|
Originally when I first asked it was because I was looking through all the different feat options from Inner Sea Gods with the prereqs of what deity you chose.
Then I was looking through paladin and noted that they don't have specific alignment restrictions like clerics/inquisitors/warpriests do (where it specifically states within one step of their deity)--it only says LG, it doesn't say anything about their deity having to be within one step of them. There are terms in there that aren't defined within the game to have specific meanings. What does it mean to "worship" a god? Does that cause association? I felt it wasn't defined enough and needed a question.
p.s. I also don't understand how a simple (seemingly) question can be "clear" enough to have a debate over 250 posts in a rules forum and hasn't been FAQ'd by a single person.
Originally when I first asked it was because I was looking through all the different feat options from Inner Sea Gods with the prereqs of what deity you chose.
Then I was looking through paladin and noted that they don't have specific alignment restrictions like clerics/inquisitors/warpriests do (where it specifically states within one step of their deity)--it only says LG, it doesn't say anything about their deity having to be within one step of them. There are terms in there that aren't defined within the game to have specific meanings. What does it mean to "worship" a god? Does that cause association? I felt it wasn't defined enough and needed a question.
p.s. I also don't understand how a simple (seemingly) question can be "clear" enough to have a debate over 250 posts in a rules forum and hasn't been FAQ'd by a single person.
Mostly because the devs and the forums have seen this thread 1,000,000 times already. It's our own esoteric meme we call the "Weekly Paladin Alignment Thread."
|
|
Mostly because the devs and the forums have seen this thread 1,000,000 times already. It's our own esoteric meme we call the "Weekly Paladin Alignment Thread."
If it's been asked and answered that many times, then clearly it needs to be FAQ'd or straight up printed in the book. However, I see your hyperbole and can only derive that it hasn't and thus questions such as this are still valid.
|
|
I mean really, the answer is so simple, it's painful just to ask the question. As can be seen by the wording in claudekennilol's original and follow-up posts. They veritably drip with incredulity. And they should.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? If by "dripping with incredulity" you mean with regards to having to ask the question then yes. It's clearly not defined well enough within the rules or else this topic would have been over and done with long ago. I couldn't even believe when it got to 50 posts let alone 250. The length of this discussion is proof enough that it's not defined enough. That being said, it's pretty obvious that RAI the answer is no.
It's clearly not defined well enough within the rules or else this topic would have been over and done with long ago. I couldn't even believe when it got to 50 posts let alone 250.
No, that's just proof that folks love debating alignments, paladins and real world morality.
It says nothing at all about the question. We have had rules questions answered on post 2, which went on for pages. We have had rules questions answered by the devs which went on for pages after the definitive answer was given.
People love to debate this stuff.
What does it mean to "worship" a god? Does that cause association? I felt it wasn't defined enough and needed a question.
p.s. I also don't understand how a simple (seemingly) question can be "clear" enough to have a debate over 250 posts in a rules forum and hasn't been FAQ'd by a single person.
In the days before Eberron the answer would have been so simple you need not ask your question.
Post-Eberron you have what we see here in this thread - one among too many to count.
B#&*~#%@. 2nd edition Hollow World campaign for Mystara has a Paladin who follows an evil deity, goes insane and tries to kill the party. And in that setting a Paladin's power had to come from their god.
B@+@@~+~. 2nd edition Hollow World campaign for Mystara has a Paladin who follows an evil deity, goes insane and tries to kill the party. And in that setting a Paladin's power had to come from their god.
The rules were BECMI, not 2nd edition AD&D. That is important because the BECMI rules lacked any discernable distinctions between "good" and "evil" clerics, so it was much easier for "evil" deities to fool followers who would never agree with their true portfolios.
The rules were BECMI, not 2nd edition AD&D. That is important because the BECMI rules lacked any discernable distinctions between "good" and "evil" clerics, so it was much easier for "evil" deities to fool followers who would never agree with their true portfolios.
<sigh> Ahhh the good ol days when there were only three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.
Actually I have never been a fan of alignment and tend to just houserule it out of my games.
Well, BECMI isn't the "good old days." Alignments have been around since day one Basic Set. Still, I agree about not being much of a fan of alignment. I've found that in the past, most attempts to describe them in the game have been very poor to say the least. "Right and Wrong", for example, seemed to elude those young writers. To date, Pathfinder has, in my opinion, done the best job at exploring good and evil, and law and chaos, though I still houserule law and chaos as personality traits and utterly pointless in the scheme of things.
The rules were BECMI, not 2nd edition AD&D. That is important because the BECMI rules lacked any discernable distinctions between "good" and "evil" clerics, so it was much easier for "evil" deities to fool followers who would never agree with their true portfolios.<sigh> Ahhh the good ol days when there were only three alignments, Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic.
Actually I have never been a fan of alignment and tend to just houserule it out of my games.
Personally, I find the law vs chaos side of things to be the more interesting and important part of alignment.
B@+@@~+~. 2nd edition Hollow World campaign for Mystara has a Paladin who follows an evil deity, goes insane and tries to kill the party. And in that setting a Paladin's power had to come from their god.The rules were BECMI, not 2nd edition AD&D. That is important because the BECMI rules lacked any discernable distinctions between "good" and "evil" clerics, so it was much easier for "evil" deities to fool followers who would never agree with their true portfolios.
I will have to dig it out of my parent's basement to check, but I'm pretty sure it is AD&D 2nd Edition. Either way, it doesn't matter. It completely throws the idea that this is somehow a new idea out the window.
To date, Pathfinder has, in my opinion, done the best job at exploring good and evil, and law and chaos, though I still houserule law and chaos as personality traits and utterly pointless in the scheme of things.Law and chaos as personality traits? I like that. It sounds easier or at least more intuitive.
Just read the page over at D20PFSRD (Linked again here) and it seems quite good to me.
Couldn't find anything to niggle with at first glance. :)
Not quite. It was Law vs Chaos from the Moorcock universe. Law was generally Good until taken to a extreme, etc.
This seems less like a rules question & more like an exercise in frustrating people.
Check out the article in Council of Thieves where it talks about Asmodeus having paladins that worship him.
Because it's not only non-canon, it's an admitted screw up on their part that they've gone on record as wishing had never seen print?
If you're going to hang your hat on that to try to do this, you're going to lose your hat.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why care if Paizo later walked it back as not being canon for Golarion? It provided an in-game rationale for paladins of an evil god. Probably not the one I would have gone with, but one that works with the rules. If the OP is looking for a precedent as to how this can be handled, rules-wise, it is a good place to start.Check out the article in Council of Thieves where it talks about Asmodeus having paladins that worship him.Do you understand what the Paizo Golem does to people who cite content that the developers repeatedly say is in Error? It's not a pretty sight. Hardboiled Chelaxian Hellknights go faint at the thought.
Because if you care about the rest of the stuff we create, then you should care about it when we admit we make mistakes?
And if you don't care about our preferences for how to present Golarion... I'm not sure why you're posting in the Campaign Setting forum...
|
This thread is still going because no one can agree on paladins. Even with strict RAW LG paladins of approved deities you get questions about whether killing a helpless prisoner (or certain kinds of monsters) is always evil, or whether ambushes are dishonourable.
And if you don't care about our preferences for how to present Golarion... I'm not sure why you're posting in the Campaign Setting forum...
Aren't we still in Rules?
The first part, yes. The second part, no. For rules questions the default assumption is that it's not specific to any setting, including Golarion.Considering that many of those in discussion, have been quoting Council of Thieves, passages about Chelaxian HellKnights, and mentioning yes that makes it a Golarion question.
Golarion IS the default world assumption for the game, just like Greyhawk was for D+D 3.0.
Doesn't mean Golarion is the end of the discussion. For example, in Golarion there are no philosophy clerics, but RAW allows for them.
I personally have been discussing Asmodeus and the Hellknights because it's a familiar example of LG and LE persons and deities working together with mutual respect. It's a very interesting part of Golarion and one that is relevant to the current discussion because it's easy to see how if pushed just a little bit beyond where official Golarion canon draws the line, it could lead to a (probably short-lived) paladin of a LE deity.
Personally, I cherry-pick the Golarion setting for delicious inspiration. There's a lot of good stuff in there and I borrow or adapt some of it for my settings, but PF is setting-neutral and my group has never played in something recognizable as "Golarion." And I expect that even many people who do run "Golarion" games make a few changes here and there to suit their tastes. So while the devs may have decided that the Asmodean paladin didn't fit the setting, some people liked the "mistake" and they can play with it as long as the table agrees.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules specifically state that any character whose choice of deity matters for anything found within the CRB or APG must be within 1 step step of their deity, with the notable exception of inquisitors, who specifically are allowed extra leniency because the services they provide for their church outweigh the general heresy involved in doing what they need to do. Even then, they are only permitted a diagonal step from their deity's alignment (i.e. LG to TN). It is reasonable to extrapolate that without that special exception, any character must be within one step of the alignment of the deity of their choosing, there just was no particular reason to call attention to it when the non-divine classes were first written.
Really though, class shouldn't enter into it. If your alignment isn't listed as TN, then there is some basic philosophical concept your character has very strong feelings about, which somewhat inherently puts them at odds with any deities of the opposing alignment. You don't necessarily hate them, but you sure as heck aren't going to worship them.
In this case for instance, Asmodeus is an evil deity. He and his worshippers do a bunch of evil things. Sacrificing innocent victims such that their souls will be sent to hell and eventually reshaped into devils for instance, and commanding those devils to do all the nasty things they do. If you are totally OK with that, let alone considering the god responsible to be someone so great they deserve your worship, there is no possible way you can honestly refer to your character as good.
The same applies with law vs. chaos. To truly call yourself a chaotic person, you need to have a pretty fundamental and active disrespect for bureaucracy and tradition and such. I can't really picture someone who really deserves that C on their sheet not thinking Erastil, Iomedae, and Abadar are big ol' squares with huge sticks up their butts. Similarly, if you're really properly lawful, it means you're the sort of character who lives their life in a very orderly, regimented fashion, and just plain can't respect those debauched drunks and hippies in the churches of Cayden Cailean, Calistria, and Desna.
If you're neutral, there's no in-built world view so strong you can't have enough flexibility to see both sides of things, so that's all well and good, but it restricts you from several classes, paladin included.
This thread is still going because no one can agree on paladins. Even with strict RAW LG paladins of approved deities you get questions about whether killing a helpless prisoner (or certain kinds of monsters) is always evil, or whether ambushes are dishonourable.
And if you don't care about our preferences for how to present Golarion... I'm not sure why you're posting in the Campaign Setting forum...Aren't we still in Rules?
Yes, what he means is that Golarion is the official assumption of the rules and if you are playing in a homebrew world why not post in the homebrew forum.
The first part, yes. The second part, no. For rules questions the default assumption is that it's not specific to any setting, including Golarion.Considering that many of those in discussion, have been quoting Council of Thieves, passages about Chelaxian HellKnights, and mentioning yes that makes it a Golarion question.
Golarion IS the default world assumption for the game, just like Greyhawk was for D+D 3.0.
Doesn't mean Golarion is the end of the discussion. For example, in Golarion there are no philosophy clerics, but RAW allows for them.
I personally have been discussing Asmodeus and the Hellknights because it's a familiar example of LG and LE persons and deities working together with mutual respect. It's a very interesting part of Golarion and one that is relevant to the current discussion because it's easy to see how if pushed just a little bit beyond where official Golarion canon draws the line, it could lead to a (probably short-lived) paladin of a LE deity.
Personally, I cherry-pick the Golarion setting for delicious inspiration. There's a lot of good stuff in there and I borrow or adapt some of it for my settings, but PF is setting-neutral and my group has never played in something recognizable as "Golarion." And I expect that even many people who do run "Golarion" games make a few changes here and there to suit their tastes. So while the devs may have decided that the Asmodean paladin didn't fit the setting, some people liked the "mistake" and they can play with it as long as the table agrees.
Yes, but when you cherry-pick the Golarion setting then you are making a homebrew version of the setting which isn't helpful to a rules discussion.
Virtually any discussion of the rules becomes impossible without a standard setting as a starting point because discussions would always be derailed by people giving reasons why in some possible world the rules as written wouldn't work or could reasonably work differently. Exactly what has happened in this thread.
Hm. Remember the US TV show "Have Gun, Will Travel"? What alignment was the lead character (Paladin) in that show?
The only reason Asmodeus *wouldn't* covertly or overtly sponsor orders of evil-smiting Paladins would be because A) he can't, or B) he's stupid.
I'd go with "can't", but what I can see is him empowering an order of chaos-smiting Hellknights to go bust some demon faces. (There is no Blood War in Golarion, but sooner or later Cheliax will have to do something about the Worldwound.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. no no no no no no no no no no NO.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NO THEY CANNOT.
Not in a boat, not with a goat
Not in a house, not with a mouse
Not in a box, not with a fox
They cannot, will not in a car!
the only non-good god a paladin can worship is a LN.
Even if we're going to argue I'm not a "Roleplayer" there is the simple face Evil worship (either of gods or ideals) equals NEGATIVE ENERGY.
Worshiping good things equals Positive energy.
Paladins have positive energy, therefore paladins cannot worship anything that is evil.
But but But butt Butt but but but but
What If What If What if What if
Why Why Why Why Why Why
|
|
Yes, what he means is that Golarion is the official assumption of the rules and if you are playing in a homebrew world why not post in the homebrew forum.And if you don't care about our preferences for how to present Golarion... I'm not sure why you're posting in the Campaign Setting forum...Aren't we still in Rules?
I think he meant the actual Campaign Setting forum. As far as I'm aware, the Homebrew forum is appropriate for discussing specific homebrew settings or setting aspects (“I have this homebrew deity/paladin's code, what do you think”) rather than discussing aspects of the game without a specific setting even if setting/table culture variance might be relevant (“Are ambushes dishonourable for a paladin”). If anyone playing in a homebrew setting, even an altered Golarion, always posted in the Homebrew forum it would be flooded.
Yes, but when you cherry-pick the Golarion setting then you are making a homebrew version of the setting which isn't helpful to a rules discussion.
Virtually any discussion of the rules becomes impossible without a standard setting as a starting point because discussions would always be derailed by people giving reasons why in some possible world the rules as written wouldn't work or could reasonably work differently. Exactly what has happened in this thread.
I would argue that discussions of the rules become impossible with a standard setting because the thread was largely derailed by people discussing whether the OP's question was possible in Golarion and whether that bit about Asmodean paladins was canon, while the relevant rules question would be what the meaning of the term “worship” is in terms of the rules (not defined outside PFS as far as I know) and what the intent of the “associations” clause was (which actually was an interesting part of the discussion).
Pretty much the only time the rules are influenced by setting is with respect to religion/worship and alignment, since those things do have mechanical effect but there's a lot of variation in how people want to handle it. There's also some rules elements that were introduced as pieces of “setting” but are frequently transplanted into a different setting, and work essentially the same way. For example, if Dervish Dance is introduced in a setting without Sarenrae it still mechanically works the same way and I can still advise someone it would be a good feat for their Dex magus.
That's one basic assumption I'd like to challenge. PF is not really setting neutral. It may be played in a variety of settings but the rules are clearly biased towards a set of assumptions that you are playing humanoid type characters who tend to be of the heroic nature in a world set up much like Golarion. It's more accurate to describe it as setting biased.
OK, so it assumes you're a two-armed, 3-9 foot tall corporeal character in a world where magic exists, there's some distinction between “divine magic” which is related to faith and other kinds of magic, technology lies somewhere between spears and revolvers, and morality is an objective force with physical effects (I'm not sure where you're getting that the rules assume PCs are on the “good” side of morality). That still covers quite a lot of setting ground – incuding as Zhayne pointed out worlds where deities are not proven to exist (since nothing mechanical about a divine caster's power changes if it springs from his own faith in something that doesn't exist), which is not what I'd consider "much like Golarion." EDIT: Or like by group's longest-running campaign world in which the particulars of the afterlife are not known, or a previous game in which we were in the afterlife.
|
|
The rules specifically state that any character whose choice of deity matters for anything found within the CRB or APG must be within 1 step step of their deity, with the notable exception of inquisitors, who specifically are allowed extra leniency because the services they provide for their church outweigh the general heresy involved in doing what they need to do. Even then, they are only permitted a diagonal step from their deity's alignment (i.e. LG to TN). It is reasonable to extrapolate that without that special exception, any character must be within one step of the alignment of the deity of their choosing, there just was no particular reason to call attention to it when the non-divine classes were first written.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. I know there's a PFS specific rule that any character with a deity must be within one step of the deity's alignment, but I don't think that's codified in the CRB or APG. Also, inquisitors are called out as following, not being an exception to, the one-step rule, despite the class claiming generally that they are above the normal rules of the church.
Alignment: An inquisitor’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis.
An Evil Deity cannot grant POSITIVE energy powers (ie most of his abilities and spells).
False otherwise any Cleric following an Evil Deity wouldn't be able to cast Cure spells.