Players creating undead?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
3/5

well a lawfull person can break a law that they deem not lawful. So if your paladin goes to geb he can deem their laws not lawfull. You can be good and virtuous and cooperate with less virtuous pathfinders. You can even be lawfull stupid and do so. My lawful stupid monk/rogue/inquistor of Sarenrae spares every creature so he can try and redeem them. You do not HAVE to gut horns with your foils at every turn.

Now the reason they decided good and evil spells do not move your alignment is because it would be too diffcult to track. A few infernal healings then you could cast a few good spells to balance it out.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Lou Diamond wrote:
Why was the rule changed from PF Core rules on casting spells with an evil descriptor for PFS being an alignment infraction?

Originally it was so that if a Faction Head or VO ordered your character to do something dark and evil, the Dark Side Point went to the NPC that ordered it rather than the character that did it, (which is no longer in PFS), but somehow that got altered to using [Evil] doesn't affect your alignment.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Lou Diamond wrote:
Why was the rule changed from PF Core rules on casting spells with an evil descriptor for PFS being an alignment infraction?

Because the core rules do NOT say "Cast this spell once and you become evil".

The episodic nature of PFS makes tracking a characters actions hard if not impossible. Without implementing some sort of dark side points system, casting evil spells won't change your alignment, and they don't want to do that.

Quote:
This was not in PFS but in a standard campaign of council of thieves. I had an Inquisitor of Asmodeus that started the game as lawful nutural and by casting Infernal Healing at every opportunity began his slide to lawful evil. {this was in a council of thieves game] Culminating in entering nto an infernal Pact with his patron with his patron an becoming a Devil in his own right. This was a player decision.

Thats one of the advantages of a campaign over PFS.

Quote:
IT seems to me that a large number of players want their actions to have no consequences.

They probably wouldn't mind being evil if it didn't kill their characters.

Quote:
BNW to my knowledge there are only 2 or 3 countries in the inner sea that ban or restrict religion or practitioners there of.

How many ban pathfinders? (answer.. not nearly enough! :))

Quote:

Alot of Mcguffins are evil or used for evil purposes so how is removing

them from the world wrong or evil.

Its not evil, but the way pathfinders do it is usually pretty chaotic.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
well a lawfull person can break a law that they deem not lawful.

Thats the definition of chaotic. "I don't agree with this law, screw it!" . Its not like chaotic characters have to start spitting gum on the streets the second there's a law against it.

Quote:
So if your paladin goes to geb he can deem their laws not lawfull.

Paladins specifically cannot do this. Part of their oaths is to respect legitimate authority: that's not authorities they happen to agree with.

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Paladins specifically cannot do this. Part of their oaths is to respect legitimate authority: that's not authorities they happen to agree with.

It is very specific, but there are a few laws and governments as a whole that paladins would not deem legitimate since they stand diametrically opposed to the faith and justice that paladins must stand for.

Examples of laws that paladins would probably consider void while otherwise respecting the government and majority of laws would include the Taldan law banning the worship of Sarenrae (on the grounds of suppressing a non-evil faith) and many of the laws on the books in Cheliax which are selectively enforced on people the authorities don't like (on the grounds that their primary use is to oppress).

Governments that Paladins would likely wholly reject the authority of include Rahadoum (for the general suppression of religion), Geb (for allowing the undead to live as citizens) and Galt (for being a general reign of terror with basically no justice to be found).

Paladins with their codes must answer to pure divine law which in PF is literally a building block of the universe. This is occasionally in conflict with human laws even sometimes those created by otherwise just and legitimate governments. When faced with this kind of situation a paladin would probably make known their rejection and noncompliance with the law in a principled and public fashion and then accept whatever the consequences of their action are, hoping that they can inspire others to also struggle against whatever it is that they see as unjust. It is difficult, but possible to oppose temporal laws in a way that fits within an overall lawful alignment.

3/5

What if a law is used to " harm or threaten innocents"? Should they not punish those that make or enforce those laws?

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.

Paladins are not held in check by every law.

So yes paladins can specifically do that.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
well a lawfull person can break a law that they deem not lawful.

Thats the definition of chaotic. "I don't agree with this law, screw it!" . Its not like chaotic characters have to start spitting gum on the streets the second there's a law against it.

Quote:
So if your paladin goes to geb he can deem their laws not lawfull.

Paladins specifically cannot do this. Part of their oaths is to respect legitimate authority: that's not authorities they happen to agree with.

Paladins generally follow tradition when it comes to judging local laws. If the laws are clearly arbitrary whims of the ruler (i.e., chaotic) or set up to reinforce an oppressive system (i.e., evil), then of course they should not obey the local laws. But in the absence of such evidence, the presumption should be in favor of obeying the local laws.

3/5

David knott 242 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
well a lawfull person can break a law that they deem not lawful.

Thats the definition of chaotic. "I don't agree with this law, screw it!" . Its not like chaotic characters have to start spitting gum on the streets the second there's a law against it.

Quote:
So if your paladin goes to geb he can deem their laws not lawfull.

Paladins specifically cannot do this. Part of their oaths is to respect legitimate authority: that's not authorities they happen to agree with.

Paladins generally follow tradition when it comes to judging local laws. If the laws are clearly arbitrary whims of the ruler (i.e., chaotic) or set up to reinforce an oppressive system (i.e., evil), then of course they should not obey the local laws. But in the absence of such evidence, the presumption should be in favor of obeying the local laws.

Ohh, I agree. But strong examples that someone said above in mentioning Geb. The law is clearly used for evil. It is obvious that paladin should not follow those laws.

My point is because it is a law does not mean lawful characters must follow it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I prefer to think of paladins as GOOD, (lawful). The law contradicts "good" so much in so many places that paladins might as well be Judge Dredd in practice. "I AM THE LAW".

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Saint: absolutely not. There is no difference between what you're proposing and neutral or chaotic good.

Lawful good is not the best good. Lawful good is not better than the other goods. Lawful good is by definition NOT the purest good.

3/5

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

I agree Lawful good is not the most good, as law can interfere with that.

Although Lawful good does not mean you ignore laws that are purely evil. A paladin can argue places that allow/enforce/create evil laws are not a "legitimate authority".

Saying a paladin MUST follow evil laws is ignoring the good part as well.

It is silly to say a paladin could not fight evil in their domain where they make the laws.

Silver Crusade 2/5

A paladin can more than argue it. They are bound to oppose the government in question as oppressors. Hence, I AM THE LAW. Especially when the law makes helping those in need illegal.

The last words to the slaver to my paladin: "Well in my country, these people are property!"

"Not to my god!"

<Slice>

5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:

Examples of laws that paladins would probably consider void while otherwise respecting the government and majority of laws would include the Taldan law banning the worship of Sarenrae (on the grounds of suppressing a non-evil faith) and many of the laws on the books in Cheliax which are selectively enforced on people the authorities don't like (on the grounds that their primary use is to oppress).

Governments that Paladins would likely wholly reject the authority of include Rahadoum (for the general suppression of religion), Geb (for allowing the undead to live as citizens) and Galt (for being a general reign of terror with basically no justice to be found).

Paladins with their codes must answer to pure divine law which in PF is literally a building block of the universe. This is occasionally in conflict with human laws even sometimes those created by otherwise just and legitimate governments. When faced with this kind of situation a paladin would probably make known their rejection and noncompliance with the law in a principled and public fashion and then accept whatever the consequences of their action are, hoping that they can inspire others to also struggle against whatever it is that they see as unjust. It is difficult, but possible to oppose temporal laws in a way that fits within an overall lawful alignment.

No! This is not true! You are describing neutral good.

If paladins had the option if ignoring "law" where "law" contradicted "good," there would either be no more nations with legal slavery or no more paladins allowed within those nations.

Since we have Chelish paladins, and (the core of this dispute) paladins in Absalom, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to ignore legitimate authority just because they don't like it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Well, I never did like the alignment system of Pathfinder. Nevertheless, that is how I interpret righteous zeal. Laws that directly oppose my god's edicts are null and void.

"Since we have both, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to go on a crusade against legitimate authority just because they don't like it."

It's not them; it's their god that doesn't like it.

To me, you are describing lawful neutral.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:

Well, I never did like the alignment system of Pathfinder. Nevertheless, that is how I interpret righteous zeal. Laws that directly oppose my god's edicts are null and void.

"Since we have both, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to go on a crusade against legitimate authority just because they don't like it."

It's not them; it's their god that doesn't like it.

So play a priest, not a paladin.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

Well, I never did like the alignment system of Pathfinder. Nevertheless, that is how I interpret righteous zeal. Laws that directly oppose my god's edicts are null and void.

"Since we have both, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to go on a crusade against legitimate authority just because they don't like it."

It's not them; it's their god that doesn't like it.

So play a priest, not a paladin.

Paladins are basically priests with swords.

"no more paladins allowed within those nations."

In my home games, paladins of certain deities are hunted like dogs by slaver nations.

3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:


No! This is not true! This is neutral good.

If paladins had the option if ignoring "law" where "law" contradicted "good," there would either be no more nations with legal slavery or no more paladins.

Since we have both, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to go on a crusade against legitimate authority just because they don't like it.

This is true.

Since slavery can be argued as not evil. You look through history slavery was very common but not as horrible or brutal in soem areas. If you owed a debt you could not pay you were a slave until you repaid in area.

Now what is a law breaks the paladins oath? Must he follow that law too?

Lets use the most lawful evil place. Hell. If a baron of hell made a law that paladins must commit suicide for entering hell for any reason it would be silly to say well. You are dead now since a law says so. They are legitimate rulers. A paladin has leeway when laws contradict good, or his oath.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:


No! This is not true! This is neutral good.

If paladins had the option if ignoring "law" where "law" contradicted "good," there would either be no more nations with legal slavery or no more paladins.

Since we have both, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to go on a crusade against legitimate authority just because they don't like it.

This is true.

Since slavery can be argued as not evil. You look through history slavery was very common but not as horrible or brutal in soem areas. If you owed a debt you could not pay you were a slave until you repaid in area.

Now what is a law breaks the paladins oath? Must he follow that law too?

Lets use the most lawful evil place. Hell. If a baron of hell made a law that paladins must commit suicide for entering hell for any reason it would be silly to say well. You are dead now since a law says so. They are legitimate rulers. A paladin has leeway when laws contradict good, or his oath.

It can be argued, but if a deity makes it clear that in their pantheon, slavery IS evil, the gloves come off. No mercy, to quote Delenn.

I've always seen lawful evil as the biggest enemy of paladins, because they twist laws into engines of evil and legitimize evil itself. Chaotic evil are just kinda spastic losers that hurt people in comparison. Easy to pick out and purge.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
Paladins are basically priests with swords

... and codes of honor that dictate their use.

Quote:
In my home games, paladins of certain deities are hunted like dogs by slaver nations.

That makes perfect sense. I might use it in my own home game if it comes up. But we're talking about Pathfinder Society, where the GM doesn't get to change the way the world works.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Paladins are basically priests with swords

... and codes of honor that dictate their use.

Quote:
In my home games, paladins of certain deities are hunted like dogs by slaver nations.
That makes perfect sense. I might use it in my own home game if it comes up. But we're talking about Pathfinder Society, where the GM doesn't get to change the way the world works.

Oh, yeah. I don't think paladins fit very well in PFS because of this. I have just accepted that PFS has a bunch of crap that makes no sense. Like the Chewbacca Defense.

GMs basically can't enforce alignment rules in PFS anyway, so paladins are off the leash in PFS by default.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
It can be argued, but if a deity makes it clear that in their pantheon, slavery IS evil, the gloves come off. No mercy, to quote Delenn.

And then you need an atonement, because you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." A paladin does not get to pick and choose. That luxury is left to others--like the priests of Gods who declare slavery inherently evil under any circumstances.

If you want to play a righteous crusader who ignores the laws of the land, play a warpriest. Brand new class, does exactly what you describe. A paladin has to balance "good" and "law," which is why they have a code of conduct on top of an alignment restriction.

Edit: As written, a Paladin is the servant of two masters: His alignment, the aspects of which can occasionally come into conflict, and his code of conduct, which can occasionally cause that conflict. In PFS, it's exacerbated by the necessity of pledging oneself to just one god, which imposes a separate set of conditions which, in turn, can conflict with the others.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Paladins can and will violate the lawful part of their alignment/oath for the greater good... sometimes.

With a murder hobo archeologist smuggler campaign like pfs this would be very problematic.

What saves them is that the episodic nature of the PFS scenarios and switching dms means that "this one time I'm going to work with the undead" or "this one time I'm going to say screw the law and do the right thing!" can't become a pattern pervasive enough to knock the paladins alignment over to Neutral Good. This lets the paladin (reluctantly) work with the necromancer without losing his powers.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
GMs basically can't enforce alignment rules in PFS anyway, so paladins are off the leash in PFS by default.

Oh. Well, we agree on that, at least. :D

Silver Crusade 2/5

" you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." "

Nope. Authority that espouses evil is not legitimate.

"A paladin does not get to pick and choose."

They don't, but their god does.

Paladins follow the law of THEIR land; the laws of the righteous. Now, schemers can hide behind even good laws, but paladins are not bound laws of evil in any way.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

" you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." "

Nope. Authority that espouses evil is not legitimate.

If you came to my table and made that argument, I would give you two options:

1. You're wrong. Would you like to participate in the organized campaign with the other players now, or would you prefer to leave?
2. You're right, but that means you need to go start freeing all the slaves in Absalom immediately, because you can't just ignore that evil. Good luck with that. You'll soon be dead and/or in jail forever; you are now removed from play. Here's your chronicle. Have a nice day.

Quote:

"A paladin does not get to pick and choose."

They don't, but their god does.

Paladins follow the law of THEIR land; the laws of the righteous. Now, schemers can hide behind even good laws, but paladins are not bound laws of evil in any way.

I don't ...

... no. Just no.

Quote:

Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.

Only supporting laws that you feel are "good" is neutral good.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

" you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." "

Nope. Authority that espouses evil is not legitimate.

If you came to my table and made that argument, I would give you two options:

1. You're wrong.
2. You're right, but that means you need to go start freeing all the slaves in Absalom immediately, because you can't just ignore that evil. Good luck with that. You'll soon be dead and/or in jail forever; you are now removed from play. Here's your chronicle.

Quote:

"A paladin does not get to pick and choose."

They don't, but their god does.

Paladins follow the law of THEIR land; the laws of the righteous. Now, schemers can hide behind even good laws, but paladins are not bound laws of evil in any way.

I don't ...

... no. Just no.

Yes, just yes. Good thing I'm not at your table.

This interpretation does not make my character a retard. It just means that slavers and the like are just as expendable as goblins in they get in the way of the greater good. And if I get the chance to topple an evil nation, even better.

Note that I don't ever play paladins in PFS for this reason.

"Only supporting laws that you feel are "good" is neutral good."

This is why I find lawful good to be kind of a nonsense alignment. Laws that clearly promote evil should be able to be used as a shield from lawful good characters. The "lawful" means we turn the bad guy over to cops if we can. But if we are in the middle of Mordor, guess what? I AM THE LAW.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
Note that I don't ever play paladins in PFS for this reason.

Then why are you even arguing this point? You acknowledge that your home game paladins differ from the way they're played in PFS, so why are you taking the time to talk about how they run in your opinion when you know that's not relevant to the discussion?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Note that I don't ever play paladins in PFS for this reason.
Then why are you even arguing this point? You acknowledge that your home game paladins differ from the way they're played in PFS, so why are you taking the time to talk about how they run in your opinion when you know that's not relevant to the discussion?

Because I find your interpretation of paladins to be getting into "lawful stupid" range.

"Oh, look Mr. Paladin, I've got a permit to slaughter these children! Guess you're boned!"

Not surprisingly, because laws can be awful horrible things, I find the border between lawful good and neutral good to be very thin indeed.

If I had a paladin who *knew* who was running Cheliax, for example, it would make no sense to bow to their laws for sake of law at all. I would aiding evil in the process. If this were a home game, and my paladin knew who ran Cheliax, I'd slaughter every Chelaxian PFS member I could find.

The actual discussion is moot. PFS allow necromancy and has neutered alignment and doesn't allow pvp. All a paladin or cleric can do is leave the table. Which I would depending on my character.

3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:

Examples of laws that paladins would probably consider void while otherwise respecting the government and majority of laws would include the Taldan law banning the worship of Sarenrae (on the grounds of suppressing a non-evil faith) and many of the laws on the books in Cheliax which are selectively enforced on people the authorities don't like (on the grounds that their primary use is to oppress).

Governments that Paladins would likely wholly reject the authority of include Rahadoum (for the general suppression of religion), Geb (for allowing the undead to live as citizens) and Galt (for being a general reign of terror with basically no justice to be found).

Paladins with their codes must answer to pure divine law which in PF is literally a building block of the universe. This is occasionally in conflict with human laws even sometimes those created by otherwise just and legitimate governments. When faced with this kind of situation a paladin would probably make known their rejection and noncompliance with the law in a principled and public fashion and then accept whatever the consequences of their action are, hoping that they can inspire others to also struggle against whatever it is that they see as unjust. It is difficult, but possible to oppose temporal laws in a way that fits within an overall lawful alignment.

No! This is not true! You are describing neutral good.

If paladins had the option if ignoring "law" where "law" contradicted "good," there would either be no more nations with legal slavery or no more paladins allowed within those nations.

Since we have Chelish paladins, and (the core of this dispute) paladins in Absalom, it necessarily follows that paladins do not get to decide to ignore legitimate authority just because they don't like it.

So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?

What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith? What about the laws in Rahadoum which oppress people of any faith? What about the laws in Cheliax which are explicitly stated to be used to attack those who the government does not like?

In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.

To me, you all are describing Lawful Stupid rather than actual Lawful Good. Since Law and Good are literally a building block of the universe given the alignment system I see paladins in generally just and orderly nations to have the social role of keeping the government honest and advocating the standards of that universal Law, Good and justice. Paladins are supposed to be active forces of Law and Good. Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me.

Or is the difficulty of paladins in opposing this kind of law-bases institutional injustice supposed to be one of the failings of LG and intended to be covered morally by NG and CG heroes?

Silver Crusade 2/5

"So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?

What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith? What about the laws in Rahadoum which oppress people of any faith? What about the laws in Cheliax which are explicitly stated to be used to attack those who the government does not like?

In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.

To me, you all are describing Lawful Stupid rather than actual Lawful Good. Since Law and Good are literally a building block of the universe given the alignment system I see paladins in generally just and orderly nations to have the social role of keeping the government honest and advocating the standards of that universal Law, Good and justice. Paladins are supposed to be active forces of Law and Good. Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me.

Or is the difficulty of paladins in opposing this kind of law-bases institutional injustice supposed to be one of the failings of LG and intended to be covered morally by NG and CG heroes?"

This ^ 2.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?

You work within the system. Sounds lame? It is. That's the trouble with taking an oath to uphold law.

Quote:
What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith?

If there are paladins of Sarenrae in Taldor, the GM isn't paying attention.

Quote:
What about the laws in Rahadoum which oppress people of any faith?

I would expect paladins to not live in Rahadoum, and while they are visiting, I would expect them to comply with the legal instructions given to them by the whitecloaks or whatever their names are: Keep their holy symbols covered, and don't use divine magic openly.

Quote:
What about the laws in Cheliax which are explicitly stated to be used to attack those who the government does not like?

You want the lot of a Chelish paladin to be easy?

Quote:
In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.

Oh my God, you'd let a paladin walk into a land where intelligent creatures rule in relative peace and just slaughter them? Are you kidding me with this?

Quote:
Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me

Paladining is a martyr's field. It's not supposed to be easy. If you want to play a noble knight who hits things and has no fear of consequences, there are a half-dozen other classes that can easily set that up for you. If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.

You know the best example of how a paladin should be played? The guy from Pool of Twilight--what, Miltiadis? Something like that. He was a celebrated servant of his god, and then in his final fight, it was two armies against each other, and to keep his men from throwing their lives away pointlessly, he snuck into his opponents' camp and slew him in his sleep, saving hundreds of lives and ending a war, and he was cursed with undeath because he was a friggin' paladin.

They are deliberately held to lofty, and yes, problematic, ideals. That's the whole point!

5/5 5/55/55/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?

Set up a slave to freedman training and re education center in Andoran.

Petition the government of cheliax to end its slavery.

Amass a large fortune trading to tien, and then use that money to buy so many slaves and free them that slavery becomes infeasible

Quote:
What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith?

Go through legitimate channels to get the laws changed.

Quote:
In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens.

Oh hell to the no.

Quote:
To me, you all are describing Lawful Stupid rather than actual Lawful Good.

If you're thinking any of the above wouldn't be effective... thats why there are goods other than lawful. If you're thinking they wouldn't be any fun to RP... thats why so many adventurers are chaotic.

Quote:
Since Law and Good are literally a building block of the universe given the alignment system I see paladins in generally just and orderly nations to have the social role of keeping the government honest and advocating the standards of that universal Law, Good and justice.

Your universal law is good, not law. So what you have is good good... or neutral good.

Quote:
Paladins are supposed to be active forces of Law and Good. Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me.

Its SUPPOSED to be hard. Its supposed to be the narrow path. If it were easy every fighter would do it.

Quote:
Or is the difficulty of paladins in opposing this kind of law-bases institutional injustice supposed to be one of the failings of LG and intended to be covered morally by NG and CG heroes?

Eyup.

Chaotic good has its own set of traps and foibles. You can do a lot of good organizing resources and forcing people to do the right thing... but those problems don't come up a lot for adventurers.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
So if what I just described is NG, then how do you oppose institutional injustice and oppressive laws in a lawful fashion?

You work within the system. Sounds lame? It is. That's the trouble with taking an oath to uphold law.

Quote:
What does a paladin of Sarenrae do about the laws in Taldor that oppress others of their faith?

If there are paladins of Sarenrae in Taldor, the GM isn't paying attention.

Quote:
What about the laws in Rahadoum which oppress people of any faith?

I would expect paladins to not live in Rahadoum, and while they are visiting, I would expect them to comply with the legal instructions given to them by the whitecloaks or whatever their names are: Keep their holy symbols covered, and don't use divine magic openly.

Quote:
What about the laws in Cheliax which are explicitly stated to be used to attack those who the government does not like?

You want the lot of a Chelish paladin to be easy?

Quote:
In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.

Oh my God, you'd let a paladin walk into a land where intelligent creatures rule in relative peace and just slaughter them? Are you kidding me with this?

Quote:
Not being able to effectively oppose unjust and oppressive laws beyond the equivalent of a letter to their congressman sounds very un-paladin like to me

Paladining is a martyr's field. It's not supposed to be easy. If you want to play a noble knight who hits things and has no fear of consequences, there are a half-dozen other classes that can easily set that up for you. If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.

You know the best example of how a paladin should be played? The guy from Pool of Twilight--what, Miltiadis? Something like that. He was a celebrated servant of his...

If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.

That's a stupid class concept. Too difficult to actually exist. And frankly, the paladin class abilities are not good enough to warrant such strict behavioural restrictions.

Evil laws = not laws at all.

Looks like it's agree to vehemently disagree time. It's bad enough being enslaved to all goodly laws, but now you want them enslaved to every law passed everyone by anyone/anything. Okay.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
"Oh, look Mr. Paladin, I've got a permit to slaughter these children! Guess you're boned!"

Foul! Reductio ad absurdum. 10 yard penalty.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Master of Rhetoric wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
"Oh, look Mr. Paladin, I've got a permit to slaughter these children! Guess you're boned!"
Foul! Reductio ad absurdum. 10 yard penalty.

I'm sure you could get such a permit in some lawful evil nation somewhere.

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
Evil laws = not laws at all.

Demonstrably untrue, by virtue of the existence of the Lawful Evil alignment.

There are two axes to alignment: One is the good/evil spectrum, and the other is the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

You don't get to ignore one in favor of the other and claim you're at the extreme end of both.

Well, you can do whatever you want, but you look like you don't understand how the alignment system actually works.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Evil laws = not laws at all.

Demonstrably untrue, by virtue of the existence of the Lawful Evil alignment.

There are two axes to alignment: One is the good/evil spectrum, and the other is the lawful/chaotic spectrum.

You don't get to ignore one in favor of the other and claim you're at the extreme end of both.

Well, you can do whatever you want, but you look like you don't understand how the alignment system actually works.

I meant with respect to the paladin's code. The evil laws shouldn't exist to them. Obviously they exist.

There are two axes, and in cases of conflict, one must dominate for action to be taken. The clear choice for the paladin is GOOD.

I've always hated the D+D alignment system for this reason. I prefer games with no alignment or even the Palladium alignment system.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
It's bad enough being enslaved to all goodly laws, but now you want them enslaved to every law

>.<

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE CLASS.

5/5 *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
It's bad enough being enslaved to all goodly laws, but now you want them enslaved to every law

>.<

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE CLASS.

You seem like the sort of GM who enjoys trying to put a paladin player in a catch 22 situation between law and good, which is a pretty jerky thing to do. I wouldn't go near your table with a paladin or probably any other character.

5/5

andreww wrote:
You seem like the sort of GM who enjoys trying to put a paladin player in a catch 22 situation between law and good, which is a pretty jerky thing to do. I wouldn't go near your table with a paladin or probably any other character.

I actually would prefer we all let paladins be somewhat flexible at PFS tables. But as you can see from the first 100+ posts on this thread, that can lead to paladins refusing to play with necromancers, and people deliberately privileging the intolerant character.

If a paladin can be sufficiently flexible in his code to get things done for the Society, he can work with a skeleton. If not, a strict interpretation is the player's choice.

But neither one gets to just walk into Cheliax and start killing nobility under the guise of being "lawful good."

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

...lot of stuff about Paladins and alignment there, huh?

But what about players creating undead in PFS?

Personally, I think that as long as something is PFS legal, then everyone should try to find an RP way to work through any conflict.

Paladins and necromancer wizards are 100% PFS legal. So they should both be able to play at the table. If nothing else, they're going to get some great roleplaying out of it. And if the players can't see their way to do that, then it's the GMs responsibility to show them how.

Dark Archive 2/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
But neither one gets to just walk into Cheliax and start killing nobility under the guise of being "lawful good."

The only exception to this I am able to think of is if your deity has inspired you and/or others to go on a holy crusade against said rebels. For example the demonic hordes have dominion over the Worldwound, yet Iomedea inspires her paladins to rage holy war on the Worldwound. Samething during the Shining Crusade when the paladins out of Taldor went to battle against the dark wizard in Ustalav. Before denouncing an authority, you better make dang sure your authority is backing you in it.

5/5

Benjamin F. wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
But neither one gets to just walk into Cheliax and start killing nobility under the guise of being "lawful good."
The only exception to this I am able to think of is if your deity has inspired you and/or others to go on a holy crusade against said rebels. For example the demonic hordes have dominion over the Worldwound, yet Iomedea inspires her paladins to rage holy war on the Worldwound. Samething during the Shining Crusade when the paladins out of Taldor went to battle against the dark wizard in Ustalav. Before denouncing an authority, you better make dang sure your authority is backing you in it.

Sorry, yes, a very good point: An actual war--which is to say, a legally declared war by one legitimate authority on another--does empower a paladin to go into another country and start killing people.

But then we get to talk about accepting surrender, etc. :D

3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Quote:
In cases like Geb it is far more straightforward and the paladin can just go on crusade to kill the undead citizens. Probably likewise with the nobles of Nidal and the orcs in the Hold of Belkzen.
Oh my God, you'd let a paladin walk into a land where intelligent creatures rule in relative peace and just slaughter them? Are you kidding me with this?

Have you played You only Die Twice? You know what they do in Geb, right? Also this entire thread is predicated on paladins and clerics of Pharasma having the moral right to just kill any undead they encounter no matter the problems that that would cause within the party.

What it boils down to is that I apprently take a way more grimdark view of alignment and religion in my games. Paladins are not nice. They are heavily armed religious fanatics who represent the sword of their god in the material plane and they can do quite a lot which is within their code but would be a war crime to us today.

Oath against Undeath wrote:
A paladin with this oath vows to restore the natural state of death to any animate corpse she encounters, and destroy the undead energy in the process. While a few paladins who take this oath recognize that not all undead are evil, others are quite willing to purge neutral and good undead along with all the evil ones.
Oath against Savagery wrote:
Some paladins are champions of order, pledging to battle the hordes of goblinoids, orcs, hostile barbarians, and similar savages that nip at the heels of civilization, as well as those who gnaw on society from within, such as thieves’ and assassins’ guilds.

The mis-match in view here is that given the conceit of the absolute morality of the alignment system, then killing things that are "always evil" is an objectively good act. That is something that is basically required to have the kind of stories that the fantasy genre traditionally tells. The existence of foes which you can mow down by the dozen and still be an unblemished hero. Even though we today universally view that kind of thing as an evil. As much has been said multiple times in the debates about the nature of the undead.

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Paladining is a martyr's field. It's not supposed to be easy. If you want to play a noble knight who hits things and has no fear of consequences, there are a half-dozen other classes that can easily set that up for you. If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.

You know the best example of how a paladin should be played? The guy from Pool of Twilight--what, Miltiadis? Something like that. He was a celebrated servant of his god, and then in his final fight, it was two armies against each other, and to keep his men from throwing their lives away pointlessly, he snuck into his opponents' camp and slew him in his sleep, saving hundreds of lives and ending a war, and he was cursed with undeath because he was a friggin' paladin.

They are deliberately held to lofty, and yes, problematic, ideals. That's the whole point!Paladining is a martyr's field. It's not supposed to be easy. If you want to play a noble knight who hits things and has no fear of consequences, there are a half-dozen other classes that can easily set that up for you. If you want to play a paladin, expect the universe to try to shaft you.

They are deliberately held to lofty, and yes, problematic, ideals. That's the whole point!

I actually agree with you here about paladins. I feel that a very appropriate character arc for a paladin ends with them breaking their code and falling as they give everything, even their purity to fight evil. I had a paladin who did exactly that in one of my campaigns once. He went off on his own, assassinated the BBEG with a magical poison which prevents resurrection then refused to take credit for saving the world and lived the rest of his life in obscurity on his farm. It was one of the best character endings I have ever had the pleasure of witnessing.

I just think that a paladin would be more willing to martyr themselves to oppose a tyrannical regime than other people here apparently.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Or is the difficulty of paladins in opposing this kind of law-bases institutional injustice supposed to be one of the failings of LG and intended to be covered morally by NG and CG heroes?
Eyup.

I can agree with that. In that case I guess you are right about a paladin's relative allowance of tyranny, although I imagine paladins as more active, even in the face of institutional evil backed up by properly made laws.

This thread is a great illustration of why I stay far away from paladins and other contentious and disruptive character types unless I have plenty of opportunity to negotiate things with the DM.

3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

" you violated your code of honor by failing to "respect legitimate authority." "

Nope. Authority that espouses evil is not legitimate.

If you came to my table and made that argument, I would give you two options:

1. You're wrong. Would you like to participate in the organized campaign with the other players now, or would you prefer to leave?
2. You're right, but that means you need to go start freeing all the slaves in Absalom immediately, because you can't just ignore that evil. Good luck with that. You'll soon be dead and/or in jail forever; you are now removed from play. Here's your chronicle. Have a nice day.

I find this extremely apalling you would argue this.

The character may realize he could not immediately stop all slaverly. But they could prepare and and require resourse to do that. This is why people(including paladins) train and prepare. FInding evil does not mena you rush blindly to fight it.

I would argue my character is working towards it by gather resources to do end slavery. A person only has so many resources and can fight so many evils at a time. Being a DM and requiring them to go chase ones that will punish their character is obscene.

I have yet to read a response on following a law that requires paladins to break their oathes.

The reason the developers put legitmate in there is because there are illegitmate rulers.

The reason I do not play paladins in PFS is because of people deciding how i should play my character.

5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
I feel that a very appropriate character arc for a paladin ends with them breaking their code and falling as they give everything, even their purity to fight evil.

I partly agree, but I don't think this is the end of the paladin's career. I think this is a relatively routine part of it. I think that the paladin code is deliberately set up to make it impossible to live up to--I think contrition is part of that lifestyle.

Or, to quote a certain webcomic, they wouldn't have made an Atonement spell if it didn't need to be used once in a while.

3/5

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
I feel that a very appropriate character arc for a paladin ends with them breaking their code and falling as they give everything, even their purity to fight evil.
I partly agree, but I don't think this is the end of the paladin's career. I think this is a relatively routine part of it. I think that the paladin code is deliberately set up to make it impossible to live up to--I think contrition is part of that lifestyle.

I would have to think about that. I think that an integral part of contrition is that you won't do it again and after the second time the atonement might not take. Although that first redemption is an equally resonant character arc for a paladin.

The point is that even given its strictures that we chafe against, the Paladin class has room for many different portrayals, from a terrifying righteous sword of wrath to a tragic martyr who is willing to imperil the very foundation of their self (their paladin powers) to protect the world.

On an explanatory note my ideas about paladins are probably colored by playing a lot of Eberron campaigns back in the day, where the LG (or LN I can't remember) Church of the Silver Flame is an essentially genocidal theocratic dictatorship which is implied to be rotting from within and still somehow has paladins working for them.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Whatever. That is a very messed up way to roll for me. I'm with the above poster: I wouldn't get anywhere near your table with any of my characters.

Also please take note that paladins have smite EVIL, not smite CHAOS. That alone should show where the priority is. Your set up is just an excuse to grief players.

Paladins took center point again because the are the #1 issue with necromancers in a group. It was a natural outcome of the topic.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
On an explanatory note my ideas about paladins are probably colored by playing a lot of Eberron campaigns back in the day, where the LG (or LN I can't remember) Church of the Silver Flame is an essentially genocidal theocratic dictatorship which is implied to be rotting from within and still somehow has paladins working for them.

If I remember correctly, the Church of the Silver Flame was a NG order. Eberron made a point of allowing Clerics to not be aligned with their faith, so the corruption part is less the church and more that it (like everything else) had evil and/or corrupt people in it, but they didn't lose their divine powers. They also had a massive crusade against Lycanthropes way back in the day, but that as far as I know was because the Lycanthropes had gotten out of control (and to make their new race the Shifter a thing), but I can't really think of any other genocide. Undead where also a major issue, but since the setting had Deathless, (good/positive energy undead), that where very different, I'm not sure that counts either. One of the things about Eberron, good and bad, is that the setting left so much very vague, and open to interpretation by the reader.

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Players creating undead? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.