|
NOPE!That thread's OUT there!! And to really blow your mind, Demons still DETECT as Evil since they have the evil outsider tag.... But that doesn't mean they haven't reformed >.<
I'm going to take your word as I have no desire to read such a thread. I'm so glad I don't play with members of the hobby who despise Paladins
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whomever thought of the above really dislikes Paladins and is imo looking for a excuse any excuse to make a Paladin fall from Grace. A DM that tried that BS with me would see me leave his gaming table.
No, don't be ridiculous. A Lawful Good demon still pings as evil to Detect Evil because it still has the [Evil] subtype. You can't just go around smiting things just because they are literally demons and detect as evil. Do you not have any idea how paladins work?
Actually, I love Paladins, I enjoy playing them, and I enjoy seeing them at my table when I GM. And I don't try to screw with them and force a fall from grace.
Let's see, how was it misrepresented...
Ah, yes. My entire point regarding the introduction of a Lawful Good demon (and I have a LG Succubus in my campaign setting who's been there since 2E AD&D) is that the GM is responsible for making sure that the Paladin knows in advance of meeting it that it is a special case. If the GM fails to do so, then yes, he is just trying to screw the Paladin over. The converse being that if the Paladin knows that there's an "odd, nice, friendly, kindly, charitable" demon in town, and gets all smite-happy when he sees it, just because it Detects as evil, he deserves everything he gets.
I will also point out that I've not had to deal with a Paladin operating under an Oath Against Fiends, but as a thought exercise, I would simply avoid using said LG Succubus in that campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That the main problem though. Not every Dm lets the player using a Paladin know that in his campaign their will be a occasional good aligned outsider. Which imo a DM should do when a Paladin is in the group. 99% of the time outsiders are evil and unless a DM tells me otherwise I would assume it's a trick on the part of the outsider.
A outsider that is of a good alignement would go out of his way to let evertone know that he is different from his more evil kin. That being said if the Paladin player knows of the rare good outsider and goes out of his way to target the npc e deserves to fall no questions asked. I had a Paladin in a 2E game that kept detecting evil on every npc he met. Eventually some time in prison curbed that at the table.
That the main problem though. Not every Dm lets the player using a Paladin know that in his campaign their will be a occasional good aligned outsider. Which imo a DM should do when a Paladin is in the group. 99% of the time outsiders are evil and unless a DM tells me otherwise I would assume it's a trick on the part of the outsider.
A outsider that is of a good alignement would go out of his way to let evertone know that he is different from his more evil kin. That being said if the Paladin player knows of the rare good outsider and goes out of his way to target the npc e deserves to fall no questions asked. I had a Paladin in a 2E game that kept detecting evil on every npc he met. Eventually some time in prison curbed that at the table.
EVERY NPC?! holy crap that does not sound like a very nice place to be.
|
|
Whomever thought of the above really dislikes Paladins and is imo looking for a excuse any excuse to make a Paladin fall from Grace. A DM that tried that BS with me would see me leave his gaming table.
No, don't be ridiculous. A Lawful Good demon still pings as evil to Detect Evil because it still has the [Evil] subtype. You can't just go around smiting things just because they are literally demons and detect as evil. Do you not have any idea how paladins work?
Actually, I love Paladins, I enjoy playing them, and I enjoy seeing them at my table when I GM. And I don't try to screw with them and force a fall from grace.
Let's see, how was it misrepresented...
It is generally easier to fight against stuff you just make up than stuff that is actually said.
|
|
EVERY NPC?! holy crap that does not sound like a very nice place to be.
Not every npc was evil. Just that the player running the Paladin thought that by virtue of being Paladin he could and would detect evil on every npc he came across. He had to learn the hard way that no it was not okay to do so. At least at my gaming table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin in my current campaign detects evil all the time. Even if there are no NPCs.
"OK, time to make camp.
"I detect evil in every direction all around the camp."
"You see an old wagon rumbling down the road with a load of cow manure."
"I detect evil on the wagon, the driver the horses and the cow manure."
Let's see, how was it misrepresented...
Who said it was you I was referring to? It was shallowsoul who said you must catch a demon red-handed in the act of murdering innocents or something, and that if you just stumble upon one you can't attack because it might be a good demon.
Though your posts did bring up another point: what counts as a fair hint that a demon is good will vary from player to player. You gave "helps out at a local orphanage" as an example of how you would make it clear that a succubus was actually good. But if I see a succubus hanging around an orphanage, I don't think "Oh, it's obviously a Good Evil Outsider", I think "Oh, it's corrupting our innocent children, smite that monster."
If you don't trust your GM, don't let them run. Find a new GM. If you are coming to a table run by "That guy" you are going to get what you should expect.
But that also generally means five people agreed to let "That Guy" be in charge for the evening, which is a failure of five people, not just one.
The players are always greedy cheaters who just want to avoid the restrictions on them! Imperfect GM's? Nobody plays with those. I will ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Therefore the player must always be guilty because GM's are by definition perfect. Also, if your GM is imperfect, that's your fault to. God, why are you players so terrible at everything I don't know why this game even has players they all suck
Let's see, how was it misrepresented...Who said it was you I was referring to? It was shallowsoul who said you must catch a demon red-handed in the act of murdering innocents or something, and that if you just stumble upon one you can't attack because it might be a good demon.
Though your posts did bring up another point: what counts as a fair hint that a demon is good will vary from player to player. You gave "helps out at a local orphanage" as an example of how you would make it clear that a succubus was actually good. But if I see a succubus hanging around an orphanage, I don't think "Oh, it's obviously a Good Evil Outsider", I think "Oh, it's corrupting our innocent children, smite that monster."
Fair enough.
It's all pretty subjective, anyway. I doubt there's an objective measure for whether a Paladin should smite or investigate, but my argument would be that until he becomes aware of evil, he should consider staying his hand.
If you don't trust your GM, don't let them run. Find a new GM. If you are coming to a table run by "That guy" you are going to get what you should expect.
But that also generally means five people agreed to let "That Guy" be in charge for the evening, which is a failure of five people, not just one.
This is something I made a thread about myself.
Even normally good GMs can get pretty anal about the whole Paladin thing. It's weird.
Though I'm not entirely sure how I put words into your mouth at all. I'm just commenting on a trend in your posts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough.
It's all pretty subjective, anyway. I doubt there's an objective measure for whether a Paladin should smite or investigate, but my argument would be that until he becomes aware of evil, he should consider staying his hand.
And I disagree. And I say that as a player, who knows the game rules and is aware that Lawful Good demons can theoretically exist and that Detect Evil still gives them a strong evil aura. My character, who has grown up in the game world, who has been trained to smite evil, especially demons, and who probably has no idea that Lawful Good demons with an evil aura are even remotely possible? She has zero reason to stay her hand.
That's really the underlying problem with the paladin code. People disagree. Often the GM thinks one thing is obviously right and the player thinks something else is obviously right. Then the player does A, the GM says they become an NPC Warrior for not doing B, and the game ceases to be fun.
or try to dictate the actions of other players.
It's worth noting that people in this very thread have argued that the paladin is required to dictate the actions of other players, or else they fall. If you say the paladin loses all class features if the rogue lies, backstabs, or poisons, then yes, the paladin is going to tell the rogue to stop lying, backstabbing, and poisoning.
Out of all the terrible interpretations of the paladin's code, "you fall if your allies violate your code" is probably the absolute worst.
|
|
The players are always greedy cheaters who just want to avoid the restrictions on them! Imperfect GM's? Nobody plays with those. I will ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Therefore the player must always be guilty because GM's are by definition perfect. Also, if your GM is imperfect, that's your fault to. God, why are you players so terrible at everything I don't know why this game even has players they all suck
Why would I ever call out the other side for strawmen...
|
|
If you don't trust your GM, don't let them run. Find a new GM. If you are coming to a table run by "That guy" you are going to get what you should expect.
But that also generally means five people agreed to let "That Guy" be in charge for the evening, which is a failure of five people, not just one.
This is something I made a thread about myself.
Even normally good GMs can get pretty anal about the whole Paladin thing. It's weird.
Though I'm not entirely sure how I put words into your mouth at all. I'm just commenting on a trend in your posts.
Or maybe the expectations of playing a Paladin is something players have trouble conforming to.
Some people don't do well with structure.
Or maybe the expectations of playing a Paladin is something players have trouble conforming to.
Some people don't do well with structure.
Some people do have trouble with the concept of the Code itself or just want the power without the restrictions, true, which is why you get those Paladins who use their position as a Paladin to slaughter mercilessly any creature that shows a hint of evil (the "Orc women and children" scenario, or the government of Cheliax).
But you can't deny some GMs enforce a much too strict interpretation of the Code. The kind that would make a Paladin fall for complimenting the lady of the house on her beauty, when her stat block says she has 8 Charisma or something.
- I've yet to meet a DM who would make them fall for it.
In other news:
There was a big split between people who felt that the Paladin should fall and those who thought that Wererats are always evil and should be killed.One of the particular points of imbecility in which thread being that Wererats in Pathfinder are NOT always evil. Not to mention that Detect Evil explicitly allows for non-evil creatures to register as evil.
Well, the second part is only revelant part as he detected evil on the Wererat if you remember.
And Wererats are always evil. Not sure where you got the opposite idea.Look: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/humanoids/lycanthrope/wer erat
LE alignment.
Now if it was afflicted Wererat, it could be non-evil while not a wererat, but it was in control since talked rationally.
Thus, it was evil if afflicted.
If it was natural then changing form woulde not make it evil: it had to evil before it turns into a weretrat form.
Thus, it was evil if natural.
Either way, it was evil.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason people argue so much about paladins is, generally, that they come into the discussion with a huge personal bias and blinders on, and assume whatever personal table rules and levels of interpersonal antagonism they're familiar with are universal. Basically, what it comes down to is:
1- Are we looking at a campaign where the GM has established they're doing some grimdark "EVIL is an irreversible corruption that can only grow and spread and must be hacked off at the root at all costs" sort of thing?
2- Is the paladin hellbent on killing everything they consider to be evil?
If these two questions don't have the same answer, that paladin is doing something wrong.
I'd say that if those two questions don't have the same answer something's wrong and it might very well be a failure of communication - it's not necessarily the paladin's player's fault if he's used to black and white games where monsters are Always Evil and all of a sudden the DM throws a reformed demon at him. The wide range of opinions on appropriate paladin behavior emphasizes how important it is for a player and GM to make sure they're on the same page before playing.
Paladins cramp their style. They cramp ordinary PCs, but it's hard for an ordinary PC to make a paladin fall, at least in comparison to an assassin, necromancer, or what have you.
If someone is joining a campaign as a paladin, they need to ask the other players for permission. Either that doesn't happen, or they ask, the other players get upset, and the paladin-playing player ignores them.
That's a little extreme. I'd say that it's generally highly desirable for the players to discuss their characters before a campaign starts to make sure that there are no major problems, especially if any of the characters have strong moral opinions of any sort. A druid with strong opinions against undead is going to have just as hard a time getting along with a necromancer as a paladin is going to have getting along with a thief, and any two characters with strongly conflicting alignments or goals can cause problems if they're played aggressively.
EVERY NPC?! holy crap that does not sound like a very nice place to be.Not every npc was evil. Just that the player running the Paladin thought that by virtue of being Paladin he could and would detect evil on every npc he came across. He had to learn the hard way that no it was not okay to do so. At least at my gaming table.
My last Inquisitor detected alignment all the time. He didn't always act on it, but it certainly helped the case of the friendly werewolf that he detected as CG instead of CE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He made a character that he wants to play. He wants to play the charater, not game the system.
If his character can't see the flying creature because it is too far away, he doesn't want to cheat.
If you make a paladin, part of playing a paladin is playing the code of that paladin. How you define that code is between you and you GM. But you made a decision to play a class with a specific limitation, in the same way my friend chose to play a class that can't see beyond a certain distance.
My friends Oracle is an absolute beast in dungeons and close quarters, but when you put him in an open field he has to adjust.
A paladin is an absolute beast against evil, and other times...has to adjust.
They could have made the Fighter class, way long ago, such that it was an absolute beast when using swords and sword-like weapons. They could have made the Fighter such that it couldn't use axes, hammers, flails, bows, crossbows, or anything.
And then when the game progressed through its various editions and we had the advent of the Internet, we'd have thread after thread of people wanting to play a Fighter, just not necessarily using swords exclusively and other people rebuking those players for thinking too far outside the box. "If you want to use axes so much, just use that Warrior NPC class and leave the Fighter alone."
Thankfully, the designers had enough foresight to realize that just because some people want to play sword-using Fighters doesn't mean that everyone who wants to play a Fighter wants to use a sword.
That's what we're dealing with. We want to play characters that are combinations of martial ability and divine spellcasting ability without being tied to one specific concept.
Your guy has a character he wants to play, well so do we. And if we chose a character with a Code of Conduct, then we should abide by it (whatever it is) because that's what we picked in the first place.
But the game, the designers, and the other players out there are making some pretty big assumptions when they think that just because we're playing a Paladin (the guy with a combination of martial ability and divine spellcasting ability), we must be playing a Paladin (he who is empowered by the Cosmic Force of Lawful Good, as evidenced by the stick up his rear).
I want to play a combination of divine spellcasting and martial ability. Cleric is more divine spellcasting than we ever asked for. Fighter is no divine spellcasting whatsoever.
Lawful-Good, Code-of-Conduct-abiding Paladin-players have the choice to play a multiclass Fighter/Cleric or play a class set aside for such a combination. All we're asking for is the same courtesy.
I'm playing a Rogue, a class originally inspired by a sneaky, thievy sort of person. And yet, should I decide to display the arrogant gall and unmitigated audacity to not have my character hold to that, I take no penalties, lose knowledge of no abilities.
We just want the same thing for the Paladin. Lose the baggage and let people play Lawful Good Paladins because they choose to, rather than because they're forced to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough.
It's all pretty subjective, anyway. I doubt there's an objective measure for whether a Paladin should smite or investigate, but my argument would be that until he becomes aware of evil, he should consider staying his hand.
And I disagree. And I say that as a player, who knows the game rules and is aware that Lawful Good demons can theoretically exist and that Detect Evil still gives them a strong evil aura. My character, who has grown up in the game world, who has been trained to smite evil, especially demons, and who probably has no idea that Lawful Good demons with an evil aura are even remotely possible? She has zero reason to stay her hand.
That's really the underlying problem with the paladin code. People disagree. Often the GM thinks one thing is obviously right and the player thinks something else is obviously right. Then the player does A, the GM says they become an NPC Warrior for not doing B, and the game ceases to be fun.
I'm certainly not going to argue that the subjectivity of the Code is what causes the problems.
Your example of a paladin living in the game world is slightly specious, though. I have never argued that under the circumstance you've outlined, smiting is wrong. Any of my Paladins would do the same, and I would generally expect a Paladin in a game I run to do the same.
Consider the following very real situation from my home campaign, though:
Your Paladin, brought up to smite evil in all it's forms, especially demons, has found herself before the king (a just and wise king whom all know is a devoted servant of the gods of light, and banisher of evil). The king is asking her and her companions to undertake a perilous quest, and has chosen to send an "observer" along with them.
The king says "She has some abilities which may prove useful to you. Do not be concerned with her appearance and the reality of her existence: I trust her explicitly, and know that she also serves the Light, as do we all."
Enter one succubus. Your Detect Evil pings like a mad thing at her, and you know enough about these particular demons to know that they are mistresses of manipulation and deception.
Do you - a) Proceed to smite her with righteous fury.
b) Take the king at his word and accept her as a member of your party.
c) Do as the king asks, but keep an eye on her in case she's pulling a fast one, and at the first sign of treachery do everything in your power to destroy her.
d) Ask your caster friends to discretely check if the king is under some compulsion, and depending on the result, pick another of a, b or c?
My entire argument is that just going for "a" is the wrong move, even for a Paladin who has no other reason to suspect that Risen demons might exist. To be honest, "b" is a pretty dumb move, too.
or try to dictate the actions of other players.It's worth noting that people in this very thread have argued that the paladin is required to dictate the actions of other players, or else they fall. If you say the paladin loses all class features if the rogue lies, backstabs, or poisons, then yes, the paladin is going to tell the rogue to stop lying, backstabbing, and poisoning.
Out of all the terrible interpretations of the paladin's code, "you fall if your allies violate your code" is probably the absolute worst.
Got to agree there, within certain boundaries. The paladin is responsible for her own actions, not those of others, but is also obliged to pay careful consideration to their friends and allies and avoid allowing them to become evil (since if they do and the paladin continues to associate with them the paladin risks losing their paladinhood).
So while I don't think a paladin should fall just because their allies use tactics that they find reprehensible, it's quite reasonable for the paladin to discuss it with them with the aim of ensuring they don't go too far and become evil themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what we're dealing with. We want to play characters that are combinations of martial ability and divine spellcasting ability without being tied to one specific concept.
Your guy has a character he wants to play, well so do we. And if we chose a character with a Code of Conduct, then we should abide by it (whatever it is) because that's what we picked in the first place.
I want to play a combination of divine spellcasting and martial ability. Cleric is more divine spellcasting than we ever asked for. Fighter is no divine spellcasting whatsoever.
Lawful-Good, Code-of-Conduct-abiding Paladin-players have the choice to play a multiclass Fighter/Cleric or play a class set aside for such a combination. All we're asking for is the same courtesy.
So...did the inquisitor class get removed or...?
|
|
Or maybe the expectations of playing a Paladin is something players have trouble conforming to.
Some people don't do well with structure.
Some people do have trouble with the concept of the Code itself or just want the power without the restrictions, true, which is why you get those Paladins who use their position as a Paladin to slaughter mercilessly any creature that shows a hint of evil (the "Orc women and children" scenario, or the government of Cheliax).
But you can't deny some GMs enforce a much too strict interpretation of the Code. The kind that would make a Paladin fall for complimenting the lady of the house on her beauty, when her stat block says she has 8 Charisma or something.
I can't deny some people shouldn't be GMs for some players.
And the decision to have that happen involves more than the GM.
If you can't conform to the table expectations for playing a specific type of character, you don't have to sit down at the table. If the GM is really being unreasonable, at a certain point other people won't be willing to give up time to allow him to do so.
Not regarding you specifically, it is interesting to me is some of the same people who are bothered by attack on how they play are the ones bothered by how other tables are adjudicated.
Someone is adjudicating the setting. The group picks who that is. If you don't like how they do it, there is a really easy fix.
So...did the inquisitor class get removed or...?That's what we're dealing with. We want to play characters that are combinations of martial ability and divine spellcasting ability without being tied to one specific concept.
Your guy has a character he wants to play, well so do we. And if we chose a character with a Code of Conduct, then we should abide by it (whatever it is) because that's what we picked in the first place.
I want to play a combination of divine spellcasting and martial ability. Cleric is more divine spellcasting than we ever asked for. Fighter is no divine spellcasting whatsoever.
Lawful-Good, Code-of-Conduct-abiding Paladin-players have the choice to play a multiclass Fighter/Cleric or play a class set aside for such a combination. All we're asking for is the same courtesy.
Do LG Paladin-players have to resign themselves to playing a Fighter/Cleric multiclass or an Inquisitor, or do they also get the option to play a Paladin? Then why not extend that option for other people?
If the Inquisitor is good enough for a non-LG concept, then it's good enough for Paladin-players, and they shouldn't have the option of Paladin available for them. If Inquisitor is its own specific concept, maybe similar to a Paladin but not good enough to pass for a Paladin for a LG-concept, then why would you assume that it magically is good enough for a non-LG concept?
And where we seem to have a gulf of difference is I don't see why someone should be "fired" because they get hung up on this one thing out of a thousand things.
Now if they're like this all the time with everything, yeah you need a new GM, but if they're only like this with that one thing it makes it a bit harder to say "Jim, you're a good GM. But I hate how you run Paladins. You gotta go."
Do LG Paladin-players have to resign themselves to playing a Fighter/Cleric multiclass or an Inquisitor, or do they also get the option to play a Paladin? Then why not extend that option for other people?
If the Inquisitor is good enough for a non-LG concept, then it's good enough for Paladin-players, and they shouldn't have the option of Paladin available for them. If Inquisitor is its own specific concept, maybe similar to a Paladin but not good enough to pass for a Paladin for a LG-concept, then why would you assume that it magically is good enough for a non-LG concept?
I'm not sure I understand your plight here. You were complaining that Paladin or Fighter/Cleric multiclass were the only way to get "Divine Warriors" and I pointed out that Inquisitor existed.
You have 3 options there. Two non-alignmnet restricted, and one that is.
As for the rest of it, maybe it made sense in your head but it sure doesn't make sense on paper.
If you're LG you can play any of the three. If you want to be any other alignment, you can play the other two. If you're Chaotic Evil you can even play an Anti-Paladin in addition to the other two. 4 options for a Divine Warrior when you said there were only two.
So what's the issue? Because from all I can tell you're b$$@%ing about the whole "Paladins shouldn't be alignment restricted" thing, which I have no sympathy for I'm sad to say.
More like "Jim, your a good GM but clearly I can't run a Paladin at your table and still enjoy it. So I'm going to either play something else or find a GM who is on the same page as me because this is the internet age and gamer connection exists."
Or you could not be such a drama queen and walk out every time something is run badly, and just say "Jim, the way your run Paladin is being pretty dickish, it'd be nice if you let up on it. I don't know what your deal is, but you're better than this."
Then queen it up if he refuses.
|
What does the phrase, 'Queen it up', mean?
Roberta Yang is making the most sense in the recent posts. It's astonishing what some DMs want to make a paladin fall for.
On the subject of 'telling other players what to do', I would expect any good aligned PC to prevent her own party committing evil acts such as murder, torture, rape, etc.; not just paladins.
Some players have their paladins behave badly. Some players have their rogues behave badly; stealing from their own friends with the absurd excuse of 'But I'm a thief!'
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin in my current campaign detects evil all the time. Even if there are no NPCs.
"OK, time to make camp.
"I detect evil in every direction all around the camp.""You see an old wagon rumbling down the road with a load of cow manure."
"I detect evil on the wagon, the driver the horses and the cow manure."
The obvious answer is that the wagon is OK, but the gazebo right next to it is evil as hell.
Or you just not be selfish and run something else you won't get your panties into a bunch about how it is adjudicated.
At the end of the day, you are being a drama queen by not adjusting to the table in the first place.
Eh?
You're the one that keeps saying "I don't like something so I'll leave."
It's not being selfish to tell someone they're being an a~!+~*$, it's a simple statement of facts. You can't really adjust to something when they're out to get you, because they'll adjust right back.
So your options are the aforementioned "Talk to him about it.", "Change characters.", or "Leave."
I prefer to try at least option 1 before skipping to 3.
What does the phrase, 'Queen it up', mean?
In reference to the "don't be a drama queen".
Or you could take it as permission to crossdress if you like.
I'm not sure I understand your plight here. You were complaining that Paladin or Fighter/Cleric multiclass were the only way to get "Divine Warriors" and I pointed out that Inquisitor existed.
You have 3 options there. Two non-alignmnet restricted, and one that is.
As for the rest of it, maybe it made sense in your head but it sure doesn't make sense on paper.
If you're LG you can play any of the three. If you want to be any other alignment, you can play the other two. If you're Chaotic Evil you can even play an Anti-Paladin in addition to the other two. 4 options for a Divine Warrior when you said there were only two.
So what's the issue? Because from all I can tell you're b!$&#ing about the whole "Paladins shouldn't be alignment restricted" thing, which I have no sympathy for I'm sad to say.
Why does the third one need to be alignment restricted? Why should LG get more options than non-LG?
I give examples of the exact same line of thinking as applied to other scenarios (all Fighters only being allowed to use swords just because long ago, someone wanted to play a sword-using Fighter and forgot to make it accessible for players with other preferences) to demonstrate the error in thinking. So why is it such a leap to realize that the same sort of nonsensical unfairness is occuring to the Paladin?
Yes, non-LG (and non-CE) Divine Warriors have two options for expressing such a character. They could very easily have three. Neither you, nor any other LG Paladin fan, would be forced or arm-twisted into playing such a character. It's addition negatively impacts you not one bit and positively impacts those of us wanting to play such characters a great deal.
Why is it that when asked the question "How should a LG Paladin conduct himself?", my best response is "Behave in a fashion contradictory to the people responsible for the Paladin only being LG in the first place"?
Yes, I am complaining about the Paladin's alignment restrictions.
And I agree with you. You are sorry to say you have no sympathy. You're a mean little kid holding a toy above your head where the other kid on the playground can't reach for no other reason than because he's not as tall as you. You're not even playing with the toy, you just hold it away for kicks and giggles.
And it's just sad that Pathfinder is written such that it defends and supports such an immature attitude.
Not an accurate assessment? Then tell me how I'm supposed to see it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread reminds me of why I give details to new players before they play, if they're playing a Paladin.
Each of my gods (that can have Paladins) has a specific Paladin's code. That code has a paragraph describing how the god expects them to act, and a page of 'thou shalt' rules to give them an idea of how the bod expects them to act. Some are easier to follow than others.
I also let them all know that I am very strict about the '5hd or less has no aura' thing for detect <blah>. I also make sure they know that there are tales and legends of fallen angels and fallen demons/devils. If they are on an elemental plane, then if they run into a demon, it's evil. Pure and simple. If they run into a demon in the real world, it is probably evil, but could be neutral or good. Within my game, to come to the mortal world, a demon or devil or angel must make a mortal body to inhabit, and doing so fuses their essence into mortal stuff. Which means they can change since things in the mortal realm can change.
Keeps me from having to explain why every hedge wizard in the world hasn't already unleashed a million demons/devils in exchange for power. :) Also means the Paladin can't assume that anything that pings evil is active evil (again, the auras are the big one, my favorite example is a LN cleric or inquisitor worshiping a LE god).
Again, never had issues with people playing Paladins. And I never have to set up a 'fall' situation, in my experience, people can handle falling their own Paladin just fine without me setting them up for it.
Why does the third one need to be alignment restricted? Why should LG get more options than non-LG?
Why shouldn't they?
I give examples of the exact same line of thinking as applied to other scenarios (all Fighters only being allowed to use swords just because long ago, someone wanted to play a sword-using Fighter and forgot to make it accessible for players with other preferences) to demonstrate the error in thinking. So why is it such a leap to realize that the same sort of nonsensical unfairness is occuring to the Paladin?
How is the same thing occurring? It wouldn't be a Paladin if it weren't upheld to a higher standard of Good and Law/Justice. A Fighter can be a Fighter whatever weapon he uses. A Paladin cannot be a Paladin without the LG restriction. If it were any other alignment it could still be a Holy Warrior, but not a Paladin.
Now, you can make an argument that there should exist other Paladin-esque classes, but that's neither here nor there since we're talking about people following the Code that they agreed to uphold when they picked the class. The class has a Code. There can be a great deal of flexibility in the Code, but the class by name is defined by it.
Yes, non-LG (and non-CE) Divine Warriors have two options for expressing such a character. They could very easily have three. Neither you, nor any other LG Paladin fan, would be forced or arm-twisted into playing such a character. It's addition negatively impacts you not one bit and positively impacts those of us wanting to play such characters a great deal.
Again, valid, but what does this have to do with the thread?
Why is it that when asked the question "How should a LG Paladin conduct himself?", my best response is "Behave in a fashion contradictory to the people responsible for the Paladin only being LG in the first place"?
Because you're a naturally contrary person who can't abide by a set of restrictions?
Yes, I am complaining about the Paladin's alignment restrictions.
And I agree with you. You are sorry to say you have no sympathy. You're a mean little kid holding a toy above your head where the other kid on the playground can't reach for no other reason than because he's not as tall as you. You're not even playing with the toy, you just hold it away for kicks and giggles.Not an accurate assessment? Then tell me how I'm supposed to see it.
You're supposed to see it as a fact of this game that the Paladin has a Code. It is neither good nor bad. It just is.
You can houserule it away to your heart's content, I won't stop you. I'd probably enjoy it, in fact. But for the many people who play the game mostly by the Code and alignment restrictions exist, hence "How should a Paladin conduct himself?", with the simple answer being "By following the Code" and the complex answer being "By how his GM interprets the Code".
You said you wanted to play a Divine Warrior without the alignment restriction. I suggested 3 alternative options.
You've made it clear in this post that you do not just want to play a Divine Warrior, you want to play a Paladin with no alignment restrictions, which is not the same thing at all.
Are you posting in the correct thread? Was this meant for some other thread? Because you truly confuse me with how very off-topic this is out of nowhere.
|
|
@Rynjin - Actually, I'm saying if something got my panties into so much of a bunch I needed to throw a hissy fit and derail the game, I should just leave the table and move on.
Personally, if a GM asks me not to do something I just try and find something else I can do that won't derail the game.
Unless of course, I am not having fun. Then I find a new game where I will be able to have fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thief stealing perish the thought. Having a thief stealing would be totally out of character and would be breech my suspension of disbelief, a thief would never be self-serving or greedy.
This is a long-standing bug-bear of mine, born of bad experiences of 'thieves' stealing from their own party, even when they became 'rogues' so that they had no compunction to steal for it's own sake.
I hate player versus player. I don't think it's fun, and I don't do it to anyone unless they do it to me and then I make them regret it.
'But I'm a thief! You can't be mad at me because I stole your stuff, 'thieving' is what I do! It's just my nature! You can't blame me for playing my character!'
It's not okay for the PCs to use the abilities on each other that they use against the bad guys. If a 'thief' ever says that it's okay to use their thieving skills against his party, then it's also okay for the fighter to use his fighting skills against the thief! The wizard to cast his spells against him and the cleric to refuse to heal someone who acts like an enemy!
It's as okay for the party thief to rob the fighter as it is for the fighter to axe the thief in the head! 'But I'm a fighter! It's what I do!'
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of 'telling other players what to do', I would expect any good aligned PC to prevent her own party committing evil acts such as murder, torture, rape, etc.; not just paladins.And I would expect any paladin who complains about other PCs using intelligent tactics like deception, stealth and knockout poison (or a druid using the Poison spell) to sit down and shut up, but their code doesn't allow them to hang out with such dishonorable people. They either have to complain, go away, or fall.
In other words, telling the other players what they can and can't do might have nothing to do with being good-aligned.
And who makes paladins act so badly? DMs who would make them fall for not acting that way!
The paladins code, whatever it's specifics may be, is for the paladin, not people who are not paladins! There is no requirement for everyone in a paladin's party to follow his code, they just can't be evil! Using intelligent tactics, stealth, subterfuge, etc. is not evil behaviour in and of itself, a paladin will not fall because someone in his party tells a lie!
Samson (of Bible fame) was of an order that promised God that they would not cut their hair (amongst other things, but the 'hair' thing is by far the most famous). God rewarded Samson and his order for their faith and obedience, granting great strength and other blessings. When his hair was cut he lost these blessings until it grew back. Harsh, sure, but Samson knew what he was getting into.
The point I'm making is that, if Samson was a member of an adventuring party, he would not lose his blessings if one of his mates got a haircut!
The code is for paladins, not their mates! If DMs weren't dicks about it, there wouldn't be pressure on the players of paladins to act like dicks.
|
|
I have had one of my Paladin players kill a child ("He was attacking me with a club!" he argues. "Yes, at the order of an evil gnome who had tortured him for years and whom he feared more than your Paladin at the time." (The child was also unarmored, so there was little reason not to use non-lethal methods, rather than cut his head off with a sword, which unfortunately is how it ended). Another Paladin saw nothing wrong with torturing a bound prisoner for information and then killing the helpless hobgoblin. Both lost their abilities for a time even though both felt completely justified in their actions.
The Paladin torturing a prisoner for information than killing the prisoner imo deserves to fall from grace. The evil gnome with the kid and club well quite a "concidence" that the Paladin is the guy who is attacked. That to me is imo setting up the Paladin to fail. C'mon how many BBEG just happen to have not only a prisoner bit a child and one so afraid as to attack the guy in the heaviest armor who just happens to be the Paladin.
|
|
You said you wanted to play a Divine Warrior without the alignment restriction. I suggested 3 alternative options.
You've made it clear in this post that you do not just want to play a Divine Warrior, you want to play a Paladin with no alignment restrictions, which is not the same thing at all.
Tectorman's position is very simple.
We have two players, Jack and Jill. Jack and Jill both want to play Divine Warriors. Jack is OK with playing a LG character. Jill is not.
Jack can play a cleric, inquisitor, or paladin, or multiclass.
Jill can play a cleric or inquisitor, or multiclass.
Tectorman doesn't think it's fair that Jill doesn't get the same set of options for her Divine Warrior that Jack gets. It might not even be that Jill is trying to avoid having some form of code of conduct. Jill might want to play a warrior serving a chaotic god like Cayden Cailean or might know that two group members are playing CN characters and want to avoid conflict. Yes, that means that Jill wants the option to play a Paladin without an alignment restriction (though not necessarily without behavioral restrictions). There has been quite a lot of discussion on this forum about whether that is appropriate.
I personally think that a lot of the problems people have with paladins who don't work well with others come from people who are forced into playing the standard LG paladin in a group where a CG paladin might be more appropriate, assuming that the player and GM are on the same page about what being a CG paladin means. It's a bad idea to play a paladin without embracing the character's moral identity. Being more flexible about which moral identity the character chooses prevents players from half-heartedly attempting LG just because they want to try the paladin class and there are no other options.
I give examples of the exact same line of thinking as applied to other scenarios (all Fighters only being allowed to use swords just because long ago, someone wanted to play a sword-using Fighter and forgot to make it accessible for players with other preferences) to demonstrate the error in thinking. So why is it such a leap to realize that the same sort of nonsensical unfairness is occuring to the Paladin?
A better example perhaps than the swords-only Fighter is the human-only Paladin, which was a fixture in 2E and was eliminated when the developers decided that hard race restrictions for core classes unreasonably limited player options. Most players now have no problem with an elven, dwarven, halfling, or even half-orc paladin (and the last would have lacked a soul entirely in 2E).
I'm not sure I understand your plight here. You were complaining that Paladin or Fighter/Cleric multiclass were the only way to get "Divine Warriors" and I pointed out that Inquisitor existed.
An inquisitor is not a good substitute for a paladin since its divine powers are Wis-based rather than Cha-based and it is more skilled and more versatile in exchange for defensive auras and a targeted smite. Despite a comparable martial/magic mix it plays very differently. The Oracle is Cha-based and can be built as a warrior, but the curse makes it an entirely different beast.
Well of course it plays differently, all classes play differently.
But remember, the LG character ONLY has more options when playing a Divine Warrior. A Neutral or Chaotic or Evil player can play the Fighter/Cleric, the Inquisitor, the Oracle and possibly the Anti-Paladin as well as classes like the Barbarian and Druid which are also alignment restricted to be Paladin incompatible. If you're limiting yourself to a certain range of concepts, yes, certain alignments are going to have more options than others.
Now, I wouldn't exactly mind a Chaotic Good and a Lawful Evil "Paladin" but in that case they wouldn't really be Paladins exactly.
The Paladin torturing a prisoner for information than killing the prisoner imo deserves to fall from grace. The evil gnome with the kid and club well quite a "concidence" that the Paladin is the guy who is attacked. That to me is imo setting up the Paladin to fail. C'mon how many BBEG just happen to have not only a prisoner bit a child and one so afraid as to attack the guy in the heaviest armor who just happens to be the Paladin.
I'm sorry, I call BS on this statement.
If I am an evil character, and I know I'm going to be attacked by Good characters, and especially there's a possibility of a Paladin coming along, I'm sure as the sun rises going to have some innocent bystanders around to throw between me and them. I'll strap babies to the orc's shields (had that happen to me in a game I was playing in where we were all good characters), I'm going to have flunkies use wands of Command on as many children and bystanders as I can round up, and then give them the command to attack the party.
I'm sorry, but BBEG's are EVIL. Yes, there may be some 'gentleman devil' somewhere who fights by a strict code and doesn't use kids as cannon fodder, but the vast majority of evil is going to do everything he can to stop the good guys, including making them choose between killing innocents and getting killed, because they are EVIL. Has nothing to do with the GM trying to make the paladin fall, it's about him playing the evil guys as evil disgusting bastards.
EDIT : And please note the gnome was the EVIL guy who tortured the Paladin for YEARS, he sure as heck knows the Paladin is a Paladin, and is EVIL, so of course he sends the little boy to attack the Paladin. Duh! It's perfect tactics, make your foe take his own self out of the fight (metaphysically speaking of course).
|
|
Well of course it plays differently, all classes play differently.
But remember, the LG character ONLY has more options when playing a Divine Warrior. A Neutral or Chaotic or Evil player can play the Fighter/Cleric, the Inquisitor, the Oracle and possibly the Anti-Paladin as well as classes like the Barbarian and Druid which are also alignment restricted to be Paladin incompatible. If you're limiting yourself to a certain range of concepts, yes, certain alignments are going to have more options than others.
And some people think that alignment restrictions are a bad thing in general, that it's just as bad to prohibit LG Warriors of Nature from being barbarians or druids as it is to prohibit CG Holy Knights from being paladins.
An paladin/druid with oath against undeath or corruption (aberrations) would be interesting and reasonable, don't you think?
Now, I wouldn't exactly mind a Chaotic Good and a Lawful Evil "Paladin" but in that case they wouldn't really be Paladins exactly.
I'm OK with making the alternate alignments a little different as long as the key mechanics are intact - if the class is more different than the Antipaladin variant then it's not giving similar enough options to the other alignments.