I request that no examples (beyond the one below) be posted here, to try to prevent the derailment typical to paladin threads. This is not a thread about the paladin's code, but about how the paladin's code interacts with the paladin's god.
Here's a hypothetical.
A paladin finds two young goblins. These are not nastybadwrong goblins who were born foul from birth, but Neutral goblins who would never harm a fly. Unless they were hungry. Their being goblins has nothing to do with this example, I just thought I'd make them goblins to confuse people.
These two goblins are in love.
However, they are from rival tribes. Mr. Gardo is of the Mousemunchers and Ms. Lardo is of the Ratstompers. They wish to elope.
In comes the paladin--a worshipper of Shelyn. This paladin is a bit more orderly-minded than his goddess (LG, obviously), and decides that these goblins should be following their clans' dubious rules. He reports Gardo and Lardo to their chieftains.
This paladin has just put law above love--something Shelyn would never endorse. He has, however, followed his Code of Conduct. Does the God trump the Code? If he continues down this path, will his god stop sponsoring him? Does that take away his powers?
|
I think that rejecting unjust laws is part of what differentiates the Lawful Good alignment from Lawful Neutral. I'm fairly certain that there are, for instance, cannonical examples of Chelaxian paladins fighting against the agents of House Thrune and Andoren paladins freeing slaves. In the latter case, the paladin in question is effectively committing an act of theft, and in many if not most cases the owner of the slave would not be, himself, evil. Still, I don't think any GM would begrudge the poor Eagle Knight his paladinly powers.
A Lawful Neutral character might cry foul over the Paladin stealing property from a nonevil, law abiding citizen who has done him no wrong. The Paladin, being good, could argue that thinking beings are, by definition, not property; after all, goodness is largely a matter of respecting and accepting one's fellow being. Any law that defined a thinking being as anything less than an individual worthy of respect and acceptance would therefore be an unjust law, and the authority of a master over a slave would constitute illegitimate authority.
Of course the paladin could. The point here is that they chose to be rigid. I don't believe that violates their rules--there's nothing in the code about "supporting young love". I believe a paladin would be permitted by their code to report the goblins. The point is, if Shelyn didn't allow that, would there be consequences?
He has, however, followed his Code of Conduct.
Can you justify this statement?
Oh, and here's a more complicated example. Yes, I'm already breaking my own rule. Way I see it, as long as we avoid talking about morlocks, we should be fine.
What if the "young love" could damage a whole kingdom? What if it's an affair between a princess and a commoner, and the princess is supposed to wed the king of a foreign nation? If the paladin chooses to support the princess and help her elope, it could hurt relations and cause a lot of financial trouble. So he catches them, and the princess must marry an ugly and unpleasant old man.
Will Shelyn tolerate this then, seeing the contrast between her ethics and the paladin's? Or will she get mad and denounce him? Again, does the paladin need his god for his powers, or just his Code?
|
|
Eep! Just did a fairly major edit of my post >_>
Anyhow, one could argue that, by refusing to protect the goblin lovers, the Paladin was violating his oath to "help those in need," and possibly also his promise to "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." The laws of the goblins, being unjust in the eyes of Shelyn and, indeed, most good beings, do *not* constitute "legitimate authority," so there's no conflict within the code.
And yes, I do think that every Paladin should have a rank in Profession (lawyer) :P
He has, however, followed his Code of Conduct.Can you justify this statement?
I already did. I do not feel what he did was an evil act. A neutral one, sure, but nowhere near evil. He just quashed a romance because it wasn't legal, and he felt it wasn't his place to judge other cultures. That's not evil. Heck, maybe he figured it was for their own good. Or their tribes'.
^ I just kinda answered you here, but to respond to your comment on "helping those in need"--it could be argued that that part of the Code is meant more for those in serious straits, not just a pair of star-crossed teens. Yes, I know they wouldn't technically be 'teen'agers as goblins. Whatever.
I think shelyn's code in faiths of purity would say to do otherwise.
|
|
Oh, and here's a more complicated example. Yes, I'm already breaking my own rule. Way I see it, as long as we avoid talking about morlocks, we should be fine.
What if the "young love" could damage a whole kingdom? What if it's an affair between a princess and a commoner, and the princess is supposed to wed the king of a foreign nation? If the paladin chooses to support the princess and help her elope, it could hurt relations and cause a lot of financial trouble. So he catches them, and the princess must marry an ugly and unpleasant old man.
Will Shelyn tolerate this then, seeing the contrast between her ethics and the paladin's? Or will she get mad and denounce him? Again, does the paladin need his god for his powers, or just his Code?
First of all, a Paladin of Shelyn isn't the right man for the job. A Paladin of Abadar or even Iomedae would probably be more than willing to collect the young lovers for the good of the kingdom.
Assuming the Paladin of Shelyn has been ordered to do the job by a legitimate authority, I think he would be entirely within his code to refuse the task, even if it put him on the outs with said authority.
As for helping the princess elope... that is a bit stickier. I think that the Paladin probably shouldn't, or at least shouldn't devote all his efforts to it. Instead he should be her advocate to her father and the would-be groom, and try to find a way to resolve the situation that respects the wishes and feelings of the princess. Paladins get Diplomacy as a class skill for a reason.
I have not read that--is it a code for paladins, or for her general worshipers?
If the latter, then yeah, it applies to my point. Code vs. God.
If the former, though, it's a bit more complicated. Do all paladins serving Shelyn have to follow her exact code? Whose code is the "default" code, then? The Empyreal Lords?
First of all, a Paladin of Shelyn isn't the right man for the job. A Paladin of Abadar or even Iomedae would probably be more than willing to collect the young lovers for the good of the kingdom.Assuming the Paladin of Shelyn has been ordered to do the job by a legitimate authority, I think he would be entirely within his code to refuse the task, even if it put him on the outs with said authority.
As for helping the princess elope... that is a bit stickier. I think that the Paladin probably shouldn't, or at least shouldn't devote all his efforts to it. Instead he should be her advocate to her father and the would-be groom, and try to find a way to resolve the situation that respects the wishes and feelings of the princess. Paladins get Diplomacy as a class skill for a reason.
This is a good point. What if the paladin is, for whatever reason, the only candidate? Again, we are running with the assumption that this is not a 'perfect' Shelynite--this is one who prioritizes law a bit above love. The question isn't so much "Does his code make him do this?" as "Does his Goddess let him?"
He has, however, followed his Code of Conduct.Can you justify this statement?I already did. I do not feel what he did was an evil act. A neutral one, sure, but nowhere near evil. He just quashed a romance because it wasn't legal, and he felt it wasn't his place to judge other cultures. That's not evil. Heck, maybe he figured it was for their own good. Or their tribes'.
^ I just kinda answered you here, but to respond to your comment on "helping those in need"--it could be argued that that part of the Code is meant more for those in serious straits, not just a pair of star-crossed teens. Yes, I know they wouldn't technically be 'teen'agers as goblins. Whatever.
Without quoting the Code of Shelyn's Paladins (which the devs have specifically asked us not to do), I will say that they are required to [paraphrasing] see the beauty in everyone they come across.
Your scenario seems to violate that, in my opinion. But, the whole thing seems a trap to me, in any event.
|
|
Faiths of Balance and Faiths of Purity present deity-specific Paladin codes. These are presented as being *additions* to the existing Paladin code, or at least the rudaments of it (respect legitimate authority, defend the innocent, act with honor).
Edit: removed Shelyn's paladin code after seeing The Crusader's post. Interestingly, said code doesn't really mention defending love. It's mostly about seeing the best in others, preventing violence where possible, and protecting place and things of beauty.
|
Oh, and here's a more complicated example. Yes, I'm already breaking my own rule. Way I see it, as long as we avoid talking about morlocks, we should be fine.
What if the "young love" could damage a whole kingdom? What if it's an affair between a princess and a commoner, and the princess is supposed to wed the king of a foreign nation? If the paladin chooses to support the princess and help her elope, it could hurt relations and cause a lot of financial trouble. So he catches them, and the princess must marry an ugly and unpleasant old man.
Will Shelyn tolerate this then, seeing the contrast between her ethics and the paladin's? Or will she get mad and denounce him? Again, does the paladin need his god for his powers, or just his Code?
Well if Shelyn takes away his powers than Abadar will come along and bail him out. After all the pally just saved a bunch of money and strengthened two nations.
I dont know what RAW says about Gods but I treat them like alignment. A single action can be law/chaotic good/evil but just one isn't enough to change a character. It takes a series of acting against type to bring about the heavy hand of the GM. Sucks that love loses this one but not everyone gets to live happily ever after.
Interesting. I like the idea that a paladin, unlike a cleric, could just immediately gain a new "patron" as long as he maintained his general standards of law and goodness.
Interestingly, said code doesn't really mention defending love. It's mostly about seeing the best in others, preventing violence where possible, and protecting place and things of beauty.
Hm. So what if the paladin decides that violence is most surely protected by blocking the romance? Even though he hasn't violated the code, Shelyn surely isn't very happy about this.
Let's use an example with a servant of Erastil. Look, no morlocks have been brought up yet, I can do whatever I want!
A paladin of Erastil saves a friendly village from a gang of orcs, and is given shelter for the night in thanks. He meets a young woman (assume she's just recently of age) who wishes to be a wizard. Now, for the purposes of this story, we will assume Erastil does not look too kindly on female adventurers.
Despite his god, the paladin wishes to take the woman on as a sort of squire. The girl's father (the guy whose house the paladin stayed in, we'll say) does not wish to refuse the paladin, but asks that the paladin reconsider. The girl would be of great help to the village as a wise woman, and the father believes her wish for adventure is just a phase.
Despite his, the paladin takes the girl with him when he leaves. He has just taken a valuable asset from the community, as well as guided a woman to the path of the adventurer--again, we're following the idea that Erastil is a somewhat sexist god.
Obviously, the paladin's code doesn't advise him one way or the other. If Erastil is displeased with him, are his powers in jeopardy?
|
|
This is a good point. What if the paladin is, for whatever reason, the only candidate? Again, we are running with the assumption that this is not a 'perfect' Shelynite--this is one who prioritizes law a bit above love. The question isn't so much "Does his code make him do this?" as "Does his Goddess let him?"
Ok, so, assuming he goes and brings back the lovers for the sake of the kingdom... I think he'd make it out with his paladinhood intact. His intentions were good and lawful, and the lovers were arguably doing something wrong and, more importantly, were probably placing themselves and others in danger. Shelyn, being a goddess who has a long relationship with the taldan people, is familiar with the concept of arranged marriage, and even if love is unlikely to blossom between the princess and her new husband, she knows that love can exist... outside of marriage, as well.
The paladin should definitely, however, continue to keep an eye on the lovers after bringing them back, to help them make the best of the situation and prevent them from doing anything they'll later regret.
|
|
So, the guidelines for Pathfinder Society play say differently, but I seem to recall that several Paizo products have stated that most Paladins pay respects to all of the good gods rather than being devoted to one of them the way a Cleric must be. I (as a GM) have generally been of the opinion that a Paladin's power is dependent on his own moral rectitude rather than on faith; by holding himself to a higher standard and acting to further the cause of goodness in the world he earns the support of the cosmic forces of good, regardless of his own religious beliefs. That's just me, though.
Ah, that would quash the discussion, wouldn't it? I've been working with the assumption that a paladin's powers often come from a single entity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM plays the Gods. GM fiat. The books are a guideline but the person running the game dictates the views and policies of the Gods.
If anything it's an excellent opportunity for the GM to explore and flesh out the way the Powers that Be operate in the game world.
I'd say this would be an excellent chapter for a Game Master supplement. This is why Paladin is generally considered an advanced player class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats with the Gods hovering over the pally waiting for him to screw up and zap his powers? I assume the Gods know people are fallible and want them to act in accordance to their creeds. If they didn't all people would be wiped from existence. Why are they not afforded any slack?
I'm sure they would be. A history of bad decisions or a glaringly malicious one would be another story, but the good Gods, espcially the non-Lawful ones are more concerned with the spirit of an action than the technicalities of it.
Nobody said the gods were waiting for the paladin (or cleric, or druid) to screw up. It is, however, commonly accepted that should the guy screw up bad enough, the gods take action.
I'm not a "make the paladin fall" kind of guy. I just think this is an interesting topic--even if a paladin follows his code, can his god still make him fall?
And I agree that the GM plays the gods. The point isn't quite "How would the god act?" The discussion hinges on the god acting in a certain way in a certain example, but the discussion matter itself is distinct from Golarion.
The two things are interdependent. The view and policies of the Gods determine the degree of the violation. Taking his powers for trying to do something good would probably violate the "Good" nature of the Deity.
Lawful Gods-Sticklers. Restrictions are tighter and slightly easier to fall. The Law is the Law.
Good Gods (Non-Lawful)- Intent and end result are most important. More forgiving, more leeway in regard to laws since the god themselves define some laws as unjust if the focus is more on law than good.
Paladin of a Lawful Neutral god. That's the guy who needs to be very careful, because motivation and intent are secondary to the rules.
This is why I just laid out three examples. It doesn't always come down to "Good"--sometimes it comes down to conflicting philosophies. A paladin of Iori helps a stupid rich jackass find a cheap path through what should have been a test of endurance, for instance. Not good. Not evil. Arguably not even Chaotic, depending on how the test was set up. Just not what his god would prefer.
I guess EldonG's summed it up pretty well. The paladin's code will not conflict with her god because her code should be written around her god.
Though that raises the question: is a paladin basically a LG cleric when it comes to losing their powers?
|
|
This is why I just laid out three examples. It doesn't always come down to "Good"--sometimes it comes down to conflicting philosophies. A paladin of Iori helps a stupid rich jackass find a cheap path through what should have been a test of endurance, for instance. Not good. Not evil. Arguably not even Chaotic, depending on how the test was set up. Just not what his god would prefer.
It's cheating.
Exactly. Iori would see it as such, anyways.
|
|
I guess EldonG's summed it up pretty well. The paladin's code will not conflict with her god because her code should be written around her god.
Though that raises the question: is a paladin basically a LG cleric when it comes to losing their powers?
While a paladin can certainly fall, it's the result of not striving to do what's right...or being a total regular f%~*up and just failing regularly.
Often, that would be due to temptation...traps set by those who would trip the paladin up.
Again, if the paladin strives to do the right thing, and doesn't blatantly do the wrong thing, the worst he should have before him is atonement...and maybe a good tongue-lashing.
Of course, it's a matter of degrees. The extremely legalistic god (LN)doesn't really care so much for paladins to begin with...while the perfectly good gods will likely forgive acts that break laws long before they would ones considered evil in any way.
These are goblins (why is it always goblins?) that need your help and they are not evil, so it would be your duty to help them. They need your help. I think disregarding one facet (the good) in favor of the other (the law) is kind of the easy way out. A good paladin would not necessarily help them elope or something, but he would try to fix the problems preventing them from being together, a both lawful and good solution.
I almost want the example to be legitimate now, just to hear how different PCs play through it. I can totally see Brad the Bard and Grod working as matchmakers between the two tribes.
Wait, no I can't.
But I wish I could. :)
|
|
I believe that the Paladin takes his oath of service in the name of his god and mentions all strictures he will uphold, including all those of the core code, his god's code and any specific Oath (for an Oathbound archetype).
And the god makes sure that the Paladin keeps true to his oath, to any and every single word he uttered in that most solemn of moment.
For example, when my RotRL Ranger will get sworn in as a Paladin of Erastil, he will forsake heavy drinking and partying (bad habits from his earlier life). I expect that if he ever gets drunk again, he will fall and will need to atone for breaking his sacred oath.
I think the Codes of your god supercede the general statements of the general paladin code or the open interpretation of the lawful good alignment. If it doesn't, than selecting a specific god is pointless as you must act exactly the same as all other paladins.
For the specific example above, I would think the paladin of Shelyn would choose to ignore the goblin tribe traditions (s/he is lawful, but does not need to follow all laws) and instead would do what their god would want (which is probably to marry them and help them escape both their tribes).
|
|
I think the Codes of your god supercede the general statements of the general paladin code or the open interpretation of the lawful good alignment. If it doesn't, than selecting a specific god is pointless as you must act exactly the same as all other paladins.
For the specific example above, I would think the paladin of Shelyn would choose to ignore the goblin tribe traditions (s/he is lawful, but does not need to follow all laws) and instead would do what their god would want (which is probably to marry them and help them escape both their tribes).
Faiths of Purity : "Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods"
The specific codes are in addition to the core code. They do not replace it.
Faiths of Purity : "Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods"
The specific codes are in addition to the core code. They do not replace it.
I recognize what you say, but I think it is a case where, if there is conflict between the general tennets of the code and lawful good alignment, that the specfic code of a diety expands and says, "This is still considered to be the right thing within MY domain and if you wish to keep your divine power you will abide my wishes." In general I do not see it as causing conflict, however the problem lies in how people define different words within the various codes and the possible interpretations thereof. I think trying to read it in only one way is limiting and boring is destorys all verisimilitude by forcing all paladins to act the same and creates the idea there is only one correct answer for every situation.
Disclaimer: I am not a PFS GM.
That being said, the other GMs in my group greatly respect and appreciate my take on paladins, and ask for my feedback on paladins in their games. So apparently at least 2 people like my opinions.
My take is simple: The paladin has made a pact with his or her god. Local law is virtually irrelevant, except insofar as some gods (*cough* *cough* Abadar *cough* *cough*) view local law as the end-all and be-all of civilization.
I realize that the OP said, "Please no more examples," but I'm annoying that way, and I think this is a nice exaggerated example of my take on paladins:
Suppose the party was approaching a walled city-state that protected itself from unwanted intruders with the tenet, "You must eat a human baby to enter this city."
However, within the city was a denizen with information that could save a thousand lives.
The paladin has 3 options:
(1) Decide that the life of the baby is nothing compared to the lives of the 1000 people he's going to save, so he chows down.
(2) Decide that the lives of 1000 people isn't worth his personal sin, and walk away.
(3) Have his sorcerer friend cast Invisibility Sphere and Dimension Door and sneak into the city, bypassing the law entirely.
In my game, any non-Abadar paladin who didn't choose Option 3 would fall. An Abadar paladin who chose #1 would get a pass, and would fall if he chose #3, because Abadar is all about the law. Yet in so many threads I see other GMs who insist that a paladin cannot engage in any form of law-breaking or deception.
I liked the earlier poster who put it very succinctly:
Lawful God = Paladin is much more bound to the law
Neutral God = Paladin is much more bound to the god, and laws aren't nearly as important.
So in our gaming group, god trumps law.
Okay, I have a bad feeling about that example, because I disagree with it.
A paladin--even a paladin of Abadar--is allowed to break laws for the greater good. I kind of doubt any paladin would be allowed to eat a baby just to avoid having to break an incredibly draconian law.
Okay, I have a bad feeling about that example, because I disagree with it.
A paladin--even a paladin of Abadar--is allowed to break laws for the greater good. I kind of doubt any paladin would be allowed to eat a baby just to avoid having to break an incredibly draconian law.
Perfectly acceptable, and I think you and I are closer to agreement than you think.
I just wanted an example where it was absolutely clear that I felt that a paladin "is allowed to break laws for the greater good."
There are many, many posters who will disagree with you on that statement. I am not one of them.
*EDIT* I just have a personal distaste for Abadar after the whole "A History of Ashes" module in Crimson Throne, so perhaps I'm being meaner to him than I should...
|
So we try and justify an argument with unrealistic and crazy examples.
The paladin just wouldn't enter, period.
He would also find a way to put a stop to it.
The fact is, it's not the job of the DM to create impossible situations for any class. How would you feel if every encounter was full of enemies that have Touch AC 40, SR 60, immune to al elements, True Seeing, G Dispel Magic at will, and Blind sight? Your spellcaster would be pretty pissed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we try and justify an argument with unrealistic and crazy examples.
The paladin just wouldn't enter, period.
He would also find a way to put a stop to it.
I believe you missed my point.
(1) I stated an opinion: God trumps law.
(2) I needed an example so extreme that no reasonable person could say, "There is no conflict between law and god here."
I'm not trying to justify anything; it was just trying to explain my position with something so extreme that we wouldn't end up in an endless "shades of grey" discussion, which is exactly what the OP was trying to avoid.
In real games, there are real situations where paladins have to choose between law and god.
In my games, god wins.
That's all I was saying. We can discard my example without further discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An extreme example but definitely made the point. And unless the Paladin served a god that was more focused on law, after he was done saving the thousand lives he'd be coming back to that walled city to do something about that baby eating regime.
|
Suppose the party was approaching a walled city-state that protected itself from unwanted intruders with the tenet, "You must eat a human baby to enter this city."
However, within the city was a denizen with information that could save a thousand lives.The paladin has 3 options:
(1) Decide that the life of the baby is nothing compared to the lives of the 1000 people he's going to save, so he chows down.
(2) Decide that the lives of 1000 people isn't worth his personal sin, and walk away.
(3) Have his sorcerer friend cast Invisibility Sphere and Dimension Door and sneak into the city, bypassing the law entirely.In my game, any non-Abadar paladin who didn't choose Option 3 would fall. An Abadar paladin who chose #1 would get a pass, and would fall if he chose #3, because Abadar is all about the law. Yet in so many threads I see other GMs who insist that a paladin cannot engage in any form of law-breaking or deception.
I liked the earlier poster who put it very succinctly:
Lawful God = Paladin is much more bound to the law
Neutral God = Paladin is much more bound to the god, and laws aren't nearly as important.So in our gaming group, god trumps law.
Because I'm annoying, I would say if the Paladin needs to speak with a certain denizen of the city, I would ask one of the guards or citizens near by if they could bring Gorrf the Voracious to the gate so we could chat. And if they need more incentive, here's a down payment and the promise of more if they return.