So you see no difference in adhering to a clear rule (you cant see past x feet) and an argument over the overly ambiguous mess that is the dnd/pathfinder alignment system? Seriously?
The problem with paladins isnt that people intentionally break the code and want to get away with it (not that this doesnt happen its just not the problem with the code). Its the fact that as you say, the dm and the player have to agree on what the code means and how it is actually implemented, and for the most part that is really hard to do. Ive seen threads where a detailed code been posted (i forget what paizo product had a bunch of codes for different deities) and still people couldnt agree on what it meant and how that applies to in game situations.
We can all agree that if you cant see past 30ft you shouldnt react to things at 50ft. If I have to have a detailed discussion with my dm on how weapon focus works, something is wrong. If in thousands of message board threads we havent resolved how channel energy is to be used in game, we have issues. But these lines:
"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."
Have been the subject of more discussion, more confusion, and more table conflict then how many levels of magic user gandalf has. And that is a problem. It has been a problem for a long time, and its not the fault (usually) of some deceitful and dastardly player for trying to take advantage of it. Its that everyone has their own picture of how a paladin should act, and more often then not the two pictures dont look the same.
OK... Definitely there are people that see that the paladin should act in a different way, but I think if a GM explains to the player about codeof conduct and how paladins should behave in his campaign, then the player should think twice,and I even recommend for the player to read about deities from Gods And Magic book about LG deities and which deity is easier to follow before taking up the role of a paladin.
I had a great problem with one of my friends, in the beginning i told him about code of conduct etc. and it was ok untill 20 sessions where he started to act more like a fighter than a paladin, beating innocents, and when I told him that what he did was not right, he told me that he sees his paladin like a crusader and despite I like it or not, he would continue doing as he pleases. He didn't respect authority, he became egotistical( esppecialy in a moment where after he heard many talk about a paladin of Iomedae from Lastwall, Sir Dramott, and he wanted to meet him in person, and after a coupleof sessions when he finally met him, he told me that he wants to make a sense motive to see if Sir Dramott is jealous of him), and he slapped and beat a few lords or two, I punished him and gave him a second chance, but that nothing changed, he started to ask like that again, and it was untill two weeks ago when we stopped playing since he broke those agreements about code of conduct we made at the beggining.
Anyway, me myself I don't find playing a paladin to be a difficult task, but if GM tolds how code of conduct and everything should be done, zou must accept it, or if you don't like it, than create a fighter. I was a lil bit furious that in theend after we quit playing, I made a paladin of Iomedae and played with one of my friends and I showed how it's nt difficult to play a paladin. My friend was first afraid that I would make mistakes, but in the end he praised me so much that I gave him inspiration to continue being a GM :)
To summarise, anyone who can't agree with the GM about code of conduct and how paladin should be played, then create a fighter or a barbarian, or a two-weapon fighting ranger, or if a player has it to play the paladin but he doesn't wantto be very limited, I think inquisitor would be fine, since inquisitor has more freedom than paladin.
Why shouldn't the Paladin code be vague? Isn't that the point? Shouldn't there be room for interpretation by the Player and GM of each game? After all, wouldn't a Paladin of a Lawful Good Deity behave differently than a Paladin of a Chaotic Good Deity? Going one further, wouldn't Paladins of different deities have different priorities and codes based on his/her deity's portfolio?
After all, if every Paladin had to abide by the exact set of rules, have the same personality, regardless of their patron deity, wouldn't they all act the same? This would mean that the Paladin class is the player's version of a railroady adventure - you can't act how you want to, you must play a certain way no matter what. Why would any player choose to play a Character Class that railroads him/her into playing it the same way each time?
This "One True Paladin" debate has gone on for years and years, causing lots of disagreements and aggravation. Moreso than it deserves. However, I've never experienced it first-hand in any of my 30+ years (dear Lord, was 1978 that long ago?) of gaming. Many players (including myself) have played Paladins. In each case, the Paladin had subtle differences in behavior and his/her interpretation of the Paladin code. Never once did it cause an issue at the game table, as the DM/GM always went with the player's character concept and made it work.
Variety is the spice of life! Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Viva la Paladins! (and their diverse interpretations of codes).
I definitely agree. There must be a difference for example between a Paladin of Torag and Paladin of Iomedae. There are basic rules about code of conduit which applies to all paladins, but there are also specific rules for each paladin when it comes to their deity. Gods and Magic book helped me a lot, where you have details how should a paladin of a specific deity behave and how not to and plus from there you can understand how it works. Faith of Purity book is also useful, since there is a section where it contains paladin codes for each specific deity.
Most important is that GM and the player should discuss seriously about code and conduct and all before the player start creating a paladin. If the GM and the player cannot come to an agreement when it comes to code of conduct, then its better for sake of all for the player to create a fighter or other fighting class.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem i see is that some people cannot accept the fact that the rules are what they are.
Until the devs change them, Paladins will be of LG alignment and will have to abide by their specific code.
You can, of course, make houserules, but then, they are not official, and don't matter one bit, even if they are better then the official rules. The best you can hope is that the devs will notice those house rules and use them. Whining about unfairness will not change that one whit.
You can argue that it's not fair and that paladin's awesomeness should be available to all, but until that happens, you're just wasting breath (or fingers).
That said, i've had several players play paladins in my games during the years, and only one of those took the code seriously. The rest fell, some quickly and some slower. Needles to say, they all acted butthurt about it. I simply said:"Hey, you're given a specific set of rules about your paladin, rules that you and i agreed upon before the game, rules i kept repeating to you. You violated those rules and were punished for it. And, furthermore, all of the things that you did, you did. I didn't make you fall deliberately, you did that yourself. Please tell me how this is my fault?"
The problem is that players who complain want to play the class with restrictions without said restrictions. That is ridiculous. If you can't handle all the rules that come your way and the rest of the table agrees with, don't play. Play something else, or find a group that doesn't believe in alignment restrictions.
Also on the point of a paladin attacking evil just because it pings on detect evil? I would make that guy fall faster then a rock. You can't attack that guy plowing his field just because he is evil. That would be an evil act in on itself.
|
I need to repat myself again. i have nothing against evil creatures including the BBEG having prisoners. Far from it. I take issue that every evil creature seems somehow to not only have priosners. But also to have some truly innocent on hand just in case to make a Paladin fall. some evil characters not all of them. As Norgrim said I want to play D&D not star ina new version of Delta force. I have played in games of D&D where every evil npc was given a advantage. They all were terrible games. No matter what the gaming group did we never could get on top of evil. No sense of acoomplishment. Before anyone says "but their evil!". Yes they are evil. does not mean being evil makes you prepared for everything the forces of good can throw against you 24/7. Unless every evil npc is run as a paranoid, control freak insomniac.
|
|
As to the 'shouldn't have victims'. Again, BS. You're an Evil Gnome. Whos' going to try to stop you? Another evil guy? maybe, but you kill him. Good guys? Them you need innocent hostages for. Duh. Villainy 101. Every BBEG should have some innocent hostages squirreled away for getting away.
I call would call BS if a DM always had tie villian prepared. Sorry but unless your BBEG is a god. Has unlimited resources, with the intelligence to use them no way is he always going to have innocents on hand just in case everytime. It reverse metagaming on the part of a DM. If I ever played with a DM like that then I would be engaging in metagaming every step of the way. Why wouldn't I if the DM is doing the same to the players.
|
|
It's not so much not be able to accept the rule as they are Hama. At least fo me. It's the lack of a clear code and the very general description of the alignments. As well as what you can do. A class that hhas it's abilites tied to a alignment that loses them if he or she goes against the alignment has to have a code of conduct. Of what they can or cannot do. It gives players a idea on how to play a class as well as the alignment. As well giving the DM a better idea of tailoring the camoaign for the DM. It also prevents players from using Paladins as either fantasy versions of dirty harry or playing Lawful good as Lawful Stupid. While also reducing the amount of times DMs who dislike Paladins from screwing over the player who want to play one.
|
|
I think i understand what you wrote, but the point is very simple.
The code is very clear. The point is that if there is something your GM considers an evil act, it is an evil act. If you don't like it don't play a paladin, or leave the group. Simple as that. The worst you can do is stay there and wallow in resentment.
The most important part of any social interaction is compromising. And being adults. If a player cannot be an adult about an issue, i won't play with that player anymore, and what i have seen is that a lot of the people here consider it's only their way or the highway. That is a very selfish attitude.
Here is how the issue is resolved at my table:
You discuss what you as a GM expect from a paladin player on how to act. Your player explains his expectations. If you cannot come to an agreement there are four courses of action.
- Player doesn't play the paladin (player gets the raw deal and there may be some grief involved, but the best solution overall)
- Player leaves the game to find another game (best solution for the player, but not for the group)
- Player gets to play the paladin as he sees fit, and the paladin falls. (again, the player is selfishly putting his fun in front of the fun of all the rest)
- GM refuses to gm (the entire group suffers because of actions of one selfish, uncompromising player, the worst solution)
I call would call BS if a DM always had tie villian prepared. Sorry but unless your BBEG is a god. Has unlimited resources, with the intelligence to use them no way is he always going to have innocents on hand just in case everytime. It reverse metagaming on the part of a DM. If I ever played with a DM like that then I would be engaging in metagaming every step of the way. Why wouldn't I if the DM is doing the same to the players.
As to the 'shouldn't have victims'. Again, BS. You're an Evil Gnome. Whos' going to try to stop you? Another evil guy? maybe, but you kill him. Good guys? Them you need innocent hostages for. Duh. Villainy 101. Every BBEG should have some innocent hostages squirreled away for getting away.
A) The BBEG should ALWAYS have contingency plans in place. ALWAYS. Or he's not the BBEG.
B) What shouldn't happen is that those contingency plans are created in response to what the player's plan.
I think you are not objecting to A so much as assuming B is not true. As a GM, I try to set up a BBEG and put specific rules in place for his reactions and what he's going to do. For example, I set up a specific HP level at which he will withdraw, because he doesn't want to die. I put specific equipment on him, I put specific traps in place, I assign specific contingency plans.
What I don't do is decide that he has a cloak of Spell Resistance if the party hires an extra wizard hireling to help them take him on. I don't give him the Paladin's nephew as a hostage unless the BBEG knows something about the party. And so on.
Now, I do play them as smart though, so if this BBEG has been the BBEG of an entire campaign, and the PCs have been messing in his affairs, he's going to have investigated them, and he's going to know about them, their weaknesses, their family, etc, and then yes, he's going to be prepared for them six ways from sunday. But the bandit chief that's never heard of them until they go busting into his hideout? No, he's just going to rely on his contingency plans, and he might have a hostage or two, if he see's something to make him think they're useful (such as the Paladin holding up a holy symbol and screaming he will smite you with the power of the Goddess of Paladins, for example).
|
@memorax and @mdt: you probably are in broad agreement with one another.
I don't think that any of us would object to the BBEG being played as smart. I think we would object if the game world actually changes in a meta-game way just to screw paladins!
Normal game world. All of a sudden a player decides to play a paladin. All of a sudden, 50% of your missed ranged attacks kill an innocent bystander. All of a sudden all the BBEGs wear babies as ablative armour.
|
|
@Johnlock90:
I agree that in the modern world, bad guys do the things that you mentioned, but also in the real world, if a child soldier grabs a firearm and starts putting rounds down range that child is now a combatant and will be fired upon, possibly killed.
As far as the bad guys operating around a bunch of civilians, as much as we would like to avoid collateral damage, civilians unfortunately do suffer due to said situation and in war, it's nearly unavoidable.
In the spirit of this hostage debate, in the real world we have groups such as Delta Force among other such groups who go in and are specifically trained for those situations.
I, like Memorax, don't have a problem with the occasional civilians/innocents in the crossfire or in harms way type of encounters, but having those encounters on a regular basis is not what we signed up for. If it's a part of the story, such as taking out a group of slave traders and whatnot, cool, watch out for friendlies, no Fireballs or other AoE effects etc.
You guys realize I hope that there are two camps on the paladin issue and those camps will never compromise. The first camp are the traditionalists who hold the paladin up as an icon of LG, a person who lives by a code that sets them apart from everyone else even other LG people. And then there are the new people who want a paladin without any restrictive code, bound by nothing more than a loose adherence to some deities rules.
Description of the second camp should read: "want to play a fighter with Smite Evil and Divine Grace..."
:-)
No, the second (or is it third group) wants the code to be similar/like 3.5 Knight class.
Have a Code, have there penalties to the code, but not be a fall unless switch to wrong alignment (evil).The Knight was very smart design: following the code had an incentive, but breaking the code wasn't a huge issue at first (breaking multiple times can get bad though).
The code focused on Fair play (even to own detriment, but that is what is honorable)
Igf you broke you code you lose a Challenge (in Paladin's case a smite evil will suffice).
If you were out, you instead take a -2 penalty to hit/saves for the day.
Also a Knight knows his code is his own and do not force it on others. So no stick up his butt.
The idea is small breaks of the code shouldn't be a fall (white lie to save the jews from the Nazis). It is only when you break the code repeatily that there should be a issue.
And then there's me, outside both camps. Alone. In the cold.
Hope for a pally coming along, handing you his coat, offering you his last rations, and imposing his company upon you!
Ruyan.
|
|
Changing the the Paladin's Code and/or the alignment system is not going to cure "dickish DM syndrome". A DM like that is going to nail you no matter what you're playing.
If you are playing with a DM at the moment then you have some sort of trust established because if you didn't then you wouldn't be playing with that person. I think most examples on these boards are just hypothetical "what ifs?" that don't represent a real functioning campaign.
When I DM a game involving a Paladin there are a few things I look for. If I present a Paladin with a situation that has some gray area, I look at how that player approaches the situation.
For example: The adventurers are standing in a street when they see a little kid step out followed by a ball of flame that erupts from his hands.
Paladin Player (Option 1): I win initiative so I charge and cut the the kid in half.
DM: I'm sorry but you fall from grace.
Paladin Player (Option 2): I turn to the wizard and tell him that I suspect the kid may not even be a kid or he could be controlled some how. I then ask him if he could possibly hit the kid with a Dispel Magic to see if I am right. If the Wizard agrees I will hold my action until after the Wizard goes to see if my theory is correct. If the wizard doesn't have a Dispel Magic then I charge and subdue him.
DM: Both of those options sound wonderful.
There are ways to handle those grey areas and if your DM sees that you are trying to exhaust all options until you have no other choice then he will not allow you to fall.
|
|
You guys realize I hope that there are two camps on the paladin issue and those camps will never compromise. The first camp are the traditionalists who hold the paladin up as an icon of LG, a person who lives by a code that sets them apart from everyone else even other LG people. And then there are the new people who want a paladin without any restrictive code, bound by nothing more than a loose adherence to some deities rules.
Description of the second camp should read: "want to play a fighter with Smite Evil and Divine Grace..."
:-)
No, the second (or is it third group) wants the code to be similar/like 3.5 Knight class.
Have a Code, have there penalties to the code, but not be a fall unless switch to wrong alignment (evil).
The Knight was very smart design: following the code had an incentive, but breaking the code wasn't a huge issue at first (breaking multiple times can get bad though).The code focused on Fair play (even to own detriment, but that is what is honorable)
Igf you broke you code you lose a Challenge (in Paladin's case a smite evil will suffice).
If you were out, you instead take a -2 penalty to hit/saves for the day.Also a Knight knows his code is his own and do not force it on others. So no stick up his butt.
The idea is small breaks of the code shouldn't be a fall (white lie to save the jews from the Nazis). It is only when you break the code repeatily that there should be a issue.
Where does it say in the books that this isn't one of the possible ways to interpret the Pathfinder code?
The code is highly open to DM interpretation.
|
|
@memorax and @mdt: you probably are in broad agreement with one another.
I don't think that any of us would object to the BBEG being played as smart. I think we would object if the game world actually changes in a meta-game way just to screw paladins!
Normal game world. All of a sudden a player decides to play a paladin. All of a sudden, 50% of your missed ranged attacks kill an innocent bystander. All of a sudden all the BBEGs wear babies as ablative armour.
Im on lunch break at works so I can respond to everyone just yet.
You are correct that I MDT and I are in broad agreement with each other.
I have no problems with the BBEG being played in a smart fashion. i too wiuld be dissapointed if the party was always able to out smart the BBEG. Except sometimes imo it should happen. Just to give players the occasional boost of accomplishment. Its not just the entire gaming world changing to make it difficult to play Paladins. Its BBEGs always ready with full protective spells always cast. No way to sneak up on them even if you cast Silence on the fighter in full plate to make sure he makes no noise. Always having innocents getting in the line of fire or on hand to be used in a hostage situation. More often than not the BBEG will be ready for the party. Sometimes the BBEg is out of luck in a position where the party holds all the cards.
It just that having played in games both D&D and non-D&D where BBEGS are run for lack of a better word too perfect it just not fun. Players need to feel that their actions make a difference in the gaming world imo. Take that away and imo its just not that fun anymore.
|
|
It just that having played in games both D&D and non-D&D where BBEGS are run for lack of a better word too perfect it just not fun. Players need to feel that their actions make a difference in the gaming world imo. Take that away and imo its just not that fun anymore.
So what's the point in having a BBEG with high intelligence and other such abilities if he isn't going to actually use it?
I don't get the whole "I need to fudged the boss creature so the player's actually feel like they are doing something" thought process. Pathfinder/D&D isn't like a video game that has only one way to get to the next scene unless the DM makes it that way. It is possible to lose against the BBEG only to fight him another day.
One of the reasons he play with dice is because it gives a sense of "fate", that everything doesn't happen the way we plan it. Sure you go into a fight expecting to win but it doesn't always turn out that way. If I knew I was going to win every fight then I would drop that game like a bad habit.
You guys realize I hope that there are two camps on the paladin issue and those camps will never compromise. The first camp are the traditionalists who hold the paladin up as an icon of LG, a person who lives by a code that sets them apart from everyone else even other LG people. And then there are the new people who want a paladin without any restrictive code, bound by nothing more than a loose adherence to some deities rules.
Description of the second camp should read: "want to play a fighter with Smite Evil and Divine Grace..."
:-)
No, the second (or is it third group) wants the code to be similar/like 3.5 Knight class.
Have a Code, have there penalties to the code, but not be a fall unless switch to wrong alignment (evil).
The Knight was very smart design: following the code had an incentive, but breaking the code wasn't a huge issue at first (breaking multiple times can get bad though).The code focused on Fair play (even to own detriment, but that is what is honorable)
Igf you broke you code you lose a Challenge (in Paladin's case a smite evil will suffice).
If you were out, you instead take a -2 penalty to hit/saves for the day.Also a Knight knows his code is his own and do not force it on others. So no stick up his butt.
The idea is small breaks of the code shouldn't be a fall (white lie to save the jews from the Nazis). It is only when you break the code repeatily that there should be a issue.
You are in camp two Starbuck II... Any time your paladin code can be conveniently forgotten (even if there is a small slap on the wrist for doing so: lose one smite evil) then you don't truly have a code. Just a loose (very loose in this case) set of restrictions.
|
|
So what's the point in having a BBEG with high intelligence and other such abilities if he isn't going to actually use it?
Nothing wrong with a BBEG using high inteeligence properly. Planning for every contigency all the time every time. It gets kind if pointless to fight a BBEG if he is prepared for the player characters every hours of every day. Unless the campaing revolves tracking a certain BBEG across the land I can see it. Being inteeligent does not makea BBEG infaiilable. Like player characters they can be surprised. If I have a Alchemist and every BBEG suddenly has either items that make them fire resistant or a outsider Im going to have to start wondering if the DM cant let his BBEG lose every once and awhile.
I don't get the whole "I need to fudged the boss creature so the player's actually feel like they are doing something" thought process. Pathfinder/D&D isn't like a video game that has only one way to get to the next scene unless the DM makes it that way. It is possible to lose against the BBEG only to fight him another day.
Not at all what I said. What I said is that a BBEG cant be prepared against everything the party can throw at him all the time. As for the BBEG losing you also must have missed the party where I said that should happen rarely. Not all the time. Sometimes its good to have a BBEG caught unawares. Or not having innocent victims that he somehow has stored in case a Paladin just happens to come along. Sometimes I want to run a short encounter. My players actually thanked me for having BBEG that were sometimes caught with their pants down. Or that are not prepared for everything the party can throw at them. Makes for more realistic BBEGs imo
One of the reasons he play with dice is because it gives a sense of "fate", that everything doesn't happen the way we plan it. Sure you go into a fight expecting to win but it doesn't always turn out that way. If I knew I was going to win every fight then I would drop that game like a bad habit.
Sometimes its the fate of the dice and sometimes its DMs who just dont want to see their BBEG get hurt. A BBEG having innocent victims onhand to throw at Paladins is beleivable. Every BBEG no way. Unless the campaign is written as BBEG being all part of a organization. I dont mind my character any character I take being tested. If the DM is making it so that every BBEG is a test well Im no interested too much in that style of gaming. Or the reward in treasure better be pretty significant if every encounter has odds stacked in the DMs favor.
|
Do you have a third camp? Can we make one?
The main problem i see is that some people cannot accept the fact that the rules are what they are.
Until the devs change them, Paladins will be of LG alignment and will have to abide by their specific code.
You can, of course, make houserules, but then, they are not official, and don't matter one bit, even if they are better then the official rules. The best you can hope is that the devs will notice those house rules and use them. Whining about unfairness will not change that one whit.
You can argue that it's not fair and that paladin's awesomeness should be available to all, but until that happens, you're just wasting breath (or fingers).
So we're supposed to hope that the devs will notice our paladin houserules, but we're not allowed to talk/post about our houserules?
You are in camp two Starbuck II... Any time your paladin code can be conveniently forgotten (even if there is a small slap on the wrist for doing so: lose one smite evil) then you don't truly have a code. Just a loose (very loose in this case) set of restrictions.
See, there's a continuum from "absolutely inflexible, fall for saying 'I'm doing all right' when you're actually in severe pain" to "no restrictions whatsoever, can torture for convenience."
Some of those of us who fall in the middle of the continuum ("some flexibility, don't fall for minor violations made in good faith, alternate alignments and codes allowed") don't like being told that actually we're at the "no restrictions" end of it. It makes me feel like a strawman.
It's very odd that Gorum, god of war, can either imbue his servants with so much divine power that it interferes with their mastery of the more mundane methods of fighting (i.e., make a Cleric), give his servants no support whatsoever (i.e., the servant is a Fighter with no divine ability at all, but Gorum is cheering him on with pom-poms in the background), or make a Full BAB, somewhat divine spellcasting character, but only as long as the character behaves in a way that disappoints Gorum.
"Go forth, my Paladin/AntiPaladin, and take my divine power to perform mighty deeds in my name that will sadden me greatly. But should you ever make me proud of you, I must then take my blessing from you forthwith." Yeah, right.
Allowing other alignments for the Paladin opens up a lot of room for more character options, including options for those players that see the LG Paladin as the militant arm of the church where the LG Cleric is more the artillery/utility and would like to reproduce this for the other alignments, but keeping the code above and beyond what's required for other members of the church (keeping an approximate alignment and obeying the specific tennants of the deity in question) doesn't jive.
I am totally with you on the fact that Gorum and other chaotic deities should be able to have paladins in their service. However, that doesn't mean removing any code of conduct from the paladin class. I don't think Gorum would be too pleased with his champion running away from a winnable battle, or passing up an opportunity to demonstrate his skill at arms for the glory of his god.
If a paladin is any warrior in service of a deity, the Paladin still needs a code of conduct, it's just at minimum replaced by the cleric code of conduct instead of the current paladin's code. If the Paladin really ticks off the divine source of his power, he will lose that power. Paladins who do not serve a particular deity will still need to cause to serve, and their code of conduct should reflect that cause. This might look a bit more like a Cavalier's edicts, or it might be a generic "champion of an alignment" code. But a champion has to champion something.
And for those who think that a paladin's code should be stricter than a cleric's (after all, the paladins are supposed to be the purest of the pure, the inspirational), then it's entirely possible to do with alignments other than LG and shouldn't prohibit making an alternately aligned paladin with a similarly strict code. So allowing paladins with alternate alignments doesn't have to mean getting rid of paladin codes or even making paladin codes looser. Individual groups could still apply the restrictions as strictly as they felt necessary.
And then there's me, outside both camps. Alone. In the cold.
Awwww...
~gives TOZ a hug~I think you truly like being in your own private camp TOZ.
Do you have a third camp? Can we make one?
You are in camp two Starbuck II... Any time your paladin code can be conveniently forgotten (even if there is a small slap on the wrist for doing so: lose one smite evil) then you don't truly have a code. Just a loose (very loose in this case) set of restrictions.See, there's a continuum from "absolutely inflexible, fall for saying 'I'm doing all right' when you're actually in severe pain" to "no restrictions whatsoever, can torture for convenience."
Some of those of us who fall in the middle of the continuum ("some flexibility, don't fall for minor violations made in good faith, alternate alignments and codes allowed") don't like being told that actually we're at the "no restrictions" end of it. It makes me feel like a strawman.
I think you misunderstand my camps.
They are either strict restriction or loose restriction.Everyone seems to be FOR some restrictions...
Traditionalists: MUST be LG and MUST follow the code or fall.
Rainbow: Can be any alignment as long as there is some code (or suggestion box in the case of chaotics) made up for it and/or you don't fall if you violate any part of the code unless you stray so far over that your alignment shifts.
|
|
Under "Ex-Paladins"You guys realize I hope that there are two camps on the paladin issue and those camps will never compromise. The first camp are the traditionalists who hold the paladin up as an icon of LG, a person who lives by a code that sets them apart from everyone else even other LG people. And then there are the new people who want a paladin without any restrictive code, bound by nothing more than a loose adherence to some deities rules.
Description of the second camp should read: "want to play a fighter with Smite Evil and Divine Grace..."
:-)
No, the second (or is it third group) wants the code to be similar/like 3.5 Knight class.
Have a Code, have there penalties to the code, but not be a fall unless switch to wrong alignment (evil).
The Knight was very smart design: following the code had an incentive, but breaking the code wasn't a huge issue at first (breaking multiple times can get bad though).The code focused on Fair play (even to own detriment, but that is what is honorable)
Igf you broke you code you lose a Challenge (in Paladin's case a smite evil will suffice).
If you were out, you instead take a -2 penalty to hit/saves for the day.Also a Knight knows his code is his own and do not force it on others. So no stick up his butt.
The idea is small breaks of the code shouldn't be a fall (white lie to save the jews from the Nazis). It is only when you break the code repeatily that there should be a issue.
Where does it say in the books that this isn't one of the possible ways to interpret the Pathfinder code?
The code is highly open to DM interpretation.
Still can be interpreted by the GM.
|
|
Do you have a third camp? Can we make one?
The main problem i see is that some people cannot accept the fact that the rules are what they are.
Until the devs change them, Paladins will be of LG alignment and will have to abide by their specific code.
You can, of course, make houserules, but then, they are not official, and don't matter one bit, even if they are better then the official rules. The best you can hope is that the devs will notice those house rules and use them. Whining about unfairness will not change that one whit.
You can argue that it's not fair and that paladin's awesomeness should be available to all, but until that happens, you're just wasting breath (or fingers).So we're supposed to hope that the devs will notice our paladin houserules, but we're not allowed to talk/post about our houserules?
You're not allowed to whine and go all Calimero on it. The homebrew section is there for a reason. I have no problem with you showing your version of paladin there. But please, get over the fact that the current state of affairs by raw is the way it is written in the CRB. And we're discussing that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama the reason so many house rules get argued outside the house rule forum is because they think they can convince/rant with a much larger audience in the general forums.
|
|
I am in the General Discussion forum, trying to have a civil discussion - specifically I entered the discussion in an attempt to mediate between Tectorman and Rynjin. If I were trying to present a specific homebrew version of a non-LG paladin or non-LG paladin code, I would do so in the Homebrew forum (and when I mentioned a non-LG code I linked to that forum).
It seems that every time there is a general discussion about how to handle paladin code of conduct, someone will make a point about "Paladins are X. If you don't like it, play something else." Preventing commentary from people who disagree with that opinion (and people disagree even about the RAW paladin) and labeling them as whiners creates a very hostile environment.
If we're in the Rules forum, fine, but General Discussion can and should cover a bit of ground and a wider range of opinion.
I think you misunderstand my camps.
They are either strict restriction or loose restriction.
Everyone seems to be FOR some restrictions...
Traditionalists: MUST be LG and MUST follow the code or fall.
Rainbow: Can be any alignment as long as there is some code (or suggestion box in the case of chaotics) made up for it and/or you don't fall if you violate any part of the code unless you stray so far over that your alignment shifts.
You've listed three camps right there.
Traditionalists: MUST be LG and MUST follow the code or fall.
Rainbow A: Can be any alignment as long as there is some code (note: I personally don't believe in a chaotic "suggestion box," they get a code, too)
Rainbow B: You don't fall if you violate any part of the code unless you stray so far over that your alignment shifts.
Rainbow A and Rainbow B are very different opinions and shouldn't necessarily be accepted or rejected as one package. Tectorman is a Rainbow B, and I'm a Rainbow A, and we were very definitely disagreeing.
I'd also suggest that there are two groups of Traditionalists:
Traditionalists A: MUST be LG and MUST follow the code or fall.
Traditionalists A: MUST be LG and MUST follow the code BUT parts of the code are flexible depending on circumstances, minor violations may instead receive a warning instead of a fall, "good faith effort" counts for something, etc.
I've seen a lot of arguments between those two types of traditionalists, too.
Sometimes it's the DM, sometimes it's the player...
When I was 16 I DMed my 14 year-old brother and some of his mates in AD&D 1st ed. One of his mates wanted to play a paladin so we had a conversation about what it means to be a paladin. At one point they took a goblin prisoner. After questioning, the paladin said, 'I kill the goblin!'
I pointed out that killing a prisoner (who hadn't actualy done anything wrong, had co-operated and who had been promised his freedom in return for said co-operation) would be an evil act.
'Right, I accidentally fall on 'im wi' me axe!'
Lol, accidents happen.
I wish they would stop fighting.
Hama the reason so many house rules get argued outside the house rule forum is because they think they can convince/rant with a much larger audience in the general forums.
Well to be fair, some house rules are pretty f**king fantastic. Often they will just be rejected before they are tried by the orthodox, and then mocked later.
Baffling.
Hey, I enjoyed it.
Accidental precision sneak attack--APSA for short if your group needs a shorthand, readily available version.