| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for actually caring and being so demanding that a player be sympathetic right then, please stop telling others how they should play their characters.
This line bugs me a little. I don't think anyone is telling him or suggesting that he has to play his character a specific way. I'm certainly not.
But there are consequences to actions. Am I telling you how to play your character if I say falling 500ft is going to kill him unless he does something to slow his fall?
I don't think so.
This paladin, likewise, needs to do something to slow his fall. Because it sounds like he is falling.
Or not. Playing an Ex-Paladin can be pretty interesting. Especially if he is actively trying to either reestablish paladin-hood or even swing the other direction, growing more and more bitter and twisted about being held to too high a standard and being forsaken and damned by the self serving gods he had once devoted himself to.
He can do whatever he wants. But actions have consequences. That is the nature of actions. This conversation is simply about what those consequence should/could/would be.
Really? I mean it's not like its a role-playing game or anything. Oh wait....
From a meta perspective, harping on about something really can be a drag though. Pretty sure no one said "Quit roleplaying guys!".
Anyways, hey its a classic paladin thread! We need a counter for these somewhere. I could swear I see the same arguments over and over sometimes.
If you support argument two, note that there are real world parallels to the position you oppose. One can be rendered ritually unclean through no fault of one's own. These would still require purification. Is it possible that such would be enough to prevent a paladin from exercising his powers until said ablutions had been performed?
What is the real world analogy to mind control?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being drugged. Climbing into a car. Hitting a kid. If a "good" person can shrug that off with "well, I wasn't the one who drugged me", then I don't want to be a good person.
Regarding the OP.
The paladin was protecting a group of kids from a monster. He became confused and cut one of the kids in half, in plain view of the others, who rightly went crazy with fear at seeing one of their friends brutally murdered.
I am playing the CG wizard in this party. During the combat I quickly rolled my checks to identify the confusion effect and then started thinking about how I was going to roleplay the aftermath with the paladin. I was going to explain to him that it wasn't his fault and that he shouldn't blame himself, we would get the guys truly responsible etc etc.
What I wasn't prepared for was his response of; "Yeah I know it's not my fault, let's go." That's pretty much verbatim.
The question that comes to mind for me in this is how was the paladin playing his character before this? What sort of paladin is he? How does he react and act towards other things? Does the player not really react much to anything -- that is, is this a one time thing with them or is this how they react to everything?
While I don't necessarily believe he should throw down his sword and hold the dead body in his arms sobbing and beseeching the Heavens for mercy, I'd expect something a little more than "eh, too bad so sad, moving on." Even the stoics that other posters seem to want the character to be could be wracked with doubt later or have some reaction that showed they understand that even though it was a spell and they were under control of something/someone else, they still failed in some way.
That said, if the paladin's player doesn't really care one way or the other, making him fall or not or having some sort of IC repercussions will fall on deaf ears.
Being drugged. Climbing into a car. Hitting a kid. If a "good" person can shrug that off with "well, I wasn't the one who drugged me", then I don't want to be a good person.
But in that case no one had control over you. In fact you may have had some control over whether or not you got into the car. Magic and dice roll mechanics don't translate into the real world very well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're driving down the street when a kid dashes into the street from behind a car. You try to swerve in time (reflex save) but failed to (rolled a 1) and hit and kill this small child with your car.
Do you
a) Shrug it off an go about your business as usual, you couldn't do anything about it, not your fault.
b) Take responsibility for the fact you just killed a child
Which of these options represents a paladin?
Which of these options represents a paladin?
Am I the only who wonders how a paladin in golarion got a car? My party has been walking for ages and I'd gladly lay down some gold so my feet can stop aching. These high heeled boots are killing me!
Also, its a much different case, and its not really fair to give two option ultimatums.
|
umm lol what about you are in a sword fight someone subdues you grabs your sword kills a kid then hands it back to you.
do you
a)stop what you are doing and cry over the childs dead body
b)make the person pay for what they have done
what sounds more liken what a holy warrior would do?
once again I agree with mr sin it is folly to try to compare a fantasy world with a real one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
umm lol what about you are in a sword fight someone subdues you grabs your sword kills a kid then hands it back to you.
do you
a)stop what you are doing and cry over the childs dead body
b)make the person pay for what they have donewhat sounds more liken what a holy warrior would do?
once again I agree with mr sin it is folly to try to compare a fantasy world with a real one.
Both sound like things a holy warrior would do. One doesn't have to exclude the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
umm lol what about you are in a sword fight someone subdues you grabs your sword kills a kid then hands it back to you.
do you
a)stop what you are doing and cry over the childs dead body
b)make the person pay for what they have donewhat sounds more liken what a holy warrior would do?
once again I agree with mr sin it is folly to try to compare a fantasy world with a real one.
Except in the case presented in the OP, the "paladin" didn't do b). He went for c) shrug and carry on as if nothing had happened.
We can present "what if" situations uselessly forever, but part of the point of being Good aligned is to stand up for the innocent and care if something bad happens to them. The "paladin" as presented didn't care that an innocent had died, and, to make matters worse, didn't care that it was by his own hand, in control or not. He failed to protect the innocent. And it didn't bother him in the slightest.
Fall, free atonement.
Both sound like things a holy warrior would do. One doesn't have to exclude the other.umm lol what about you are in a sword fight someone subdues you grabs your sword kills a kid then hands it back to you.
do you
a)stop what you are doing and cry over the childs dead body
b)make the person pay for what they have donewhat sounds more liken what a holy warrior would do?
once again I agree with mr sin it is folly to try to compare a fantasy world with a real one.
I'd expect a holy warrior to do both. Someone who doesn't do b) isn't a warrior. Someone who doesn't do a) afterwards isn't holy.
it didn't bother him in the slightest.
Sometimes we don't verbalize what we think very well. Possibly the player just wanted to move on or didn't care as much because its a table top game and he didn't feel it was his fault anyway. Not that we can enter someone's head and look for that sort of thing. I know I wouldn't care as much if I wasn't in control, and I'd try push the subject on and say I didn't want to deal with it.
I'd expect a holy warrior to do both. Someone who doesn't do b) isn't a warrior. Someone who doesn't do a) afterwards isn't holy.
In your opinion at least. Everyone is different and has a different way to handle things. I'm sure I have a very different idea on what a holy warrior should do than you, mostly in that I don't think his acts are predetermined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you could only do one?
Not relevant to this case, as far as I can tell.
I'd expect a holy warrior to do both. Someone who doesn't do b) isn't a warrior. Someone who doesn't do a) afterwards isn't holy.In your opinion at least. Everyone is different and has a different way to handle things. I'm sure I have a very different idea on what a holy warrior should do than you, mostly in that I don't think his acts are predetermined.
Right. And, in particular, Sarenrae, through the Game Master, may have a different idea on what a holy warrior should do than the person playing the paladin of Saranrae.
And you know what? Saranrae has the only opinion that matters. Because when you choose to play a paladin, you explicitly accept that you are granted your powers only so long as you behave in the way that "embod[ies] the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
If you don't like the idea of someone else watching over your shoulder, imposing their moral view upon your actions, don't play a paladin. Because that's exactly what a paladin is.
And if you could only do one?Not relevant to this case, as far as I can tell.
There's a science to this. What kind of action is it to stop what you are doing and cry over a child's body? If its a free action I bet you could totally do both! Also if the guy who inflicted you with confusion is dead already it might be hard to make him pay. I guess we could loot his pockets. Think he has a 5000 gp diamond on him?
And you know what? Saranrae has the only opinion that matters. Because when you choose to play a paladin, you explicitly accept that you are granted your powers only so long as you behave in the way that "embod[ies] the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
By RAW paladins don't need a deity though. This one might, but not all!
If you don't like the idea of someone else watching over your shoulder, imposing their moral view upon your actions, don't play a paladin. Because that's exactly what a paladin is.
Not in my games. In mine you can make your own code and decide if and when you fall. That's all in the player's hands. As is what visions they get. Mind you the make your own code is a houserule, but you can certainly do it without other players telling you how to play or your GM being the sole decider on things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW paladins don't need a deity though.
Again, not relevant. Paladins of Saranrae certainly do.
If you think you can get away with playing a sociopathic paladin by picking to serve an abstract moral force, that's up to your Game Master. This person chose to serve Saranrae, and to accept her gifts. What Saranrae gives, she can certainly take away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like the idea of someone else watching over your shoulder, imposing their moral view upon your actions, don't play a paladin. Because that's exactly what a paladin is.Not in my games. In mine you can make your own code and decide if and when you fall. That's all in the player's hands. As is what visions they get. Mind you the make your own code is a houserule, but you can certainly do it without other players telling you how to play or your GM being the sole decider on things.
Cool. In your game, do you also get to decide what the monster's AC is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like this player isn't up to the roleplaying challenge of playing a Paladin and it sounds like this isn't the first time something like this has happened.
That's my reading as well.
If you think you can get away with playing a sociopathic paladin by picking to serve an abstract moral force, that's up to your Game Master. This person chose to serve Saranrae, and to accept her gifts. What Saranrae gives, she can certainly take away.
We're labeling this paladin a sociopath or is that just a hyperbolic example? Not sure if its fair either way. Again, Saranrae is just the GM. No need to talk about Saranrae. She can neither speak or hear you. You can talk about what Saranrae might think, but I feel like its a little much to speak of Saranrae as the decider on this. Edit: What I'm saying is that its really up to the GM how to handle all the god stuff.
Cool. In your game, do you also get to decide what the monster's AC is?If you don't like the idea of someone else watching over your shoulder, imposing their moral view upon your actions, don't play a paladin. Because that's exactly what a paladin is.Not in my games. In mine you can make your own code and decide if and when you fall. That's all in the player's hands. As is what visions they get. Mind you the make your own code is a houserule, but you can certainly do it without other players telling you how to play or your GM being the sole decider on things.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. Edit: The answer is no, ofc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're labeling this paladin a sociopath or is that just a hyperbolic example?
Look up the diagnostic signs of a sociopath sometime. (The preferred term to "sociopathy" nowadays is "antisocial personality disorder.")
Half of them apply to any adventurer, but the one I'm focusing on is "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another." (The preferred term to "sociopathy" nowadays is "antisocial personality disorder," if you want to look it up in the DSM-5.)
That's not my language, that's straight out of the American Psychological Association's diagnostic manual. And it's exactly what has been described in the OP; the paladin is both indifferent to having killed the child, and rationalizing it away by saying that he was under mental duress.
So, yes, I'm using the term in a clinical sense, and, yes, I stand by the term, inasmuch as it's possible to apply diagnostic criteria to a fictional character based on a hearsay account.
Hmm... one thing that might help is, when somebody asks to play a Paladin, talking with them about what that means and how they're expected to react in various situations. Point out that they're agreeing to this when their character is accepted into the game - and also point out that the game will allow them to change and fall if they fail to live up to this. Inform them that they do have options, but that the expected morality (as determined by the GM) will be enforced. If they have a problem with the moral aspect of the class, suggest alternate options. Goodness knows that enough of those exist.
I do think that GMs should work with players to find something that will be fun for everyone - in the end, this is just a game, but games are fun because of the rules that allow them to be played. And, one way or another, the end goal is for people to enjoy themselves.
So... what does the Paladin in question actually want to do? Are they against the rules (I want the powers of a Paladin, but no restrictions on behavior), are they looking for something else (I want to have my Paladin fall, with or without redemption later), or do they just want to mess up the game? Goals are very important...
We're labeling this paladin a sociopath or is that just a hyperbolic example?Look up the diagnostic signs of a sociopath sometime.
I'm well aware of what it is, I just don't think its fair to place that on a stranger you don't know. You also need a pattern of behavior rather than a single example and I don't know you so I'm not sure if your qualified to diagnose someone. Attaching labels also brings up stigmas and aren't always the best to use.
Back and forth. [/lampshade].
I'm well aware of what it is, I just don't think its fair to place that on a stranger you don't know.We're labeling this paladin a sociopath or is that just a hyperbolic example?Look up the diagnostic signs of a sociopath sometime.
I'm not putting it "on a stranger I don't know"; I'm putting it on a fictional character, and I think it's perfectly fair to use psychological terminology in the service of literary analysis. The player may be a particularly saintly churchwarden who would never even raise his voice to a small child; the character as described is a sociopath.
The sad thing is that sociopaths can still be surprisingly heroic... and... I'm just not getting that vibe here.
Actually, a part of me wants to have the kid return as a ghost, especially if the player does feel bad about what happened - setting things right in-game could provide all kinds of good roleplaying opportunities.
I don't understand. It's very clear in the code that the paladin falls for killing the child, but can have atonement done on them for free.
The lack of paladin guilt is irrelevant.
I don't understand. It's very clear in the code that the paladin falls for killing the child, but can have atonement done on them for free.
The lack of paladin guilt is irrelevant.
You're right, according to RAW.
RAI is another matter entirely.
The RAW is pretty clear. I don't see how you can make an RAI argument when the RAW is so clear that there is little left up to interpretation as to what exactly was intended.
The RAW is pretty clear. I don't see how you can make an RAI argument when the RAW is so clear that there is little left up to interpretation as to what exactly was intended.I don't understand. It's very clear in the code that the paladin falls for killing the child, but can have atonement done on them for free.
The lack of paladin guilt is irrelevant.
You're right, according to RAW.
RAI is another matter entirely.
Welcome to paladin threads!
Helps that the OP asked what people on the forum would do rather than RAW. Then you don't just get RAI, you get different interpretations of "I think I would" clashing with "You should" clashing with "Everyone should" clashing with "Dead Horse: Here we go again".
Now I want to play a cynical paladin that has gamed out what constitutes the minimal standards for maintaining his code of conduct and works the system accordingly. Kind of like certain types who maintain that they are virgins because none of the acts they've performed technically count as sex by selected definitions.
When the RAW is asinine, one has to assume that the person writing it didn't communicate the RAI effectively.
That's not how that works.
Just because you don't like the RAW does not mean it doesn't convey what was intended.
The RAW is pretty clear. I don't see how you can make an RAI argument when the RAW is so clear that there is little left up to interpretation as to what exactly was intended.I don't understand. It's very clear in the code that the paladin falls for killing the child, but can have atonement done on them for free.
The lack of paladin guilt is irrelevant.
You're right, according to RAW.
RAI is another matter entirely.
Welcome to paladin threads!
Helps that the OP asked what people on the forum would do rather than RAW. Then you don't just get RAI, you get different interpretations of "I think I would" clashing with "You should" clashing with "Everyone should" clashing with "Dead Horse: Here we go again".
Ah I see. Then this has nothing to do with RAI. This is more of a houserule question.
Now I want to play a cynical paladin that has gamed out what constitutes the minimal standards for maintaining his code of conduct and works the system accordingly. Kind of like certain types who maintain that they are virgins because none of the acts they've performed technically count as sex by selected definitions.
The joke of course is that even though in Golarion the Gods are quite alive, intelligent, and capable of intervention in human affairs that the Paladin/God relationship is governed by a strict contract that a clever paladin can wield like a cudgel without fear of divine reprisal.
"According to article 8, clause 4 of the Paladin's Code (hereafter referred to as "The Code") the Holy Powers granted by the God (Grantor) to the Paladin (Grantee) can only be revoked in the following circumstances ..."
Ah I see. Then this has nothing to do with RAI. This is more of a houserule question.
That's how I took it anyway. Something about paladin code's tend to causes a bit of a ruckus when its brought up though.
Ah I see. Then this has nothing to do with RAI. This is more of a houserule question.That's how I took it anyway. Something about paladin code's tend to causes a bit of a ruckus when its brought up though.
Well then this is easier.
Punt the pally code and alignment restrictions (for everyone), only step in as the GM when you feel the pally's God may start to get upset with his actions
Who cares about the potential balance ramifications? Just get back to having fun.
I wouldn't suggest half-heartily following the rules though. Either use the pally code or don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you know what? Saranrae has the only opinion that matters. Because when you choose to play a paladin, you explicitly accept that you are granted your powers only so long as you behave in the way that "embod[ies] the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve."
Excuse me? Nowhere in playing a Paladin does it say in either the Code of Conduct or Ex-Paladins does it state that I need to uphold all my deity's tenants. Y'know. The Actual Mechanics of the class instead of DM fiat. The Deity doesn't grant the Paladin power.
Fluff text has no mechanical effect on whether a Paladin gets his powers or not. Period. I don't see fluff text granting benefits or penalties for others so this is clearly houseruled.
Also this thread has a really gross look on this poor feller. Consider for a moment.
Robber picks up gun and shoots kid. Who is to blame? The Robber or the Gun?
Wizard dominates Warrior and uses him to go on a murder rampage. Who is to blame? The Warrior or the Wizard explicitly controlling him?
Crazy guy blows up a Dam. Water drowns hundreds of people. Who is to blame? The Delivery method or the person who did it?
Also to the folks saying that failing your Will save is giving in heres another analogy.
I apologize for the crass example I'm about to provide.
Man overpowers and rapes a woman who tries her hardest to resist. Is it her fault or the Man's?
By RAW paladins don't need a deity though.Again, not relevant. Paladins of Saranrae certainly do.
Which is about as meaningful as saying Fighter of Sarenrae. RAW, Paladins don't get their powers from a deity. If he stops worshiping Sarenrae guess what happens?
Nothing. He simply continues to go about his adventure. With his Paladin power.
A Cleric needs a Deity and in a homegame that could be houseruled away. The Paladin is the exact opposite.
By RAW paladins don't need a deity though.Again, not relevant. Paladins of Saranrae certainly do.
Which is about as meaningful as saying Fighter of Sarenrae. RAW, Paladins don't get their powers from a deity. If he stops worshiping Sarenrae guess what happens?
Nothing. He simply continues to go about his adventure. With his Paladin power.
A Cleric needs a Deity and in a homegame that could be houseruled away. The Paladin is the exact opposite.
There were actually expanded rules where you can change up the pally's code depending on which deity they worshiped. So when people say paladin of sarenrae that actually means something.
There were actually expanded rules where you can change up the pally's code depending on which deity they worshiped. So when people say paladin of sarenrae that actually means something.
By RAW paladins don't need a deity though.Again, not relevant. Paladins of Saranrae certainly do.
Which is about as meaningful as saying Fighter of Sarenrae. RAW, Paladins don't get their powers from a deity. If he stops worshiping Sarenrae guess what happens?
Nothing. He simply continues to go about his adventure. With his Paladin power.
A Cleric needs a Deity and in a homegame that could be houseruled away. The Paladin is the exact opposite.
Awesomely, I just went and read the passage on the Codes of Conduct from the Faiths of Purity book and still the Paladin need not uphold every tenant of their deity. There is only this particularly ambiguous line from Sarenrae's Code of Conduct which I suppose a DM could lord over you with.
I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.
And really I can see that hilariously construed to be the Paladin sending the child's soul to Sarenrae's paradise.
Also why in the gods names would you want to take the even more constricting Code of Conducts for specific deity's? I suppose folks like playing characters run by their DMs.
Also I highly doubt this guy specifically said, "Oh and I'm running my Paladin with Sarenrae's additional codes of conduct."
Edit: I'd really like to hear the player's side of the story.
He broke the code by killing an innocent, no it wasn't his fault, Because it wasn't his fault, he doesn't have to pay the cost of the atonement spell, but he still needs the atonement spell.
They would not get a discount on it if it wasn't their fault, if they didn't need one if it wasn't their fault.