|
This kind of behavior is exactly WHY the paladin class has such a bad rap in the first place; it grants the players who want to exert an undue level of control over the game the bludgeon required to allow it.
I disagree, it's not that the paladin class grants that ability, it's that the GM at the table is allowing this to happen. "Gun's don't kill people" as the saying goes.
People should be playing nice at the table.
|
Well, to be honest it sounds like your problems you've observed have been through overly-narrow interpretations of what is and what is not a code violation for a Paladin.
Once you (or the problem GMs you've observed) get past the notion that a paladin's code of conduct does not prohibit things like chicanery and subterfuge and cooperation with unpleasant allies, I think the problem resolves itself.
ive seen problem gms as well as players, all over the country. ive seen players use the code as an excuse to act the fool, and ive seen gms use the code to restrict player options. i don't think a good solution is to ignore the problem until it goes away, which is essentially what you are proposing. is there a way we can convey the society's intepretation of the code?
or better yet, how about a custom code of conduct for paladins in the society? there is already a precedent set for custom codes of conduct for paladins of different deities, and if i am not mistaken i believe the torag code was altered for society play. perhaps a code of conduct written for the society that society paladins are asked to adhere to would be in keeping both with regards to lore and create a reference point that pfs layers can all point to.
|
|
Casting it is not an evil act, but
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Linky
emphasis mine. If there's really only one "the code" in the game and it belongs to the dentine brigade. He really should avoid that unless its DIRE circumstances. (having to spend an extra 1.2 gold per point of healing is NOT dire circumstance)
well, you at least need to use bluff the second time...
The ruling we both linked goes on to call out infernal healing as an explicitly not evil act when used to heal. So, by all means, Mr Paladin, take the healing. It won't do anything to you or your code. heck, the Paladin could even UMD a wand or scroll of it on someone else without consequence.
This kind of behavior is exactly WHY the paladin class has such a bad rap in the first place; it grants the players who want to exert an undue level of control over the game the bludgeon required to allow it.
The don't be a bully rule obviously applies both ways. I'm not sure how I'm the guy saying it doesn't apply to paladins. I never said that, but yes, paladin's can't force other people around just like people can't force paladins into choosing between mission failure or loss of class abilities. No bullying either way. I think we can agree on that?
ive seen problem gms as well as players, all over the country. ive seen players use the code as an excuse to act the fool, and ive seen gms use the code to restrict player options. i don't think a good solution is to ignore the problem until it goes away, which is essentially what you are proposing. is there a way we can convey the society's intepretation of the code?
That is a problem based on the players and GMs, not on the class. That's the exact same problem as GMs allowing players with rogue PCs to steal from the party because "it's what my character would do".
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I'll have to tell several groups that they're doing something wrong. They each have Paladins and have absolutely no problems with them at all!
Your demnonstrated expertise proves that they MUST be doing something wrong even though they and I have completely missed on what it must be.
If you're going to make a set of assertions to alter a major aspect of the campaign. You need to follow up with DATA. Believe it or not, they're not going to scupper a class on your word alone.
I'm not sure what sort of DATA you would like to see. so how about some missions where honestly stating you are a pathfinder hurts your team:
scars of the 3rd crusade
bloodcove disguise
shadows last stand parts 1 & 2
red harvest
you have what you hold
cultist's kisshow a gm decides to rule whether a paladin breaks his code of honor by lying during this missions can vary pretty widely.
of course, if missions had tags such as "subterfuge" "heavy roleplay" "heavy combat" paladins could just avoid the subterfuge missions, and thus avoid creating some potential of party conflict.
I played scars of the third crusade, and while one of our two paladins did tell the truth, when it comes to the thing you mentioned, you narrowly succeeded in the scenario. Partly because I kinda split the party, Paladins in one group, the other guys in the other group (which had his own risk/reward ratio). We ended the scenario with full rewards, exactly because the paladins did a very good job, establishing a positive relationship with an NPC.
So TL/DR, they can be a challenge (and variant codes can be useful), but so can literally every other player, with morals that deviate from the ideal way to "win" the scenario. I see no need to remove them, as the problem players and GMs will find ways to cause problems in other ways.
|
since this page has mostly just been people telling me i am wrong and that their experiences somehow invalidate my own, i will just shift the argument myself.
hey guys, people have problems with paladins! what can be done to assuage the issues people have with them?
make the pfs actually good aligned, and no longer having missions of questionable morality. the upside here would be paladins get to always be in the right, which is what they want to be anyways. the downside of this solution is that it is boring and makes the story less interesting. people like subterfuge and morally grey objectives. the world has established paladins will work with fiends if it is for the sake of the whole. while i do not personally see any connection between what the society does as a neutral organization and the greater good, the silver crusade is trying to change that. mebbe they could win?
have tags for adventures. not knowing what sort of mission you are doing is probably the biggest reason paladins mess up the mission. why would the venture captains or whatever send a paladin on a mission where they will be doing evil rituals in order to infiltrate a cult? or on a mission to pretend to be aspis consortium? tagging adventures as "deadly", "social", "subterfuge" wouldn't take a ton of work to implement, and would allow players to know beforehand what kind of characters are expected. the downside of this is that in small groups where there aren't a lot of characters paladins cold be potentially excluded from games.
for a lot of people with multiple gm stars, i don't see a lot of problem solving going on here on the boards. at the table do you guys try to find ways to let the players do what they want? or do you just argue that they are wrong?
I haven't seen any problems with players having issues with Paladins.
I've seen:
-Problems with Witches
-Problems with Gunslingers
-Problems with Alchemists (
-Problems with Kitsune/Wayang/Nagakin/Teiflings/Aasimar/ect
You're throwing out YOUR outlook and experiences as concrete fact. It isn't anymore 'set in stone' than the four statements I just gave.
It's your outlook and opinion. I'm sorry you feel that Paladins are ruining the PFS experience for you. I fail how to see how they 'break' the game more than anything else that someone else says is 'badfeeling wrong'.
As one of a dozen or so GMs in the Jax region.. Paladins aren't even in our top TEN issues with play. Not even. That is my experience. My OPINION is that for the Jax area, Paladins are welcome to play just as long as they don't roll over everyone else and ruin the shared experience of the game for everyone.
|
|
The ruling we both linked goes on to call out infernal healing as an explicitly not evil act when used to heal. So, by all means, Mr Paladin, take the healing. It won't do anything to you or your code. heck, the Paladin could even UMD a wand or scroll of it on someone else without consequence.
It also calls it out explicitly as a code violation. Poison use isn't evil either but the paladin can't do it.
|
|
The ruling we both linked goes on to call out infernal healing as an explicitly not evil act when used to heal. So, by all means, Mr Paladin, take the healing. It won't do anything to you or your code. heck, the Paladin could even UMD a wand or scroll of it on someone else without consequence.It also calls it out explicitly as a code violation.
Uhhh.. no it doesn't?
Casting an evil spell is not an alignment infraction in and of itself, as long as it doesn't violate any codes, tenents of faith, or other such issues. Committing an evil act outside of casting the spell, such as using an evil spell to torture an innocent NPC for information or the like is an alignment infraction. For example: using infernal healing to heal party members is not an evil act.
So, infernal healing is not just implicitly but explicitly not an evil act. No evil acts or intentions are going on. In fact, healing one's allies is about as Paladinly as Paladinly comes. So what code, tenet of faith, or other such issue is factoring in?
|
|
Advice for Paladins who are told not to reveal they are Pathfinders, and are asked:
Keep your wits about you. You're a Pathfinder, and you have to weigh this up carefully. Have a quick response ready to change the subject and keep the context of the conversation going.
Good GMs will usually see what you're doing, and unless your party has really gone down to a point where the NPC absolutely, 100%, wants the answer, you should be able to talk the NPC into following your new line of conversation, and you can successfully not reveal who you are.
There's always a chance that you may have to break your VC's rule and reveal you are a Pathfinder during the mission, but dealing with consequences is part of the life you've chosen. Nobody said being the good was easy, and your reward is that more of the population generally know that they can take you at your word because of who you are (a paladin, not a Pathfinder).
Be aware there are steps you can take to balance that scale carefully to get your cake and eat it too.
|
|
Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Ex-Paladins
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). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
|
|
since this page has mostly just been people telling me i am wrong and that their experiences somehow invalidate my own, i will just shift the argument myself.
hey guys, people have problems with paladins! what can be done to assuage the issues people have with them?
make the pfs actually good aligned, and no longer having missions of questionable morality. the upside here would be paladins get to always be in the right, which is what they want to be anyways. the downside of this solution is that it is boring and makes the story less interesting. people like subterfuge and morally grey objectives. the world has established paladins will work with fiends if it is for the sake of the whole. while i do not personally see any connection between what the society does as a neutral organization and the greater good, the silver crusade is trying to change that. mebbe they could win?
have tags for adventures. not knowing what sort of mission you are doing is probably the biggest reason paladins mess up the mission. why would the venture captains or whatever send a paladin on a mission where they will be doing evil rituals in order to infiltrate a cult? or on a mission to pretend to be aspis consortium? tagging adventures as "deadly", "social", "subterfuge" wouldn't take a ton of work to implement, and would allow players to know beforehand what kind of characters are expected. the downside of this is that in small groups where there aren't a lot of characters paladins cold be potentially excluded from games.
for a lot of people with multiple gm stars, i don't see a lot of problem solving going on here on the boards. at the table do you guys try to find ways to let the players do what they want? or do you just argue that they are wrong?
I haven't seen any problems with players having issues with Paladins.
I've seen:
-Problems with Witches
-Problems with Gunslingers
-Problems with Alchemists (
-Problems with Kitsune/Wayang/Nagakin/Teiflings/Aasimar/ect...
as a VL, are you sure its best that your official stance is to ignore possible solutions to a problem because you have not observed the problem personally? if you have a problem GM do you wait for them to GM for you and tell players that their personal experience isn't as valid as your own?
i'm not saying your experiences aren't valid. if you have problems with those other classes i hope you try to find productive solutions on how to deal with them.
as far as my experiences being concrete fact, it is a concrete fact that i experienced them. most of the things i have talked about are the potential conflicts that are possible.
|
|
One example of honesty as a lawful good type in one of the scenarios in question
Scars of the Third Crusade:
Every word true. No one asked him any question that would force him to reveal anything troublesome. And when it came time to deal with a few annoyances. He beat them silly, then turned them over to the Sherrif for judgement. Only at the end when he was leaving the town did he reveal he was a pathfinder to a specific NPCS to drive home the consequences of judging folks by rumors.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of posts that suggest that your problems with paladins are avoidable or solveable. Much eaiser to address the local problems locally than to ban the class outright.
Also, they're all basically player conduct issues. Banning the paladin class won't solve the root cause of the problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advice for Paladins who are told not to reveal they are Pathfinders, and are asked:
Keep your wits about you. You're a Pathfinder, and you have to weigh this up carefully. Have a quick response ready to change the subject and keep the context of the conversation going.
Good GMs will usually see what you're doing, and unless your party has really gone down to a point where the NPC absolutely, 100%, wants the answer, you should be able to talk the NPC into following your new line of conversation, and you can successfully not reveal who you are.
There's always a chance that you may have to break your VC's rule and reveal you are a Pathfinder during the mission, but dealing with consequences is part of the life you've chosen. Nobody said being the good was easy, and your reward is that more of the population generally know that they can take you at your word because of who you are (a paladin, not a Pathfinder).
Be aware there are steps you can take to balance that scale carefully to get your cake and eat it too.
Contextual lie
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.
|
|
There are a number of posts that suggest that your problems with paladins are avoidable or solveable. Much eaiser to address the local problems locally than to ban the class outright.
ive had these problems at tables at gencon, in michigan, in seattle, in portland, and in north dakota. solving locally would be problematic. hence this post. hence me asking the society at large for solutions.
|
|
as a VL, are you sure its best that your official stance is to ignore possible solutions to a problem because you have not observed the problem personally? if you have a problem GM do you wait for them to GM for you and tell players that their personal experience isn't as valid as your own?i'm not saying your experiences aren't valid. if you have problems with those other classes i hope you try to find productive solutions on how to deal with them.
as far as my experiences being concrete fact, it is a concrete fact that i experienced them. most of the things i have talked about are the potential conflicts that are possible.
I'm saying as a VL, GM, Player and someone who games and chats with folks all over the world that I don't see an issue with the Paladin as a class period.
Have I had problem players who played Paladins. yes. Some of that was a clash of play styles. Some of them were mistakes that had to be hashed out.
But I've had issues with folks who play summoner a, barbarians, inquisitors and darn near every class in any book. Sometimes the player is wrong sometimes the GM/me is wrong.
Is the Paladin intrinsically 'bad' for PFS play. I don't think so. I think entire last season's storyline validates their membership in the society and offered players who enjoy them an awesome outlet to role play in
I'm sorry you've had so many bad players using the class. For me it's been Ninja. I don't hold players actions against the class though.
|
|
Also, they're all basically player conduct issues. Banning the paladin class won't solve the root cause of the problem.
they are player conduct issues brought on by the class. if undead lords were allowed, they would certainly cause problems and interpersonal conflicts due to player conduct. in fact if i am not mistaken that is precisely why they are not allowed. from a game mechanics standpoint they potentially allow players act in ways that are counter to the group goals. paladins do this as well, and the solutions provided by most of the posts are to ignore it and hope for better players/gms.
|
|
I think I'm about done here.
My parting advice: focus on the meat and potatoes of the code. "Act with Honor". The rest of the code, as described in the CRB, is a rough guidline of what it means to 'act with honor'. Rough guideline. We're in PFS, where the true GMs work at Paizo and we're all nothing more than deputized 'lesser GMs' without the power to change the rules. Like, namely, what is and is not a paladin code violation.
So don't quibble over the garnish.. that's the rest of the code beyond "be Lawful Good" and "act with honor". Does "don't lie" mean never ever lie under any circumstances.. or is it never lie without undue reason? Tish tosh. Is the Paladin acting with honor? Yes? No? That's it. Don't go down into the weeds beyond that unless you're in a home game where you're free to define what exactly is and is not a violation of a code.
|
|
That's certainly not reflected in the title of the topic. Like I said earlier, the more flexible you are with the code of conduct, the easier it will be to have the paladin at the table. The situations you describe seem to be self inflected difficulties from very strict application of the rules.
Your analogy with undead lord is invalid because Animate Dead is still legal. People use that and the world still turns.
Could it be that not worrying about how other people play their characters would solve this?
|
|
as a VL, are you sure its best that your official stance is to ignore possible solutions to a problem because you have not observed the problem personally? if you have a problem GM do you wait for them to GM for you and tell players that their personal experience isn't as valid as your own?i'm not saying your experiences aren't valid. if you have problems with those other classes i hope you try to find productive solutions on how to deal with them.
as far as my experiences being concrete fact, it is a concrete fact that i experienced them. most of the things i have talked about are the potential conflicts that are possible.
I'm saying as a VL, GM, Player and someone who games and chats with folks all over the world that I don't see an issue with the Paladin as a class period.
Have I had problem players who played Paladins. yes. Some of that was a clash of play styles. Some of them were mistakes that had to be hashed out.
But I've had issues with folks who play summoner a, barbarians, inquisitors and darn near every class in any book. Sometimes the player is wrong sometimes the GM/me is wrong.
Is the Paladin intrinsically 'bad' for PFS play. I don't think so. I think entire last season's storyline validates their membership in the society and offered players who enjoy them an awesome outlet to role play in
I'm sorry you've had so many bad players using the class. For me it's been Ninja. I don't hold players actions against the class though.
were people playing the classes you had problems with using their class as an excuse to do what they were doing? or just using roleplay excuses? saying a character does an action because "thats what the character would do" is different for paladins and non-paladins. paladins are potentially punished for not roleplaying correctly, whereas other classes rarely have such restrictions. i have played with plenty of characters whose actions would seem bizarre for an average member of their class, and unlike paladins they were never questioned as to why. if you fail to see the difference here i don't know what else i can say.
It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?
|
|
It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?
if said person was playing a class whose class restrictions required them to be a murderhobo or lose their class abilities, i would argue that they should be banned as well. and i bet you would argue for the ban of murderhoboes as well
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's certainly not reflected in the title of the topic. Like I said earlier, the more flexible you are with the code of conduct, the easier it will be to have the paladin at the table. The situations you describe seem to be self inflected difficulties from very strict application of the rules.
Your analogy with undead lord is invalid because Animate Dead is still legal. People use that and the world still turns.
Could it be that not worrying about how other people play their characters would solve this?
yes, if we allow paladins to ignore their code of conduct for society, it completely solves this
|
|
I think, like deusvult, that I stated my opinion clearly enough. The Paladin class is not a fault with the issues you stated. I think that you've had bad experiences with PLAYERS. Who just happened to be playing Paladins.
I'm sorry you haven't had some of the awesome role players who haven't used the class to mug you. Nothing was more fun than to sneer at the Pali in Wardstone patrol in the voice of theBBE and tell him I took his measure and found it wanting before running away. The player said it made it all the more real for it.
And like deusvult, I think I'm done in this thread since I've said my piece.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
and the solutions provided by most of the posts are to ignore it and hope for better players/gms.
Interesting that you can repeatedly read "you need to address their bad behavior" and consistently mistake it for "ignore it and hope for better". Is "ignore it and hope" how you usually address bad behavior?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes, if we allow paladins to ignore their code of conduct for society, it completely solves thisThat's certainly not reflected in the title of the topic. Like I said earlier, the more flexible you are with the code of conduct, the easier it will be to have the paladin at the table. The situations you describe seem to be self inflected difficulties from very strict application of the rules.
Your analogy with undead lord is invalid because Animate Dead is still legal. People use that and the world still turns.
Could it be that not worrying about how other people play their characters would solve this?
I guess I'm not done, long enough just to point this out.
Just pointing out that reasoning is a logical fallacy. Specifically the False Choice.
There is indeed at least one choice you're ignoring: that players and Gms stop insisting that their own personal view of what the code allows applies to anyone else's paladin.
And for seriously. Now I'm out.
|
|
yes, if we allow paladins to ignore their code of conduct for society, it completely solves thisThat's certainly not reflected in the title of the topic. Like I said earlier, the more flexible you are with the code of conduct, the easier it will be to have the paladin at the table. The situations you describe seem to be self inflected difficulties from very strict application of the rules.
Your analogy with undead lord is invalid because Animate Dead is still legal. People use that and the world still turns.
Could it be that not worrying about how other people play their characters would solve this?
Ah, right, because we need monolithic black and white solutions to all problems. No way to handle this in a simple, sensible fashion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the "ban the paladin" thought is pretty much a non-starter, one issue that is raised does merit discussion. The Pathfinder Society is the campaign we are playing, yet there are no guidelines whatsoever in character creation. There are meta-rules like "no evil" and "no options that are a pain in the butt for Organized Play", but there is nothing that tells me what my pathfinder should have afte those three years of training.
When the campaign resets (and it will need to, one day), I hope either there is a template for Pathfinders that include their minimum skills, etc. OR Society membership becomes an option.
It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?if said person was playing a class whose class restrictions required them to be a murderhobo or lose their class abilities, i would argue that they should be banned as well. and i bet you would argue for the ban of murderhoboes as well
Are you against paladins or fall mechanics? I've played plenty of good characters that were not paladins but had no less convictions than paladins.
|
|
i keep seeing people say that bad players have used paladins as a crutch for bad things, and that it isn't the classes fault, but i don't see a game mechanics difference between this argument and the argument against evil characters.
keep in mind, i am not trying to argue evil characters are a thing to be allowed, i am just stating that the arguments against them are just as valid as those against paladins.
|
|
Are you against paladins or fall mechanics? I've played plenty of good characters that were not paladins but had no less convictions than paladins.It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?if said person was playing a class whose class restrictions required them to be a murderhobo or lose their class abilities, i would argue that they should be banned as well. and i bet you would argue for the ban of murderhoboes as well
fall mechanics. definitely just fall mechanics. players roleplaying characters with strong convictions makes for interesting games, because we know that they can possibly be convinced without making their characters potentially unplayable. they aren't mechanically punished for changing their minds.
obviously paladins can have their minds changed as well, but the threat of mechanical punishment changes all such interactions.
Sometimes I think people really really WANT paladins to be lawful stupid just so they force situations into conflict.
It really isn't about game mechanics, it is about whatever personal agenda a player or GM has.
Some folks emotionally need the world to fit their personal stereotyping.
I've played a rogue that wasn't a "thief". I explained my backstory, but yet one of the other players insisted that his character would never trust my "lying thief". I explained, out of game, the backstory, motivations, etc. It didn't matter because what he really wanted was to have his character to be able to self-righteously pick on mine in-game. (He was playing a wizard, by the way)
|
|
Yeah that's about the gyst of what I'm saying. It's been made more difficult than it needs to be. But I did provide some advice that you seem to have not read. It might actually help.
Your complaint may be valid but is it the class itself or how you've seen the fall mechanics executed? It seems that the paladins you've been running have been too strict to be practical for some scenarios.
Are you against paladins or fall mechanics? I've played plenty of good characters that were not paladins but had no less convictions than paladins.It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?if said person was playing a class whose class restrictions required them to be a murderhobo or lose their class abilities, i would argue that they should be banned as well. and i bet you would argue for the ban of murderhoboes as wellfall mechanics. definitely just fall mechanics. players roleplaying characters with strong convictions makes for interesting games, because we know that they can possibly be convinced without making their characters potentially unplayable. they aren't mechanically punished for changing their minds.
obviously paladins can have their minds changed as well, but the threat of mechanical punishment changes all such interactions.
So should we ban paladins, clerics, druids, cavaliers, and barbarians?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i keep seeing people say that bad players have used paladins as a crutch for bad things, and that it isn't the classes fault, but i don't see a game mechanics difference between this argument and the argument against evil characters.
The difference is that with paladins, you have to either be wrong about how the class works or be intentionally disruptive in order for it to be a problem; whereas with evil PCs, the simple act of playing a genuinely evil PC (or similar banned options) can cause issues all on its own.
|
|
Uhhh.. no it doesn't?
Yes. It does. While theres no need to be lawful stupid about it, the code in alignment do impose some actual limits.
So, infernal healing is not just implicitly but explicitly not an evil act.
Your logic there requires that only evil acts are code violations. This is not the case. Poison use is not evil, paladins can't do it.
No evil acts or intentions are going on. In fact, healing one's allies is about as Paladinly as Paladinly comes. So what code, tenet of faith, or other such issue is factoring in?
Don't use evil. What code violations do you think he was talking about?
|
|
i keep seeing people say that bad players have used paladins as a crutch for bad things, and that it isn't the classes fault, but i don't see a game mechanics difference between this argument and the argument against evil characters.The difference is that with paladins, you have to either be wrong about how the class works or be intentionally disruptive in order for it to be a problem; whereas with evil PCs, the simple act of playing a genuinely evil PC (or similar banned options) can cause issues all on its own.
in game mechanics they work out to the same conclusion.
1: a player is roleplaying a person whose personal code forbids actions that may be acceptable to group at large.2: said person's class benefits are tied to how they roleplay.
this can lead to the party bending to the will of said player or, the player bending to the will of the party and being willfully ignorant and/or losing said class abilities.
if said game mechanics were not present, i would not have a problem with them. as it is now, i have seen them be disruptive, and allow disruptive players to act in a way that browbeats other players and gms into allowing it because their characters are "required" to act in a strict way.
|
|
Contextual lie
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here?
Are you elaborating on what I was saying, or are you saying it's not kosher because it's still effectively lying?
|
|
So should we ban paladins, clerics, druids, cavaliers, and barbarians?Are you against paladins or fall mechanics? I've played plenty of good characters that were not paladins but had no less convictions than paladins.It seems your argument relies on the paladin being the odd man out. What if the table was mostly good characters with one murder hobo? Should whatever class that person is playing be banned?if said person was playing a class whose class restrictions required them to be a murderhobo or lose their class abilities, i would argue that they should be banned as well. and i bet you would argue for the ban of murderhoboes as wellfall mechanics. definitely just fall mechanics. players roleplaying characters with strong convictions makes for interesting games, because we know that they can possibly be convinced without making their characters potentially unplayable. they aren't mechanically punished for changing their minds.
obviously paladins can have their minds changed as well, but the threat of mechanical punishment changes all such interactions.
a lot of a cavalier orders are restricted based on their roleplay requirements. those that aren't are much more morally flexible than the paladin code.
a lot of cleric deity choices are banned because of roleplay requirements. as for the rest i am unaware of any strict codes for their behavior. i know they shouldn't go against their deity's wishes, but that is a lot more up in the air than the paladin code which is much more clearly laid out.if pfs had a lot of missions where we were burning down forests, dumping chemicals, slaughtering wild animals i could see potential conflicts with druids and the society. as it is their main conflict seems to be with extremists such as paladins.
i am hard pressed to figure out examples of where barbarians (or monks) would be put in situations where they have the potential to break their moral code as frequently as paladins are put in such situations.
|
|
Contextual lie
One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," using sarcasm, a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here?
Are you elaborating on what I was saying, or are you saying it's not kosher because it's still effectively lying?
yeh im sorry, we had a rolling brownout and part of the post went missing. yes, i feel that technically it would still not be kosher as it is still lying. i have heard other gms use this argument as well, and have seen it discussed in threads on the boards.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) that you don't like good characters, but you're okay with them if they can be browbeaten into giving up their convictions. However the paladins are harder to browbeat because there are actual in game repercussions for them betraying their character concept.
Your argument seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) that you don't like good characters, but you're okay with them if they can be browbeaten into giving up their convictions. However the paladins are harder to browbeat because there are actual in game repercussions for them betraying their character concept.
Well mark one barbarian he wouldn't get along with either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me) that you don't like good characters, but you're okay with them if they can be browbeaten into giving up their convictions. However the paladins are harder to browbeat because there are actual in game repercussions for them betraying their character concept.Actually i'd say the problem is that many paladins don't have a character concept. Just some 2 dimensional idea with no depth.
>:(