Can we get back to the ponies & bronies? Better subject.Truth.
Sadly, I'm not sure if Derpy Hooves can have Paladins; she seems pretty Chaotic Good to me. (On an unrelated note, a friend of mine once made an Inquisitor of Shelyn who was basically Rarity.)
That's who my current sorceress is based on. :)
Having something like the Phylactery of Faithfulness baked into the Paladin's class features would be nice, but all it really does is keep the GM from pulling the "Surprise, Paladin Falls" trick. Really, as long as falling remains a part of the Paladin's mechanics, there will be "Should the Paladin Fall" threads.
And thus, it (and all other 'fall/power loss' mechanics) should be removed.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Lancelot fell as a Paladin because of his seduction by Elaine. (Arthurian codes were rather strict.)Lancelot is a horrible example. The players are tweaked over a pocket change poker game. Do you really think they would let a paladin commit adultery upon a king who happened to be the paladin's best friend?Not every paladin is going to be nice, kind, or lawful stupid. Heck, you couldn't make me play one even if you offered to pay me. Different from Lancelot doesn't necessarily mean bad wrong.
Ref: Sparhawk and Bazhell Bahnakson
They certainly were. Knights in those stories were constantly in trouble of falling.
It makes me wonder what a comparison of King Arthur and his knights and Charlemagne and his twelve paladins would turn up. Were Charlemagne's paladins held to a more or less strict code?
What was the early concept of chivalry like compared to the romanticized version we often think of that was made popular in romantic and Victorian literature? Probably really far off.
Lancelot fell as a Paladin because of his seduction by Elaine. (Arthurian codes were rather strict.)Lancelot is a horrible example. The players are tweaked over a pocket change poker game. Do you really think they would let a paladin commit adultery upon a king who happened to be the paladin's best friend?Not every paladin is going to be nice, kind, or lawful stupid. Heck, you couldn't make me play one even if you offered to pay me. Different from Lancelot doesn't necessarily mean bad wrong.
Ref: Sparhawk and Bazhell Bahnakson
They certainly were. Knights in those stories were constantly in trouble of falling.
It makes me wonder what a comparison of King Arthur and his knights and Charlemagne and his twelve paladins would turn up. Were Charlemagne's paladins held to a more or less strict code?
What was the early concept of chivalry like compared to the romanticized version we often think of that was made popular in romantic and Victorian literature? Probably really far off.
As I noted above the Arthurian knights have a code based on Medieval Christianity or what we perceive it to have been like. Not a lot of fun there. No drinking, sex, gambling, fun basically. Pathfinder paladins could be a paladin of the god of beer. That is a much different thing.
Oh I see what you are saying. Roland for instance would likely have had a similar code but not exactly the same. Some Christian traditions had not developed in Charlemagne's time. For instance he had multiple wives.
Oh I see what you are saying. Roland for instance would likely have had a similar code but not exactly the same. Some Christian traditions had not developed in Charlemagne's time. For instance he had multiple wives.
Which led to multiple heirs and a divided kingdom. Would make for a fun adventure.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Oh I see what you are saying. Roland for instance would likely have had a similar code but not exactly the same. Some Christian traditions had not developed in Charlemagne's time. For instance he had multiple wives.
Yes, that is what I musing about. Roland and his men were probably not the pious holy warriors depicted in the romantic versions of the King Arthur legends.
As for "Christian" values you mentioned, I think you are confusing Puritan values with medieval ones. Chivalry certainly had its faults, but it wasn't all about upholding Christian doctrine. Not saying it didn't have Christian undertones, but it wasn't like what you suggest.
No drinking, for example, wasn't a focus of Christian doctrine until more recently. There were cautions on not being a drunkard, but little to nothing during that time that would ban drinking outright.
Abstaining from sex is something that was done, so I can't argue there, but unless there is an excellent reason to do so I wouldn't enforce it in a game. In fact, I am not even sure how I could.
No dancing, no laughing, or as you put it, no having fun is more of a highly conservative Puritan or extreme Protestant view, and once again wasn't really a thing until the Reformation. We are dealing with time periods well before that.
I am not really disagreeing with you though, just your examples. Christian views and the code of chivalry certainly are heavy influences on the flavor of the code of conduct. As a result people do have those in mind when playing a paladin. I don't think that is what causes threads like this, though it may be involved in some way.
I think the problem comes from a lack of early communication between GM and player on expectations and opinions. All too often these issues can be avoided and prevented by just talking things out before the game starts.
He sounds like a Paladin of Puritanism... Totally boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, just wow.
I've upset all of the sloppy Paladin PC's up in Paizo's house.
Sloppy? now you can fall for spilling and getting beer on your armor?
I wouldn't go as far as to say upset, I'd say that many view your view as extreme, and unwarranted by the rules. Then again, looking at your house-rules it seems you run a very different game. You can't expect to invent rules that aren't there and then be annoyed when people call you out for punishing your players for those rules.
That being said, it's your table, do what you will hoss. The thing is your train of thought leads people into not playing Lawful Good, but Lawful Stupid. It's already a problem many of have seen, and find frustrating at the table.
Wow, just wow.
I've upset all of the sloppy Paladin PC's up in Paizo's house.
A delusional statement, at best.
-Nearyn
Or worse, your players will never try an actual character concept again and you will be doomed to experience the Chaotic Convenient Schizophrenic Kleptomaniac for the rest of your games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, just wow.
I've upset all of the sloppy Paladin PC's up in Paizo's house.
So sloppy means "by the rules" now?
... And taking the winnings from gambling is something that is morally ambiguous. Ergo, a Paladin should be conflicted by it...
This is a very modern and mostly western notion. Unless the ethics of your world are set to a modern western civ simulation, this does not really hold.
Several hundred years ago (the era most games claim to emulate), gambling was certainly not considered morally ambiguous. If might be irresponsible if a person was betting more than they could afford to lose. But that would most certainly be their own problem. Not the problem of others at the table.
there was certainly no concept of addiction to gambling or enabling someone else's addiction to gambling.
I have certainly not read all of it, but I have seen nothing written about Erastil that says she has a problem with gambling.
--------------------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is why I absolutely cringe every time someone wants to play a paladin. Whether I am a player or a GM I just know it will bring the campaign to a screeching halt nearly every time.
I have come very close to banning paladin when I am GM. Not quite, but it is strongly discouraged by me. I will also give them a Phylactery of Faithfulness that they MUST wear.
About the only way I've ever seen it handled well is with extensive out-of-session communication between the GM and the player of the paladin. They have to write out in detail EXACTLY what is expected of a paladin in every type of situation they can imagine, well before it happens.
So in this case, assuming views on gambling had not been written down, before the session the GM and Player would have gotten together. "Ok, a situation involving gambling may come up during the next couple of session. We need to add Erastil's views on gambling to the Expectations document before we play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many DMs are way too harsh on Paladin behavior. They look for any reason to strip away the special abilities they have.
That being said, many players are unable to maintain a non-chaotic way of playing and want to act like all of our characters did when we were teenagers.
Here are some examples that may help all of us:
Think of Lancelot. He did not fall because of his lustful thoughts. He did not fall by making mostly-false reasons not to attend court. He did not fall by championing the queen in order to hide their secret feelings. He fell from grace after laying with the queen, abandoning his duties, and absconding from the kingdom.
Think of Anakin Skywalker. He did not fall when he constantly questioned authority. He did not fall when he became emotional. He did not fall when he took vengeance for his mother. He did not fall when he questioned his own morals. He fell when he killed members of his fellow order to join a more powerful and anger driven anti-order.
Now both of these examples detail minor misbehaviors that can be described as a "slippery slope" that eventually led to their fall, however, those examples in and of themselves did NOT cause the fall. The cause was the ultimate choice to indulge in powerful/lustful emotions and abandoning everything they stood for.
My point being, unless the paladin in your party has done something that all reasonable players would agree to be evil or unworthy of a paladin, then let it slide. Quit looking for an opportunity to say "Hahahah, I got you!" That kind of DM-ing is bad for everyone. Use those behaviors as ways to develop plot hooks and/or court/church politics.
As players, if you are not willing or are personally unable to conduct any of your PCs in a paladin-like fashion, then it would be best to create one of the many other character classes.
The solution to the OPs question is two-fold between the GM and player and is so easy that I am stumped by the constant problems with this topic.
... unless the paladin in your party has done something that all reasonable players would agree to be evil or unworthy of a paladin, then let it slide. ... The solution to the OPs question is two-fold between the GM and player and is so easy that I am stumped by the constant problems with this topic.
I have never seen any two people agree on the same definition of "evil or unworthy of a paladin." Hence the constant arguments.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, just wow.
I've upset all of the sloppy Paladin PC's up in Paizo's house.
You are assuming too much and putting your own personal opinion and bias first. At best this statement makes you a jerk and unappreciative of the the fact that there was an expansive conversation in response to your original post, most of which was with the intention to help you. At worst this statement makes you a troll deliberately stirring the pot and insulting people for the sake of insulting them.
No matter which it is, I suggest apologizing and revisiting the boards guidelines. Specifically the one that states clearly: Don't be a jerk.
That said, I'll move on.
I chatted with the Paladin PC, and let him know that the severity of his Paladin (not Cleric) lawful good alignment is something unique to that type of Character. I stated that we want to play all players very hard, and to be mindful of that.
He mostly disagreed.
I has the right to, and I am happy that he did. I am also happy to see that you talked to him. Communication between GM and Player about their character within the game they are playing is important, and is often all that is needed to solve problems. Good for you for stepping up to do that.
... My point here being, that he's roleplaying the Paladin now, not just a hunter.
We discussed, that drinking to excess, harming the community etc.... Will be marked as minor offenses. Minor offenses result in Paladin powers being suspended until the Paladin works a field in a farm from Dawn till Dusk in repentance.
Good for him! You helped him reach a new point in his gaming experience, be proud of that. However, your strict adherence of your views on his character's religion could ruin it for him.
I want to point out that you actually do have a good case for Erastil wanting his paladin's to be more controlled in their actions and mindful of the community. However, I think you really pushed it a bit too far, especially with your punishment.
No where in the rules does it say that a paladin's powers are suspended for transgressions, or minor offenses as you put it. At best you can say that the paladin feels their god is displeased and not the happiest with their actions. You also put a great deal of stress on the player's shoulders, and not just the Paladin but all the others as well. Now the whole group is going to worry that minor offenses are going to cause a paladin to loose access to much needed powers in the middle of a dungeon. What happens then? Can they stop and wait for him to till a field in that case? This could create some serious problems in terms of the flow of your game as well. You want things to move quickly and smoothly from one part to the other but you can't have that if he needs to repent in the middle of an important mission.
For the sake of your game, drop the need to repent for minor actions and just let him know when his god is less than pleased in an action.
To fall as a Paladin, it must be a truly evil action. Kill child, burn down a good man's house etc... He's writing up his official Moral code this week.
So all in all, he's now one of the most valuable players at the table, after we both discussed the role.
Good and good. A vague code will only cause problems, and letting him write it will ensure he knows what is in it. I would caution actively challenging the code in game, as that can create problems. Trust me, plenty of challenges to the code of conduct will arise naturally.
