An argument for why paladins should be banned


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
For most of them I feel like I've been clear that just ignoring it or blaming the player is not a good solution.

Even when it IS the player or GM's fault?

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Can we at least acknowledge that the code can be interpreted in different ways? And that depending on how strictly it is interpreted, it can lead to bad games? And that it is good for the society as a while to remove things that lead to bad games more often than good ones?

I'm not going to speak for anybody else, but this is exactly what I've been saying the entire time. You are experiencing problems because your group is interpreting it too strictly. And that of course is leading to a bad experience.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
I'm not saying people shouldn't roleplay being lawful good, but I fail to see how having the code of conduct enhances society play more often than detracts from it. People seem to find ways around it more often than not, at best it seems to be an unnecessary hindrance

If you feel that way then LG is probably not a good alignment to choose from for RP purposes. And that's ok. I personally don't often choose to make those characters, because the morally ambiguous ones are more interesting to me. But again, it's not a problem with role playing a lawful good alignment, it's a problem with being too strict about what being lawful good means, and being unreasonably difficult in playing with that alignment and those rules.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
For most of them I feel like I've been clear that just ignoring it or blaming the player is not a good solution.
Even when it IS the player or GM's fault?

is it the player or gms fault that they interpret something differently than other people? and that doing so makes the game slow down needlessly?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"GM fiat is pretty much what allows paladins to be played at all"

I personally think the paladin's code is total headache so in MY home games, variants of other alignments would be permitted. So you see talking about home brew is futile.

Talking about PFS is also futile, as there is 0% chance that paladins will ever be banned. As for an "excuse" to join the Society, the Society runs into all kinds of things to smite!

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Can we at least acknowledge that the code can be interpreted in different ways? And that depending on how strictly it is interpreted, it can lead to bad games? And that it is good for the society as a while to remove things that lead to bad games more often than good ones?

I'm not going to speak for anybody else, but this is exactly what I've been saying the entire time. You are experiencing problems because your group is interpreting it too strictly. And that of course is leading to a bad experience.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
I'm not saying people shouldn't roleplay being lawful good, but I fail to see how having the code of conduct enhances society play more often than detracts from it. People seem to find ways around it more often than not, at best it seems to be an unnecessary hindrance
If you feel that way then LG is probably not a good alignment to choose from for RP purposes. And that's ok. I personally don't often choose to make those characters, because the morally ambiguous ones are more interesting to me. But again, it's not a problem with role playing a lawful good alignment, it's a problem with being too strict about what being lawful good means, and being unreasonably difficult in playing with that alignment and those rules.

and maybe you haven't read the posts where i am saying this is not just a local problem, and that i've seen it happen throughout the states.

4/5

The problem is players thinking the paladin code is a suitable a replacement for an actual personality and GMs that see it as an opportunity to play 'gotcha'. In the case of he former, I see the same problem with Rogues: "I'm a Rogue, so I have to try to steal anything that isn't nailed down." I refer to that as Chaotic Stupid.

For the GMs, it's a matter of understanding that the code is supposed to help tell stories, not ruin them. That's not to say they should ignore it when it becomes inconvenient, but that they should work with the player in finding creative solutions.


Hangman Henry IX wrote:


Premise: An option is banned only if it conflicts with the nature or goals of the campaign.
Premise: Paladins conflict with the nature or goals of the campaign.
Conclusion: Paladins should be banned.

-------------------------------

Reasoning:
Premise #1:
we "start" with everything allowed.

Premise #2:
I am aware of many aspects of the campaign with which paladins conflict.
...

since the day that 3.0 comes out, there was a broken thing;

All classes for all races, and all stats for all, all classes level up at the same xp ammount... that kind of diversity and "option" only can crush the game that it is.

There´s a point where´s freedom becomes debauchery.
and for "fredom" at least with all of those 1000+ feats, we just can´t do nothing with our imagination, because you need a feat for it.

then, you don´t need to bane the paladin, instead, bane the whole 3.X factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I wanna run and jump across my enemy´s back, to reach the lever and trap the other enemy who is escaping..."

DM/GM/ "you need overun, bull rush, nimble charge, acrobatic check, also, you provoke AoO, then make a attack and a CMD vs CMB check, and because youre a level one, you can´t have all of that"

"you know what? i drop that idea and hit my enemy in front of me, have a 14 did I hit him?" ¬¬

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd edition versio:
"I wanna run and jump across my enemy´s back, to reach the lever and trap the other enemy who is escaping..."

"ok roll a d% you have a 30% of succeed"

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
and maybe you haven't read the posts where i am saying this is not just a local problem, and that i've seen it happen throughout the states.

Ok. How does this invalidate the solutions that have been provided? Can you not work with that GM, ask that they not waste time being overly strict with the paladin codes, or allow you to use one of the codes in ISG?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Juda de Kerioth wrote:

2nd edition versio:

"I wanna run and jump across my enemy´s back, to reach the lever and trap the other enemy who is escaping..."

"ok roll a d% you have a 30% of succeed"

Ah, good ol' Mother May I gameplay.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
For most of them I feel like I've been clear that just ignoring it or blaming the player is not a good solution.
Even when it IS the player or GM's fault?
is it the player or gms fault that they interpret something differently than other people? and that doing so makes the game slow down needlessly?

That's an occupational hazard. if it's not the Paladin's code, it'll be something else, such as over size two-handed weapons, any of a bajillion spell descriptions or both, which I find argued about a LOT more than Paladin codes, based on my PFS table experience instead of the distorted proportions of messageboard discussion.

If you want to eliminate rules arguments, you'll have to switch this game to my Hit Me! Hit Your Back! system.

Silver Crusade

"M/GM/ "you need overun, bull rush, nimble charge, acrobatic check, also, you provoke AoO, then make a attack and a CMD vs CMB check, and because youre a level one, you can´t have all of that""

You can try it without the feats. Nothing is stopping you. It's just in one system, you will have a systematically determined chance of success, and the other you will have GM fiat. I myself have had enough GM fiat to last a lifetime. If everything is going to be GM fiat, I'll go read a book written by a professional storyteller. Thanks.

Silver Crusade

redward wrote:

The problem is players thinking the paladin code is a suitable a replacement for an actual personality and GMs that see it as an opportunity to play 'gotcha'. In the case of he former, I see the same problem with Rogues: "I'm a Rogue, so I have to try to steal anything that isn't nailed down." I refer to that as Chaotic Stupid.

For the GMs, it's a matter of understanding that the code is supposed to help tell stories, not ruin them. That's not to say they should ignore it when it becomes inconvenient, but that they should work with the player in finding creative solutions.

Pathfinder really should bring back the old holy liberator. And have them headquartered in Andoran and be the archrivals to the hellknights. Problem fixed.

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
and maybe you haven't read the posts where i am saying this is not just a local problem, and that i've seen it happen throughout the states.
Ok. How does this invalidate the solutions that have been provided? Can you not work with that GM, ask that they not waste time being overly strict with the paladin codes, or allow you to use one of the codes in ISG?

no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time. i observed gms and other paladins having problems, and have been told by other players and gms about such problems. telling me to go talk to all of them is not a viable solution.

i do think the ISG codes are great, and should be used instead of the base paladin code. maybe if the pfs intro book included them so that people could play them without having to own that book i would feel like this problem has been addressed.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Hangman, I think you're going to have to accept that your arguments aren't cutting it. Taking away a large part of a lot of peoples characters for everyone would hurt the game a lot more than making a few groups who can't seem to handle a paladin argue about the paladin rather than whatever they'd be arguing about if it weren't the paladin.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming in late. My personal code of conduct actually forbids me from participating in threads with the word "paladin" in the title, but I failed my Will save, so I fell.

Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
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.

The entire thread in a nutshell, right there in the bolded text. That sums up every single paladin code debate in the history of the game, going back to 1st edition AD&D.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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.

I'm still waiting for Hangman Henry to correct him, because this really does seem to be true to me. If it isn't, then Henry needs to speak up.

I have a lawful good cleric of Sarenrae who other players don't like me playing sometimes, because I won't let people kill prisoners or turn down a surrender offer from enemies. Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption, so I'll always let enemies have a chance to be redeemed. My first paladin character, on the other hand, is an Oath of Vengence "smite them all" type who figures that anyone who starts a fight against the good guys has already made their choice and doesn't deserve redemption, so I don't stabilize fallen foes or prevent my allies from killing them with that paladin. My second paladin is kindler and gentler than that, so more like the cleric.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
yeh i guess it just seems to me that there are players who will use the threat of loss of class mechanics in order to browbeat other players. i don't think it is good to put tools like that in players' hands.

Those tools aren't in the players' hands. Anyone who thinks they are is in the "wrong about how the class works" category. A paladin doesn't fall if they work with someone who violates their code. The Core Rulebook even explicitly states that they can work with evil for the greater good. So why wouldn't they be allowed to work with my chaotic good prankster bard gnome (in the Silver Crusade!) who lies a lot? Or a cleric of Asmodeus, as in the group I GMed on Monday, where the Asmodean hated the devout Cayden Cailean worshiper more than he hated the group's paladin. At least the paladin is lawful.

And yes, the Pathfinder Society can be seen as the greater good. It's a neutral organization technically, but leaning towards good. Many good people, including paladins, intentionally join just to help aim the organization towards doing more good. That's the entire mission of the Silver Crusade, after all. So even if you're just on a truly neutral "go retrieve this artifact" mission, succeeding in the mission is ALWAYS considered to be "for the greater good", and allows a paladin to work with less honorable people to do so.

Plus, there's the fact that paladins take oaths pretty seriously, and every paladin in the Society presumably swore to "Explore, Report, Cooperate", so they need to obey that "cooperate" party.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
My issue with the standard paladin code is that it is the one that most frequently comes into conflict with the missions given to pathfinder agents. They are sent in missions where if they do what they are told they break their code (by lying)

I have never seen a PFS mission where every member of the team is required to lie. There are quite a few where you're told not to let anyone know you're Pathfinders. There are one or two where one member of the group has to lie, while the others stand around watching it happen. But the paladin is never specifically ordered to lie. Once again, they're allowed to work with others who don't follow the same code as themselves, as long as it's for the greater good.

I've actually played with paladins at the table in 3 of the scenarios you mentioned earlier where you thought they'd cause problems, and there were never any issues. And for the record, my favorite answer to the "Are you a Pathfinder?" question, when you're supposed to be undercover, is "He does the talking, I'm just the muscle", and point to the bard with the maxed out bluff skill.

TL;DR: It's not that people are trying to water down or ignore the paladin's code, as you say in many of your posts. It's that the code isn't nearly as restrictive as you seem to think it is, and never was.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hangman, I think you're going to have to accept that your arguments aren't cutting it. Taking away a large part of a lot of peoples characters for everyone would hurt the game a lot more than making a few groups who can't seem to handle a paladin argue about the paladin rather than whatever they'd be arguing about if it weren't the paladin.

This. There is no dispute that there are players and GMs who have problems dealing with the Paladin class. What you fail to prove is that the problem is so widespread and deeply fealt that invalidating all of the players WHO DO SUCCEED with their Paladins, would be less damaging than implementing the draconian change you propose.

5/5 5/55/55/5

There was one scenario where you were required to swear an oath to an evil goddess, the Paladin did in amazing job getting through it with heaping affection upon "my Lady"

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

But you can! This is part of what it means to play a cooperative game. If you politely indicate to the GM that you feel that they're being too difficult with their applications of the rules, and that it is becoming disruptive. That might get them to be a little more willing to compromise.

It might help to remind the GM that creative solutions are encouraged in the Guide to PFS Organized Play, and they should be receptive to valid interpretations of the paladin code that make the mission workable for the paladin.

Quote:
i observed gms and other paladins having problems, and have been told by other players and gms about such problems. telling me to go talk to all of them is not a viable solution.

Also, nobody is expecting you to solve this problem globally or for other people. It needs to be handled on a case by case basis, like pretty much every single rule argument that comes up at the table. If people tell you they are having this problem, give them some advice on how to handle it. That's about all you can do.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hangman, I don't think anybody is asking you to personally solve this with all of the problem players and problem GMs you've encountered. Just when it comes up in the future.

IMO, paladin codes occasionally present a challenge to be solved through creativity and gameplay, just like pretty much everything else in PFS. I've seen it play out in really bizarre and interesting ways that made the game more fun, not less fun. I don't buy the argument that we should just ban the challenge instead of facing it. We are supposed to be heroes, after all.


David Bowles wrote:

"M/GM/ "you need overun, bull rush, nimble charge, acrobatic check, also, you provoke AoO, then make a attack and a CMD vs CMB check, and because youre a level one, you can´t have all of that""

You can try it without the feats. Nothing is stopping you. It's just in one system, you will have a systematically determined chance of success, and the other you will have GM fiat. I myself have had enough GM fiat to last a lifetime. If everything is going to be GM fiat, I'll go read a book written by a professional storyteller. Thanks.

So, what are you waiting for?

you already do that, if you are using AP´s or Modules, there was made by a "pro", and you just can´t do what you want to, actualy, you are doing what you learn to, is not the same.

Mechanics vs Imagination and character concept. That´s the question.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Juda de Kerioth wrote:

Mechanics vs Imagination and character concept. That´s the question.

I don't think you understood his answer. He still gets to do what he wants. He just has actual rules to base his actions off of, rather than relying entirely on the GM to decide how likely it will be to succeed.

Check out this discussion about 'Rules vs Rulings'.

The Exchange

Fromper wrote:

Coming in late. My personal code of conduct actually forbids me from participating in threads with the word "paladin" in the title, but I failed my Will save, so I fell.

Jiggy wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
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.

The entire thread in a nutshell, right there in the bolded text. That sums up every single paladin code debate in the history of the game, going back to 1st edition AD&D.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
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.

I'm still waiting for Hangman Henry to correct him, because this really does seem to be true to me. If it isn't, then Henry needs to speak up.

I have a lawful good cleric of Sarenrae who other players don't like me playing sometimes, because I won't let people kill prisoners or turn down a surrender offer from enemies. Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption, so I'll always let enemies have a chance to be redeemed. My first paladin character, on the other hand, is an Oath of Vengence "smite them all" type who figures that anyone who starts a fight against the good guys has already made their choice and doesn't deserve redemption, so I don't stabilize fallen foes or prevent my allies from killing them with that paladin. My second...

so we've been having the debate about the paladin code since 1st edition, and it is still in the game why? it obviously has caused a lot of drama over the last 30 or so years, mebbe a game where we want to introduce new players shouldn't include it because it doesn't actually enhance gameplay.

i didn't respond to the barb about me not liking LG because i felt it was obvious that is not the case.

is the society working for the greater good? i have never seen that mentioned anywhere. don't they account for a huge portion of the smuggling market? im pretty sure they are neither a lawful or good organization, and the excuse of being an evangelist only goes so far. if you play paladins that delude themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place by working alongside priests of evil gods in order to gather up old relics and put them in a vault, thats your own business.

cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given. the code does not allow lying under any circumstances. a lot of people seem to think the second part of it where it says they can work alongside evil people in furtherance of the greater good makes it so they can also be dishonorable and lie. most reasonable people will accept that the code as written is ridiculous, and just handwave the whole thing.

but just because most people are reasonable and ignore bad rules doesn't excuse leaving the bad rules in the game.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

You appear to have severe personal issues.

Correcting those is beyond the scope of this forum.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given.

No, I did not.

The Exchange

Artanthos wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

You appear to have severe personal issues.

Correcting those is beyond the scope of this forum.

i can't go back in time and tell gms and players how to deal with paladins in a better way and this is a personal issue? maybe i am not understanding what sort of personal issues you think i have?

The Exchange

Kurik Grandhelm wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given.
No, I did not.

and thats great that your gm let you play the game instead of sticking to the rules. is this the solution we should apply to other aspects of the game we don't like?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Hangman wrote:
is the society working for the greater good? i have never seen that mentioned anywhere.

As mentioned already

Using the society for good is the entire point of the silver crusade. They succeed a lot.

The society has helped defeat world ending threats twice in the last two years.

even getting to random archeological sites for some reason, seems to involve killing an awful lot of undead things that need to be redeadified.

The society has held onto artifacts of immense dark power for 400 years and hasn't used them yet and has the highest levels of security around. It probably makes them as qualfied a group as any to turn them over to for safe keeping.

Grand Lodge

Kurik Grandhelm wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given.
No, I did not.

Nor did I.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
and thats great that your gm let you play the game instead of sticking to the rules.

I stuck to the rules.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hangman wrote:
is the society working for the greater good? i have never seen that mentioned anywhere.

As mentioned already

Using the society for good is the entire point of the silver crusade. They succeed a lot.

The society has helped defeat world ending threats twice in the last two years.

even getting to random archeological sites for some reason, seems to involve killing an awful lot of undead things that need to be redeadified.

The society has held onto artifacts of immense dark power for 400 years and hasn't used them yet and has the highest levels of security around. It probably makes them as qualfied a group as any to turn them over to for safe keeping.

this is the best argument i've seen yet against me.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Henry, if there have been problems wherever you go, and in many different states, with many different people, maybe you should look at what the constant factors are. Sure, paladins were played at those tables, but there are many players right here saying that we have not experienced problems like you are describing. What other factor was constant at all of those tables, I wonder?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Kurik Grandhelm wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given.
No, I did not.
and thats great that your gm let you play the game instead of sticking to the rules. is this the solution we should apply to other aspects of the game we don't like?

There's observing the rules and then there is following them blindly like a card programmed textile machine. The problem is that you can't see the distinction between the two.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Kurik Grandhelm wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given.
No, I did not.
and thats great that your gm let you play the game instead of sticking to the rules. is this the solution we should apply to other aspects of the game we don't like?

we had 4 of 7 characters get through without lying.

Spoiler:

The aformentioned paladin heaped praises upon "My lady"
My NG druid snuck through the smoke stack in batform and opened the doors for...
The cleric and sorcerer to come running in from the outside

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

You appear to have severe personal issues.

Correcting those is beyond the scope of this forum.

i can't go back in time and tell gms and players how to deal with paladins in a better way and this is a personal issue? maybe i am not understanding what sort of personal issues you think i have?

What he's saying is that an unwillingness to work with the GMs and players at the table when you have these problems is something we cannot help you with.

The Exchange Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Austin aka countchocula

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

Isn't this the point of society play other than to have fun something that you are trying to take away from people

The Exchange

The Fox wrote:
Henry, if there have been problems wherever you go, and in many different states, with many different people, maybe you should look at what the constant factors are. Sure, paladins were played at those tables, but there are many players right here saying that we have not experienced problems like you are describing. What other factor was constant at all of those tables, I wonder?

its me! im the factor thats the same, thanks for pointing that out. weird that people have said that it has happened at other games where i wasn't involved. i must've influenced them somehow. weird that the paladins code of conduct has cuased a lot of debates over the years. im pretty active i guess!

im glad that you have never heard of or seen this problem occur. but just because all the people on the boards chiming in say it doesn't happen doesn't make it so.

i hope you live somewhere that rules lawyering never happens. honestly, i do, i think it is terrible for the game, and one of the biggest causes for people to not join. i just don't see why we leave in aspects for the rules lawyers to argue over that do not actually add to the game. paladins can have a self-imposed code of conduct and still be played the same. just lose the one in the rules and the problem is fixed.

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.

You appear to have severe personal issues.

Correcting those is beyond the scope of this forum.

i can't go back in time and tell gms and players how to deal with paladins in a better way and this is a personal issue? maybe i am not understanding what sort of personal issues you think i have?
What he's saying is that an unwillingness to work with the GMs and players at the table when you have these problems is something we cannot help you with.

i have tried to when i can? i am not unwilling to work with said people, i just don't know their names or how to get in contact with them? i can't stop people from having rules debates in the past? i don't know what you want from me here.

The Exchange

countchocula wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
no i cannot work with gms or players i have only met once and for a short time.
Isn't this the point of society play other than to have fun something that you are trying to take away from people

i was saying i don't know them, i cant go find them and work out the problem.

Silver Crusade

I haven't played Cultist's Kiss, so I can't speak to that situation.

I have played Severing Ties with a paladin at the table. Since it's part of the opening mission briefing, I don't consider it a spoiler to say that the Pathfinder team is ordered to pretend to be Aspis agents in that adventure. My sorcerer pathological liar with the highest bluff skill in the group was chosen up front to be the group's spokesman, and the paladin just had to follow us around and keep his mouth shut. It really wasn't an issue.

Similarly, in Scars of the Third Crusade, the party paladin had no problem hiding the fact that we're Pathfinders, at least until he decided to reveal himself to a specific NPC. Avoiding that topic of conversation isn't that difficult, even in that adventure where the whole town is talking about Pathfinders.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:

so we've been having the debate about the paladin code since 1st edition, and it is still in the game why? it obviously has caused a lot of drama over the last 30 or so years, mebbe a game where we want to introduce new players shouldn't include it because it doesn't actually enhance gameplay.

i didn't respond to the barb about me not liking LG because i felt it was obvious that is not the case.

We've been having the debate since 1st edition because lots of people don't seem to like the "knight in shining armor" trope and go out of their way to try and find ways to poke holes in it. For those who do like playing those types of characters, they do enhance gameplay, which is why it's still in the game.

And no, it's not obvious that don't have a problem with LG characters. I really believe that's what this entire thread is about. You really seem to only like lawful characters if they "compromise" and act non-lawful sometimes, which paladins aren't supposed to do.

The Exchange

Fromper wrote:

I haven't played Cultist's Kiss, so I can't speak to that situation.

I have played Severing Ties with a paladin at the table. Since it's part of the opening mission briefing, I don't consider it a spoiler to say that the Pathfinder team is ordered to pretend to be Aspis agents in that adventure. My sorcerer pathological liar with the highest bluff skill in the group was chosen up front to be the group's spokesman, and the paladin just had to follow us around and keep his mouth shut. It really wasn't an issue.

Similarly, in Scars of the Third Crusade, the party paladin had no problem hiding the fact that we're Pathfinders, at least until he decided to reveal himself to a specific NPC. Avoiding that topic of conversation isn't that difficult, even in that adventure where the whole town is talking about Pathfinders.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:

so we've been having the debate about the paladin code since 1st edition, and it is still in the game why? it obviously has caused a lot of drama over the last 30 or so years, mebbe a game where we want to introduce new players shouldn't include it because it doesn't actually enhance gameplay.

i didn't respond to the barb about me not liking LG because i felt it was obvious that is not the case.

We've been having the debate since 1st edition because lots of people don't seem to like the "knight in shining armor" trope and go out of their way to try and find ways to poke holes in it. For those who do like playing those types of characters, they do enhance gameplay, which is why it's still in the game.

And no, it's not obvious that don't have a problem with LG characters. I really believe that's what this entire thread is about. You really seem to only like lawful characters if they "compromise" and act non-lawful sometimes, which paladins aren't supposed to do.

i thought it was obvious because i am posting from my level 12 paladin. i guess people don't look at other peoples' profiles as much as i do.

the knight in shining armor trope is fine, but why is there a rules mechanic for punishing them depending on how they ropleplay? it just seems like a holdover from older versions that is not really necessary.

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
so we've been having the debate about the paladin code since 1st edition, and it is still in the game why? it obviously has caused a lot of drama over the last 30 or so years, mebbe a game where we want to introduce new players shouldn't include it because it doesn't actually enhance gameplay.

Because most of the time people find a way to work with the rules.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
is the society working for the greater good? i have never seen that mentioned anywhere. don't they account for a huge portion of the smuggling market? im pretty sure they are neither a lawful or good organization, and the excuse of being an evangelist only goes so far. if you play paladins that delude themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place by working alongside priests of evil gods in order to gather up old relics and put them in a vault, thats your own business.

What's your character's reason for joining the society? Just because the society is a neutral organization does not mean you have to be. There are subdivisions of the society that do work for the greater good, and the society is often involved in "save the world" types of missions (such as the Cult of Lissala arc and World Wound arc).

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given. the code does not allow lying under any circumstances.

The code of Torag, which your paladin worships, does allow misleading for a greater purpose.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
a lot of people seem to think the second part of it where it says they can work alongside evil people in furtherance of the greater good makes it so they can also be dishonorable and lie.

That's not what's being said. Please reread the thread. Thanks.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
most reasonable people will accept that the code as written is ridiculous, and just handwave the whole thing. but just because most people are reasonable and ignore bad rules doesn't excuse leaving the bad rules in the game.

No, most reasonable people will accept that overly strict readings of the paladin code lead to conflict at the table, and will try to make the paladin codes work with the scenario.

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
so we've been having the debate about the paladin code since 1st edition, and it is still in the game why? it obviously has caused a lot of drama over the last 30 or so years, mebbe a game where we want to introduce new players shouldn't include it because it doesn't actually enhance gameplay.

Because most of the time people find a way to work with the rules.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
is the society working for the greater good? i have never seen that mentioned anywhere. don't they account for a huge portion of the smuggling market? im pretty sure they are neither a lawful or good organization, and the excuse of being an evangelist only goes so far. if you play paladins that delude themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place by working alongside priests of evil gods in order to gather up old relics and put them in a vault, thats your own business.

What's your character's reason for joining the society? Just because the society is a neutral organization does not mean you have to be. There are subdivisions of the society that do work for the greater good, and the society is often involved in "save the world" types of missions (such as the Cult of Lissala arc and World Wound arc).

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
cultist's kiss, every character must lie, as per the mission given. the code does not allow lying under any circumstances.

The code of Torag, which your paladin worships, does allow misleading for a greater purpose.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
a lot of people seem to think the second part of it where it says they can work alongside evil people in furtherance of the greater good makes it so they can also be dishonorable and lie.

That's not what's being said. Please reread the thread. Thanks.

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
most reasonable people will accept that the code as written is ridiculous, and just handwave the whole thing. but just because most people are reasonable and ignore bad rules doesn't
...

what is the difference between me saying it is poorly written and you saying that people just don't interpret it too strictly?

Sovereign Court

Because you're just complaining and not making indication of a willingness to try and solve your problems while we're trying to offer a solution.

Also, what you're really saying is that "It's ambiguous and people are very strict with it." And what we're saying is "It's ambiguous, don't be too strict with it."

Immovable object meets unstoppable force?

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I've browsed the general thread now, and determined that this is, in fact, no Modest Proposal. Which, by itself, makes me weep and go back to pointing out just how Ban-Happy people are getting. Stop it.

Now, paladins CAN have a difficult time in PFS. There are some missions which just sorta screw them over or vice versa. A particular Paladin playing a particular Gen Con special comes to mind. But this is not a thing for banning. Paladins have greater challenge potentially, to themselves and to their parties. Perhaps the VCs should stop asking us to do illegal things, or nigh-evil things.

Still, this thread would have been better started as a thread asking for suggestions (both on the Player and GM side) of how to live up to one's code while dealing with the circumstances the society puts their members into, rather than a sensationalist thread title/topic.

As for how to handle it... that's the responsibility of both GM and player, if not the scenario author's. There is a mutual adult responsibility to be as true to RP difficulties as possible WITHOUT screwing over the entire party to an extent that things become impossible (or nearly impossible, depending) to succeed at. The goal of a game is to have fun. The goal of a roleplaying game is to have fun by playing a role. Thus, roles should be used to increase challenge as well as entertainment, but the eventual goal of all should be to have fun. No game should be about winning or losing (those are just elements added to increase challenge and thus fun), a cooperative storytelling game such as Pathfinder least of all.

Shadow Lodge

Out of curiosity, where exactly is this notion of a paladin swearing an oath to the Society coming from?

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Because you're just complaining and not making indication of a willingness to try and solve your problems while we're trying to offer a solution.

what was your solution again?

The Exchange

DM Beckett wrote:
Out of curiosity, where exactly is this notion of a paladin swearing an oath to the Society coming from?

it seemed like a good workaround. we already have alternate oaths from ISG, why not a pfs oath?

Sovereign Court

Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Because you're just complaining and not making indication of a willingness to try and solve your problems while we're trying to offer a solution.
what was your solution again?

To read the replies to your own topic.

3/5

Hangman Henry IX wrote:


what is the difference between me saying it is poorly written and you saying that people just don't interpret it too strictly?

Perhaps he is suggesting that the code makes sense in its context of defining a Paladin (though perhaps not as a successful game element), and one that is great for home games where campaigns can be reshaped on the fly. The fact that this is PFS, however, and we lack a lot of that leeway is what's causing some of the issue. Thus the "Don't be a Jerk" rule kicks in, and the onus falls on the interpretation at that point.

The Exchange

Acedio wrote:
Hangman Henry IX wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Because you're just complaining and not making indication of a willingness to try and solve your problems while we're trying to offer a solution.
what was your solution again?
To read the replies to your own topic.

ok ive read them. now what? obviously i am not reading them the way you intend them to be read, would you be kind enough to lay it out for me?

(this might come across as aggressive, i realize, but it is not, genuinely confused by a lot of what you are saying)

201 to 250 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / An argument for why paladins should be banned All Messageboards