|
Really TOZ?
Scene: Haven after the crew of Serenity has gathered to hear Mal's ultimatum speech.
Mal draws his pistol and everyone shuts up wondering if he actually intends to shoot them. But behind them a lone survivor crawls out of the wreckage of the Alliance ship. The man sees them gathered and holds up his arms in surrender... Mal shoots him dead.
I believe this was the one thing I was thinking over when I quoted him. I don't remember the pilot raising his hands in surrender, but he was some distance away. I may have missed that.
I agree that he doesn't fit. When he said that, he was giving his word to Simon, not anyone else. The way he treated the Alliance mole made me think it was a general code. My apologies.
Nah, Bardic or Magus casting (with Cleric spell list + Paladin ones) works. Not full as up to 9th.Since the Paladin code is basically a cleric+ code, shouldn't Paladins be clerics but better?
Give'em full spellcasting. That will justify why deities care so much that a paladin stays on the straight and narrow.
The idea is, Paladins have a cleric's alignment restrictions, plus they go the extra mile to always act honorably, never cheat, etc, etc. And yet, it's to these less devoted servants that the gods grant the really powerful miracles and spells.
I mean, it's kind of messed up if you think about it.
Yep, that is why clerics have to stick closer to their faith in my games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about instead of being a binary on an off thing, it is gradual, let's say for example, a Paladin has done something to anger or displease his/her god, but the god doesn't want to lose a Paladin, so in order to let the Paladin know he/she is not acting Paladin-ish he/she suffers power incontinence, say a spell fizzles when it shouldn't, smites fail but are still consumed etc. Would add a bit of versimilitude to the game. If the Paladin keeps doing "evil" stuff then their contract is terminated - so to speak. If the Paladin "fixes" whatever it was doing wrong, then the power incontinence stops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Successful Troll welcomes brother troll to thread!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had many issues with a friend who played as a Paladin, since after 20 sessions he started beating good NPCs, starting to lie, being selfish, egotistical etc. and I tried many times to find an agreement with him but he was so stubborn to continue doing all those things, that in the end I gave up GMing for some time and made some new statements considering if I'm going to allow Paladin class to be played by someone in my,hopefully, future campaigns. Since it's one month after I quit to being GM and relaxed, I finally got some inspiration in making puzzles, maze, labyrinths, dungeons etc. During this period, the same friend that played as a Paladin had 'transfered' his own Paladin into another party of PCs where one of his friends is a GM, and I found out that he still continued doing things as he did in my sessions, and that GM also had issues with him, and once again the friend playing was once again stubborn and continued doing his things, and in the end the GM made a very, to me very FUNNY thing, I laughed loud for 5 minutes after I heard about it. The GM gave the Paladin to be of CG alignment so he could do whatever he wants, from beating good people,to lie, be egotistical, don't respect authority etc. That's hilarious! The whole ideal of Paladin is ruined. Ok GMs can make exceptions, break some rules, but to go that far is hilarious!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly is even mildly dishonorable about having your enemies fight each other?
I only made it through the first three pages, and will go back to read the rest. But I get the feeling that there is more to this than just players. Why do I feel this way? Because within the first few pages there was no less than 5 entirely different arguments revolving around the bizarre mechanics and condition of the Paladins, criss-crossed by quite a few different people.
|
How about instead of being a binary on an off thing, it is gradual, let's say for example, a Paladin has done something to anger or displease his/her god, but the god doesn't want to lose a Paladin, so in order to let the Paladin know he/she is not acting Paladin-ish he/she suffers power incontinence, say a spell fizzles when it shouldn't, smites fail but are still consumed etc. Would add a bit of versimilitude to the game. If the Paladin keeps doing "evil" stuff then their contract is terminated - so to speak. If the Paladin "fixes" whatever it was doing wrong, then the power incontinence stops.
How about we include a mechanism that allows Paladins to be restored to full power if they atone for their transgression.
What would we call that...
And back to the OP (because, you know, I wrote it so I'm kind of attached to it...) the point was that some players try to fit into the game as a primary goal and some players try to fit the game to them as a primary goal.
And the former are much more fun to game with.
Who says a chaotic person can't have a code? Just because a person is of a given alignment doesn't mean that everything they do, ever, has to be in accordance with that alignment, or even motivated by being that alignment.
People forget sometimes that even Hannibal Lecter had a personal code he lived by.
|
|
Who says a chaotic person can't have a code? Just because a person is of a given alignment doesn't mean that everything they do, ever, has to be in accordance with that alignment, or even motivated by being that alignment.People forget sometimes that even Hannibal Lecter had a personal code he lived by.
Is this now completely derailed into an alignment fight?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin, the issue with using the shocker lizards against the shambling mound is similar to a paladin using arrows- whether it's honorable to use a tactic an enemy can't counter. I thought it was clever (and the only way the party could continue through the module). From the dragon half of my character's perspective, using lightning against an opponent is always honorable. But the DM thought it was dishonorable- every action a paladin takes is subject to a high level of scrutiny, and can lead to disharmony in the group as each player makes a subjective judgement call on whether an action is honorable or dishonorable.
Which is why the Code exists. It spells out exactly what the dishonorable actions are. Lying, cheating, using poison and other such things.
"Arrows" and "Electricity" do not fall anywhere near the same category.
If it were dishonorable to use things the enemy couldn't counter, a Paladin would fall every time he used Smite Evil.
Your GM was being a silly goosekin.
Is this now completely derailed into an alignment fight?Who says a chaotic person can't have a code? Just because a person is of a given alignment doesn't mean that everything they do, ever, has to be in accordance with that alignment, or even motivated by being that alignment.People forget sometimes that even Hannibal Lecter had a personal code he lived by.
Yes. Since the very first post. A code of conduct informs the way you behave. And we already have rules that cover how we conduct ourselves: Alignment. It is literally impossible to divorce an argument about the way one character conducts himself from the way all others conduct themselves according to the rules. Especially since the text of the code of conduct can't even restrain itself from referencing alignment.
Ya have to hit the reply button and it'll put it in quotes. That or go [.quote=Rynjin]TEXTTEXTTEXT[./quote] (without the periods).
And I suppose I can see his position, given the 1st/2nd Ed restrictions, but I still think it was kind of silly.
|
|
Yes. Since the very first post. A code of conduct informs the way you behave. And we already have rules that cover how we conduct ourselves: Alignment. It is literally impossible to divorce an argument about the way one character conducts himself from the way all others conduct themselves according to the rules. Especially since the text of the code of conduct can't even restrain itself from referencing alignment.Is this now completely derailed into an alignment fight?Who says a chaotic person can't have a code? Just because a person is of a given alignment doesn't mean that everything they do, ever, has to be in accordance with that alignment, or even motivated by being that alignment.People forget sometimes that even Hannibal Lecter had a personal code he lived by.
The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.
The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
Who says a chaotic person can't have a code? Just because a person is of a given alignment doesn't mean that everything they do, ever, has to be in accordance with that alignment, or even motivated by being that alignment.
I have an alternate way of thinking about alignment that feels much more human to me. First, leave the paragons of law, chaos and neutrality to outsiders, the people who love order for orders sake. That happens with people, but it's very rare and poorly defines them.
Instead, lawful people consider the community to be of utmost importance. You get things like duty, patriotism, civic pride, and even people who try to make things better by working within the system. Tradition is also very important. The community determines ethics and morals.
Chaotic people would value the individual more highly. A community should never trample an indivudual's rights. You would have your personal mentors, but your ethics and morals are developed and founded on your experiences.
The paladin then becomes an extension of the 'system', to do the most good as possible not only by protecting the individual, but the community as well, because a strong community is better able to protect and provide for itself than a strong individual.
The classic chaotic barbarian also comes into better focus. He's still honorable, but a lot of that is pride in himself and how he stands up to the ideals that he compares himself too. Also, potentially coming from smaller communities that have to rely on themselves, the strength of an individual can really determine the survival of the community.
|
The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.
The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
Where the two are connected is that, in the case of the paladin's code, "defining the rule" is about as difficult for everyone to agree on as "defining what is honorable".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever. The rules for alignment and the rules that force a paladin to be a certain alignment and act in accordance with that alignment with a few additional restrictions are distinct only in the most superficial sense.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, the issues of player integrity and character honour are different but also related for the purposes of this discussion.
The problem is that if the definition of "honourable," or worse, evil behavior in a made-up world is not clear, you may have situations where a player makes a good-faith, honest effort to figure out the rules of behavior for a paladin and abide by them and then run afoul of a GM who has a different interpretation of correct behavior. ParagonDireRaccoon's example is a good one. For another, try "is it evil to kill an evil creature that has surrendered or is helpless?"
A player can easily abide by specific mechanical class limitations. A blind oracle has a fixed, measurable area in which they can see. A superstitious barbarian must save against friendly spells like Cure when raging. A monk wearing armour loses Flurry of Blows.
A player acting with personal integrity can read the code, think they understand it ("no evil actions, respect authority, no lying, got it") and still have problems if they think that ranged weaponry or ambush tactics are "fighting smart" but the GM thinks they are dishonourable.
Good players aren't enough. You need good communication.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Weirdo have you not considered that if the player and the GM ever don't see eye to eye on what qualifies as honorable then it is in fact the player's fault for agreeing to play with that GM in the first place? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for not being part of a hive-mind with the GM? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for being a dishonorable dirty cheater?
The moment you sit down at a table with a GM, everything is your fault and nothing is the GM's fault because you sat down at the table. Once you take your seat, the GM is blameless and all problems rest squarely on your shoulders. However, the reverse is not true because
|
|
The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever. The rules for alignment and the rules that force a paladin to be a certain alignment and act in accordance with that alignment with a few additional restrictions are distinct only in the most superficial sense.
The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
You kill things and loot their bodies in real life?
Are there actually, literally demons?
Comparing real life morality to fantasy setting morality is like comparing cartoon violence to real life violence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Weirdo have you not considered that if the player and the GM ever don't see eye to eye on what qualifies as honorable then it is in fact the player's fault for agreeing to play with that GM in the first place? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for not being part of a hive-mind with the GM? Or that it is in fact the player's fault for being a dishonorable dirty cheater?
The moment you sit down at a table with a GM, everything is your fault and nothing is the GM's fault because you sat down at the table. Once you take your seat, the GM is blameless and all problems rest squarely on your shoulders. However, the reverse is not true because
Where is Icyshadow, I was trying to give him a strawman example earlier...
The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever. The rules for alignment and the rules that force a paladin to be a certain alignment and act in accordance with that alignment with a few additional restrictions are distinct only in the most superficial sense.
The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
You kill things and loot their bodies in real life?
Are there actually, literally demons?
Comparing real life morality to fantasy setting morality is like comparing cartoon violence to real life violence.
I don't, but it happens in warfare all the time.
Lots of people would say yes.
You can usually tell who are the good guys and bad guys in either case. Though unless you've got some clear cut rules, someone could make the case that the good witch from the Wizard of Oz is actually the villain of the story (and make a good case).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You kill things and loot their bodies in real life?Are there actually, literally demons?
Comparing real life morality to fantasy setting morality is like comparing cartoon violence to real life violence.
Don't be obtuse. Alignment is how you behave and the paladin's Code of Conduct is only a set of additional conditions to how he behaves and specifically references alignment. There is no discussion you can have where you talk about the Code of Conduct without talking about alignment. They are intrinsically connected, both having to do with behavior. One is a primary rule and the other is a secondary which both references and depends upon the primary. Every thing you just said about looting and demons and real life morality is both silly and irrelevant.
|
|
Don't be obtuse. Alignment is how you behave and the paladin's Code of Conduct is only a set of additional conditions to how he behaves and specifically references alignment. There is no discussion you can have where you talk about the Code of Conduct without talking about alignment. They are intrinsically connected, both having to do with behavior. One is a primary rule and the other is a secondary which both references and depends upon the primary. Every thing you just said about looting and demons and real life morality is both silly and irrelevant.
You kill things and loot their bodies in real life?Are there actually, literally demons?
Comparing real life morality to fantasy setting morality is like comparing cartoon violence to real life violence.
It isn't being obtuse. What is just wrong is to say "The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."
There are worlds of difference between what is acceptable to us and what is acceptable in a fantasy role playing setting. Further, there are worlds of difference between what violates the code of a Paladin of one God or another.
Consider a Paladin of Cayden Caileen and a Paladin of Abadar and the issue of slavery.
When a player wants to be a paladin, both the player and the GM have an obligation prior to the game to define what the code of that specific paladin is. Paizo has provided a ton of source materials on the gods for a reason. Because they are different. And what they view as "Evil" or "Good" is different.
The GM is the person who adjudicates it, but the player should be discussing it with the GM before the game to make sure they can get on the same page about the concept and the expectations of that concept.
If the player is unable (or unwilling) to meet the expectations of the concept and/or accept the consequences of failing to do so, they shouldn't play a Paladin in the same way if I am unwilling to accept the consequences of arcane spell failure, I shouldn't have a wizard in platemail.
One is easier to adjudicate, yes. But as a player you decided to allow the GM to be the person who adjudicates these decisions when you agreed to sit down at the GMs table.
Or is there no responsibility to the player in these matters, as some seem to be arguing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You kill things and loot their bodies in real life?
Are there actually, literally demons?
Comparing real life morality to fantasy setting morality is like comparing cartoon violence to real life violence.
I don't, but it happens in warfare all the time.
Lots of people would say yes.
You can usually tell who are the good guys and bad guys in either case. Though unless you've got some clear cut rules, someone could make the case that the good witch from the Wizard of Oz is actually the villain of the story (and make a good case).
There are literally demons in which war? I was a history major, but I don't remember that war? Link maybe?
The doomsday book was merely the consolidation of devils over the demonic inhabitants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins get weak sauce compared to clerics but have so much stricter restrictions. Sucks to be them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't being obtuse. What is just wrong is to say "The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."
Yes. Yes it is. Once you start equating real world non-sense with a comparison between two rules then you are being obtuse. The difference between a code of conduct which further restricts your alignment behavior is not one anyone should care about it in terms of discussing what is evil and what is honorable.
The paladin's code is an alignment rule. It cannot be otherwise. It is not obtuse to state a clear fact. The code of conduct is a secondary rule that references and depends upon the rules for alignment.
|
|
It isn't being obtuse. What is just wrong is to say "The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."Yes. Yes it is. Once you start equating real world non-sense with a comparison between two rules then you are being obtuse. The difference between a code of conduct which further restricts your alignment behavior is not one anyone should care about it in terms of discussing what is evil and what is honorable.
The paladin's code is an alignment rule. It cannot be otherwise. It is not obtuse to state a clear fact. The code of conduct is a secondary rule that references and depends upon the rules for alignment.
"It cannot be otherwise"
Seriously, this is your argument? "It cannot be otherwise" is your argument? Really?
Weren't you the one who said that there was no difference in what governs what is "evil" in the real world and what governs it in the game to the point that, and I quote
"The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."
In response to
"The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with it.
The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot."
And now you are saying
"Once you start equating real world non-sense with a comparison between two rules then you are being obtuse."
Which seems like agreement with what I said, that you disagreed with vehemently...
|
|
Where the two are connected is that, in the case of the paladin's code, "defining the rule" is about as difficult for everyone to agree on as "defining what is honorable".The OP was largely about having a player who set a goal of playing honorably, in real life. Trying to figure out what the rule was, and then personally, again in real life, trying to follow those rules even if he could get away with ti.
The other was about defining what is honorable in a made up world.
If people can't see the distinction between those two things, there are bigger problems afoot.
Which is what the player and GM need to work out in advance, and which will be adjudicated by the GM based on what the player and the GM agreed to...just like pretty much every other aspect of the game.
The guy I play with is an honorable person. He also likes playing gnome rogues a lot, and steals the hell out of things when he does. Which wouldn't be honorable behavior.
The guy in our game most likely to fudge dice rolls also happens to be the guy in our game who is the best at playing a Paladin. He digs the whole code and honor aspects, even if he is a bit shady in real life.
The point of the OP (and I would know because I wrote it) is if your players are invested in playing by the rules, you don't have these conflicts because they will self police.
They will define with you in advance what a Paladin is, for the purposes of the game. And then whatever you all agreed to before hand will actually be how the person plays, because the person actually wanted to follow the rules and standards they agreed to.
Imagine that!
But the relationship between game honor and moralitity is about as accurate as the relationship between hit points and what would actually happen in the real world if you hit someone with a sword.
It is a game construct, formed by a social contract between the GM and the player as to what the code is. If that was done in advance, and neither the player or GM is a jerk, there should be no issue.
If either (or both more often it seem on here...) are a jerk, the game is FUBAR from the start anyway.
Rynjin, the issue with using the shocker lizards against the shambling mound is similar to a paladin using arrows- whether it's honorable to use a tactic an enemy can't counter. I thought it was clever (and the only way the party could continue through the module). From the dragon half of my character's perspective, using lightning against an opponent is always honorable. But the DM thought it was dishonorable- every action a paladin takes is subject to a high level of scrutiny, and can lead to disharmony in the group as each player makes a subjective judgement call on whether an action is honorable or dishonorable.
If it's dishonorable to use an attack an enemy can't counter then why does smite evil bypass DR? Wouldn't the honorable route be to let the DR apply and be forced to kill something "like everybody else?"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
this thread is like watching your favorite show and waiting for the two characters that you really like but who hate each other to start making out
Oddly I see running a paladin as being very similar to running a "chaotic neutral" PC.
Basically once you decide to do one or the other, the typical game becomes an ongoing discussion (in the best case) or argument (more typically) about the nature of alignments in Pathfinder.
In either case I think such games are fine, but I feel they should be attempted only by highly experienced GMs and a mature, reasonable group of players.
The issue around "honestly playing a PC" can become a related topic, but those don't always involve diving head-first into the morass of subjective and sometimes confusing rules around alignment. Before the paladin discussion can become about "playing the character honestly" the GM and player have to have firm agreement on how alignment works in the first place. And that's been a rare thing in my experience.
I have one campaign with no less that three paladins (everyone runs 3 PC’s at different levels, but we’re all based out of Sandpoint), and a couple of NN and a CN. No alignment debates at the table.
My 3.5 games has a LG, a LE, a Exalted and a Cn. Again, no alignment debates at the table, except for flavor , IC.
Mind you, it helps that most of us are professionals and the ages range 40-50.
"It cannot be otherwise"Seriously, this is your argument? "It cannot be otherwise" is your argument? Really?
Uh...yeah...really. Because behavior, personality, character, and principals are all aspects of alignment. The paladin's code of conduct defers itself to alignment and its very existence depends upon the existence of alignment. THUS if you say that if is possible to have a conversation about the code of conduct that is, in fact, separate from an alignment discussion, you would be factually wrong. Because IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE. The paladin's Code of Conduct REQUIRES alignment to even BE at all. In the same way the Wild Shape REQUIRES polymorph and any discussion involving wild shape is a also a discussion about polymorph because IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE. Seriously. So yeah. That is my argument.
Weren't you the one who said that there was no difference in what governs what is "evil" in the real world and what governs it in the game to the point that, and I quote
No I did not say that. Read the quote again. I never mention the real world. That quote is specifically talking about the code of conduct and alignment. If you are going to quote me make sure you read it carefully and understand what it is saying.
"The difference between the rules that determine how we behave and additional rules that determine how some behave are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."
Could also read as
"The difference between alignment, which is a rule for determining how we behave, and the code of conduct, which is an additional rule for determining how some behave, are so minute that I find it silly to even suggest that anyone should see any sort of distinction what so ever."
So no, I never said anything like that...please understand what you are responding to before you make arguments against it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
this thread is like watching your favorite show and waiting for the two characters that you really like but who hate each other to start making out
I just did my first real life spit-take. Even though I had to clean my computer really fast, it was totally worth it.
I agree with you btw, Lamontius.