directly influence the choices of other characters. We have the vote because we don't set each other up for failure. If the group is feeling rougish, we don't have paladins. When we want to go on the "grand quest" we might have one.
I've been playing this for many years and for me, to not have the code takes the fun out of the class. But, if in your group, the code makes things less fun, you should play without it.
Andy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Awesome post*
I have to say real quick that your post was an awesome recap and I think you've recently become on of my favorite posters here.
What's confusing me is the intent behind it.
I'm not personally interested in debating what my interpretation of a vague rule is against someone else's. Things that are vague can stay vague. I'm not even going to go there. But what I will debate is what having that rule ADDS to the game. The reason I brought up my example paladin was to try to clear up some confusion I was having about ciretose's position. I have noticed the increased flexibility and special allowances made but have chosen to ignore them as they don't really change my position. I'm not advocating removing the code of conduct or keeping it. I'm just advocating that whatever it is should be clearly written and not open to interpretation. This thread wouldn't exist if the paladin code were clear like the druids and oracles limitations are. We don't need a gentlemen's agreement or special compromises made regarding things that are difficult for players and DM's to discuss in detail. I believe that it can be written in a way that maintains the iconic idea of a paladin AND allows players to play many different types of paladins AND removes the need for threads that request that players stop behaving badly.
My intention then is simple, to learn more about my opposition to see if there really is something about the paladin that would be lost if the rules were concise, easy to arbitrate and less debatable. I don't think so. But clearly some do. I'd like to know why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The code as it's written in the CR is fairly straightforward. Most players understand what does or doesn't constitute an intentionally evil act. If you have a player who's seeking to subvert that and bog the GM down in minutia in an effort to be as un-Paladin-like as possible while still maintaining the Paladin class' features, perhaps that player ought not to be playing a Paladin.
...aaaaaand we're back to the original point, made in the very first post.
We have come Full Circle.
/Thread
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ugh weirdo I do not know whether to thank you or curse you for showing me that James Jacobs post because now I am right back where I startedAnd yet, there was a Paladin of Asomodeus in an AP.
That was 2009, we might want to check in with him again.
Like in 2010...
It's one of those things that isn't strictly disallowed but that many people (like James Jacobs) find clashes with the inherent flavour of a class. There's also this 2011 post by JJ and the one just below it from SKR that details the conflict between the deity's doctrine and the requirements of the LG alignment. SKR suggests a 'heretical' Paladin of Asmodeus might be able to remain LG, which is about the only way I could see this working without allowing a LN paladin or LE antipaladin.
Or an atheist Cleric, which to me is about as silly a concept as a Paladin who doesn't follow a code.
Try Religious Humanism. I have a university friend who identified as an agnostic humanist and wanted to be a minister (UU). In a fantasy context this could translate as actually drawing power from human experience. In particular, if as is the case in some cosmologies the gods are actually sustained by faith the Humanist Cleric could just cut the middle man out of the equation and tap directly into “faith in humanity” rather than having to redirect that energy through a deity. Wouldn't work in all campaigns but it's not oxymoronic.
My thick red line is a Paladin without a code that they must adhere to and believe is Good and the correct "Law".
That, to me, is a non-starter.
I personally agree with you that a Paladin needs a code that they adhere to and that they believe is morally correct. But I think that many such codes could fall outside the realm of LG behavior as defined by the alignment system. The interesting thing about talking about good and law is that these terms are often equated with “morally correct.” (If you doubt this on the law side, think about the negative associations of the phrase “state of chaos”) This leads to the whole “does the villain actually think he's evil” thing that pops up all over the place. And while PF requires that Good and Evil be well-defined (Can you smite it? Does it Detect?) this doesn't mean that characters of an Evil or Chaotic alignment are going to think of themselves as being any less morally correct.
“Might makes right – take what you want if you can, strive always to be stronger, make no allowances for weakness, don't respect anyone who hasn't shown himself stronger than you” is a coherent code. Someone who believes in and adheres to that code probably thinks of it as good and lawful, the best way to live. But if you posted that character on the forum and asked for an alignment suggestion you'd probably get something neither lawful nor good. And it sure doesn't fit with the classic paladin ideals either – there's no real honour and it actively discourages protecting the weak and respecting authority for authority's sake.
So how do you assign the objective alignment tag, with all its mechanical implications including paladinhood eligibility, if your alignment metric is the character's own self-justification and no one wants to see themselves as evil?
Characters of all alignments can be consistent. Chaotic characters will be consistently unreliable and independent.Under this assumption, chaotic characters are then objectively inferior to lawful ones. They also don't get hired to go on adventures because the are consistently unreliable.
You can hire a chaotic person to adventure for you, you just don't pay him up front. There are certainly disadvantages to working with chaotic people. I know someone I'd describe as chaotic. I know that there are certain things that I cannot rely on him for, and he's gotten into trouble with the “respecting authority” thing in the past. But he's a lot of fun and because he doesn't expect the world to be orderly and for things to go according to plan he's actually a pretty solid guy for adventures – he improvises well. More lawful people like myself might be more organized and have a stronger sense of responsibility (which most people like), but we can also be inflexible. I'm a bit of a natural rules lawyer and have been consciously training myself to let go of the rules when they get in the way. Another downside of lawfulness is intolerance.
So what seems to be happening is that the traditionalist side has slowly become permissive in what they allow, while the non-traditionalist continue to argue a very strict interpretation of RAW. I understand the logic of the stance- "you can't have a traditionalist view of the Paladin while not adhering to a strictly RAW view." What's confusing me is the intent behind it. One would think that an opposing viewpoint slowly coming closer to your own point of view would be a Good Thing. But due to the underlying logic of the argument, the non-traditionalists are actually encouraging the traditionalists to be more traditional.If it were me, I'd just call it a day after my opponent became more open/permissive and feel like I'd accomplished something.
So yeah, I'm confused about where this one is going.
I mostly agree with what WPharolin said on this. I'm trying to figure out what these various approaches to the paladin actually add to gameplay. I'm also legitimately curious about ciretose's position – the way he deals with alignment is unfamiliar to me in the PF context and I'm trying to figure out whether there's a real difference there or whether he's just explaining it in an unfamiliar way. I honestly don't think I'm changing ciretose's position at all, just realizing that we actually do meet in the middle. At the moment it looks like we've agreed that the paladin should have some sort of code, and that there should be a lot of room for customization in that code. I think we've agreed that the code can venture outside of typical LG behavior. We're still sorting out whether that means that alignment itself needs to be interpreted more flexibly or whether alignment restrictions need to be removed so that you can keep a traditional strict interpretation of LG without putting paladins in an overly narrow box of "Galahad or GTFO."
This thread has gone 14 pages. There's little consensus.
But there's lots of interesting discussion.
The code as it's written in the CR is fairly straightforward. Most players understand what does or doesn't constitute an intentionally evil act. If you have a player who's seeking to subvert that and bog the GM down in minutia in an effort to be as un-Paladin-like as possible while still maintaining the Paladin class' features, perhaps that player ought not to be playing a Paladin....aaaaaand we're back to the original point, made in the very first post.
We have come Full Circle.
/Thread
I did agree with something he said that the OP didn't.
To be honest, the 9-point alignment system has been a defining reason for many players who chose *not* to play D&D/PF, and I can see why. This thread has gone 14 pages. There's little consensus. To be honest, as much as rulebooks have stated (and continue to state) that alignment isn't a straitjacket, it is.
Weirdo is just racking up my favorites. XD
Anecdote time!
Used to play with a GM that had made his own campaign setting. Paladins, in his world, were warriors who represented their deity, and acted as agents of their deity in all things. Every god (there were 9) had paladins. They each had to follow their god's alignment, and each god had a code their paladins must follow, to make sure they represented their gods.
Thematicly, the gods chose their paladins, based on their alignment and ability and willingnessto follow their code.
They are still paladins in the sense that they have the alignment restriction, and must follow a 'code of honor', but are houseruled in the sense that they can be other alignments and codes.
If he felt you could not pull it off, as a player, you could not play one.
|
|
Characters of all alignments can be consistent. Chaotic characters will be consistently unreliable and independent.Under this assumption, chaotic characters are then objectively inferior to lawful ones. They also don't get hired to go on adventures because the are consistently unreliable.
Everything else you said I agree with (not with what James Jacobs said though. He deserves to have his bacon stolen from his plate for that).
And to make clear my stance, I have absolutely zero objection to what James said if I heard that coming from any GM. The setting is defined by the GM, if they say no Paladins of Gods that aren't Lawful or Good, that is the game and that is completely fine. If I want to play, I need to come up with something that fits the setting.
I personally am open to things from some players who demonstrate they can go, for lack of a better description, "off book" while still staying in setting.
But that is a privilege, not a right.
okay hear me out on this, it's a LG werewolf undine dawnflower dervish / drunken brute barbarian from Nex who worships Lamashtu but pretends to worship Sarenrae and they are going to have a stutter and be blind but they can totally see and everything they say rhymes because-oh wait and they're undead but I'll get to that because first I wanted to tell you about their intelligent sword cane-
...
I...I just lost my privileges, didn't I?
|
|
If what defines a paladin is having a code of conduct that he adheres to regardless of logic or reason we have several problems.
The first is that everyone is a paladin. Wizards can be paladins, druids, etc. I played a dwarf artificer who would almost certainly be considered one.
The second problem is that what you just described makes having a code of conduct, at least in its current state, a meaningless thing. It isn't fixable with one line or even two or three. It just isn't fixable without a re-write. In fact, under your definition of what a paladin is, it would work better as a feat.
I disagree based on a vary clear distinction for me. The Paladin isn't writing a personal code that changes with circumstances. The Paladin is following a code that is completely inflexible and unquestionable.
If you wanted to play the paladin you described, we would have to sit down and you would need to define the code in a very clear, concrete way. And then you will always have to adhere to it or risk falling, even if circumstances of ambiguity appear, you must adhere to what was agreed on at the onset.
When I say you sound like a Paladin of Saranae, I mean we are going to sit down and define what that is and you will have to submit to that definition.
Much like one of the steps in AA is to submit to a higher power, that is a requisite of the Paladin. You must submit to the authority of your God as the living definition of Law and of Good. What they believe to be right, you must adhere to. What they believe to be just, you must uphold.
This is very, very, different than playing someone who follows a personal code. Mal from Firefly follows a personal code. He ain't no Paladin.
|
|
okay hear me out on this, it's a LG werewolf undine dawnflower dervish / drunken brute barbarian from Nex who worships Lamashtu but pretends to worship Sarenrae and they are going to have a stutter and be blind but they can totally see and everything they say rhymes because-oh wait and they're undead but I'll get to that because first I wanted to tell you about their intelligent sword cane-...
I...I just lost my privileges, didn't I?
Back to the OP, that guy could ask to be just about anything and I would work it out with him. He is going to make it something we all enjoy.
The concept you just gave...it isn't the volume that concerns me but the purpose. What are you trying to do.
WPharolin clearly had an idea in his head of a very clear concept in a setting that existed. The mechanics were, in my opinion, very much secondary to a concept he wanted to play. I would want to work with him to reach that concept, if we are able to agree on it.
On the other hand, if I think you are just trying to reverse engineer mechanics you want to play, I'm not exactly going to bend over backwards for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it is not 'a' code that defines a paladin
it is the code
|
|
As an example, the reason my GM was questioning my Dwarf was he wanted to make sure I wasn't just trying to use the Dwarf Wisdom/Con synergy with the inquisitor, and that I had a reason I was playing a Dwarf in what was a largely human setting. I needed to prove to him the concept was the lead in the design.
Once he heard me explain it, saw where I put skill points, saw I was sword and board (hardly optimal, but conceptually the way it needed to go) he knew I was contributing to the campaign setting and not just playing with numbers.
Was part of my thought process that Dwarves mechanically make good inquisitors? Yes. But once I got to concept, concept informed design, not the other way around.
If you want to play a Paladin, you should want to actually play someone who will seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline.
If you don't want to do that, play something else.
WPharolin clearly had an idea in his head of a very clear concept in a setting that existed. The mechanics were, in my opinion, very much secondary to a concept he wanted to play. I would want to work with him to reach that concept, if we are able to agree on it.
well yeah man
my post was not a knock on WPharolin's character concept, it was to be a clear indicator of when you get your privileges...and when you do not
now for WP's paladin, I mean man, the Code of Conduct is like two sentences
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 read WP's description of his pally and other than getting a mental image of him worshiping a Carl's Jr. sign or like that moon face from the little caesar's commercial that yells 'pizzzzaaaa timmmme' I did not see anything in there jump out at me as being out of line with THE code of conduct listed above
|
|
And now we're back to "traditional paladins and the traditional code are superior."
How did this happen?
And to make clear my stance, I have absolutely zero objection to what James said if I heard that coming from any GM. The setting is defined by the GM, if they say no Paladins of Gods that aren't Lawful or Good, that is the game and that is completely fine. If I want to play, I need to come up with something that fits the setting.
I personally am open to things from some players who demonstrate they can go, for lack of a better description, "off book" while still staying in setting.
But that is a privilege, not a right.
I can get behind that, though I personally would rather give them the benefit of the doubt from the start and give them an opportunity to lose my trust rather than making them earn it. I also think there are plenty of people who can abuse the RAW just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree based on a vary clear distinction for me. The Paladin isn't writing a personal code that changes with circumstances. The Paladin is following a code that is completely inflexible and unquestionable.If you wanted to play the paladin you described, we would have to sit down and you would need to define the code in a very clear, concrete way. And then you will always have to adhere to it or risk falling, even if circumstances of ambiguity appear, you must adhere to what was agreed on at the onset.
When I say you sound like a Paladin of Saranae, I mean we are going to sit down and define what that is and you will have to submit to that definition.
Much like one of the steps in AA is to submit to a higher power, that is a requisite of the Paladin. You must submit to the authority of your God as the living definition of Law and of Good. What they believe to be right, you must adhere to. What they believe to be just, you must uphold.
This is very, very, different than playing someone who follows a personal code. Mal from Firefly follows a personal code. He ain't no Paladin.
So are you amending your previous definition of a paladin to be character with both a strict code AND belief in a higher power? Does the religion have to have a god? Could you have a buddhist paladin? How about a paladin of shinto? Does it have to be a religion? Can it be a person with deep spirituality?
Because there is no reason that all of those things couldn't apply to any other class. We are still left with wizard paladins.
Oh! I almost forgot!
Did you ever finish that WoW warlock write up?
|
|
I disagree based on a vary clear distinction for me. The Paladin isn't writing a personal code that changes with circumstances. The Paladin is following a code that is completely inflexible and unquestionable.If you wanted to play the paladin you described, we would have to sit down and you would need to define the code in a very clear, concrete way. And then you will always have to adhere to it or risk falling, even if circumstances of ambiguity appear, you must adhere to what was agreed on at the onset.
When I say you sound like a Paladin of Saranae, I mean we are going to sit down and define what that is and you will have to submit to that definition.
Much like one of the steps in AA is to submit to a higher power, that is a requisite of the Paladin. You must submit to the authority of your God as the living definition of Law and of Good. What they believe to be right, you must adhere to. What they believe to be just, you must uphold.
This is very, very, different than playing someone who follows a personal code. Mal from Firefly follows a personal code. He ain't no Paladin.
So are you amending your previous definition of a paladin to be character with both a strict code AND belief in a higher power? Does the religion have to have a god? Could you have a buddhist paladin? How about a paladin of shinto? Does it have to be a religion? Can it be a person with deep spirituality?
Because there is no reason that all of those things couldn't apply to any other class. We are still left with wizard paladins.
Are you saying Buddism and Shintoism don't believe in higher powers that guide actions?
Shinto as best it can be translated, literally translates to "Way of the Gods".
Buddism is all about following the guidance of a higher power toward enlightenment. The very concept of enlightenment presumes higher law.
Spirituality is all about seeking the guidance of a higher authority and defining what is "sacred".
They accept he's a paladin on faith, until he proves otherwise.
Why?
The same reason people in the wild west accepted someone was a Pinkerton on faith, until it was proved otherwise.
The same reason people in middle ages Europe accepted a guy in armor was a Knight and not a peasant who stole a knight's armor.
The same reason people in pre-reformation Japan accepted a man with a katana as a Samurai, until it was proved otherwise, and not a bandit who stole the sword.
On samurai, not just the main sword. Should have the topknot (mage), the wakizashi, a yari, warhorse and riding gear, some form of armour or clearly decent clothing, bow and arrows of fine fletching and possibly lesser men under his control.
As well as move, act and talk like a samurai. Swords were all over in the Sengoku period, including in the hands of bandits and wako. A sword would not cut it (so to speak).
Are you saying Buddism and Shintoism don't believe in higher powers that guide actions?
Shinto as best it can be translated, literally translates to "Way of the Gods".
Buddism is all about following the guidance of a higher power toward enlightenment. The very concept of enlightenment presumes higher law.
Spirituality is all about seeking the guidance of a higher authority and defining what is "sacred".
No. Not at all. Just trying to cover all bases. I want to know what you define as a higher power. That is an incredibly vague statement but I have a much better understanding as to what you would like it to mean for the paladin. Not a perfect understanding mind you but I'll get back to that in a bit.
We have come to a new definition of what a paladin is. Now it is no longer just about the code, but also about spirituality. We know that a god is not required. Just a higher power or vague force of some kind(such as in Buddism or Taoism).
That's fine for me. Judge Dredd is not a paladin by your standard. That's good. I don't see him as one either. He's cool and all, but he's kind of dick to work with so he probably shouldn't be in a party anyway. But any wizard, druid, bard, or commoner still CAN fit the prerequisites you have defined for what a paladin is. So the class itself doesn't hold any meaning in your view point. But I don't think that you agree. So obviously there is still more to this definition that has not been spoken yet. Perhaps something you yourself do not realize, or maybe something you have forgotten?
Getting back to the question of a higher power, can the higher power be a dragon?
Does the higher power actually have to exist or is the paladin's faith enough grant him the benefits of being a paladin (like in Eberron)?