|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously a paladin of sarenrae would put god above taldor. Of course it would beg the question of why would a lawful paladin of sarenrae travel to a country like taldor where he knows his beliefs are illegal? This isn't a situation of going behind the enemy lines to rescue people from the clutches of evil.
I personally would never play a paladin of sarenrae in Taldor because it's hard to justify breaking taldan laws for no good reason to me.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae worship is illegal in Taldor, because Sarenrae is allied with Qadira, the nation that attacked Taldor and sent it into decline. Also, these particular worshippers of Sarenrae are not even Taldoran people who happen to like the goddess -- they are actually, at least in one case (Pasha's sister), Qadirans who are secretly within the borders of Taldor to further this illegal behavior.
So they are not only lawbreakers, but they may actually be insurgents/infiltrators/some other word that describes that.
And they are not only lawbreakers and insurgents, but they are running an illegal smuggling ring, and the main goal of the mission is to help them escape punishment and cover up evidence of illegal activity.
Now, you may not cause a paladin to fall for helping with all of that in your games, but I absolutely, 100%, every single time, will force paladins to fall for doing that mission.
This is why I am asking for alternatives. And again, "don't make them fall, let them do it" is unacceptable to me. This is why I'm exploring other options.
The Underground Railroad was also illegal in the South, but it was the right thing to do... There is a difference between legal and lawful, legal and the right thing to do... Everything the nazis did was within the letter of the law, but it was institutional evil and immoral. Sometimes to do the right thing requires one to ignore an unjust law. You don't have to feel comfortable about stepping outside the law but in the end the paladin's patron will understand.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Sarenrae worship is illegal in Taldor, because Sarenrae is allied with Qadira, the nation that attacked Taldor and sent it into decline. Also, these particular worshippers of Sarenrae are not even Taldoran people who happen to like the goddess -- they are actually, at least in one case (Pasha's sister), Qadirans who are secretly within the borders of Taldor to further this illegal behavior.
Let's be a bit more specific about this, shall we?
With the majority of Taldor’s poor entrenched in combat against Qadira for generations and the decadent royalty and senatorial classes delving deeper into perversion and excess, the Church of Aroden moved its center to Cheliax, signaling the end of the empire once and for all. Generations later, in 4528 ar, Grand Prince Stavian I outlawed the Cult of the Dawnflower in the Great Purge, convincing the populace that Sarenrae’s followers opened the door for the Qadiran military and guided them on their marches through southern Taldor. In a matter of months, every temple to Sarenrae was either burned or torn down and the Dawnflower’s clerics and followers murdered or expelled.
SARENRAE UNDER SIEGE
As retribution for the Qadiran occupation of Taldor during the Grand Campaign, Grand Prince Stavian I targeted one aspect of Qadiran society for retribution: the Cult of the Dawnflower. With Sarenrae’s traditional
ethnicity recognized as Keleshite and her faith strongly rooted in Qadira, she became an easy target for an emperor struggling to unite a nation. Stavian I made worshiping Sarenrae illegal in Taldor, destroying all of her temples and places of worship in the Great Purge of 4528 ar and uniting most of Taldan society against Sarenrae’s followers by propagandizing them as treasonous spies. Never ones to back away from the challenge of evil, the Cult of the Dawnflower pushed slowly back into Taldor, setting up underground temples and rural places of worship to help heal the rift between the two countries.In practice, modern Taldor can barely keep control of its expansive frontier, and the worship of Sarenrae is far more public outside the larger cities of Cassomir, Oppara, or Zimar. In those three cities (especially militaristic, Qadira-hating Zimar), the Cult of the Dawnflower is still reviled, and her clerics and followers are beaten, expelled, or even killed. As such, the clerics of Sarenrae in Taldor
have created new spells of their faith in order to deal with the unique challenges presented by the Taldan Empire.
So basically, several generations back the king for cynical and political reasons banned the worship of a good deity. Causing widespread murder in the process. Does that really sound like "legitimate authority"?
---
In addition, Paizo has largely retconned the ban on Sarenrae worship. If you consult Inner Sea Gods, the latest word on gods in Golarion, the only thing you'll find about Sarenrae and Taldor is that she's a popular goddess there. The ban isn't mentioned; neither is it mentioned in Gods and Magic.
EDIT: nor will you find any mention of it in the Inner Sea World Guide.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any room in a paladin's code for an honest difference of opinion? Is there any opportunity for innocent error? I'd like to think so.
A paladin strives for the goals of good: purity (as Pathfinder calls it) and fights against the call of evil (or corruption). The paladin's choice for tools in this struggle is law, and a paladin constrains herself with a common set of prohibitions: she shall not lie, she shall not use poison, etc.
That goal, that choice of tools, and that code still leave an awfully broad set of options.
Incidentally, Chalfon Dalsine is a known quantity. He's a disgraced Pathfinder, cousin to the Taldor-faction leader, and one of the richest and most powerful nobles in Taldor. Any decent Knowledge (local) roll should reveal that he's serious bad news, and likely corrupt -- although perhaps not the details of his alliance with faceless stalkers. Opposing him and his self-serving crusade against the Sarenrae cultists, and the Society itself, should be reasonable for any paladin.
"Dalsine Affair" is a particularly difficult adventure to use: not because the party is doing something evil, or "chaotic", but rather because the scenario is such a railroad. I've run it several times, and note:
1) the Venture Captain is ridiculously panicked at the beginning of the scenario. The Porthmus militia force outside the shop only wants to bring him in for questioning, and he's willing to go. If the PCs attempt any negotiation with the captain of the militia (not a Diplomacy check, just questions like "What do you want?") they can defuse the situation. Likewise with enchantment spells. Or, if they think to cast silence before attacking, they can disable the militia without any alarm being called. In either case, the entire "get to the sewers and find the Vault of Sarenrae" mission is deflected or at least made less than urgent.
2) On their way to the Vault of Sarenrae, the cultists themselves open the door to the possibility that there's a traitor in their midst. It's perfectly reasonable for a PC paladin to scan each cultist for the taint of evil. Sincere worshippers of Sarenrae cannot radiate as evil. But the leader of the cultists in the Vault is a powerful Chaotic Evil monster, without access to any detection-baffling magic, and would stand revealed.
3) The PC's have access to the body of Pasha Al-Jakri’s sister, Khismia, who died less than 24 hours previously. By the time they're 6th- or 7th level, characters might have access to raise dead. If Khismia is raised, a very reasonable action for any Qadira-leaning PC since that faction mission requires Khismia kept safe, the scenario goes off the rails again. Pasha's motivation for turning against the Society evaporates.
In such an adventure, the GM feels a need to keep the storyline going, despite any resources the party might bring to bear, despite any misgivings the players might have, and despite any qualms paladin PCs might feel regarding the choices thrust upon the situation.
(Honestly, as a GM, I would have an easier time giving a paladin grief over the theft of legitimately seized contraband goods that Muesello was smuggling, out of greed than anything involving the Dawnflower cultists.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I will never, ever play a paladin in PFS. As much as I enjoy playing them, the threat of some GM with odd views on the class ruining the game for me is far too high.
It's rarer than it seems. I don't know of any such incidents in our area at all.
|
Everything the nazis did was within the letter of the law, but it was institutional evil and immoral.
[Pedantic mode]This is a common belief but it is actually incorrect. A great many Nazi actions were against the law. But they controlled the legal system and so were functionally above the law[/pedantic mode]
|
|
This is why I will never, ever play a paladin in PFS. As much as I enjoy playing them, the threat of some GM with odd views on the class ruining the game for me is far too high.It's rarer than it seems. I don't know of any such incidents in our area at all.
And if the OP had caused paladins to fall and/or charged them for an atonement it would very likely have been overturned by the local VOs. As this thread shows, there is near universal consensus that the OP was way out of line.
Not to mention the fact that it is likely that some local authority will probably be having a chat with the OP with a view to making sure it doesn't happen again
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm baffled the OP came to ask advice to GM discussion and outright dismisses all advice given. Why come ask for an opinion, if one disregards it anyway? Or maybe the OP was here to seek reassurance, IDK.
OR, are there any other good options you can think of (aside from "let paladins help the smugglers, and justify it somehow so that they don't fall")? I'm open to just about anything else.
This practically meant the OP was committed on making the paladins fall and asked what method to tell this was correct. I must admit I'm a little amused by the second sentence.
So to answer the proposed question, I'd go with the OP's proposed answer #1, with a note about the strict view of the paladin's code.
Disclaimer: I personally loathe the alignment system, and couldn't care less about alignment infractions (so I'm guilty of being too lenient about them). I trust the players to make their paladins abide their codes, especially since different deities enforce different sets of codes.
|
|
Where does it say that paladins fall for committing illegal acts? In CRB it say that if a paladin willfully commits and evil act etc.
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.
The legitimate authorities have, oddly enough, been quite clear in their wish not to have random groups of itinerant adventurers beating said authorities in the head. I do not believe that "respecting" the authorites merely means saying "sir" as you gleefully hack off their heads. It means working within the system that they've set up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ the OP:
I can appreciate you wanting to make choices mean something, and for characters to reap the rewards or consequences of their choices. I can also appreciate you wanting to make sure this applies to the Paladin--a class that can be very powerful, especially if dipped into for a couple levels.
In a home game, as the GM, you get to dictate what the alignments mean, an what the Paladin's code means. With your strict interpretation, without knowing your style of adventure writing, I may never choose to play a Paladin in your home game. That doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate you as a GM in general, I just might not enjoy your overly strict interpretation of what it means to be a Paladin. But that's ok. As a GM in a home game that's your choice. And as a player in your game, it would be my choice to play just about any other option you made available.
But in organized play, a GM must remain open minded to other interpretations. Sure, you want to make sure that some strictness remains. You can't let a Paladin do things willy nilly. But you certainly do not have the right to completely discount the interpretations of other people.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm baffled the OP came to ask advice to GM discussion and outright dismisses all advice given. Why come ask for an opinion, if one disregards it anyway? Or maybe the OP was here to seek reassurance, IDK.
I'm not baffled. He obviously wanted people to agree with him. When they didn't he got defensive and ignored any and all advice. I'm glad I don't go to cons or gamedays anymore so I can avoid this kind of thing.
|
|
Where does it say that paladins fall for committing illegal acts? In CRB it say that if a paladin willfully commits and evil act etc.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.
The legitimate authorities have, oddly enough, been quite clear in their wish not to have random groups of itinerant adventurers beating said authorities in the head. I do not believe that "respecting" the authorites merely means saying "sir" as you gleefully hack off their heads. It means working within the system that they've set up.
Yes I am aware of this but where does it say that a paladin will fall if they break the law? I can only find the part that talks about evil. I'm not saying it's easy to be a paladin as a member of PFS, but I can see how a paladin is able to undertake said mission and not fall.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not baffled. He obviously wanted people to agree with him. When they didn't he got defensive and ignored any and all advice. I'm glad I don't go to cons or gamedays anymore so I can avoid this kind of thing.I'm baffled the OP came to ask advice to GM discussion and outright dismisses all advice given. Why come ask for an opinion, if one disregards it anyway? Or maybe the OP was here to seek reassurance, IDK.
What I have never quite figured out is why so many GMs, when you put a Paladin at the table, suddenly feel it is far more important for them to demonstrate their personal sense of moral righteousness than it is to do a good job as a GM.
|
@ Topic Starter
This: "Due to a massive freak-out online when I asked about paladins in this module, I must spoil a tiny part of the game, sorry. Paladins must fall in this scenario, or lose prestige by refusing part of the mission. The mission involves aiding smugglers and hiding evidence of an illegal cult as well (and hiding the smuggling-tax-evasion documents, too, which isn't even a noble cause)! This violates the code about helping people 'provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends.' Unfortunately, they totally use the aid for chaotic ends. So, still want to play?"
forced your players into mixing out of game and in game character knowledge. There is a number of things that paladins can do to fix their code of conduct and deity doesn't strip them of powers ASAP otherwise there would be no paladins at all.
If you wish to strip paladins of their powers, do so after they actually break their code, after scenario.
You were unfair toward them, but maybe this topic will at least move you toward right direction. I did also plenty of mistakes when I started GMing and if I could, I would change them now.
Adam
|
|
This is why I will never, ever play a paladin in PFS. As much as I enjoy playing them, the threat of some GM with odd views on the class ruining the game for me is far too high.
While I can't speak for everyone, the OP of this thread is generally the exception for the community, not the norm.
I'm gonna go level a paladin of Shelyn who is a member of the Sovereign Court.
This is why I will never, ever play a paladin in PFS. As much as I enjoy playing them, the threat of some GM with odd views on the class ruining the game for me is far too high.In my experience more GMs in PFS are too lenient than too harsh.
This too. I am of mindset when I have a paladin at the table, I want to know their deity. That sets the basis of dogma and portfolio of how a paladin adheres to her ethics and code of honor. This standard does set up for a possibility of being more chaotic than lawful, but can still be considered lawful based on how closely tied in a character is to their dogma.
It bugs me a little to say it, but WotC was wise to drop the lawful requirement from the paladin class from 4e and onward. It completely circumvents issues like this which only serve to divide its player base.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Dalsine Affair" is a particularly difficult adventure to use: not because the party is doing something evil, or "chaotic", but rather because the scenario is such a railroad.
Well, it was my first scenario after all ...
Well, sure, and it served several different masters: showcasing the magus class, and advancing the Shadow Lodge storyline in a non-negotiable way. But that means that the PCs can't tamper with certain plot elements with which they would like to interact. My point was, that it seems worse for a GM to strip a paladin of her powers because she followed a plot that was not the player's choice, than for a GM to do so because of choices she made.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just re-read the code. Way it is worded, if the help provided by a paladin to those in need would be used for evil or chaotic ends he is not required to give it.
Which is not the same thing as saying he is forbidden to give it (what the OP inferred).
The paladin could refuse to help if said help was used for evil or chaotic ends and that would not break the code per se.
He could also accept to help and that would not be breaking the code either.
|
|
What I have never quite figured out is why so many GMs, when you put a Paladin at the table, suddenly feel it is far more important for them to demonstrate their personal sense of moral righteousness than it is to do a good job as a GM.
In fairness, it IS part of our job to police alignments in general and clerics/paladins/druids etc in particular. The Guide explicitly tells us that.
As I said up thread, PFS works ONLY if we are very forgiving in that policing. But there are some violations so egregious that the GM absolutely IS expected to intervene.
To be explicit, I think that this particular case isn't even close to the line where the GM should intervene. But that line DOES exist and I HAVE seen it crossed.
|
|
What I have never quite figured out is why so many GMs, when you put a Paladin at the table, suddenly feel it is far more important for them to demonstrate their personal sense of moral righteousness than it is to do a good job as a GM.
In fairness, it IS part of our job to police alignments in general and clerics/paladins/druids etc in particular. The Guide explicitly tells us that.
As I said up thread, PFS works ONLY if we are very forgiving in that policing. But there are some violations so egregious that the GM absolutely IS expected to intervene.
To be explicit, I think that this particular case isn't even close to the line where the GM should intervene. But that line DOES exist and I HAVE seen it crossed.
Not exactly my point. Policing alignments is part of the job of a GM but it is only part. And in most cases, it is a part that is seldom seen. But put a Paladin at the table and suddenly some GMs go from having morality policing a minor aspect of their job to being the most important part of their job. More important than being fair, more important than being reasonable and more important than everyone having fun.
|
|
Not exactly my point. Policing alignments is part of the job of a GM but it is only part. And in most cases, it is a part that is seldom seen. But put a Paladin at the table and suddenly some GMs go from having morality policing a minor aspect of their job to being the most important part of their job. More important than being fair, more important than being reasonable and more important than everyone having fun.
The Paladins have a morality based balancing system. That requires GM's to pay more attention to morality issues.
It would be unfair to the other players at the table if a GM doesn't hold a Paladin to the Paladin code, otherwise the Paladin player is getting to enjoy all the bonuses of the class without the penalties.
It would be akin to treating a clouded oracles long range vision the same as every other players at the table.
I see more Paladin players treat their code like it doesn't exist then I've seen GM's warn Paladin player's about breaking their code or policing their actions. In fact with some of the Paladins I've seen I wish GM's would care more about Paladin's code of honor. I've found that Paladin's class tends to draw some of the more disruptive power gamers then any other Pathfinder class. (I loathe the Int 5 - 8 Paladin whose Player's claims that the character is too stupid to realize it's breaking it's code.)
But that's what I've seen in my region. I imagine that like most things that rely on play style or morality type issues the opinion will vary based on the region and the player base.
|
|
I once had a Paladin of Iomedae play through Scars of the Third Crusade. It was fun watching him squirm a little dealing with an Inquisitor of Iomedae accusing him of apostasy for aiding a heretical organization like the Pathfinders.
He did just fine but I did get some guilty pleasure putting him in the hot seat. End of the story, it's a roleplaying element built into a roleplaying game. Have fun.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Under the OPs strict interpretation of the code, no worshipper of Sarenrae could set foot in Taldor without being "bad" and "chaotic". The paladin would (presumably) have to prevent any characters who worshipped Sarenrae from entering Taldor's borders.
Monks have to be lawful, and "non-lawful" or "chaotic" is worse for them than it is for paladins. So you would have to warn any monks in the party that they can't participate in this mission either.
And, technically, you should have to ask all the characters what their alignments were and force them into the same moral choices as you do the paladins. Most players would consider it a cool opportunity to role play their characters.
I can count on one hand the times a GM asked a character's alignment at table. Apparently, only paladins have alignments.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly my point. Policing alignments is part of the job of a GM but it is only part. And in most cases, it is a part that is seldom seen. But put a Paladin at the table and suddenly some GMs go from having morality policing a minor aspect of their job to being the most important part of their job. More important than being fair, more important than being reasonable and more important than everyone having fun.The Paladins have a morality based balancing system. That requires GM's to pay more attention to morality issues.
Please point out to me the section in the rules where is specifies that a paladins code is meant to be a role-playing disadvantage to balance out the mechanical advantages of a paladin. This is an assumption not in evidence. This is especially true when you consider the most people feel that straight casters, who have no such role-playing restrictions, are the most powerful classes in the game. That's not to say that paladins don't have role-playing restrictions. Just to say that the notion that the role-playing restrictions are meant to balance mechanical advantages is a fallacy.
It would be unfair to the other players at the table if a GM doesn't hold a Paladin to the Paladin code, otherwise the Paladin player is getting to enjoy all the bonuses of the class without the penalties.
But again, you miss the point. It isn't about enforcing the paladin code. It is about enforcing the paladin code to the exclusion of all else. Enforcing the paladin code should never be the most important element in a GM's decision.
But you do bring up something that may demonstrate part of the problem, i.e GM's so focused on demonstrating being fair to the other players that they are willing to treat the paladin player like a jackass in order to demonstrate that fairness.
It would be akin to treating a clouded oracles long range vision the same as every other players at the table.
And here is another part of the problem. The clouded oracles disadvantage is a clearly spelled out, objective mechanical disadvantage. That paladin's code, on the other hand, is highly subjective. Both in whether or not is it supposed to be a disadvantage in the first place and just how much of a disadvantage it is supposed to be.
I've found that Paladin's class tends to draw some of the more disruptive power gamers then any other Pathfinder class.
To a certain degree this makes sense. Because Paladins can be the target of highly subjective punitive actions on the part of the GM that no other class is subject to, only the players with enough confidence in their rights as players (i.e. a willingness to stand up again overly tyrannical GMs) are willing to even try playing a paladin. Players with no willingness to be disruptive would avoid paladins simply because of the potential for player/GM conflict. So if the GMs in your area are trying to demonstrate to the non-disruptive players that it is okay to play a paladin by erring on the side of leniency when it comes to the paladin code, I am not sure that is really a bad thing. Certainly that seems better to me than scaring otherwise perfectly good players away from playing paladins by erring on the side of strictness.
|
|
Under the OPs strict interpretation of the code, no worshipper of Sarenrae could set foot in Taldor without being "bad" and "chaotic". The paladin would (presumably) have to prevent any characters who worshipped Sarenrae from entering Taldor's borders.
Monks have to be lawful, and "non-lawful" or "chaotic" is worse for them than it is for paladins. So you would have to warn any monks in the party that they can't participate in this mission either.
And, technically, you should have to ask all the characters what their alignments were and force them into the same moral choices as you do the paladins. Most players would consider it a cool opportunity to role play their characters.
I can count on one hand the times a GM asked a character's alignment at table. Apparently, only paladins have alignments.
Except a monk has to have their alignment changed in order to lose monk power. Same as a Barbarian or other classes that need to stay an alignment. Alignment changes are not suppose to happen after one act, unless it's extreme. A monk doing a chaotic act is the same as any other play doing an evil act. One small one won't changed a characters alignment.
A paladin's code is different. A Paladin can stay Lawful Good and still lose their powers. It's far more strict.
Since it is more strict, it should be treated that way. So you're right a good GM's shouldn't treat Monk's like a Paladin.
Morality isn't just for Paladin's either, just this past Friday I had to warn a Ninja about an evil act.
|
|
That's not to say that paladins don't have role-playing restrictions. Just to say that the notion that the role-playing restrictions are meant to balance mechanical advantages is a fallacy.
If you don't think Roleplay Restrictions that are more severe then "retain this alignment" aren't a balancing factor then nothing I'm going to say will sway you.
I see the Code of Conduct and the rules on Associates to be balancing factor's my opinion are based on that. If you don't then we'll never find common ground.
To each their own.
|
|
That's not to say that paladins don't have role-playing restrictions. Just to say that the notion that the role-playing restrictions are meant to balance mechanical advantages is a fallacy.If you don't think Roleplay Restrictions that are more severe then "retain this alignment" aren't a balancing factor then nothing I'm going to say will sway you.
I see the Code of Conduct and the rules on Associates to be balancing factor's my opinion are based on that. If you don't then we'll never find common ground.
To each their own.
I am willing to acknowledge that others feel it is supposed to be a balancing factor even if it doesn't actually state that it is. But the fact that it doesn't expressly state it is a disadvantage, and more importantly, doesn't expressly state how much of a disadvantage it is supposed to be, means that GMs need to err on the side of leniency. The class was meant by the designers to be a playable class. And by the PFS staff to be a PFS playable class. If you are ruling in such a manner as to effectively make the class unplayable, then clearly you are doing something wrong.
|
|
I am willing to acknowledge that others feel it is supposed to be a balancing factor even if it doesn't actually state that it is. But the fact that it doesn't expressly state it is a disadvantage, and more importantly, doesn't expressly state how much of a disadvantage it is supposed to be, means that GMs need to err on the side of leniency. The class was meant by the designers to be a playable class. And by the PFS staff to be a PFS playable class. If you are ruling in such a manner as to effectively make the class unplayable, then clearly you are doing something wrong.
I don't think enforcing the Paladin's Code make's Paladin's unplayable. Requiring them to not lie, not do evil, not act in a dishonorable fashion doesn't in any way shape or from prevent them from being played.
|
|
I am willing to acknowledge that others feel it is supposed to be a balancing factor even if it doesn't actually state that it is. But the fact that it doesn't expressly state it is a disadvantage, and more importantly, doesn't expressly state how much of a disadvantage it is supposed to be, means that GMs need to err on the side of leniency. The class was meant by the designers to be a playable class. And by the PFS staff to be a PFS playable class. If you are ruling in such a manner as to effectively make the class unplayable, then clearly you are doing something wrong.I don't think enforcing the Paladin's Code make's Paladin's unplayable. Requiring them to not lie, not do evil, not act in a dishonorable fashion doesn't in any way shape or from prevent them from being played.
I never said that is was. My comments were regarding the degree to which they are enforced. I submit that any GM who so rigidly enforces the paladin code that a paladin playing in any given PFS scenario must either auto-fail or auto-fall is running them in such a manner as to be unplayable, and thus by definition, must be doing something wrong. I would especially submit this in situations where the code conflicts with itself. The most common example of this I have seen is the prohibition against lying and the prohibition against doing evil, and with the prohibition against breaking the law and the prohibition against doing evil. While such a moral quandary can and should make for an excellent role-playing conundrum for a paladin, I do not think the GM should be punishing the player for no-win moral situations.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The evil doers on Golarion are actually pretty stupid. After all, apparently all you need to do is put a NO TRESPASSING sign up. No Paladin can invade your lair no matter what you are doing unless he gets an invitation.
Not that I believe this, but I'm just following the arguments of some people in this thread to their logical conclusion.
|
|
Real life example:
Would a Paladin in CO smoke weed? It's legal there after all, except that it is still illegal under federal statute.
What if he worshiped a nature deity and used hallucinogenics to commune (similar to Native Americans) and the ban effectively cuts him off from his deific obedience?
Come now people. Cut the Paladin some slack and let him smite evil doers without a micromanaging deity that disowns their champion every time he/she jay walks to save someone on the other side of the street.
|
|
My challenge to all GM's... Roleplay.
You are the entire world. Roleplay the deity, not your preconceived notions about Paladins.
If confronted with two evils, a GM expects a good person to choose the lesser one. They expect it of Paladins, but refuse to enforce it on themselves when roleplaying as his deity (or the right hand man that administers these things). Apparently, Sarenrae would:
a) rather let his followers perish, and disown one of the few pawns of influence he has in Taldor because some mortal said he shouldn't.
or
b) have his champion shine a beacon in the form of Sarenrae's code in an injust situation and allow the light of day to cleanse evil where ever it is found.
If you ever sit at my table, expect B.
|
|
Yes I am aware of this but where does it say that a paladin will fall if they break the law?
Its an interpretation, and one with some merit in my opinion.
The paladin code has a section that effectively says don't break the law.
Breaking the paladins code hard enough will make you call.
A less nuanced approach is to have ANY break of the law do it, but thats pretty insane (like letting a mass murdering necromancer get away for fear of jaywalking for example)
I can only find the part that talks about evil. I'm not saying it's easy to be a paladin as a member of PFS, but I can see how a paladin is able to undertake said mission and not fall.
Depends on how one views the strictness of the code, the interpretation if something is illegal in taldor (is it saranrae worship or all saranite followers?),etc.
Personally i would say no active divine abilities (Smiting, lay on hands, or spellcasting) without a damned good reason, and saving charges off the wand of CLW doesn't count. That should be restrictive enough for flavor without totally ganking the mission.
I think that the people playing at any individual table with you are more important than any broader considerations for play. The fact is you're planning a game for the players. If you think that the scenario is such a bad fit, break out another one.
|
In my opinion, its not about breaking the law. Obeying laws is not actually related to being Lawfully aligned, except that Lawful individuals are more disciplined and orderly than non-Lawful ones, and laws are tied into that, as long as 1 they are from a legitimate authority and 2 they are not evil, harmful, or the like.
Thats the problem with this scenario, as the legitimate authority is who the paladin should respect has established a law that is not good. A paladin should have some trouble with it. Somehing to also keep in mind that Paizo has changed the whole Taldor vs Sarenrae thing. Its a large premise of the scenario, but that issue s bias cally non-existant any longer, and apparently hasnt been a real issue for a few hundred years. What that means is that some of the locals are using an old law still on the books to persecute some innocent people, brutally and lethally.
On one hand, the law was created for a pretty dang good reason. On the other everything else aside, the way that the local guards have been treating these cultists is not acceptable, and should give a Paladin (or any character with alignment or moral issues) some wiggle room.
Im also of the opinion that the deity specific Paladin codes dont replace the general Paladin code, they add to it. That means they dont allow anything thats normally against the Paladin Code, but adds more rules as well as some guidelines for interpretation of the general code.
So, with all that in mind, I partially agree with the OP, but I dont believe its an auto fall set-up in the Scenario. It probably should start out feeling that way, but buy the time thwy actually get down there and find out some info, there are a few ways to get around it, just like in most cases where Lawful directly conflicts with Good.
If your answer as a GM is that a Paladin falls no matter what, then there is no such things as Paladins. If your answer is, as a GM that the Paladin remains Good and tries to act as Lawful, honorable, and knightly as possible as they can within that Good limitation, than an option will always present itself unless you go out of your wqy to forbid it. That generally means you just want to make a Paladin fall.
|
|
I can't wait to see the OP's response to running the Heresy of Man series with Paladins at the table.
|
|
I can't wait to see the OP's response to running the Heresy of Man series with Paladins at the table.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
*snicker*
Warpriest, Hunter, and Shaman definitely. A White Mage Arcanist could have some trouble as well as the Skald. Occult classes, in theory, should be fine on the account that everything they cast is remade into psychic, although would probably have a tough time explaining how they can use healing spells without it being divine magic. It would be best to just hide it, imo.
|
|
I can't wait to see the OP's response to running the Heresy of Man series with Paladins at the table.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
*snicker*
Warpriest, Hunter, and Shaman definitely. A White Mage Arcanist could have some trouble as well as the Skald. Occult classes, in theory, should be fine on the account that everything they cast is remade into psychic, although would probably have a tough time explaining how they can use healing spells without it being divine magic. It would be best to just hide it, imo.
Well, do remember that there are at least two Arcane classes, Bard and Witch, which can cast the Cure X Wounds series of spells, too, though. Which sort of makes some of the problems Rahadoum experiences sort of ... problematical to experience, unless they also tend to persecute anyone who can cast Cure spells, not just the Divine classes...
Edit: Wonder what the reaction to someone using the Razmiran Priest archetype would be in Rahadoum? That archetype is for Sorcerers and Bards, IIRC....
And, that takes us far off the original course, I am sure...
|
|
I can't wait to see the OP's response to running the Heresy of Man series with Paladins at the table.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
*snicker*
Warpriest, Hunter, and Shaman definitely. A White Mage Arcanist could have some trouble as well as the Skald. Occult classes, in theory, should be fine on the account that everything they cast is remade into psychic, although would probably have a tough time explaining how they can use healing spells without it being divine magic. It would be best to just hide it, imo.
Well, do remember that there are at least two Arcane classes, Bard and Witch, which can cast the Cure X Wounds series of spells, too, though. Which sort of makes some of the problems Rahadoum experiences sort of ... problematical to experience, unless they also tend to persecute anyone who can cast Cure spells, not just the Divine classes...
Edit: Wonder what the reaction to someone using the Razmiran Priest archetype would be in Rahadoum? That archetype is for Sorcerers and Bards, IIRC....
And, that takes us far off the original course, I am sure...
Just reading this, I would state that any display of healing or any association of powers that could relate to divinity would probably be a big "no-no".
*ahem* To re-rail this thread:
Let my paladins be free to RP!!! *fist pump*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was one of the paladins in the scenario in question. (There ended up being two of us.)
I thought the scenario was run very well. I love prepared GMs, and ones who have done additional research make it even better.
The question of falling really didn't turn up in the actual game, as it was pretty easy to try to get the (non-evil) NPCs to try to do the right thing. The evil ones were just nasty and got smited.
I am perfectly happy playing my paladins with this GM in the future. His concern was for the situation, and not just about making us fall. Perhaps he'll know in the future that there are ways to play that don't fall into predisposed situations?
Anyways, I had fun and I liked it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to give the GM the benefit of the doubt, one one point, which is that the scenario as written includes a statement about the illegality of whole Sarenrae faith, which Paizo staff have since errataed in other materials, to only apply to one subsect, so he would have a much more strict reading of the situation than intended.
That wouldn't necessarily alter much about the scenario as written, except to ensure that moderate Saranraen PCs could actually enter the country legally without (much) harrassment.
However, splitting hairs on whether the ban applies to this sect, but not that sect, is missing the whole point, which is that it's a terrible idea to hold paladins' (or any other Lawful character's) abilities hostage, to the arbitary demands of secular rulers.
A Lawful alignment has never implied submission to all or even any 'laws of the land', in any edition of D&D/PF. If it did, there would be no way for LE mobsters to exist. Devil-worshipping cults would be able to operate openly, in every town and village, and earn good citizen awards. Armies of LE hobgoblins would stop at their neighbours' borders, and apply for green cards, before integrating with the locals as productive members of society.
If there's one change that's long overdue for the alignment system (other than scrapping it completely), it should be to bin the awful Law and Chaos descriptors, which have virtually never been used in accordance with the Moorcockian source material, and replace them with something like 'Disciplined' and 'Undisciplined', or something else that implies a sliding scale of internal composure and planning ability.
Then we could actually get on with playing games, in character, and measuring divine PCs' actions against the tenets of their church. Which to a paladin, is the highest, maybe even only, heirarchial organisation that matters.
Which for any paladin of Saranrae would be "Go to Taldor, find our people, get them to safety, find out who is exterminating them, and deal with them."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was one of the paladins in the scenario in question. (There ended up being two of us.)
I thought the scenario was run very well. I love prepared GMs, and ones who have done additional research make it even better.
The question of falling really didn't turn up in the actual game, as it was pretty easy to try to get the (non-evil) NPCs to try to do the right thing. The evil ones were just nasty and got smited.
I am perfectly happy playing my paladins with this GM in the future. His concern was for the situation, and not just about making us fall. Perhaps he'll know in the future that there are ways to play that don't fall into predisposed situations?
Anyways, I had fun and I liked it.
The OP's original stance was that any Paladin that played this adventure must either auto-fail or auto-fall. Clearly he must have changed his stance, even if it was just to see if you could come up with a way of not making that happen. I will give him points for that.
Generally, if I see a Paladin player doing something that I feel is questionable I will ask them why they think their Paladin would do that. Nine times out of ten they have a perfectly good role-play reason for doing this that is not inconsistent with the code.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The evil doers on Golarion are actually pretty stupid. After all, apparently all you need to do is put a NO TRESPASSING sign up. No Paladin can invade your lair no matter what you are doing unless he gets an invitation.
Not that I believe this, but I'm just following the arguments of some people in this thread to their logical conclusion.
You didn't just prove, that all (stupid) Paladins are vampires .... right ?^^
|
|
You didn't just prove, that all (stupid) Paladins are vampires .... right ?^^The evil doers on Golarion are actually pretty stupid. After all, apparently all you need to do is put a NO TRESPASSING sign up. No Paladin can invade your lair no matter what you are doing unless he gets an invitation.
Not that I believe this, but I'm just following the arguments of some people in this thread to their logical conclusion.
Let's see: Self-important blood suckers that twinkle in the sunlight. Yup, we are either talking about Paladins or tonight's Twilight marathon. =)
|
I once had a Paladin of Iomedae play through Scars of the Third Crusade. It was fun watching him squirm a little dealing with an Inquisitor of Iomedae accusing him of apostasy for aiding a heretical organization like the Pathfinders.
He did just fine but I did get some guilty pleasure putting him in the hot seat. End of the story, it's a roleplaying element built into a roleplaying game. Have fun.
When I played that scenario I was on a Cleric of Iomedae with the Crusader archetype and two levels of Order of the Star Cavalier -- the final roleplaying scene was WAY fun. ^_^
My thoughts:
1. Some people have already mentioned that Paizo retconned some of the early confusion by noting that Sarenrae worship isn't banned, which doesn't eliminate how earlier sources say that her fanatical Cult of the Dawnflower is banned in Taldor (if you hunt around Inner Sea Gods you might even find a discussion of said cult). Why hasn't anyone mentioned that a Paladin could try to convert the worshipers to the less fanatical mainstream religion? :)
2. Hellknights tend toward Dredd-style Lawful Neutral. Paladins support both Law and Good -- meaning that sometimes they must balance one against the other while seeking the most lawful, most beneficial resolution when the two principles conflict. Sometimes I am surprised that more GMs don't encourage more Paladins from Iomedae's homeland -- the quandaries in which one can place a Chelish Paladin who is a member of the Hellknights look delicious (I don't think that being Chelish prohibits being a Paladin since several notable NPCs manage it as well... but I also think that a Paladin had better not do much more than the minimum "pinch of incense" to Caesar, er, the Prince of Law in Cheliax).
3. When I think of Mendevian Paladins I think of some of the real-life grizzled NCOs with whom I served decades ago. Some of them were of the "don't drink, don't cuss" persuasion... which didn't mean that they weren't hard as nails and solid as a rock. I figure that a lot of the Worldwound's veterans are very much like that (with some of their wilder fellow NCOs falling more into the Low Templar vein).