|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplay should never be a luxury in Pathfinder. Never. I dont care if you have limited time, We are playing a roleplaying game here, not a wargame.
The issue is right there 'looking like a moron and interrupting gameplay'. If you are playing your Paladin right, you shouldnt care what the others might be thinking. Even IF there others are there to be 2D characters, dont be yourself. Show them up. Roleplay.
We are not ripping on Paladins, we are ripping on the players who are playing a Paladin for the sole purpose of having a Smite Evil, Charisma assisted saves and lay on hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are not ripping on Paladins, we are ripping on the players who are playing a Paladin for the sole purpose of having a Smite Evil, Charisma assisted saves and lay on hands.
Eh, I know its not intentional(usually...), but while its not ripping on paladins, it does feel like talking about how to play a paladin is telling someone well... How to play.
If you are playing your Paladin right, you shouldnt care what the others might be thinking.
Disruptive players are not re invited to games.
Game flow and cohesiveness is much more important then "playing your paladin" right.
|
... Yeah, it really is a wargame with role-playing tacked onto it; this is how probably half the players actually look at it, like nothing more than a vidja game using dice instead of controllers.
Anywho, I can think of one thing in the OP's original post that might lead to grinding a few gears: Not everyone at a given table will be okay with tossing away loot to do the right thing. I dare say most people wouldn't, quite frankly. What is the paladin to do if doing "the right thing" would result in the party losing out on valuable resources? Gold isn't an unlimited resource in Pathfinder Society play, after all. Even from the IC stand-point most Pathfinders aren't good aligned, and I can't say as I see anything like a true neutral rogue being cool with someone derailing his acquisition of the goldz.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Pretty much this. My -1 character is a Paladin of Erastil. What does it mean to be a Paladin of Erastil? Depends on which books you have read. Just the CRB? Also Faiths of Purity? Every Pathfinder book that mentions Erastil?
Even before I became a VC I purchased and read a number of books with information on Erastil so that I could better shape my character. Did I have to do that? No. Should I get pats on the back, in the form of signatures on a sheet, for doing so? Probably not as it was my choice and its not required. Does having or not having those signatures make me or my character more/less valid/accurate/justified? Not in the slightest.
People play in PFS for many reasons, not just role-playing. Even if getting a signature lists for characters of only one class is optional its also still more paperwork and more rules. More paperwork and rules, unofficial or otherwise, are, in my opinion, the last thing PFS needs. Being unofficial may even make it worse.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fully disclosive, we're playing a wargame which had roleplaying bolted onto it, and almost a half century later, we're stilltrying to perfect the fitinsisting it was the other way around.
Fixed that for ya, at least in regard to plenty of folks on the boards. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplay should never be a luxury in Pathfinder. Never. I dont care if you have limited time, We are playing a roleplaying game here, not a wargame.
The issue is right there 'looking like a moron and interrupting gameplay'. If you are playing your Paladin right, you shouldnt care what the others might be thinking. Even IF there others are there to be 2D characters, dont be yourself. Show them up. Roleplay.
We are not ripping on Paladins, we are ripping on the players who are playing a Paladin for the sole purpose of having a Smite Evil, Charisma assisted saves and lay on hands.
Not considering others flies in the face of the directives of the society and of social gaming as a whole. While putting on a well-crafted performance is fun, especially in a growing campaign it's best not to alienate other people in a social environment. Time and place to play up your role playing.
Also ripping on people for playing Paladins for mechanical reasons smacks of "bad, wrong fun" to me. I understand the ideas the OP and several people in this thread have expressed. But as a player who loves Pathfinder and PFS as his first table-top experiences, and loves playing his Paladin I am still self-conscious of my own role playing abilities, even though I practice on my own. I know many other young adults who show up to our FLGS and are embarrassed to act in character. That should not preclude them from playing a paladin, nor should anyone have the gall to imply that they aren't playing their characters correctly simply because they haven't gotten years of roleplaying experience to understand the intricacies of the mind of someone who is not them and immerse themselves in it, especially someone as radically removed from current humanity as the typical ideal of the Paladin is.
Calming down a bit, I went on a bit of a rant. There's this idea of separatism in video game communities, forming cliques and such that I would like to avoid as much as possible. That's one of the reasons I love avoiding table variation, making your experience similar everywhere makes us feel like a larger community, and although this idea is intriguing for great role players and has helped me with some ideas for role playing my Paladin, there is no reason I see to create something that has the possibility of creating more imaginary barriers between sections of our community.
I'll respectfully bow out for a moment, apparently I have some strong feelings on the subject that I need to explore more.
|
|
Keep in mind this is something that is voluntary on the part of the individual player. Even if it was somehow endorsed by the campaign it still would be a choice, not a mandate.
“Is your paladin accredited by the Church of Iomedae? Mine is. She’s got 16 verifications.”
Well I do not see this kind of situation as a choice but as manipulative peer pressure.
So, Not in agreement here, for reasons others have already listed.
What I might support is a certificate of Good Roleplaying, valid for all kind of PCs ;-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I find the whole matter quite strange, I am beginning to understand the usefulness of these certifications. If it will assist the community, I would be glad to help by determining which members of the Society are proper aristocrats and which are merely poseurs.
Best wishes,
Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any paladin playing in PFS pretty much HAS to make SOME compromises in order to continue playing. He HAS to cooperate with characters who are evil in everything except what is written on the character sheet. He has to do a great many morally questionable things and follow orders from evil individuals.
I've got a good rationale why my paladin has chosen this difficult task. I think that I do a reasonably good job of walking that line between being a paladin and being a member of PFS. It bugs me when I see other players playing their paladins in ways that I consider quite wrong for a paladin.
But I have absolutely no interest in explaining to a GM why my character acts as he does, I have absolutely no interest in finding out if a GM agrees with my interpretation. As a GM I have no interest in judging another players roleplaying (except perhaps in the bar after the session)
I think this idea is a very, very bad one, even though I agree totally with the goal.
|
|
| 3 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.
1. Paladins do not need to be punished for being Paladins. I see no evidence that Paladins are the most powerful class in PFS, so I fail to see why they need to "pay" for their mechanical benefits with role-playing restrictions that other, more powerful classes don't have. That's not to say Paladins don't have these restrictions. Just that the notion that these restrictions must be regulated by some generic body of accreditation in order to counter-balance the mechanical benefits is nonsense.
2. Do not confuse character morality with player morality. If it is acceptable to level dip for any class then it is acceptable to level dip for every class. Just because the class has to abide by a higher moral standard does not mean the player has to in making his level dipping choices. I should not have to behave like a Paladin to play one anymore than I should have to behave like an Assassin to play one.3. Morality is highly subjective. In a home game, a player can learn his GM’s view on Paladin morality and adjust his game play accordingly so that there are few conflicts and he is not always in danger of falling. In an organized play environment, where you may have never played with a particular DM before, this can become problematic. Things that were perfectly acceptable for your Paladin to do for the last 6 levels suddenly cause your Paladin to fall simply because you got a new DM, effectively making it far more difficult play a Paladin than other characters. I recently ran into a DM that thought Paladins should not be allowed to loot the dead, which is where over half the treasure on your AC usually comes from. Why? Again, where are these fabulous mechanical benefits that make a Paladin so great they must be handicapped in a manner no other class is?
4. Let the player role-play his character. No one likes to be told they have to role-play their character by your standards rather than theirs. If you aren’t telling them how they have to play their Wizard, you shouldn’t be telling them how they have to play their Paladin.
5. Accreditation is a two-edge sword. For every person out there that would use this accreditation to promote good role-playing there is someone else out there that will use it as a weapon to punish people for not role-playing the way they think that person should. In the end, you will end up with more bad feelings than good role-playing.
6. Paladins are meant to be a playable class. I have seen many DMs over the course of my decades of playing who try to tightly regulate Paladin behavior at their table. This produces one of two results. Either the player eventually stops playing the Paladin because the restrictions make it no longer fun, or he embraces the restrictions to the point that none of the other players at the table can have fun (which is why you see a lot of Paladin haters out there). In fact, I have seen DMs punish Paladins if they AREN’T being a total jerk to the rest of the party. The net result is to effectively make Paladins an unplayable class. Since it is, however, a player character class, then obviously this was never the intent of the designers. Any organized attempt to regulate the moral behavior of any given class in an organized play environment can make that class effectively unplayable.
7. Paladins are meant to be a PFS playable class. It is not uncommon in a PFS adventure that a player has to engage in morally questionable activity in order to succeed in the mission. In fact, his exact orders may require him to do this. This would seem to restrict Paladins from a large number of adventures (and thus the player from a large number of play opportunities) yet Paladins are on the approved class list for PFS. I doubt it is the intent that players should have their play opportunity restricted because of their character choice. Considering you don't always know what your mission is before you start play, and once you start play you can't play the adventure again, then such restrictions are obviously intended to be loose. I do know of players who may walk out of an adventure if they feel their character wouldn't finish it (and I doubt I could have finished "The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch" if I was playing a Paladin), but such decisions should always be left to the player.
In short, I am against the accreditation idea as I think it will do far more harm than good. It is far more likely to simply get people to stop playing the class than it is to get them to role-play that class better. The best way to teach people how to role-play better is to lead by example.
|
|
Thanks to everyone for all the responses. If nothing else it is helpful to 'take the temperature' of the community, re: people's views and tolerances for role-play. It remains very interesting to see how the gamer culture has morphed since 1st Edition, even since the 3.5 rules.
If you think people who disagree with you don't value roleplaying (which is how, very possibly incorrectly, I am interpreting that) then I think you are reading far more into the responses than I am
|
|
This is a good idea. I mean, we already have the Faith books that list each deity's code of conduct so there wouldn't be an issue of GM fiat. It is kind of like a self audit to improve your own role playing. It's voluntary and not mandated so it's not like someone who does it can rub it in the face who doesn't (I mean, it's pretty much meaningless to everyone except the person playing the paladin).
Not only that, it helps players recognize when they'd need an atonement and help them take steps to avoid that. The only potential problem I could see is that you are posting the Code of Conduct on the sheet and it would get into the hands of someone who didn't pay for the book...so maybe kind of a grey area?
|
|
I've finished the template (it's been a slow day at work). Soon as I get home and crack open my Faiths books I'll toss a couple up on Google Drive and see what people think.
Hurry up Nefreet, I'm rather bored here at work and want to see what you've come up with. I'm definitely going to use this with my Chellaxian Gnome Paladin of Imodae. If I ever play her again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo random thought: By Pathfinder/D&D standards, Alexander Anderson (complete freaking psychopath) was actually the ideal paladin. All tenets of his faith were upheld to a staggering degree; he did not lie, cheat, steal or commit dishonorable acts either. He was just nuts. We can therefore surmise that making an overzealous psychopath as a paladin is good role-play, as torturing and otherwise instilling great suffering in the undead and/or evil outsiders is not looked upon as an evil act; the rules treat these as good acts.
|
Sorry for the delay.
HERE is my first draft of a Chronicle sheet for a Paladin of Iomedae (I hope the link works, it's my first time posting to the Google Drive).
Let me know what you think!
|
|
Sooo random thought: By Pathfinder/D&D standards, Alexander Anderson (complete freaking psychopath) was actually the ideal paladin. All tenets of his faith were upheld to a staggering degree; he did not lie, cheat, steal or commit dishonorable acts either. He was just nuts. We can therefore surmise that making an overzealous psychopath as a paladin is good role-play, as torturing and otherwise instilling great suffering in the undead and/or evil outsiders is not looked upon as an evil act; the rules treat these as good acts.[qyuote=PRD]Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a [b]concern for the dignity of sentient beings.]/b] Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Most undead and outsiders are sentient. "torturing and otherwise instilling great suffering in the undead and/or evil outsiders" isn't being good, quite the opposite, it follow most of the evil definition: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.", so he isn't at all the "perfect paladin".
|
|
Sorry for the delay.
HERE is my first draft of a Chronicle sheet for a Paladin of Iomedae (I hope the link works, it's my first time posting to the Google Drive).
Let me know what you think!
It is interesting per se. But I believe that it should include the CRB code too, so that all the info about a specific Paladin's code are together in the same place for ease of reference. The deity-specific codes are in addition to the CRB code. They do not replace it.
|
|
Sorry for the delay.
HERE is my first draft of a Chronicle sheet for a Paladin of Iomedae (I hope the link works, it's my first time posting to the Google Drive).
Let me know what you think!
Looks good! Though, I agree with The Black Raven that the core tenets should probably be included as well and I look forward to more sheets like this one. Personally, I really enjoy playing paladins with the moral challenges and role-playing opportunities that it provides. Plus sometimes it fun to keep all the murderhobos on a shorter leash ;-).
Since Cayden is not a legal choice for paladins, there isn't any cannon for his tenets, but it would be interesting to see what they would be ig they existed.
|
|
|
|
I am not completely opposed to this idea, but I do see some issues. It could put a dm in an awkward position should they not want to sign the document. Many players will then expect the dm to explain why they do not feel they exemplify the spirit of their faith. As the dm tries to explain their reasoning the player gets defensive, and now you have at the least hurt feelings or at worst an argument that makes both players uncomfortable. In Living City there were many meta-organizations that were voluntary to join, but it worked because the prerequisites and qualifications were written into scenarios. It clearly stated in the scenario what actions had to be taken to receive credit to avoid table variation. I wish there was a meta campaign structure in pathfinder. However, that is another thread... Good idea, but tough to implement.
|
|
So I posted this yesterday, but I guess in all the website shenanigans over the weekend it got eaten.
I like the look of your draft, Nefreet, but it's a little too good. It looks a little too official. A few people around the forums have had their hand slapped by Paizo for producing something that's a little too close to their trade dress, and I suspect that someone more official than I will be along soon to ask you to redesign a little.
Might I suggest the following?
1) Remove the right column entirely, and extend the description box further over to the right. Keep the borders the same, if you like, but the chronicle accounting stuff serves no purpose, and its removal will make the code more distinct from Paizo's Chronicles.
2) Remove the GM Only box at the bottom, and extend the bottom border of the description box a little lower.
This will give a wider, deeper box for the description text, which will then take up less than the 3/4 of the box that it currently does. Taht means we can:
3) Replace the "Notes" bar with a table for GM#, GM Sig,Date, which will allow the player to have one of these chronicles, rather than one for every session they play.
|
|
Looks good! Though, I agree with The Black Raven that the core tenets should probably be included as well
Sure thing! Iomedae has one of the more verbose codes. I may have to get rid of the "Notes" section to fit more in.
I'll see what I can come up with tonight =).
EDIT: Ninja'd by answers to the dilemma I was just considering! Also, a buddy was warning me about potential copyright infringement anyways. I'm just not clear on how the OGL works with custom sheets like this.
|
|
I'm no expert, but I think you can do that per the community use policy
Course, Mike Brock has asked that the community not use the chronicle sheets in their published form for custom versions. Making obvious changes like removing the rewards columns along the right edge and/or the equipment/conditions tracking section at the bottom is a good way to make the document appear different and what its supposed to be, a custom document.
|
|
I'm no expert, but I think you can do that per the community use policy.
Awesome!
Course, Mike Brock has asked that the community not use the chronicle sheets in their published form for custom versions. Making obvious changes like removing the rewards columns along the right edge and/or the equipment/conditions tracking section at the bottom is a good way to make the document appear different and what its supposed to be, a custom document.
Okay. I'd missed that. I'll change it tonight for sure, then. I'll have to anyways to fit more material in it.
Thanks for your help!
|
|
Sorry for the delay.
HERE is my first draft of a Chronicle sheet for a Paladin of Iomedae (I hope the link works, it's my first time posting to the Google Drive).
Let me know what you think!
Please, please, please have some kind of text on here that makes it very clear this is not an official document.
This whole thing prompted me to create a personal code of conduct card for my Paladin of Torag. I wasn't going to share it due to the copyrighted material from Faiths of Purity, but if that's not a problem, then here it is. It's mean to be printed on a 4x6 index card as a sort of RP cheat sheet.
|
|
The issue, Nefreet and Bob, is not necessarily about the use of the images or text - that is generally covered by the Community Use Policy and the OGL. The problem is producing something whose design is too close to a Paizo official document. I got my hand slapped a couple of years ago for creating and posting a document which was faction missions for a season 2 scenario that looked too much like the handouts for the season 3-4 document. It wasn't the images or the text that were the problem - it was the fact that the handouts had the same layout, borders, a very similar font, and generally looked as close to the official missions as I could make them.
As I said, I'm no one official in this matter, and I like the work that you've done, but I'm just sharing my experiences in this area.
|
|
Which is why I suggested the document be modified in such a way to make clear it is a custom one without losing the familiar "look & feel" of a chronicle sheet. Alternately, perhaps it would be sufficient to add a blurb at the bottom of the language indicating this is an unofficial document used for personal/role-playing purposes only and affords the character no mechanical benefit during gameplay. It could also state that a GM is not required to complete the document nor provide any feedback to the player if they refuse to do so.
Look people, clearly the intent here is not to pull one over on other players or the GM, although I could see some unscrupulous players trying to. The point is to just provide a bit more fun and character building options. I don't see anything wrong with that.
|
|
Will do. I'll delete the right side, and make a note that this is a custom, optional Chronicle sheet, and the GM need not feel responsible to fill it out.
Though I'll probably leave the bottom section, since the intent would be to have the same GM sign it for the event he observed the behavior in.
I'm at work right now, though, and although my firewall allows me to access Paizo (which I am thoroughly grateful for during slow periods), I won't be able to edit or post anything to Google Drive until tonight when I get home.
|
|
Look people, clearly the intent here is not to pull one over on other players or the GM, although I could see some unscrupulous players trying to. The point is to just provide a bit more fun and character building options. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't think the Trade Dress issue is a question of dishonesty - I think it's a question of, for lack of the proper legal vocabulary, copyright. Paizo makes things that look a certain way. They don't want others making things, especially unofficial things, that look that way too.
With that said, I'll shut up now. I've said my piece, and if if a Paizo Employee stops by to comment, my points are moot, and if they don't, my points are still moot.
Still, and to reiterate: That's a beautiful document, Nefreet. Nicely done.
|
|
Still, and to reiterate: That's a beautiful document, Nefreet. Nicely done.
Thanks! Ever since 2nd Ed I've allowed my nit picky side to flourish by making custom character sheets, homebrew printouts of religions that mimic published material, create custom races for my world, and pretty much edit anything ever published to be just a *little* bit more perfect.
I probably spend too much time doing stuff like that, honestly.
|
|
I'm leery of having to get your paladin-hood accredited.
The way our local GMs have found of dealing with problematic paladins is to ask that each paladin develop a specific code, and preferably write it down.
So, for example, when my paladin lied to the authorities in a recent scenario, the GM could see that lying to save lives was accepted under my own personal code as a paladin of Saranrae.
If a paladin doesn't have a code (the one who showed up as a level 3 paladin and didn't know what deity he followed is an prime example), the GM can use their own judgement, and warn a paladin if a particular action would require an atonement. Essentially, every paladin has a built-in Periapt of Faithfulness. "You suddenly realize that Iomedae would be very upset about you killing the blind old woman who just threatened to call the guards."
|
|
Im going to provide a direct example of the issues with being a Paladin.
Be forewarned there are spoilers involved!
I had 4 characters for this game. One a bizarre Tiefling Magus, a rogue, a fighter and a Paladin. No issues until we hit Misery Lane and the encounter with Pardu Pildapush (although the Paladin never actually got to meet him).
I described the street at somewhat congested with guards making sure people kept the peace. Its an area not often talked about in Absalom so its kinda cool to show off the dark spots.
At any rate, the party were trying to find out why his shop was closed during business hours and so the Paladin struck upon a plan to ask a street urchin for some answers.
Said urchin was offered money by the Paladin who told him that he hadnt seen Pardu (which was sorta correct). The Paladin however thought the kid was holding back and started to press him for information. This caused a commotion and the street guards decided to investigate. In the meantime observers had noted that the fighter had given the child a gold coin! for information.
The Paladin decided to give a false name to the Absalom Guard using the justification to me as the gm that it was because he wanted to get the mission done and needed to lie to do this. I didn't buy it, but since the player is kinda new (although not to Pathfinder just society) I decided to resolve it at the end of the game.
In the end they finished out the scenario and on viewing the chronicle sheet I had another player at the table read out the bit on Paladins acting with honor (he had my core book open at the time and is another PFS gm). I decided to say that it was an infraction and wrote 'Paladin lied: Infraction' on the sheet. (He was of Iomedae if it makes any difference here)
That to me is a pretty clear and cut infraction
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, for example, when my paladin lied to the authorities in a recent scenario, the GM could see that lying to save lives was accepted under my own personal code as a paladin of Saranrae.
No... just... no.
In order of subjective to more objective...
First of all, "my own personal code of honor" or "I do what I think is right" is fine for GOOD. It is not, in any way, shape or form sufficient for LAWFUL good. Its doesn't matter how good you are because lawful good is not merely good plus. It is not double plus good. It is not gooder than the other goods, it is not the bestest good it is LAWFUL good.
Secondly, while there is some disagreement in the very short chapter on what it means to be lawful Mentions the truth three times
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Your character is lying, not keeping their word, disrespecting the authority , violating tradition, and then not judging themselves for falling well short of their duties as a paladin.
Thirdly, you can't as a player make up your own code of Saranrae, especially to justify lying allegedly in the service of a deity whos holy book is literally named the birth of light and truth ESPECIALLY since a code of saranrae already exists and while it has a certain element of combat pragmatism , it doesn't say that lying is ok
Lastly, paladin codes do not replace or obviate the paladin code from the main book. While much of it is vague, this is not.
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.