It works, of course, and it fits the trope quite nicely, but that's pretty much the embodiment of what I don't like about paladins as they appear in D&D and its ilk.
It's essentially an interchangeable code for interchangeable gods, in a world with gods that aren't actually interchangeable. I wouldn't let a player bring that code to the table unless they could make a solid case that all those strictures made sense in light of the deity they pick.
I'd allow a paladin of any alignment though, as long as it was identical to the deity they choose, and their code reflected the portfolio and domains that apply.
Quite true...
Except: Paladins must be LG by RAW.This code was developed with that mechanical concept in mind.
The code is easily modifiable to fit any almost any alignment.
CE & CN may require an entirely new code however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite true...
Except: Paladins must be LG by RAW.
This code was developed with that mechanical concept in mind.
Yeah, I know. I mean it fits LG Iomeadae to a tee, no question.
But LG Apsu? I can't help but think his priorities would be radically different.
RAW and I just don't get along where the paladin is concerned...probably never will.
As I've said, I don't see a paladin as anything other than a cleric archetype that's more fighty and less casty. The code has no reason to exist.
As I've said, I don't see a paladin as anything other than a cleric archetype that's more fighty and less casty. The code has no reason to exist.
Except that the is expected to exist by almost everyone in the hobby.
I prefer my code over the typically vaguer codes that most systems have in place. At least with this one it gives newer players (as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.
As I've said, I don't see a paladin as anything other than a cleric archetype that's more fighty and less casty. The code has no reason to exist.Except that the is expected to exist by almost everyone in the hobby.
I prefer my code over the typically vaguer codes that most systems have in place. At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.
That behavior should depend on the god/belief system/values the paladin devotes himself to. The table should determine that, not the rules.
At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.
Or a cleric, since they're supposed to have one as well. I don't really question the need for a code. Thematically, codes of conduct make sense for all divine casties, as long as it isn't one-size-fits-all-deities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.Or a cleric, since they're supposed to have one as well. I don't really question the need for a code. Thematically, codes of conduct make sense for all divine casties, as long as it isn't one-size-fits-all-deities.
So long as the code doesn't come with lame power-loss mechanics. Roleplaying actions should have roleplaying consequences, not mechanical ones.
So long as the code doesn't come with lame power-loss mechanics. Roleplaying actions should have roleplaying consequences, not mechanical ones.At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.Or a cleric, since they're supposed to have one as well. I don't really question the need for a code. Thematically, codes of conduct make sense for all divine casties, as long as it isn't one-size-fits-all-deities.
^ This. Moar story!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite true...
Except: Paladins must be LG by RAW.
This code was developed with that mechanical concept in mind.Yeah, I know. I mean it fits LG Iomeadae to a tee, no question.
But LG Apsu? I can't help but think his priorities would be radically different.
RAW and I just don't get along where the paladin is concerned...probably never will.
Really how much more radical?
He is LG after all.But again I did design the code to be malleable...
I am sure with a small application of thought one could alter the code to be more Deity Specific.
I respect that you have personal issues with the class and can even understand and share some of those same issues with you. But no matter the personal biases we may have concerning the class it is considered an iconic trope of the hobby and we cannot force our own views (no matter how justified we may find them) over those of the majority.
That behavior should depend on the god/belief system/values the paladin devotes himself to. The table should determine that, not the rules.As I've said, I don't see a paladin as anything other than a cleric archetype that's more fighty and less casty. The code has no reason to exist.Except that the is expected to exist by almost everyone in the hobby.
I prefer my code over the typically vaguer codes that most systems have in place. At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.
So if player X has a personal grudge against Paladin Player Y he should get a say in when/how Player Y falls? Ummm... no.
I respect that you have personal issues with the class and can even understand and share some of those same issues with you. But no matter the personal biases we may have concerning the class it is considered an iconic trope of the hobby and we cannot force our own views (no matter how justified we may find them) over those of the majority.
Oh I agree completely, with my player hat on. People should do what's fun and it's not my place to stick an oar in and meddle.
With my DM hat on? No cookie-cutter pallys at my table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Majority does not and should not always rule. The way aboniks and I takes nothing away from anybody else. They can just say 'Only LG paladins at this table', and have their way, and we get our way. Everybody wins.
So if player X has a personal grudge against Paladin Player Y he should get a say in when/how Player Y falls? Ummm... no.
"The table" not the players.
And before you have a wise-ass crack about tables being nonsentient objects, I'll elaborate that this means that it should be determined on a group by group basis.
"These are the grounds for a Paladin falling" should be determined by working with your GM, not hard baked into a ruleset by people you've never met is what he's saying.
So if player X has a personal grudge against Paladin Player Y he should get a say in when/how Player Y falls? Ummm... no."The table" not the players.
And before you have a wise-ass crack about tables being nonsentient objects, I'll elaborate that this means that it should be determined on a group by group basis.
"These are the grounds for a Paladin falling" should be determined by working with your GM, not hard baked into a ruleset by people you've never met is what he's saying.
Thank you.
Though 'falling' as in 'losing powers' shouldn't be a thing, IMFAO.
So long as the code doesn't come with lame power-loss mechanics. Roleplaying actions should have roleplaying consequences, not mechanical ones.At least with this one it gives newer players as well some older ones) a better understanding of just what kind of behavior is expected from a Paladin.Or a cleric, since they're supposed to have one as well. I don't really question the need for a code. Thematically, codes of conduct make sense for all divine casties, as long as it isn't one-size-fits-all-deities.
And now we come to the heart of your real issue with the Code of Conduct.
The Fall from Grace and its subsequent Return to Grace storyline; as well as the Questioning My Faith Storyline are iconic parts of the Paladin (as well as the Cleric, Oracle, & Inquisitor to a smaller degree). I would much prefer such an important part of the class actually have some semblance of mechanics in place to represent this otherwise the class looses some of its charm. Since then the SLs themselves (and the associated power loss) are dictated strictly by GM whim. Which does lead to evilhatefulspitefulbadwrongGM VS Player syndrome.
You and I have a very different definition of 'charm' ... and 'important'.
So if player X has a personal grudge against Paladin Player Y he should get a say in when/how Player Y falls? Ummm... no."The table" not the players.
And before you have a wise-ass crack about tables being nonsentient objects, I'll elaborate that this means that it should be determined on a group by group basis.
"These are the grounds for a Paladin falling" should be determined by working with your GM, not hard baked into a ruleset by people you've never met is what he's saying.
Thank you.
Though 'falling' as in 'losing powers' shouldn't be a thing, IMFAO.
So when a Paladin does fall from grace what should the consequences be if not a loss of Deific Granted abilities? He did violate the Tenets set forth by his Deity. The Tenets to which his Deity said (more or less) "This you must do in exchange for the power I grant thee."
You get called on the carpet by church officials and given penance based on the severity of what you did. You might even be able to weasel out of it with bribes or such.
I *loved* 4e's take on the divine classes. You undergo rites of initiation that opened the conduit, and once the powers were yours, they stayed yours. The gods were distant and non-intrusive, if they even existed at all.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
You get called on the carpet by church officials and given penance based on the severity of what you did. You might even be able to weasel out of it with bribes or such.
I *loved* 4e's take on the divine classes. You undergo rites of initiation that opened the conduit, and once the powers were yours, they stayed yours. The gods were distant and non-intrusive, if they even existed at all.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
so basically you want a world where as long as the character stays on the move or does the violations in secret there are no repercussions. Ok... I can see that. But. That only works in a world where the gods are not active.
What about worlds where the they are active (if even only in the minor capacity of empowering those who would be their agents in the realm)?Players in those worlds want there to be concrete rules of some sort in place for the Fall.
Now the code of conduct I have in place does not initiate an automatic fall from grace (All powers removed immediately). And does provide for what I like to call the Slow Slide From Grace. The gradual loss of power. Which in and of itself adds another dimension to the characters. The struggle to keep from sliding further, the climb back into favor, etc..
The thing about setting up a Code of Conduct and its consequences is it is easier design for the extreme consequences (in this case the "lame loss of power") and allow for them to be dialed back to what is acceptable for a tables games than it is to set up a low end or even middle ground and then allow for the dial to go to eleven if you do not set those extreme limits but rather leave them vague.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
I want to address this aspect separately...
That is completely possible in the current setting as well.I can think of at least a dozen different ways as a High Abbot/Priest that I could hide my lack of faith/powers. So the story lines you propose are far from being isolated to just one mechanical style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when a Paladin does fall from grace what should the consequences be if not a loss of Deific Granted abilities? He did violate the Tenets set forth by his Deity. The Tenets to which his Deity said (more or less) "This you must do in exchange for the power I grant thee."
I can't speak for Zhayne on this, but my personal disillusionment with the mechanical approach is that it encourages what I consider to be poor DM practice, and less robust world-building. Specifically, it treats the relationship between the world/pc and the deity in question as a mercantile one. It reduces the influence that the gods display in a world that exists solely at the whim of the gods.
Now, a god with the money/banking/merchant portfolio might well just whisk away his paladins powers, akin to turning off the electricity when you don't pay your bills. Thematically, I can dig it.
But a goddess of war might punish her paladin by teleporting him into the center of a raging battle to fight or die with all his powers intact, gaining glory for the goddess herself with acts of courage and savagery.
A god of intrigue might poison the paladins wine flask when the paladin offers it to a noble, embroiling her in a situation that increases the number of suspicious people in the world and forcing the paladin to use her wits to disentangle herself from the situation.
A god of song and history might take away his paladins ability to speak.
What I allude to with these examples goes back to my earlier point, namely that the mechanistic approach reduces the role of the gods to vending machines. It allows the DM and the players to tell a story without putting any significant thought into the entities whose sheer power creates the stage on which they play, and whose identities are reflected in the personalities and cultures of every NPC and creature the players will ever encounter. They become appendices, rather than pervasive forces that shape the world.
That all being said, the mechanistic approach has the advantages of being simple, quick, and easy to adjudicate. (Or at least it should...with all the kibitzing I see on the messagebaords about falling, maybe it's not all that easy).
Ultimately though, to me the fall-from-grace trope rings extraordinarily hollow when the gods and their champions are treated so offhandedly. When a DM and her players treat the pillars of the universe as cardboard cutouts it just doesn't engage me in the slightest. Want gods and divine power to play a central role in one of your characters lives? Tell that story, make it breathe. Want the gods to be distant and disinterested? Don't play characters who rely on them day in and day out. Tell a different sort of story and put the world-spotlight where you want it.
As I said though. I can only speak for myself, and how I run a table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get called on the carpet by church officials and given penance based on the severity of what you did. You might even be able to weasel out of it with bribes or such.
I *loved* 4e's take on the divine classes. You undergo rites of initiation that opened the conduit, and once the powers were yours, they stayed yours. The gods were distant and non-intrusive, if they even existed at all.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
so basically you want a world where as long as the character stays on the move or does the violations in secret there are no repercussions. Ok... I can see that. But. That only works in a world where the gods are not active.
What about worlds where the they are active (if even only in the minor capacity of empowering those who would be their agents in the realm)?
Players in those worlds want there to be concrete rules of some sort in place for the Fall..
And this is why rules like that belong at the table/setting level, not the game rules level.
The other joy of the 4e style was that it was cake to re-flavor those classes into other things. I had more than one PC who was a 'luxomancer'.
You get called on the carpet by church officials and given penance based on the severity of what you did. You might even be able to weasel out of it with bribes or such.
I *loved* 4e's take on the divine classes. You undergo rites of initiation that opened the conduit, and once the powers were yours, they stayed yours. The gods were distant and non-intrusive, if they even existed at all.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
so basically you want a world where as long as the character stays on the move or does the violations in secret there are no repercussions. Ok... I can see that. But. That only works in a world where the gods are not active.
What about worlds where the they are active (if even only in the minor capacity of empowering those who would be their agents in the realm)?
Players in those worlds want there to be concrete rules of some sort in place for the Fall..And this is why rules like that belong at the table/setting level, not the game rules level.
The other joy of the 4e style was that it was cake to re-flavor those classes into other things. I had more than one PC who was a 'luxomancer'.
It is also rife with table conflict issues.
At least if some mechanical means are in place there are (supposedly) fewer of these.The Big issue of THE FALL is there are no real concrete standards for what constitutes a violation let alone what constitutes an appropriate response to a violation.
So when a Paladin does fall from grace what should the consequences be if not a loss of Deific Granted abilities? He did violate the Tenets set forth by his Deity. The Tenets to which his Deity said (more or less) "This you must do in exchange for the power I grant thee."I can't speak for Zhayne on this, but my personal disillusionment with the mechanical approach is that it encourages what I consider to be poor DM practice, and less robust world-building. Specifically, it treats the relationship between the world/pc and the deity in question as a mercantile one. It reduces the influence that the gods display in a world that exists solely at the whim of the gods.
Now, a god with the money/banking/merchant portfolio might well just whisk away his paladins powers, akin to turning off the electricity when you don't pay your bills. Thematically, I can dig it.
But a goddess of war might punish her paladin by teleporting him into the center of a raging battle to fight or die with all his powers intact, gaining glory for the goddess herself with acts of courage and savagery.
A god of intrigue might poison the paladins wine flask when the paladin offers it to a noble, embroiling her in a situation that increases the number of suspicious people in the world and forcing the paladin to use her wits to disentangle herself from the situation.
A god of song and history might take away his paladins ability to speak.
What I allude to with these examples goes back to my earlier point, namely that the mechanistic approach reduces the role of the gods to vending machines. It allows the DM and the players to tell a story without putting any significant thought into the entities whose sheer power creates the stage on which they play, and whose identities are reflected in the personalities and cultures of every NPC and creature the players will ever encounter. They become appendices, rather than pervasive forces that shape the world.
That all being said, the...
All Valid punishments.
One upside to setting a mechanical baseline however is at least then newer players/GM have an idea of where to branch out.The Big downside however is, as you have pointed out, the temptation to take the "lazy" route and just apply the mechanical and move on.
One way to mitigate that downside somewhat is to present examples of punishments for the "touched by grace" classes when they do "slide."
A true Fall should require the Divinely Touched class to have willfully and repeatedly violated the tenets of their Deity. Not for a minor infraction.
A one or two tenet slip should not see the same response as the Serial Murderer follower of the goddess of healing would receive.
Evil basically just equals selfish. That's not punishable by death by itself. What they do to achieve their evil desires is what determines the sentence. Some may rape and murder, but other may just shortchange the blind. Both are evil, but only the first would be punishable by death. If he doesn't understand that then he needs his powers stripped. Offer him attonement by undertaking a quest, which he should recieve no xp for and should donate all proceeds to charity. He should experience several situations during this quest that allow him the opportunity to learn this concept
Once again, relating this because it was ignored.
Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.
90% of your paladins from stereotypical fables and such dating back more than 50 years did not fall for murdering the evil person without trying to save them! That is a completely modern squeamishness that we share based on our society. It in no way represents the morality of a classic fantasy setting, literary or otherwise, and to treat it otherwise is squeamish shenanigans on the part of GM's involved.
Killing evil for being evil traditionally is well within the setting and the role of a paladin, no questions asked.
Edit: To enumerate:
We may not consider a lot of historical actions good nowadays, the inquisitions, the witch trials, etc. But guess what? By code of religious conduct at the time, they were good. By code of religious organization, they were good. By rule of law, they were good.
A ton of actions seemed horrifying and barbaric, BUT BY EVERY STANDARD AT THE TIME FROM RELIGIOUS DOWN TO LAW, THEY WERE GOOD.
Codes don't define what is good or evil. They define what is lawfully right or wrong. Don't assume a lawful right equals a moral right.
^about what this guy quoted by Thomas Long 175, I don't think you understand what good and evil is dude. Just because people accepted it a few hundred years ago doesn't make it good, it only makes it lawful. Good and evil is unchanging
Edit: lol, I just realized I basically said the same thing that you said Wraithstrike. You are 100% correct sir
I'd also like to point out that good and evil is even larger than deities. This is proven by the simple fact that they have alignments themselves. An evil deity obviously sees his own actions as right, but he is still evil. That's because deities do not determine the rules for alignment
On the off chance it hasn't been posted yet do this
In my opinion Paladins are just one of many classes that will cause you trouble in finding narrative challenges.
"You must find the Sacred Shield of the great hero Xyzimus which has been buried in the Crypt of Uvwuxion deep in the Demon Teeth Mountains, you will have to travel the perilous path through the Swamps of Despair and cross the Firey pits of Doom, then scale the-" *greater teleport*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Heroes arrive at the Crypt*
Crypt Guardian: You have not proven yourselves in the gauntlet. Turn back as the way will not be shown to you.
It's rarely the destination that's the point. It's the journey.
You get called on the carpet by church officials and given penance based on the severity of what you did. You might even be able to weasel out of it with bribes or such.
I *loved* 4e's take on the divine classes. You undergo rites of initiation that opened the conduit, and once the powers were yours, they stayed yours. The gods were distant and non-intrusive, if they even existed at all.
IMO, the perfect way to do it. It could actually be interesting, instead of 'yoink powers gone, too bad so sad buh-bye'. You could have corrupt clerics etc who could infiltrate or pervert the doctrine without sudden 'you can't cast spells, cover blown' issues. So many options ...
In one game I played in, the dm found the celestial interference so amusing thus began the celestial bureaucracy. Basically internet operators connecting to and sending the holy juice to their agents and cutting off any that went too wayward. Sometimes a celestial would be sent down to communicate, to bring them back in line or terminate a former employee. You could call up with various spells, but you might get put on hold, or they would be cryptic "Bobislaus do you think the celestials are f***ing with us?". When you died your record was examined by a bureaucrat that determined whether you qualified for the deluxe afterlife package, the somewhat okay but not great ending, the blandest welcoming or you were rejected or eternally punished.
It got pretty fun. I also used some of these ideas in my game when a golden celestial lion with a real attitude "urgh, babysitting another cleric" was sent down to bring a fighter cleric into line (he had been up to some serious breaches, but didn't lose his powers yet). The character ended up dying to a trap, and didn't win the afterlife lotto (they got in, but their tainted record would always be remembered).
I'd also like to point out that good and evil is even larger than deities. This is proven by the simple fact that they have alignments themselves. An evil deity obviously sees his own actions as right, but he is still evil. That's because deities do not determine the rules for alignment
Yeah, I don't think paladins need an overly complex code.
There is great evil in the world, go and fight it. Oppose it in all its forms, and stay the course.
You could list out all the dos and don'ts, but it seems a bit silly to me. Be a heroic hero of legend against evil, don't spend your time slapping the good around. There are SO many evil things to fight, hop to it, the world needs you.
Course, I don't really have much need to make paladins fall, and my players don't care to play paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DM Under The Bridge, I certainly agree. A code isnt required at all. Good is what it is no matter how anyone else in the world views it. If they disagree or don't understand it then they just aren't good. A code implies rules that can not he broken, but reality is not that simple. Thats why there is no code, just an understanding of right and wrong. A paladin will conduct herself according to that understanding regardless of the views of the rest of the world. If she starts to sway from this understanding, as in the case of someone just murdering people for having opposing morality even if their crimes are minor or even undiscovered, then she must atone. When a paladin learns a person is evil she should immediately default to the action of trying to lead them to a better path, but punishment only comes with an exact crime and it must be proportionate
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real issue is a Paladin of Iomedae being a jerk. A lawful good person should not go around acosting strangers for no apparent reason. Seeking a motive would have to be generated by witnessing an even that would warrent questioning. Regardless I think the real world is filled with enough jerks just being because they can.
I'm not the first one to suggest that for a paladin's proper conduct, just act like a quintessential shining knight hero and fight the forces of darkness, and you will be fine. The day to day, the greyness of politics they don't do so well. You want to be fighting the worst out there 90% of the time.
The thread starter may want to convey this to their player, but I am also one that has less problem with a paladin killing evil people, and don't think it should lead to falling.
There are much better things a dm can do than make a paladin fall, as I suggested a few pages back. Keh keh keh keh.