|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like a lot of players out there are using the paladin class for the mechanical benefits while paying lip service to the spirit of the class. From the paladins I have observed at the tables I play and GM at, and from the discussions here on the messageboards, there is an irritating notion that to be a paladin you simply have to do no evil. Don’t violate your code of conduct and it’s all good. It is rare to see a paladin actually advocating Moral action, acting in an unselfish manner, even (gasp!) sacrificing loot or favor in the name of Righteousness. Please understand that I am not accusing everyone who plays a paladin. Anyone who thinks there aren’t ‘paladins of convenience’ polluting PFS is naïve, however. Paladinhood is a calling, it shouldn’t be a class dip for mechanical advantages. The paladin must choose the road less traveled, the path of maximum resistance. Doing Good is not an easy path. Do you think I’m not talking about your paladin? Here’s a gauntlet [toss]. Go ahead and pick it up. Prove me wrong.
In many industries there is an accreditation process to verify that a company is living up to the highest standards. In most cases it is voluntary. Companies seek accreditation to set themselves apart from their competition. It has a cost in time and effort that can’t be monetized, but many businesses maintain it nonetheless. What if the church of your deity offered an accreditation process to your paladin? Would you be willing to undergo scrutiny to demonstrate you are more than a passive paladin, flying under the radar?
How would this be accomplished in campaign terms? We (the community) create a certificate. At the top are instructions for the GM. “[character name] is a paladin of [deity]. Below is [deity]’s Code of Conduct for paladins. During the scenario, this paladin must actively follow the Code of Conduct. It is not enough simply to not violate the Code, the paladin must promote their ethos. At the end of the scenario, if the paladin has fulfilled the spirit of the class please sign off below.” The text for the appropriate paladin code of conduct out of Faiths of Purity is cited, or simply the core rulebook class text if they follow an uncommon deity. The bottom of the page has blank lines for the name of the scenario, the date, the GM’s name (signed & printed) and the GM’s PFS#. If the player failed to uphold the tenets of the class in the eyes of the GM, it is so indicated on the sheet. There are no second chances. No shrugging shoulders and saying “Meh, I’ll just pay for an attonement.” It doesn't mean the paladin falls, they just are no longer endorsed by the church.
The certificate means absolutely nothing in campaign terms. It grants no favors or mechanical benefit for the PC. What it does do is verify the PC is being played true to the spirit of the class, something that a player can bring up when they come to the table. “Is your paladin accredited by the Church of Iomedae? Mine is. She’s got 16 verifications.” So there.
If this is something that catches on, perhaps the campaign will adopt it and John might work some booncraft magic. But again, paladins should be hard to play. It’s not for everyone. Think you have what it takes to be a real paladin? Want to cry sour grapes because you’re scared of a jerk GM? Go ahead, everyone’s watching.
Thoughts?
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Paladinhood is a calling, it shouldn’t be a class dip for mechanical advantages.Do you believe that there are any other classes which are also callings, which shouldn't be class dips for mechanical advantages?
-Matt
Yes. Cleric, Inquisitor, Cavalier and Samurai.
On the topic of the initial post, I am definitely in favor. Far too many paladins that I have GMmed for really don't know about their deity.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladinhood is a calling, it shouldn’t be a class dip for mechanical advantages.
I have to say I disagree that dipping paladin is necessarily bad. It can be a calling even if you have just two levels. I mean, what if you have that same calling but prefer to fight with spells? Or maybe you want to pursue a more complicated fighting style and need some fighter training to get there (fighter levels for feats)? Or maybe you're called to smite evil, but also want to bring hope and joy to others (bard multiclass)? There are plenty of ways to be a paladin without necessarily following the rather limited scope of styles available to the monoclassed version.
|
|
Paladinhood is a calling, it shouldn’t be a class dip for mechanical advantages.I have to say I disagree that dipping paladin is necessarily bad. It can be a calling even if you have just two levels. I mean, what if you have that same calling but prefer to fight with spells? Or maybe you want to pursue a more complicated fighting style and need some fighter training to get there (fighter levels for feats)? Or maybe you're called to smite evil, but also want to bring hope and joy to others (bard multiclass)? There are plenty of ways to be a paladin without necessarily following the rather limited scope of styles available to the monoclassed version.
Fair enough. Mine was an opinion. Paladins aren't barred from putting ranks in Perform (Singing). I just want to see more role-play to back up a valid concept that looks (at first glance) like a choice of convenience.
|
|
What you've got there, Doug, is very similar to the metaorganizations which many regions of Living Greyhawk had.
The closest thing PFS has done to that was what factions were in the early Seasons. Honestly, what would be really nice is seeing a push towards more role-play to back up characters of any concept. Unfortunately, the campaign seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor of an initiative that might impress upon the community's consciousness the fact that not everyone who writes "paladin" on their sheet and manages to keep from falling is really a paladin.
Mostly because it grates on me when people make obviously-evil-yet-somehow-polite PCs, then point at the nearest pseudo-paladin and say "See? His murderhoboism is the definition of 'good', and I'm more polite than him, so clearly my off-camera baby-eating isn't evil, just unusual and not church-approved because those do-gooders are just self-righteous xenophobes like that guy is."
If I'm remembering my latin, I believe the term for that nonsense is palamurdobo, ergo niceromancer.
|
|
What you've got there, Doug, is very similar to the metaorganizations which many regions of Living Greyhawk had.
Honestly, what would be really nice is seeing a push towards more role-play to back up characters of any concept. The closest thing PFS has done was what factions were in the early Seasons.
-Matt
I admit that this is not an original idea (I'm not going to retire from all public life, however). I was impressed by a meta-org certificate that I once signed. However, from past experience when I bring up LG it often poisons the well here on the boards.
|
|
There are plenty of ways to be a paladin without necessarily following the rather limited scope of styles available to the monoclassed version.
Such as the Oradin. I've been fascinated by wife's ideas on her Oradin's outlook and roleplaying progression ideas. They do not, however, mesh with the OP's opinions on what is a valid concept.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This "committee" is a slap in the face to the GMs who do their job
"GMs who do their job" are probably the same type who would love the chance to sign something saying "Yes! This player really gets it!"
Why are Paladins being singled out for this kind of review?
Maybe they're not; maybe they're just the first.
Is it that we don't give a pig's eye about how other classes are played?
There are a lot more ways to play a fighter than a paladin. But for classes like clerics or inquisitors or samurai or cavaliers, something similar to this could work out just as well.
|
|
I admit that this is not an original idea (I'm not going to retire from all public life, however). I was impressed by a meta-org certificate that I once signed. However, from past experience when I bring up LG it often poisons the well here on the boards.
A certificate... I wonder if it was for a Knight of the Watch. That was one of the coolest metaorg implementations ever. You had to do enough GM-certified good deeds to advance within the metaorg, and with advancement would come a new honorific and the ability to take another level of the campaign-specific prestige class.
As for bringing up LG, I'll say that most of the people who talk smack about LG do it without accepting that LG had a ton of variability based on the player's region. They tend to take their personal experience and apply it to the entire organized play campaign. So don't worry.
-Matt
|
|
I wonder if this kind of Paladin play, or lack thereof, is more of a problem in PFS than in Pathfinder/D&D in general (especially home games)? I have seen far better Paladins in Pathfinder home games than in PFS. GMs play a greater leadership role in home games. I also saw better Paladins in Living Greyhawk--did the metaorganizations Matt mentioned helped make Paladin play better? If so, then the proposed certification Doug proposes may help.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There are plenty of ways to be a paladin without necessarily following the rather limited scope of styles available to the monoclassed version.Such as the Oradin. I've been fascinated by wife's ideas on her Oradin's outlook and roleplaying progression ideas. They do not, however, mesh with the OP's opinions on what is a valid concept.
Color me curious!
|
|
In fairness, roleplaying is hard. Not for everyone but for a lot of people its legitimately difficult. Also no matter how much you like roleplaying or how good you are at it sometimes the gm or other players just aren't into it.
Paladins, played correctly, can cause problems for the group. Slavers, I don't need recon, this must stop.
I do agree with Doug though, you see slot of paladin 2's that don't think about themselves as paladins at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, there's nothing stopping anyone from just up and doing this.
For that matter, there's nothing stopping anyone from carrying a sheet like this for being a Pathfinder, proving that they really do explore, report and cooperate. Maybe we could hand those out to players when they finish The Confirmation...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Paladins are more nuanced than a lot of people realized. I played a recent scenario with my Paladin of Shelyn, and I shocked the group with some of my decisions:
1) I flatly refused to kill someone that appeared to be half-demon. As a Paladin of Shelyn, I am required to allow people an opportunity to redeem themselves.
2) I refused to allow the group to kill disgusting, yet obviously sentient creatures that were not threatening the party. Without further research into what they are or where they come from, I felt that it was improper to simply kill them due to their appearance.
3) I was among the first to suggest a retreat when things started going really, really badly. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Personally, I have always been interested in the idea of unofficial PC organizations. These are something that could add a great deal to roleplaying in PFS, yet would not require interaction from campaign staff.
As for LG, I don't want to derail things, but I think that most of the backlash there comes from people saying "We weren't allowed to do X in LG and we LIKED it." This is a bit different, in that this is something player-driven that worked well in LG, and would easily translate here with minimal effort.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My view on Paladins are much the same as yours, Doug, but we're not the fun police. There are as many ways to play the game as there are players, and telling people that they can't play the way they want is simply going to cause hard feelings and drive people away from the game. The best way to fix the problem is to live the ideal yourself; make a paladin and play him the way you think a paladin should be played.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd enjoy something like this, personally.
My Paladin, Magnus Landros, servers Abadar (though sometimes he thinks it should be Aroden). He's always been the "straight and narrow" type... more worried about others than himself. He's been known to ignore all attempts at stealth ('We have a mission here. It is a museum, and we are expected. Why should I not walk down the middle of the room towards the office?'). When it comes to saving innocents, there is never a question in his mind. He's been known to walk INTO a swarm, to make sure others less capable don't have to suffer its attack.
Of course, he'll charge into battle, heedless of his own danger, and heedless of the attempts of his companions to buff him.
Corruption has no place in his world. Nor does deceit, or anything else like this. Still, he's an all around likable guy!
|
|
At first blush, I was vehemently opposed to this idea, and began writing a snarky response. Then I deleted it and thought about the idea some more.
My random thoughts on the subject thus far:
- I've never much cared for how the Paladin class seems to be singled out for this kind of stuff. I've never heard a single complaint of a Barbarian acting too lawful, a Monk too chaotic, or a Druid too...non-neutral.
- I haven't encountered many issues with paladins adhering to their code of conduct at our FLGS. That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe it is a problem elsewhere.
- I think Netopalis' post is an excellent display of how Paladins can and should be played differently. This is the kind of behavior I'd like to encourage. I recently played my Stonelord Paladin of Torag, seated next to my friend's worshipper of Rovagug. I was quite pleased to find that Paladin's open (but not hostile) dislike of his character born out in the Torag entry of Faiths of Purity.
- I think anything that codifies what is good and bad RP has the potential for a chilling effect. I know that if there were a bunch of people throwing a "certificate" in my face when I played my paladin, I would probably a) switch tables, b) switch characters, or c) keep my mouth shut for the rest of the game.
For the last point, I see a lot of people repeating "it's voluntary!" But this...
“Is your paladin accredited by the Church of Iomedae? Mine is. She’s got 16 verifications.” So there.
...smacks of bullying to me.
"16 GMs have said I'm good at role-playing. How about you? None? Oh well, enjoy playing your 'paladin'."
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think that Paladins are more nuanced than a lot of people realized. I played a recent scenario with my Paladin of Shelyn, and I shocked the group with some of my decisions:
** spoiler omitted **
Personally, I have always been interested in the idea of unofficial PC organizations. These are something that could add a great deal to roleplaying in PFS, yet would not require interaction from campaign staff.
As for LG, I don't want to derail things, but I think that most of the backlash there comes from people saying "We weren't allowed to do X in LG and we LIKED it." This is a bit different, in that this is something player-driven that worked well in LG, and would easily translate here with minimal effort.
|
|
It seems like a lot of players out there are using the paladin class for the mechanical benefits while paying lip service to the spirit of the class. From the paladins I have observed at the tables I play and GM at, and from the discussions here on the messageboards, there is an irritating notion that to be a paladin you simply have to do no evil. Don’t violate your code of conduct and it’s all good. It is rare to see a paladin actually advocating Moral action, acting in an unselfish manner, even (gasp!) sacrificing loot or favor in the name of Righteousness. Please understand that I am not accusing everyone who plays a paladin. Anyone who thinks there aren’t ‘paladins of convenience’ polluting PFS is naïve, however..
Hmmm. Someone wants to bring back 1st Edition Paladins to me. Not against this, but if Pathfinder didn't write a hard rule of conduct, let people play how and what they want to.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I see a lot of people repeating "it's voluntary!" But this...
“Is your paladin accredited by the Church of Iomedae? Mine is. She’s got 16 verifications.” So there....smacks of bullying to me.
"16 GMs have said I'm good at role-playing. How about you? None? Oh well, enjoy playing your 'paladin'."
Hm, you have a point there; I'd kind of forgotten about that line by the time I was writing up a reply.
Tsk!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would anybody be opposed to me starting an offshoot thread for unofficial IC organizations? That's an idea that I'm really interested in, but which is tangential to the focus of this thread.
Or maybe even for being Pathfinders? We even have three built-in criteria for "accreditation": exploring, reporting and cooperating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would anybody be opposed to me starting an offshoot thread for unofficial IC organizations? That's an idea that I'm really interested in, but which is tangential to the focus of this thread.
I would be eager to see what sorts of ideas for organizations the community can come up with.
-Matt wonders what a Taldan aristocratic fraternal organization would look like.
|
|
I think that Paladins are more nuanced than a lot of people realized. I played a recent scenario with my Paladin of Shelyn, and I shocked the group with some of my decisions:
** spoiler omitted **
Personally, I have always been interested in the idea of unofficial PC organizations. These are something that could add a great deal to roleplaying in PFS, yet would not require interaction from campaign staff.
As for LG, I don't want to derail things, but I think that most of the backlash there comes from people saying "We weren't allowed to do X in LG and we LIKED it." This is a bit different, in that this is something player-driven that worked well in LG, and would easily translate here with minimal effort.
My -1 character, a cleric of Shelyn, would have not only fully supported every decision but would have also been extremely shocked that the group was shocked. This is exemplary of exactly what you'd expect from a well-RPed paladin of Shelyn. Maybe it's just playing through Council of Thieves with two paladins of Shelyn in the group that has me used to them.
|
|
how similar is membership in an unofficial organization to, say, pig-dog-riding
edit: also my new character is an inquisitor of shelyn so this is getting kind of weird
We have a level 13 inquisitor of Shelyn with low Int who has, a core character concept, drastically misinterprets her teachings (he figures that the fluff about inquisitors sometimes being more extreme or different from other members of the church causes it to fit as a possibility). When he partied with my cleric, he thought she was a weird heretic. Also, some fellow PCs with bad Knowledge Religion who had adventured with the inquisitor before many times thought my cleric was the unusual one too. It was hilarious.
I think paladins need to be treated with more paranoia and expectations. [/notserious]
Always gotta' be wary about things allowing judgment of others.
|
|
I think this will backfire and lead only to less consistent play and characterizations of paladins.
Getting the endorsement signed is ultimately up to the DM and their ideas about paladins. Thus table variation in how people's paladins act will be increased tremendously as people have to cram their character into the DM's potentially very silly interpretation of whatever code is on the sheet. And then repeat the process anew at every table.
That is why classes like paladins which require lots of DM-player understanding and interaction are so disruptive in the context of PFS and organized play in general.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always gotta' be wary about things allowing judgment of others.
Now, see, this is the type of disconnect that makes me like the idea of encouraging better paladin roleplay. (The following is not directed specifically at you, MrSin.)
In-universe, a person can't become a paladin unless they are genuinely and consistently good. Take a moment to strip away whatever you might be thinking about the game system's alignment that's called "good", and think of what it means to actually be a good person. Notice how that idea doesn't include people who would—whether maliciously or irresponsibly—abuse their power? That is what someone has to be (in-universe) in order to be a paladin. People who couldn't be trusted to carry that kind of judgment authority wouldn't actually be good, and therefore couldn't be a paladin (if they already were, they're not now).
So while in general you've "gotta be wary about things allowing judgment of others", paladins (again, in-universe) would be the exception because it's impossible to be a paladin who can't be trusted with that authority. If you're not someone who should be judged, then you're not the least bit concerned about a paladin getting the wrong idea and smiting you into next week. It just wouldn't happen, and everyone would know it.
Unfortunately, most paladins that people interact with are PCs. And since you'd better not tell me how to play my character, I can do things as a paladin that are supposed to be impossible (such as use my authority/power in a way that a non-villain would be worried about).
That is, the only thing that makes anyone think that paladins (with their ability to smite and judge and intervene against others) would ever be a bad thing, is the history of players roleplaying them wrong. If people consistently roleplayed paladins correctly, comments (like the above quote) about the dangers of judging others would not be made against paladins.
/rant
/rant
The other side of the rant is that you aren't a paladin in real life, and people's ideas on how to run a paladin can be pretty varied, as can their ideas on morality and all sorts of other things. Its also slightly different to take a talking to from an NPC in game compared to the GM.
|
Rather than get into an extended debate about ethics and magic religion in a fantasy adventure, I'll suggest that, regardless of differences in players' concepts of goodness, slaughtering everyone in your path as a first response is not a good response. PFS is not a war against enemy combatants, and not everyone is out to kill you (though some GMs have been known to play all antagonistic NPCs that way).
He refused to listen to his team-mates, ignored their collaborative decisions, and blew their cover by announcing who sent them and why to the dangerous NPC whom they had been told would kill the person who sent them to her if she ever found out.
He nearly got the whole group killed, and they were considering leaving him behind, knowing full well what their foes would do if they did. I ended up giving the player a "Yellow Card for Unnecessary Roughness" after the scenario, and nobody saw him again after that. If I had, I would have just asked him about his guy's back story, seeing if he wanted to help flesh them out.
It's still a thorny issue, between philosophical implications going unheeded and a response to that being "Bad Wrong Fun".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very leery of this proposal for several reasons:
The signature sheet, while not having any IG effects, will certainly affect the OOG interactions between players as well as with their GM's. Even with ideal circumstances and voluntary participation, the questions must be raised: "What does this measure hope to achieve?", "What would it realistically be most likely to achieve?", and "Are these two answers sufficiently similar so as to make such a signature sheet a positive contribution to the community?"
Ideally speaking, this sheet would encourage proper conduct of paladin characters by rewarding them signatures on a sheet of paper. Ideally, every GM would interpret the tenets of each paladin's code identically. The reality is that such interpretations are inherently subjective, thereby causing one of three probable outcomes: either the player will need to constantly adapt to different GM interpretations, the GM will need to adapt his interpretation to each player, or both parties will refuse to compromise.
The first result may appear desirable in that, hypothetically, each GM would see the paladin played as they though was appropriate. This conformity though will result in a serious lack of consistency for the character as they fluctuate between the various extremes of "paladinity".
The second would place us at square one, but with additional paperwork. Yes, I am aware that all of this is voluntary, but paperwork is still paperwork.
The third, unfortunately, is the most probable result. GM's will want to exercise their right to refuse to sign when they encounter a character that does not meet their interpretation of the tenets of that paladin's code. The players will want to collect that next signature. Even with this being voluntary, GM's will still need to contend with whatever entitlement-complexes or self-righteous sentiments their players may have. The proposal, as it is written presently, is indirectly making an incentive of player-GM conflict. It is not difficult to picture the player's response being something akin to, "All of these other people told me that I was doing a good job with my paladin, it isn't fair that you're just changing things on me now."
The situation does not fair much better for inter-player relationships, as is evidenced already.
I see a lot of people repeating "it's voluntary!" But this...
“Is your paladin accredited by the Church of Iomedae? Mine is. She’s got 16 verifications.” So there....smacks of bullying to me.
"16 GMs have said I'm good at role-playing. How about you? None? Oh well, enjoy playing your 'paladin'."
There are paladins I've seen both as a player and GM that behaved in fashions that conflict with how I interpret the paladin code. As a player, it is not really my place to judge their character beyond deciding in the future whether I will sit and play with their character again. As a GM, I will continue to carefully consider such deviations from their paladin code as interpreted by me at that time, as well as account for any extraneous circumstances, before deciding whether to exercise my existing right as a GM to make a notation on their chronicle of overly-chaotic/evil actions and, if need be, make note of an alignment shift.
TL;DR: The existing options for a GM to penalize conduct unbecoming of a paladin is in place for a reason. I find it implausible for the proposed measure to consistently provide more pro-social behavior than strife amidst those who opt to participate.
|
|
As the player of a Stonemother of Bolka, I really like this suggestion. I too have seen many paladins who do not roleplay being a good or kind person, just a fighter with a glowy sword and better saves.
Could I suggest that this instead becomes a Silver Crusade boon idea rather than a paladin restrictions only idea?
|
|
I know I follow my characters' ethos and rules completely.
I DO NOT trust random DMs to decide that I do not follow the rules as MY character understands them. Look on the undead creation forum and you will see people making up things about what your paladin should do already with possible lethal consequences for their characters. I even saw a some say I will mark your character dead.
The rules are set for the rules. I strongly say let people interept them as they choose for their own character. If you have an issue that you find completely undefendable then you warn the PC. But at this point nearly everyone should be argeeing with you. If you are argueing abotu what another character beleieves and you do nto have almost everyones support, they are not being the jerk you are.
Remember look at the religions today as members of the same or similar faiths kill each other over different understandings of the same exact text. In this game we play for fun of everyone involved we should understand that happens and understand that this person is playing a character that understands things differently.
They are pretending to be someone that has a different understanding than you. That should not only be acceptable but also encouraged. I love roleplaying character that have different understandings of the same thing.
|
|
Now when I judge for Pfs and someone is playing a cleric or paladin I'll let players bullshit during introductions and pull up the god or goddess in question read up about them than run the mod. People get angry when you tell them that they're not living up to their God's expectations before you confirm a critical on them. Err. I mean when you advise them to rethink what they are doing isn't kosher
|
|
As someone who often dips into Paladin, I gotta say I kind of like this idea.
I am confident that my current paladin character (paladin 5/gunslinger 1/fighter 2) would stand up to scrutiny. She always endeavors to talk things out first, even when it seems unlikely to succeed. If discussions turn South, plan B is non-lethal damage (hello, my trusty +1 merciful pistol). She regularly stabilizes, or outright heals enemy combatants. She is also very trusting, even helping those who are obviously going to double-cross the party later (she prefers to give everyone, even monstrous humanoids like orcs and goblins, the benefit of the doubt). She won't even draw weapons before she or her allies have been attacked).
|
I must admit, I miss the Paladins of 2e. Restrictions, tithing, caps for races.
Im even going to go as far to say, after the tightness of 2e, Paladins went downhill after the open slather of 3e/3.5/4e/Pathfinder.
I rarely play Paladins. Whilst I like a restricted character concept, I find it hard to play a Paladin consistently. I normally look to the Gods of a setting to find some differential and then take it from there.
I dislike the concept of 'dipping' into Paladin. Thus I miss the ex Paladin style rules that existed once.
The issue we get in Pathfinder Society is that a strong willed character (ie but not always a character who is attempting to live to a particular moral/ethic code dictated by personal view and god response) is to be 'outvoted' by party benefit, ie the explore, report and cooperate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OOO OOO I wanna weigh in on this cause Im a new player whos playing a paladin!
1.So we come up to this manor right? I knock even though the party just wants to lockpick their way in.
2.The guard inside opens up a sliding peephole and asks what we want, and then tells us to go away the person living there doesn't want to see us.
3.Well the party obviously not satisfied with "go away" goes in anyway lockpicking the door..
4.At this point what do I do? Smackdown on the party for breaking the law?
5.I stay at the door while everyone else goes in and trespasses, and the encounter happens without me.
My point? Don't rip on paladins in PFS... its hard enough trying to roleplay when all ur other party members are just there to hit things, the last thing you want to do is sit at the door looking like a moron and interrupt gameplay.
In a home game this would be fine, in a PFS? Roleplay is a luxury.