Which strikes me as another fine reason not to use alignments or gods.
|
to not use alignments or deities is to take away greatly from the world of golarion that has been constructed. There is a richness to the history and detail with witch it has been handled, and I hate to break it to you but in Golarion, Deities exist and are active. Aroden and the world wound anyone? These are CRUCIAL to the setting of the pathfinder world. It's why Razmir is such an interesting story, because it sounds plausible. It's why Taldan's outlaw worship of Sarenrae, she backed their political enemy. The death of Aroden inspires Chelaxians to make pacts with devils in order to retain powers that their clerics had under Aroden. To ignore the pantheon is to deny the setting a lot of flavor.
I think that it's pretty clear that Zhayne uses a homebrew for his world, so that argument isn't necessarily valid here Altus.
However, I do see a lot more on this board about choices to make a paladin fall, and I just kind of put them in places I won't DM. While paladins in my games aren't in for a walk in the park, I also won't put them in situations where the choice is lose your powers or die.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin's obstructive code of conduct hurts fun at the game table. Quite often it's the other players rather than the DM pushing for the paladin to fall, as the CoC is taking away their fun. (Same if there's another annoying PC at the table, such as a kender or other kleptomaniac, or someone who stabs PCs in the back, etc.)
The wizard's spellbook does not suck away the joy of gaming. Even though wizards are one of the most powerful classes, capable of making almost everyone else look like chumps, they're not required to act like jerks.
Also, the code of conduct isn't really a "rules" thing. It's certainly not a balance thing. You could take it away and the DM's job gets easier, not harder. There's no in-the-rules argument about losing your spellbook. There's quite a lot of "in-the-rules" arguments about how many times a paladin can compliment an ugly person's appearance before they fall.
Thank you for reminding me why I usually avoid any thread with the word "paladin" in the title, and for demonstrating exactly why the original poster started this thread.
I will never understand all the paladin hate around here. I guess some players of paladins play them as holier-than-thou jerks, which leads to the others at their table having a bad taste in their mouth about the whole class. A lot of people seem to incorrectly assume that the paladin code has to be a major factor in any game that includes a paladin, but it really doesn't have to even come up most of the time.
I just played my paladin in Pathfinder Society for the third time last night, and the paladin code has never even been mentioned. And no, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring it and play my paladin against her deity's code. She goes out of her way to seek out evil and destroy it. She doesn't use poison or tell lies, but she doesn't impose those restrictions on her allies. Last night, she offered wounded enemies a chance to surrender, then helped her allies gut them when they refused.
In other words, she's one of the good guys, and makes a point of being a good example to others, without being preachy or getting in the way of others. So why all the paladin hate? I don't get it.
So why all the paladin hate? I don't get it.
I don't hate the paladin class when they get all pushy. I do however not like the player in the moment. I don't hate the paladin class really, I actually like the idea of championing an ideal and I enjoy many of the mechanics. I do however hate the restrictions and the way my GMs have treated the class however.
Isn't PFS a pick-up game, with pre-written modules with little flexibility?
99% of the time it is. You don't know who your with or who is DMing, depending on the circumstances you may never meet them again. It has its own little rules and house rules and restrictions(I'm not fond of some of it myself.)
In my experience, PFS play is big on table variance for paladin's. Some GM's will let you do just about anything, others will threaten you for playing with a necromancer, others will threaten you for not killing something, others will threaten you for killing too much, others will threaten you for taking a single infernal healing, etc. YMMV. In my experience the locals are jerks about paladins because they have ridiculous expectations, and then even as players demand you place them on the paladin even though they're not GMing and have no control over it.
|
|
Wow. So many misconceptions, so little time. Where to begin. Guess I'll just quote the whole thing and address it point by point.
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.This is the worst part. Respecting legitimate authority makes perfect sense for a lawful good character, and it's not likely to hurt a campaign.
Actually, I'd say that's the one part that could actually cause a true dilemma, unlike all the artificial dilemmas that we constantly see on these forums (including several in the post I'm quoting here).
What if the legitimate authority is evil? If a paladin has to choose between acting lawful or acting good, then the specific code and motivations of that character and his/her patron deity become the key points. My particular paladin (and I'd expect this from a majority of paladins, really) would choose good over lawful every time. But again, that goes back to the priorities of her goddess (Iomedae), whose primary motivation is ridding the world of evil.
Acting with honor with a problem. Cue Game of Thrones.
Heard of it, but I don't watch much TV, so I can only guess what you're talking about. Is this one of those "blood feuds based on vanity claiming to be honor" type of things that you see a lot in fiction? If so, that's not true honor, and really doesn't apply.
More seriously, paladins not being allowed to lie is a huge deal. It cuts off a whole range of strategies and plots. You can't infiltrate. If you get caught by cultists while investigating, instead of talking your way out (by lying), you have to close your mouth, beat the cultists silly which might not even be possible (the party could be heavily outnumbered), or do that Aes Sedai thing where you're technically not lying but are still violating the spirit of the code in order to mislead the bad guys. Or I guess you could try to intimidate them (see part about how beating the cultists doesn't always work). Why would a paladin's god have a problem with them lying to the forces of evil?
Yes, paladins are required to be straightforward and trustworthy. Being an example to others is part of the point of a paladin.
But no god is going to require their paladins to be stupid, either. Sarenrae is the goddess of honesty, among other things, and her worship is outlawed in Taldor. Her worshipers there just keep their mouths shut and operate in secrecy, and I'm sure she's just glad to have worshipers, even if they have to lie about their worship. Granted, that's a NG goddess, but she does have paladins (including the leader of the Silver Crusade in Pathfinder Society). Any paladin and their deity should be smart enough to know they sometimes have to keep a low profile behind enemy lines. And yes, that will sometimes mean just keeping your mouth shut and letting others assume things that aren't true, which is the "technically not lying" thing. But no god will punish their paladin for not being suicidal, unless the GM is a jerk.
You must punish those who harm and threaten innocent. Sounds proper for a lawful good character, but are you allowed to prioritize?
Umm, yes. Why is this a question?
A paladin cannot associate with someone who offends their moral code. Does that mean you need to leave the group if you've got a bard PC who keeps lying to people, even for good reason? Or worse, do you need to tell the bard to stop lying because you're afraid of losing your powers because you're associating with a liar?
And again, yes, they can prioritize. No paladin would ever want to associate with a murderer. But a bard who lies a lot for the greater good? Once again, paladins aren't required to be idiots. They might council the bard about using more honest methods, but they should be smart enough to accept the help in the fight against evil, even if it's from a source that doesn't follow their own code.
A paladin who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features... Unfortunately, there's no guidelines for what counts as a violation. A single lie? Bypassing the slave market to do an adventure, intending to come back and free the slaves next week?
And again, if it's really a question, then the GM is being a jerk. Paladins aren't mindless robots who have to follow lines of code in exactly the right order. They're people. Imperfect sometimes, but always striving to do what's right. And every deity that has paladins working for them understands that.
I still say the best explanation of both paladins and the lawful good alignment I've ever seen comes from Order of the Stick. You'll have to get through hundreds of comics to get to the parts I'm thinking of, but it's a great series that I highly recommend anyway, so definitely worth the effort.
Now as for this...
Isn't PFS a pick-up game, with pre-written modules with little flexibility?99% of the time it is. You don't know who your with or who is DMing, depending on the circumstances you may never meet them again. It has its own little rules and house rules and restrictions(I'm not fond of some of it myself.)
In my experience, PFS play is big on table variance for paladin's. Some GM's will let you do just about anything, others will threaten you for playing with a necromancer, others will threaten you for not killing something, others will threaten you for killing too much, others will threaten you for taking a single infernal healing, etc. YMMV. In my experience the locals are jerks about paladins because they have ridiculous expectations, and then even as players demand you place them on the paladin even though they're not GMing and have no control over it.
While PFS does use published adventures, many of which are pretty straightforward in their plots, the whole thing's not nearly as railroaded as some people make it out to be. There are some dungeon crawls with no flexibility, but then there's stuff like the adventure I GMed last weekend that has anywhere from 2-6 combats, depending on how the PCs handle things.
And yes, there's table variation on how paladins are handled, but I really haven't had any issues at any of the tables I've ever played at. My own paladin is only 2nd level, but I have two friends with paladins over 10th level in PFS, along with seeing a few other paladins here and there when playing with random people. And there haven't really been any debates about paladin codes or anything like that at the table, only here on the forums.
On the other hand, I see debates about what to do with captured bad guys all the time, regardless of whether or not there's a paladin at the table. The game I GMed this past weekend had such a debate, even with everyone at the table having a good alignment.
Paladins aren't required to be idiots? Your already doing a better job than my last DM. Sadly, not everyone agrees on how much lenience the paladin gets. Sometimes they can lie whenever they really need to, sometimes however much they want as long as no one gets hurt, sometimes as much as they want, and sometimes never, even if it means death. Sometimes even silence is lying depending on who the arbiter is. That's a wide spectrum right?
Wait, where did the wizards go. Must've cast invisibility and gotten out of here...
|
|
Paladins aren't required to be idiots? Your already doing a better job than my last DM. Sadly, not everyone agrees on how much lenience the paladin gets. Sometimes they can lie whenever they really need to, sometimes however much they want as long as no one gets hurt, sometimes as much as they want, and sometimes never, even if it means death. Sometimes even silence is lying depending on who the arbiter is. That's a wide spectrum right?
Wait, where did the wizards go. Must've cast invisibility and gotten out of here...
I'd never let a paladin actively lie. But I'm fine with keeping their mouth shut while others lie. Ironically, I have played at a table where we did an infiltration mission with a paladin PC, although that was made easier by the fact that the paladin really was a member of the group we were infiltrating (Hellknights).
Most of these conflicts can be resolved by rearranging rule #0 a little:
Rule #0: Don't be a Jerk.
Rule #1: The DM is always right.
With so much focus on The Code, we've put on blinders when it comes to other classes, other features, and indeed, even the definition of 'lawful good.' I was dissapointed when I picked up my copy of Ultimate Campaign and found that the discussion on 'lawful good' focused so much on faith, whereas 'neutral good' and other alignment entries did not to this degree. What of my lawful good fighter, I wondered? My lawful good rogue? To me, these concepts and ideals felt left in the dust by a sort of hyperfocus that I didn't share.
The poster isn't imagining things. However, I think the hyperfocus is more something shared by a small but vocal minority.
To even the board a bit, here are how other classes can lose their abilities, either permanently or temporarily. Many of these are spelled out, others are more implied, such as in the case of the cleric who is described as '[d]evoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them' and whose alignment must be within one step of their deity.
- Monk's alignment changes to nonLawful
- Barbarian's alignment changes to Lawful
- Druid wears metal armor
- Druid teaches another their secret language
- Druid 'ceases to revere nature'
- Druid becomes either Lawful
- Druid becomes Chaotic
- Wizards' spellbook is destroyed
- Wizards' bonded item is destroyed
- Wizards' component pouch is destroyed
- Wizard wears metal armor
- Sorcerer wears metal armor
- Cleric acts against deity's dogma
- Cleric's alignment changes to be further from their deity
- Cleric changes deity
- Inquisitor 'slips into corruption'
- Inquisitor's alignment changes to be further from their deity
That is quite the list.
Not all of these are clear. For instance, what does 'slips into corruption' mean with respect to different deities? Alternately, 'ceases to revere nature' can cause a similar conundrum between player and DM interpretations.
Not all of these are permanent, but neither is the paladin's situation in most cases. In fact, if the act was done 'against their own will,' the atonement spell's cost is even waived.
Atonement is also described as being for more than paladins. The atonement spell specifically refers to its use FOR clerics and druids as well as paladins. The inquisitor class refers to its use specifically, as well.
We might draw a more general conclusion that most/all divine classes come with roleplay-centric risks that in the case of druids, inquisitors, clerics, and paladins, require the use of the atonement spell.
...we might also draw the conclusion that possibly it's time to:
1. Begin shifting the discussion.
2. Place 'don't be a jerk' at the top of our List of Unspoken Rules and then just...
3. ...move on.
I think really the biggest problem with paladins is just a disconnect with how the player interprets the class and how the GM interprets the class. Getting those two to talk helps eliminate this problem.
Well, that is definitely true, but it could be a sore point about how clerics, druids and the other character responsible to a higher power for their mojo work. Paladins just have a historical problem there imo.
Overall, I'd expect paladins to be in a similar boat to clerics of the same deities/orders. The paladin code is essentially very close to how a warrior would interpret the LG alignment, and FoPurity did flesh it up a bit by spelling out deity-specific codes.
|
When I DMd, I had two situations pop up with clerics. I the first one, the player was starting to a to outside the boundAries of the gods teachings. I gave him a few warnings about it, then one day he discovered he couldn't regenerate his spells. Hs god just stopped listening to him for two days. After that he pulled himself back into an alignment that better followed the teachings of his god ( as layer out in the setting books, more so than the core book)
The other one was when a fighter character was effectively bullying the party cleric. The cleric was very pacifist about it. However, one day the fighter took it too far and actively insulted the god of the cleric. In the retry next fight, when the cleric channeled a group heal, the fighter received no benefit at all. It was all me as DM rather than player decision. The fighter was wetting himself by the end of the fight because he realised he'd insulted a god in front of a cleric that had let the god know. The god had taken notice and this was a subtle to warn him.
I like my religions to be something players take seriously. It doesn't have to be a paladin that gets punished by gods for failing to act appropriately.
Cheers
to not use alignments or deities is to take away greatly from the world of golarion that has been constructed. There is a richness to the history and detail with witch it has been handled, and I hate to break it to you but in Golarion, Deities exist and are active. Aroden and the world wound anyone? These are CRUCIAL to the setting of the pathfinder world. It's why Razmir is such an interesting story, because it sounds plausible. It's why Taldan's outlaw worship of Sarenrae, she backed their political enemy. The death of Aroden inspires Chelaxians to make pacts with devils in order to retain powers that their clerics had under Aroden. To ignore the pantheon is to deny the setting a lot of flavor.
Canon is a crutch. I'll change what I like, thank you.
Paladins aren't required to be idiots? Your already doing a better job than my last DM. Sadly, not everyone agrees on how much lenience the paladin gets. Sometimes they can lie whenever they really need to, sometimes however much they want as long as no one gets hurt, sometimes as much as they want, and sometimes never, even if it means death. Sometimes even silence is lying depending on who the arbiter is. That's a wide spectrum right?
Wait, where did the wizards go. Must've cast invisibility and gotten out of here...
I'd never let a paladin actively lie. But I'm fine with keeping their mouth shut while others lie. Ironically, I have played at a table where we did an infiltration mission with a paladin PC, although that was made easier by the fact that the paladin really was a member of the group we were infiltrating (Hellknights).
I would also think Paladins would be allowed to tell the truth, but not necessarily the whole truth. Something like approaching a bandit camp and saying "We have business with your boss," which is completely and objectively true. You're just not saying what that business IS.
Just a curiosity thing from surfing the forums:
Why is it that everyone on the forums loves making paladins fall for anything, but any GM that dares to target a wizard's spellbook is treated like a dirtbag? Looking at the CRB, the paladin's Code of Conduct and the wizard's Spellbook look quite similar - if you're gonna treat one as fluff, shouldn't they both be? And if it's a balance thing, aren't wizards one of the most powerful classes in the game?
Note that this isn't a complaint about either class, I don't really care which is more fun or more powerful, it's just a question about the mentality of forum posters.
Back to the original question...
I think a GM that forces a Paladin to fall is just as much a jerk as a GM that specifically targets a Wizards spell book for metagame reasons.
There are perfectly reasonable reasons for both things to happen. Paladin goes on a murdering spree because he "detected Evil"? He falls. Wizard is captured by the enemy or arrested by the guards? His spell book is taken.
Things that are not reasonable. Having an unbeatable Devil (like a Pit Fiend vs. a 5th level paladin) tell a paladin that he will murder an entire village unless the paladin kills an innocent child. Then make him fall regardless of his decision. Having a group of random bandits grab the wizard's backpack with his spell book inside and throwing it into the fire or a lake or something. Notice that they are not trying to steal the spell book, they are just trying to destroy it.
Okay, so now let's take those two extreme examples and see how it could be made more reasonable.
First, the devil vs. the paladin. My paladin would take the child in hand, then tell him to run while my paladin attacked. Yes, my paladin is going to die. Yes, the child and the entire village will probably die soon after, but that is not my paladin's fault. It is the devil's fault, he is the one doing the murdering! My paladin would try to delay the devil as long as he could and would have faith in his deity that the child and village would be protected by more powerful agents if his deity saw fit.
Second, if some bandits ran in and attacked the party while others grabbed everyone's bags and ran for it, that makes sense. It would be kind of a purse snatcher mentality. Grab and run and hope you get away. Of course now the whole party would be after the bandits, after all, they took their stuff! Just like a purse snatcher though, the bandits should just drop the stuff if it looks like they can't get away.