I find it kind of weird that there are topics all the time about whether a Paladin should or should not fall. But I've never seen a topic discussing whether any other class character should fall for violating their deity's teachings or whatnot.
Barbarian I can understand. Seems like it would be extremely easy to keep in character in a nuetral or chaotic alignment when compared to lawful. Monks less so because of this, but I suppose even if a Monk did go chaotic they would still have thier previous powers. So I figured for this case it just wasn't worth talking about all that much.
But what about Clerics and Druids? I think ultimately the Paladin has it worst in this situation of course. Though honestly I don't think Clerics are that far behind. They are restricted to three alignments so there is more wiggle room here. However they still are in the same boat as Paladins because a good Cleric could violate his god's values and do a grossly evil act just as easily as a Paladin could. In the same way a Druid could do an extremely lawful or chaotic act as well and lose their powers.
I've never seen a topic dedicated to the falling of any class besides Paladin like I've said. This makes me think that DMs go easy on the treatment of classes falling aside from Paladins. Or heck, they may even forget or even outright ignore these rules. I've seen it happen in a game I'm in. One of the PCs is the most chaotic Monk you could ever see. I even brought it up once that by the rules I was surprised the GM kept allowing him to progress in Monk levels. The GM just chuckled.
I'm not mad or anything at this finding. I'm just confused is all. What do you guys think?
Or hell, maybe I just missed out on a ton of Cleric/Druid/Monk/Barbarian falling topics. You never know.
A couple of points. First, Paladins must remain both Lawful and Good; other classes are restricted on only one axis (edit: guess clerics are restricted on both axes as well.) Second, Paladins can fall without changing alignment; all they need to do is screw up once. A barbarian can make and keep promises from time to time and still use his class features. A paladin that kicks one puppy can kiss smite goodbye.
Note: clerics are most like paladins in terms of restrictions... but also come in many more flavors than LG, so if you want to avoid the drama, it's more feasible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
aegrisomnia wrote: A paladin that kicks one puppy can kiss smite goodbye. Unless its a demon puppy, but even then he's suddenly under the scope, being judged for making the wrong decision in a fall-fall.
Paladins just trend to be magnets for falling for a lot of reasons. The fact they fall for so much more and some people have higher expectations probably isn't doing them too many favors.
The second a paladin walks into a society run by an evil king or group he is boned. You either follow the law OR be good.
I love it when paladins are in my kingdom on kitten kick tuesdays or sodomy Saturdays!
MrSin wrote: aegrisomnia wrote: A paladin that kicks one puppy can kiss smite goodbye. Unless its a demon puppy, but even then he's suddenly under the scope, being judged for making the wrong decision in a fall-fall.
Paladins just trend to be magnets for falling for a lot of reasons. The fact they fall for so much more and some people have higher expectations probably isn't doing them too many favors. Yeah that's kind of what I figured. People tend to go uber hard on them when compared to other classes from what I see. A Cleric can fall from "grossly violating his/her god's code of conduct." Even though a Cleric has more codes to choose from than a Paladin, they still are comparable because they have a code to follow to the T also. Druids have to change alignment entirely, so they are easy to not fall I guess.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Because the rest of the classes do not have a specific set of rules for the class. It is really easy to justify almost any discussion based off of your own alignment.
Barbarian: Can not be lawful. So as long as I make sure to break the law every once and a while or at least think about not doing something just because it is a law I'd be fine. As a raging hulk, that sounds pretty easy to do.
Monk: Just make sure to reinforce the fact that your character meditates each day and that should counter most Chaotic things that you do. That and don't go out of your way to break laws.
Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy.
Clerics: This can be a little harder as people like to choose deities that have good domains. But, once again, there are no hard and fast rules for grossly violating the code of conduct. So if you are worshiping Desna, don't get slaves. If you are worshiping Gorum, don't try to stop nations from fighting with each other.
Paladin: Now this is easy to fall from. All others have been vague about what it takes. Paladins, on the other hand, " A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features. " This is hard and fast. The first Evil act you do and you lose everything. The Code is strict "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." Meaning there are solid lines in the sand that they can not cross.
For other classes to fall, they need to not only be constantly breaking their code enough to change alignment, but they can also justify most actions to fit in with their character. For Paladins, there is no second chance, there is not justifying. There is only the first mistake and then the fall.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Carson6412 wrote: Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy. Just a nitpick, but they aren't related to a deity. Its pretty easy to be a druid. "You revering nature?" "Yes?" "Carry on then!".
Carson6412 wrote: Barbarian: Can not be lawful. So as long as I make sure to break the law every once and a while or at least think about not doing something just because it is a law I'd be fine. As a raging hulk, that sounds pretty easy to do. Don't even have to break laws, just don't care deeply about them. Biggest problem is that you might have trouble being a guy who reveres traditions and totems, and that for some reason other classes that can rage can be lawful. At least your more literate than previous editions.
I see no mention of Inquistors yet, I would have thought that they were a close second behind Paladins for falling
MrSin wrote: Carson6412 wrote: Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy. Just a nitpick, but they aren't related to a deity. Its pretty easy to be a druid. "You revering nature?" "Yes?" "Carry on then!".
Carson6412 wrote: Barbarian: Can not be lawful. So as long as I make sure to break the law every once and a while or at least think about not doing something just because it is a law I'd be fine. As a raging hulk, that sounds pretty easy to do. Don't even have to break laws, just don't care deeply about them. Biggest problem is that you might have trouble being a guy who reveres traditions and totems, and that for some reason other classes that can rage can be lawful. At least your more literate than previous editions. "A druid can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one)." "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities"
Ahh you are right! I misread that to mean, "Don't piss off your deity", just like the Cleric. But, apparently you do not lose your abilities for acting against them, weird.
As for the barbarian thing, that was just the quickest example of not becoming lawful I could think about. Either way, all of them have it easy compared to the Paladin.
Shore wrote: I see no mention of Inquistors yet, I would have thought that they were a close second behind Paladins for falling Yep, I totally forgot about them. But, they have it easier then the Clerics. As an Inquisitor, you are suppose to break the rules to hunt down your enemies ( Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church.). As long as you don't start ignoring the bad because of bribes or condemning the wrong people, (An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability.) you are golden.
All other characters need to change Alignment (something requiring many acts over a period of time) or screw the pooch profoundly to fall. Paladins just nee a single act. And Clerics or Inquisitors can also find a new God and get them back.
That's why you hear about Paladins mostly.
Also, there are heretic inquisitors
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Paladins always fall because they have to be straight-laced. Druids, monks and bards, on the other hand, have the option of tying those things.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
After a psycho assassin tried to blow up the house we were in and wound up burning down a bunch of poor folks' homes surrounding the scene, my CG barbarian donated a ton of money to the locals in charge to help them rebuild.
Does my barbarian lose his rage powers for helping civilization?
because I just know someone somewhere has had a paladin fall for offering the same aid to a barbarian tribe in need, and that makes me >:(
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Clerics and Druids have only medium BAB and not many class features. Way too weak be further cripled by enforcing the code. Paladins have the scary full BAB and immunity to disease and need to be kept in line.
(I'm sure someone somewhere actually thinks that too and it makes >:( also)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So many topics because the Paladin does have a specific code many GMs see this as a means to screw the player by throwing no-win scenarios around for "fun".
If people applied the alignment guidelines to all classes instead of picking on the Paladin I'm sure there would be more "My (insert class here) has "fallen" threads.
FWIW back in 1ed it annoyed me as a GM and Player Clerics and Druids didn't have a "code of conduct" so I drew up my own with input from the players in question. Still do it now but with more classes such as the Inquisitor. And I did strip an old Unearthed Arcana Barbarian of his goodies because the player consistently ignored the restrictions attached to that class.
I strongly believe that Codes should be used for ANY class who follows a deity/belief system. Not to try as a GM to catch 'em out or for a player to act a tool but as an aid to roleplaying the PC.
I also believe that such codes should have input from the player too as this is probably the cause of a lot of the "he's fallen" threads as the GM has one view on how the code works and the player another.
MrSin wrote: Carson6412 wrote: Druids: Now it gets a little easier to fall. Druids need to not piss-off their deity and love nature. So choose a deity that fits your play style and only play a druid if you like respecting nature. Easy. Oh! And avoid metal armor .... once again, easy. Just a nitpick, but they aren't related to a deity. Its pretty easy to be a druid. "You revering nature?" "Yes?" "Carry on then!".
So, you cast some area effect damage spells in the forest. Bam- fallen Druid, right?
What I like is the Antipaladin. If he fails to kick that puppy, he falls.
Note to the OP. Takes a look at a few of the Paladin thread. Consider the OP- First posts by a poster- hmmm... what Large humanoid (giant) has 63 hp and regenerates...?
|
14 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Antipaladin Bob: "I hate having to take the bus to work, because I have to rob, torture, and finally murder everybody on the bus. And if the bus is crowded, it can take hours! Luckily for me, showing up for work on time is against my alignment too. Also, I set fire to my boss, so I'm not really sure I work there anymore."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
DrDeth wrote:
Note to the OP. Takes a look at a few of the Paladin thread. Consider the OP- First posts by a poster- hmmm... what Large humanoid (giant) has 63 hp and regenerates...?
A Colossal Mythic Giant Hamster?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MrSin wrote: ...It's pretty easy to be a druid. "You revering nature?" "Yes?" "Carry on then!"
Heh.
So that's why my "sawmill druid" concept never takes off!
Mikaze wrote: After a psycho assassin tried to blow up the house we were in and wound up burning down a bunch of poor folks' homes surrounding the scene, my CG barbarian donated a ton of money to the locals in charge to help them rebuild.
Does my barbarian lose his rage powers for helping civilization?
because I just know someone somewhere has had a paladin fall for offering the same aid to a barbarian tribe in need, and that makes me >:(
Certain DMs just need to get a grip, or get smacked.
He's not laying the foundation for a fortress or college. He's helping people—a bunch of individuals—rebuild their homes.
Mikaze, just give your DM a glare, and say, "Cut the crap, man. No one's in the mood. Just run the damn game and stop tryin' to think. You're the one who's hurtin' civilization."
Well, maybe not ... but you can think it. :)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
pennywit wrote: DrDeth wrote:
Note to the OP. Takes a look at a few of the Paladin thread. Consider the OP- First posts by a poster- hmmm... what Large humanoid (giant) has 63 hp and regenerates...?
A Colossal Mythic Giant Hamster? A Colossal Mythic Giant SPACE Hamster.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
"Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!"
"squeeeek!"
Barbarian: Because how many times do you hear ANY adventurer say "You know what we need here is the government involved and start doing what they say"
Druid: there was a recent thread on druids using undead (my opinion was that sort of recycling would get your banhammered) . Very few campaigns focus on clear cutting the forest.
Monk: a monk has to be lawful like a paladin, BUT... and this is a very important different between different sorts of lawfuls, there's no telling exactly what a monk owes his loyalty and allegiance to. Part of the paladins code is to respect all legitimate authority. A monks loyalty probably belongs to a monastic tradition or a master that will never appear in a campaign.
Paladins are so nitpicky not just because they have to stay Lawful Good, but because they have a code to uphold that is even more strict than the LG alignment.
Clerics and Inquisitors don't fall as often because they simply have to stay within one step of their deity's alignment and not do anything that goes against the deity's morality. There are a lot of deities out there with a lot of moral codes, it's pretty easy to pick a deity you can live with pretty easily.
I think the closest class to Paladin in terms of "falling" is actually the cavalier with their Order's Edict. Again, though, there are a good number of orders so it shouldn't be too hard to find an Order that fits your RP pretty well.
Taking an Order or deity simply for the mechanical benefit should be held to the rules as strictly as a Paladin is, though. If you want to be a selfish, self-obsessed Cavalier but take Order of the Sword for the attack bonus, you should risk losing your order abilities. If you want to be a Cleric of Desna simply for the Travel and Luck domains, but happily take advantage of a goblin raid to loot the village, you should lose your spells.
That being said, Faiths of Purity offers different codes for Paladins based on the different deities. Torag is pretty hardcore and unforgiving, his code allows a Paladin to be much... let's say meaner and violent, than the "default" Paladin or a Paladin of, say, Sarenrae or Iomedae. You're still not going to be kicking puppies because they're loud, but you are well within Torag's expectations of behavior if you coup de grace the goblins that tried to surrender then head out and burn _their_ village.
Technically, I'm pretty sure a druid would lose class abilities for destroying the world. But by that point, honestly, your class abilities are not your biggest concern.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: Part of the paladin's code is to respect all legitimate authority. Undeniably true.
I think playing one who's not headed for irreconcilable requirements (and perhaps subsequent fall) requires a DM who understands that a paladin's code may require him to challenge authority he does not (for various reasons) consider "legitimate."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Domestichauscat wrote: But what about Clerics and Druids? I've had both fall in campaigns I've run.
My favorite was telling a cleric he fell for telling the truth.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
My brother's shaman fell during my campaign. He really should invest a rank or two in Climb, that armor-check penalty is nasty.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
In all seriousness, I never understood why the Barbarian and Monk classes were limited to non-Lawful and Lawful alignments respectively. I get that the Monk must be disciplined in order to use his powers and I can see how Rage is flavored as the Barbarian "cutting loose". Yet, this doesn't stop my Neutral Good alchemist from having just as much self-control and discipline as your average monk, and there's nothing stopping a barbarian from having discipline and self-control either (Just look at Bruce Banner / The Hulk). I can see a tendency towards Lawful and Chaotic, but limiting the classes like this also inhibits character development and player options.
Jaelithe wrote: Mikaze wrote: After a psycho assassin tried to blow up the house we were in and wound up burning down a bunch of poor folks' homes surrounding the scene, my CG barbarian donated a ton of money to the locals in charge to help them rebuild.
Does my barbarian lose his rage powers for helping civilization?
because I just know someone somewhere has had a paladin fall for offering the same aid to a barbarian tribe in need, and that makes me >:(
Certain DMs just need to get a grip, or get smacked.
He's not laying the foundation for a fortress or college. He's helping people—a bunch of individuals—rebuild their homes.
Mikaze, just give your DM a glare, and say, "Cut the crap, man. No one's in the mood. Just run the damn game and stop tryin' to think. You're the one who's hurtin' civilization."
Well, maybe not ... but you can think it. :)
My GM for that scenario didn't pull anything like that(because our GM is, well, sane and mature*). It was to illustrate how ridiculous it is when people pull the same stunt on paladins going the other way.
Although I have seen and experienced people insisting that barbarians/CG can't have any self-discipline whatsoever and that barbarians must be played as snarling morons when raging. That got old the first day.
*Which is more than I can say for some GMs way back in the past, where you can have your slignment shifted towards evil for trying to stop others from murdering children of certain races.
Don't have many fond memories from those early games.
What I think a lot of people are still missing is that, by RAW, it's actually much easier for the paladin to fall than it is for other alignment-restricted classes to be penalized.
A barbarian does not lose the ability to rage by willfully committing a lawful act.
Quote: A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class. A paladin does fall by willfully committing a single evil act.
Quote: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). Moreover, the penalty for paladins is more severe than it is for barbarians. Barbarians lose only the ability to rage. Paladins lose all abilities. In summary:
- It takes less for a paladin to fall;
- It sucks harder when the paladin falls.
I think this is a pretty straightforward explanation for the observation.
And this is why I prefer not to play paladins unless I know exactly how the specific GM handles paladins. I love them, but the best way to handle a paladin PC is to sit down with your GM and discuss their thoughts on the paladin.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Amen to that. The only class that needs a counseling session before it can enter play.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed.
Terrible mechanic. Needs to die in a fire.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zhayne wrote: Terrible mechanic. Needs to die in a fire. Aye, chuck it into the same bonfire as alignment. May as well kill two birds with one stone here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zhayne wrote: The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed. Or unless you, y'know, communicate your expectations to each other like reasonable people, and the GM gives warning when an action seems non-Good to them.
It's really not that hard, it just requires some communication and trust between GM an player...and if you don't have that, I don't know what to tell you except maybe find a new gaming group.
Deadmanwalking wrote: Zhayne wrote: The answer is simple. Paladins have The Screw You Code, other classes do not, which has zero tolerance and no consequences other than Screw You. And since what's 'good' and 'evil' are purely subjective based on the GM's personal views, unless you both share a brain, you're hosed. Or unless you, y'know, communicate your expectations to each other like reasonable people, and the GM gives warning when an action seems non-Good to them. Erm, talking and communicating just gives you a heads up on some expectations, it doesn't change what the code is or the fact they have a code unless your running some house rules. Just the same, if your DM is in control of your falling and alignment then it is still based on his subjective ideas.
Another thing is communication isn't always perfect. Sometimes you miss something or someone says something wrong or they take their word back. Don't get me wrong, it helps.
I should add that it would be nice if it wasn't so volatile that you had to have that conversation to begin with.
MrSin wrote: Erm, talking and communicating just gives you a heads up on some expectations, it doesn't change what the code is or the fact they have a code unless your running some house rules. Just the same, if your DM is in control of your falling and alignment then it is still based on his subjective ideas.
Another thing is communication isn't always perfect. Sometimes you miss something or someone says something wrong or they take their word back. Don't get me wrong, it helps.
I should add that it would be nice if it wasn't so volatile that you had to have that conversation to begin with.
I was mostly responding to the "unless you both share a brain, you're hosed."
Deadmanwalking wrote: MrSin wrote: Erm, talking and communicating just gives you a heads up on some expectations, it doesn't change what the code is or the fact they have a code unless your running some house rules. Just the same, if your DM is in control of your falling and alignment then it is still based on his subjective ideas.
Another thing is communication isn't always perfect. Sometimes you miss something or someone says something wrong or they take their word back. Don't get me wrong, it helps.
I should add that it would be nice if it wasn't so volatile that you had to have that conversation to begin with.
I was mostly responding to the "unless you both share a brain, you're hosed." Sure, because every GM is 100% self aware and shares a completely unambiguous language* with the player and has time to explain every last nuance of his personal ethical philosophy.
* which would be no natural language. Maybe a particularly anal retentive conlang, but even that is unlikely to be sufficiently clear when filtered through the brain of a native English speaker.
Some of the strict paladin code interpretations date back to AD&D. Paladins had a very strict code, including limitations on how many and what kinds of magic items they could own, having to donate anything they couldn't carry, no ranged weapons (dishonorable to fire at an opponent instead of challenging them to single melee combat), I'm forgetting a few but it was a little extreme. You need a Cha of 17 to play a paladin in AD&D (sometimes on a roll 3d6 six times, assign in order rolled) so playing a paladin was a big deal.
PF has a more reasonable code that keeps the intent of the paladin code and takes out some of the extremities (limitations on magic items and prohibition on ranged weapons- a paladin could fall for throwing a throwing axe at an enemy to keep an innocent from being killed in a strict interpretation). For me, the fun of playing a paladin is trying to live up to an almost impossible standard. Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin.
When I GM, about 80% of the encounters typically will be against evil opponents. Paladins are especially useful (detect evil, smite evil, immune to disease, saving throw bonus). I'll throw in the occasional variation of the 1E paladin trap, for every 15 encounters where the party says "thank Torm we have a paladin" there should be one encounter where the party says "that must have hurt, I hope the paladin eventually can recover."
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ParagonDireRaccoon wrote: For me, the fun of playing a paladin is trying to live up to an almost impossible standard. Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin. Don't meant to pick on you, but I think one of the reasons paladins get sort of picked on more than the other classes is that that same ideal about how to have fun with them is meeting impossible standards or some such is applied to other people who may not share the same mindset. I've met a lot of people who've told me they have to throw a special challenge related to morality on the paladin of some sort, without any thought of whether the player actually wants it, going so far as killing that PC's entire family just because they chose to play a paladin and to set them up for some moral thing, or worse, the dreaded fall-fall. That's a bit more of an extreme than normal though, or at least I hope.
MrSin wrote: ParagonDireRaccoon wrote: For me, the fun of playing a paladin is trying to live up to an almost impossible standard. Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin. Don't meant to pick on you, but I think one of the reasons paladins get sort of picked on more than the other classes is that that same ideal about how to have fun with them is meeting impossible standards or some such is applied to other people who may not share the same mindset. I've met a lot of people who've told me they have to throw a special challenge related to morality on the paladin of some sort, without any thought of whether the player actually wants it, going so far as killing that PC's entire family just because they chose to play a paladin and to set them up for some moral thing, or worse, the dreaded fall-fall. That's a bit more of an extreme than normal though, or at least I hope. I agree that a lot of GMs (and other players) try to force their interpretations of how to play a paladin, how to interpret the paladin code, and what would be fun about playing a paladin on other players. Playing a paladin can divide a group, because if there are five players and a GM there might be six different interpretations of how the paladin code applies to a situation. And sometimes a GM will think "that Superman storyline of dealing with a moral dilemma would make a cool paladin storyline." But that often results in a no-win situation for the paladin and paladin player (if you break the code you can save this innocent family, but then you lose your paladin abilities and the bad kills ten innocent families).
Still looking forward to an "Anti-Paladin has fallen because he did good things" threads...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Almost all of these quandaries go away when you consider a paladin Lawful GOOD rather than LAWFUL good, or LAWFUL GOOD. If it comes to a situation where going the 'lawful' route necessitates evil, then the default is good - regardless of whether or not that good is specifically lawful.
As to 'legitimate authority' once a government starts actively promoting evil I would have to imagine their authority ceases to have legitimacy in the eyes of a paladin, as it is no longer fulfilling the role of a government in the paladins mind - which is to protect and defend its people, and promote the common good. So while he might find the inconsistencies of a chaotic good based government maddening, he would prefer it infinity plus one over a lawful evil government, who consistently and rigorously grinds its citizens under the booted heel of authority. He would also likely view an actively lawful evil government as an abomination of government because it precisely twists the institution in ways that are the antithesis of his philosophy.
MrSin wrote: ParagonDireRaccoon wrote: For me, the fun of playing a paladin is trying to live up to an almost impossible standard. Navigating shades of grey through a lens of black and white is the roleplaying challenge of playing a paladin. Don't meant to pick on you, but I think one of the reasons paladins get sort of picked on more than the other classes is that that same ideal about how to have fun with them is meeting impossible standards or some such is applied to other people who may not share the same mindset. I've met a lot of people who've told me they have to throw a special challenge related to morality on the paladin of some sort, without any thought of whether the player actually wants it, going so far as killing that PC's entire family just because they chose to play a paladin and to set them up for some moral thing, or worse, the dreaded fall-fall. That's a bit more of an extreme than normal though, or at least I hope. And that's why I usually play a LG Cleric/Inquisitor/Anything instead of Paladins unless I the GM really well and have complete trust that he will have some leniency towards the Paladin. It's impossible to have an identical opinion on alignment, so if the GM is not wlling to let oversee things every so often, Paladins are pretty much impossible to play for me.
Which is a shame, really. I love Paladins, both conceptually and mechanically, but I'm just not willing to risk playing them in most games... Never in online play, for example.
I've seen and heard about Paladins falling for:
- Lying to a demon in order to protect his friends.
- Swearing at the elf.
- Using a bow.
- Hiring a protitute.
- Keeping the money he won on a poker game.
-.-'
Atarlost wrote: Sure, because every GM is 100% self aware and shares a completely unambiguous language* with the player and has time to explain every last nuance of his personal ethical philosophy.
* which would be no natural language. Maybe a particularly anal retentive conlang, but even that is unlikely to be sufficiently clear when filtered through the brain of a native English speaker.
Come now, you're basically arguing that clear communication is impossible. You're technically correct, but it's pretty easy to get close enough for government work.
And the inevitable corner cases and lapses are why I mentioned the GM warning the Paladin before they take any action said GM deems fall-worthy.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Domestichauscat wrote: I find it kind of weird that there are topics all the time about whether a Paladin should or should not fall. But I've never seen a topic discussing whether any other class character should fall for violating their deity's teachings or whatnot.
Barbarian I can understand. Seems like it would be extremely easy to keep in character in a nuetral or chaotic alignment when compared to lawful. Monks less so because of this, but I suppose even if a Monk did go chaotic they would still have thier previous powers. So I figured for this case it just wasn't worth talking about all that much.
But what about Clerics and Druids? I think ultimately the Paladin has it worst in this situation of course. Though honestly I don't think Clerics are that far behind. They are restricted to three alignments so there is more wiggle room here. However they still are in the same boat as Paladins because a good Cleric could violate his god's values and do a grossly evil act just as easily as a Paladin could. In the same way a Druid could do an extremely lawful or chaotic act as well and lose their powers.
While clerics are restricted in terms of alignment, there are dozens of gods to choose from. If someone doesn't want to play a lawful good cleric, just pick a chaotic good good. Or a chaotic neutral one. Or lawful evil... it really depends on what alignments the DM is allowing. Even if a cleric falls, they can find another god that matches their new alignment, so really no cleric needs fall for long.
Unlike the paladin, clerics do not have a pre-written code of conduct. I've never seen a D&D cleric code of conduct outside of 2e Forgotten Realms, and most of those clerics didn't have nutty restrictions. (Neutral good clerics of Mielikki have to plant a tree once a week, or something like that. That's not much different from going to church and praying, which a cleric of another deity might have to do for an hour a week. That's not going to significantly impact RP or gaming.)
Druids actually did have this problem prior to 3e. Then you had to be true neutral, and the description of that in the 2e PH was utterly insane. I think Mielikki became a popular druid deity because her druids could be neutral good. Starting in 3e, the alignment became relaxed. Druids generally don't have to be militant vegans, and while they're required to be tree-huggers, they only have to control egregious PC behavior. (Druids aren't likely to go nuts if someone starts a campfire. Maybe they'll insist you use already dead logs rather than cutting down a tree, but that's common sense anyway.)
Druids have a really simple code of conduct - must revere nature. That is all.
Quote: I've never seen a topic dedicated to the falling of any class besides Paladin like I've said. This makes me think that DMs go easy on the treatment of classes falling aside from Paladins. Or heck, they may even forget or even outright ignore these rules. I've seen it happen in a game I'm in. One of the PCs is the most chaotic Monk you could ever see. I even brought it up once that by the rules I was surprised the GM kept allowing him to progress in Monk levels. The GM just chuckled. Monks don't have to be religious, so in-game there's no NPC watching over and deciding the monk must fall now. Monks are also rarely annoying (in terms of RP) so other players don't try to "police them".
By contrast, the paladin is religious (so has a powerful NPC watching them), must be lawful good, and then has even more restrictions based on the poorly-written code of conduct that explicitly says they can fall. Parts of the CoC essentially force the paladin to regulate the behavior of other PCs. (While in theory lawful clerics might be expected to do the same thing, in practice there's no written code of conduct saying "make it so".) The CoC shackles the paladin with dumb rules such as only using stealth when there's no other option. And that's before the paladin starts wrecking plots by spamming Detect Evil.
Classes need to be designed to play nice with others, because you generally can't adventure by yourself. Many classes have been "made nice" to get this to work. Mythical berserkers could rage at any time and wake up and find bits of their friends' bodies around them, but D&D barbarians don't suffer from this. (The Frenzied Berserker prestige class from 3rd Edition is hated because it emulates this, which means it does not play nice with others.) Unfortunately the paladin (and pre-3e druid) were not designed with this design concept in mind.
The paladin could be fixed by writing a proper code of conduct, but said CoC needs to be written with the idea of playing nice with others and that D&D and Pathfinder are games that value clarity and take player psychology into account. Most fan-written CoCs I've seen are written in an unclear poetic language.
By the time his opponents are likely to register on the evil dar, the opponents likely have access to alignment masking spells.
Unless the opponent is an outsider or priest ... They have to be higher than fourth level. Also, someone who is not actually evil but presently has evil intent also registers, as p the spell description. If you are allowing detect evil spamming to wreck plots, you aren't trying very hard.
|
