|
| 1 person 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.
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.
This is actually kind of my point. A lot of GMs ignore alignment completely unless a paladin is at the table. I've seen monks do enough non-lawful acts that it should change their alignment, and do so without a single warning from the GM. I've often seen characters do things that is blatantly against their stated alignment and explicitly expressed philosophy, without the GM bothering to ask if they realize that's against what their character stands for.
Morality isn't just for Paladin's either, just this past Friday I had to warn a Ninja about an evil act.
Thank you! I like to see alignment as an aide to role playing, not a "gotcha" for paladins and other alignment-based classes. This past week, the table I was running spent some time debating whether burning an empty house that had belonged to infectious-disease-carrying demon cultists was bad (destruction of property), OK (keeping the disease from spreading) or good (purging the evil of the cultists). Nobody's class features were in jeopardy: it was just the party trying to decide what to do.
But it only happened because I asked everyone to think about their alignment before they decided.
|
But it only happened because I asked everyone to think about their alignment before they decided.
I mostly agree with what you're saying but please don't take it too far.
Alignment is only one part of a characters motivations. Different characters of mine would react to different situationd quite differently despite having the same alignment on their character sheet. Some of that difference is related to things like dieties worshipped and ethnic background but some isn't.
For example, my NG varisian has a very forgiving attitude to minor crime while my N cleric of Abadar doesn't.
Asking people to think about "what their character would do" seems much better to me than asking about their alignments. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about an ethically murky situation
|
|
But it only happened because I asked everyone to think about their alignment before they decided.I mostly agree with what you're saying but please don't take it too far.
Alignment is only one part of a characters motivations. Different characters of mine would react to different situationd quite differently despite having the same alignment on their character sheet. Some of that difference is related to things like dieties worshipped and ethnic background but some isn't.
For example, my NG varisian has a very forgiving attitude to minor crime while my N cleric of Abadar doesn't.
Asking people to think about "what their character would do" seems much better to me than asking about their alignments. ESPECIALLY when we're talking about an ethically murky situation
This was a level 1 table, and a lot of people don't have a strong sense of what their character would do in a given situation. When one of the players suggested that they should burn the house down, I reminded them to consider their character's alignment when they were deciding what to do.
And, as you said, the group didn't line up by alignment at all. The players just provided justifications for what they wanted to do that matched their alignment. A lawful good character and a true neutral character both argued that they shouldn't set fire to the house for completely different reasons, while a neutral good and a chaotic good character both saw a practical reason to do so but weren't strongly committed either way, and the "let's torch it" contingent consisted of a chaotic good character ("we have to cleanse the evil") and a chaotic neutral character ("I just like to burn things").
I didn't threaten them with an infraction, I didn't prevent them from doing anything, and I didn't punish them for anything they did or didn't do. All it effected was the group dynamic and led to some interesting roleplay.
|
This is actually kind of my point. A lot of GMs ignore alignment completely unless a paladin is at the table. I've seen monks do enough non-lawful acts that it should change their alignment, and do so without a single warning from the GM. I've often seen characters do things that is blatantly against their stated alignment and explicitly expressed philosophy, without the GM bothering to ask if they realize that's against what their character stands for.
As much as I *like* alignments, I've often found that questioning a character's alignment simply leads to the player doing some quick ethical gymnastics to explain how their behaviour is entirely consistent.
The worst example I remember in a PF game was the Lawful Neutral Druid who justified everything by claiming it was 'the law of nature'.
|
|
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.
For most people your right. But a paladin is obeying an oath and an authority that has effectively merged the two.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Paladins are illegal in Country A, but not Country B. The Paladin (who is a citizen of neither country) is asked to enter a valley on the border of the two countries to rescue some innocents from an evil necromancer. The valley is disputed territory. Whose law does the Paladin obey?
IF put in a lawful or good situation the paladin should pick good.
One of the problems for paladins in the pathfinder society is that they don't usually have such a righteous need or motivation for the mission that they usually have.
Can they enter country B to stop an evil necromancer? Yes. The lives and souls of innocent people outweigh the laws.
Can they cross over for a beer run or to recover an artifact? No. Many pathfinder missions tend more towards the latter.
As a PFS DM I feel however that my first priority is towards Bob sitting at the table, who just got off his shift at work and wants to play a game, and wants to run a paladin (either for rp or mechanics reasons). If we've schedueled a scenario where thats problematic, its up to me to make it work somehow and find a balance that lets bob play without his character being entirely useless but without making the code completely irrelevant.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
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.
This is actually kind of my point. A lot of GMs ignore alignment completely unless a paladin is at the table. I've seen monks do enough non-lawful acts that it should change their alignment, and do so without a single warning from the GM. I've often seen characters do things that is blatantly against their stated alignment and explicitly expressed philosophy, without the GM bothering to ask if they realize that's against what their character stands for.
You know, just a couple of weeks ago, I was running "The Paths We Choose," and had to mark a chaotic act on everyone's chronicle sheet because
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, just a couple of weeks ago, I was running "The Paths We Choose," and had to mark a chaotic act on everyone's chronicle sheet becauseSpoiler:
I've also made notes of a chaotic act on the chonicle of a monk who kept punching mooks in the face after they'd already thrown down their weapons and surrendered. I'm hoping that people will start getting the message...
Unfortunately, the message you are most likely sending is "play chaotic neutral characters." This is the net result of enforcing alignments. We tend to see Lawful Good as the pinnacle of morality. So we punish those who stray from it but ignore those who gravitate towards it. So playing chaotic neutral is the best choice for alignment if you want to avoid having the GM ding you for alignment infractions, i.e. it's simply less hassle. Sure, chaotic neutral characters should get dinged for committing lawful acts, but when was the last time you saw a GM ding someone for that?
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Sure, chaotic neutral characters should get dinged for committing lawful acts, but when was the last time you saw a GM ding someone for that?
When's the last time you saw a Pathfinder commit a lawful act?
(Only half-joking. What would constitute a violation of a PC's chaotic alignment?)
|
|
What would constitute a violation of a PC's chaotic alignment?
Well, that is part of the problem. In reality, any character that, in a given scenario, consistently follows the laws and his mission orders is acting in a lawful way and should get dinged. But, as GMs, having characters that follow the laws and mission orders makes things easier for us, so we have a hard time punishing people for doing what we actually want them to do.
|
Paladins swear oaths, true, but to whom (or what) do they swear allegiance?
I maintain their oaths are to their deity, their church, their fellow believers, innocents and noncombatants, citizens of civilised races in general, with any loyalty to secular, worldly institutions, nations or rulers coming far behind, if they are even mentioned at all.
And these oaths will be written in such a way, as to explicitly spell out who takes priority in any conflict of interest, their training backed up by volumes of guidance and examples of how such conflicts can be avoided or mediated.
The church leaders who write these oaths (with the aid of supergenius celestial proofreaders) are not stupid; they know that the majority of the population can't be expected to measure up to the standards of the priesthood, or even be lay members of the faith. Some will not be good people, some may even be evil.
They will not write oaths with glaring loopholes, which allow disreputable persons to commandeer the services of their paladins against their church's intent.
So, a paladin may have sworn an oath, but unless that oath is to 'uphold the demands and wishes of whichever here today, gone tomorrow, inbred, spoilt brat psychopathic despot might be sitting on the throne of Taldor right this minute.', then little king Joffrey McMurderpants will have to get to the back of the queue. Behind the more deserving recipients of his deity's mercy and protection.
If your oath explicitly tells you that helping refugees escape persecution takes priority over the secular law of Taldor, then you haven't violated your oath. By definition.
|
|
So, a paladin may have sworn an oath, but unless that oath is to 'uphold the demands and wishes of whichever here today, gone tomorrow, inbred, spoilt brat psychopathic despot might be sitting on the throne of Taldor right this minute.'
Respecting the inbred spoilt psycopathic despot IS part of the paladins oath.
then little king Joffrey McMurderpants will have to get to the back of the queue. Behind the more deserving recipients of his deity's mercy and protection.
He has to be in the queue somewhere. If all you care about is doing the right thing then you're neutral good. Lawful Good is trying to hold onto two seperate ideas at the same time, so they are going to conflict on occasion.
|
|
What would constitute a violation of a PC's chaotic alignment?Well, that is part of the problem. In reality, any character that, in a given scenario, consistently follows the laws and his mission orders is acting in a lawful way and should get dinged. But, as GMs, having characters that follow the laws and mission orders makes things easier for us, so we have a hard time punishing people for doing what we actually want them to do.
My first PFS character was a barbarian who started out chaotic neutral. But I'm not the type to be disruptive at the table, so I ended up playing him as more of a team player than originally intended, and I eventually changed his alignment to true neutral instead. No GM ever intervened though - it was entirely my own RP decision.
Ironically, the one time I deserved an alignment warning from a GM (but didn't get it) was actually when I played Dalsine Affair with that PC, and I committed the blatantly evil act of torturing the faceless stalker. Mash is fiercely loyal to his friends, and the stalker had gotten one of them alone to start his ambush against us, so Mash was pissed off about it. My intimidation check when questioning him got a little overly physical, and some of the stalker's body parts didn't stay attached.
So, a paladin may have sworn an oath, but unless that oath is to 'uphold the demands and wishes of whichever here today, gone tomorrow, inbred, spoilt brat psychopathic despot might be sitting on the throne of Taldor right this minute.'Respecting the inbred spoilt psycopathic despot IS part of the paladins oath.
then little king Joffrey McMurderpants will have to get to the back of the queue. Behind the more deserving recipients of his deity's mercy and protection.He has to be in the queue somewhere. If all you care about is doing the right thing then you're neutral good. Lawful Good is trying to hold onto two seperate ideas at the same time, so they are going to conflict on occasion.
I agree that obeying the laws of the "inbred spoilt psycopathic despot" is on the paladin's list, but any mortal laws will be down below obeying the lawful and/or good GODS, and probably even the neutral gods who aren't too far from lawful and/or good. So obeying an unjust Taldan law probably falls just below respecting Asmodeus on any paladin's priority list.
Everyone keeps talking about paladins of Sarenrae in this thread, but even paladins of Erastil or Iomedae should say that respecting the worship of Sarenrae is a higher priority than obeying a clearly unjust law of Taldor. And as a paladin, protecting good (though unlawful) Sarenrae worshipers from unjust oppression and needless death is a moral imperative.
Helping Pathfinders with illegal smuggling? Not so much. But paladins in the Society have sworn an oath to the Society, so whether or not to turn the Venture Captain over to Taldor authorities isn't nearly as clear cut a decision as the OP and the paladins at his table apparently made it seem. It's a moral conundrum of enforcing Taldan law (which isn't the job of those paladins) vs breaking the law to help the Society. And there is a compromise solution that doesn't do either of those extremes.
If I was playing either of my PFS paladins (neither of whom have any personal connection to Taldor or Sarenrae), they would certainly help the Sarenite cultists get out of Taldor alive.
But as for the smuggling part, and hiding evidence of it, they'd probably refuse to help their teammates, but wouldn't actively hinder them or turn the Venture Captain over to the Taldan authorities, either, especially not knowing if these are among the corrupt authorities who have been killing Sarenites for no reason. My paladin of Iomedae, who is just really gung ho about smiting evil and only obeys the lawful side of being a paladin because she's supposed to, would probably let it end there. My other paladin would probably file a formal protest with the Society after returning to Absalom, and try to get the Taldan VC demoted and removed from his post. But he'd work through Society channels to get the guy punished, not through Taldan legal authority.
|
|
Unfortunately, the message you are most likely sending is "play chaotic neutral characters." This is the net result of enforcing alignments. We tend to see Lawful Good as the pinnacle of morality. So we punish those who stray from it but ignore those who gravitate towards it. So playing chaotic neutral is the best choice for alignment if you want to avoid having the GM ding you for alignment infractions, i.e. it's simply less hassle. Sure, chaotic neutral characters should get dinged for committing lawful acts, but when was the last time you saw a GM ding someone for that?
You know, just a couple of weeks ago, I was running "The Paths We Choose," and had to mark a chaotic act on everyone's chronicle sheet becauseSpoiler:
I've also made notes of a chaotic act on the chonicle of a monk who kept punching mooks in the face after they'd already thrown down their weapons and surrendered. I'm hoping that people will start getting the message...
If a class has an alignment restriction, then the character should get dinged for violating that alignment. As a GM, I think I should either enforce alignment equally or not at all--it's just a fair play issue. It isn't fair to let monks or clerics get away with stuff I would ding paladins for. What I'm really opposed to is GMs who completely ignore alignment until a paladin sits down at the table. Granted, a paladin's actions should get more scrutiny, but the paladin should never be the only character that gets scrutiny.
I also make the NPCs act according to their alignment (if given). For NPCs, I approach the stated alignment as short hand for "how this character thinks and acts".
Actually, that's pretty much how I approach it for players, too. Even if there's no mechanical reason for a character to be a particular alignment, I have to assume that the player chose that alignment because it somehow reflected the character the player wanted to portray.
I want to point out that I have never given an alignment infraction, and I have only officially warned a player (a paladin) once. All I do is clarify the nature of what the players are about to do and ask them to consider whether their characters would do that. If they choose yes, fine. If they choose to do something else, fine. If they come up with a convoluted ethical justification for why their actions fit their alignment, that's also fine. If it's complete BS, I'll tell them that. If it's reasonable or clever or amusing, it's called roleplaying, and we have fun.
|
|
The thing about chaotic alignments is that a chaotic character can obey a law if she feels like it, if she thinks it will benefit her to obey it. Similarly, evil characters can perform good acts if they feel like it or think it will benefit them. (Antipaladins aside.)
So, unless you feel a chaotic character is behaving in an excessively disciplined, organized manner, there isn't really a behavior that can be called out as 'too lawful'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about chaotic alignments is that a chaotic character can obey a law if she feels like it, if she thinks it will benefit her to obey it. Similarly, evil characters can perform good acts if they feel like it or think it will benefit them. (Antipaladins aside.)
So, unless you feel a chaotic character is behaving in an excessively disciplined, organized manner, there isn't really a behavior that can be called out as 'too lawful'.
This difficulty in identifying Lawful behavior, combined with our desire to have players play in a generally Lawful Good manner means that we seldom, if ever, ding chaotic neutral players for being either lawful or good. Sadly, the net result of this is that the more rigidly we enforce alignments, the more towards chaotic neutral we push the PCs.
|
|
That's a problem, isn't it?
It's always treated as a one-way street.
Staying Lawful and/or Good is seen as like holding a greasy pole. One false move, one wrong word, and "Whoosh! Off they go! Straight to Damnation!".
Conversely, "Yeah, your anarchist PCs have been model citizens for the whole week, but <shrug> it's no biggie."
|
|
This mismatch was very apparent, back in the day when I gave detailed individual xp for roleplaying. This was very much a Big Deal when I began GMing, as the hobby wanted to prove it had made some kind of 'evolution' from its hack'n'slash roots.
Every session, I'd get the players to hand in a list of actions they thought deserved extra credit, either for solving mission objectives, doing more than their share, or playing in-character.
Invariably, the lists from the chaotics filled whole sides of A4, while the lawfuls struggled to fill a few lines. When I asked why, it was obvious they were doing themselves out of xp, by second-guessing themselves, talking down their own efforts as not being 'worthy' enough.
The chaots had no such inhibitions, listing every derailing, pointless act of japery, regardless of relevance or context. Okay, so they're more extrovert, I get it.
But they were listing every instance of responsible behaviour, as well.
Every time they passed over the chance to steal or lie, every time they took one for the team, every time they contributed to some complex plan. Every time they seamlessly blended into some rigid organisation, they would claim xp. When I challenged this, like "There is no way your PC would last a day in the army', the reply would be, yes he would, because it got him closer to the big payoff, so all the drudgery and drill was proof of his chaotic credentials. He was 'undercover', therefore sneeeaaaky, right?
It was a metagamers' paradise; basically everything they did, they thought deserved xp. If it turned out to be a non-sequitur, roleplay xp; if it turned out to be useful, mission xp.
Heads I Win, Tails I Also Win.
I decided I'd only give bonus xp to PCs with a consistent personality, and a background that disadvantaged them in some way, as if it were a point-buy game like GURPS with bonus build points for code of conduct, dependent NPCs, etc. If you wanted to play an orphan lone wolf, who did whatever they want with no limits, doing so was its own reward, and didn't merit extra xp.
Then I just stopped giving roleplay xp.
|
I find myself split, as usual, to both sides, as a GM, I've seen a paladin fall and I've had to mark evil on characters chronicles. However I find myself in BigNorseWolf's camp--also congrats on the third star--in that as a GM I am here to help people have fun and facilitate that fun as much as I can.
In most cases someone is playing a paladin because they want to be a beacon of good, of all that is right, and they usually come to terms that it is a hard boat to sail in Pathfinder Society but I appreciate that they try. Right now I am currently prepping a scenario that has at least 2 paladins signed up for the game and they may or may not be asked to join an evil cult, I imagine this won't go down very well and I am planning accordingly. I am setting up contingencies for the scenario to go completely off the rails and that's okay, because making those paladins fall for the sake of plot wouldn't be fun for anyone.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not changing the scenario in any way, I am just preparing for the alternative outcome that will likely come from having paladins, and instead of blindly saying no, their type of fun is not allowed, I am willing to make a concession and work harder to prepare more of the scenario in this event.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I am currently prepping a scenario that has at least 2 paladins signed up for the game and they may or may not be asked to join an evil cult, I imagine this won't go down very well and I am planning accordingly. I am setting up contingencies for the scenario to go completely off the rails and that's okay, because making those paladins fall for the sake of plot wouldn't be fun for anyone.
It's remarkable the number of times I have heard of Paladins playing that particular scenario. In fact, I played it with one myself. It required an awful lot of squirming on my part, including closing my eyes and reciting "It's all to make sure the evil cult is destroyed. It's all to make sure the evil cult is destroyed."
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Gulf
|
There are variances. A paladin of Shelyn would not allow the harming of artworks, a paladin of Abadar would not allow sacking.
It is correct that we need to understand justice and a fair fight would be important to a pally, over any laws enacted by a particular government. I think the OP had it wrong, and I think RAW is different from his interpretation of a pally code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I was a player in this game I would applied to get my prestige point back after the game was played. The OP was way out of bounds. When put in a situation where your choice is the lesser of two evils then you commit the lesser one, and atone for it later.
PS: I don't mean evil in the traditional sense in the above statement. I mean you do what causes the least amount of harm.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not even a lesser of two evils. If I am a paladin of Sarenrae and Taldor outlaws my religion, guess whose laws I'm not following? I'm still following legitimate authority, but to my paladin, there is no legitimate authority in Taldor. In this case, Sarenrae is the law, not Taldor.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can two Paladins belonging to two nations war against each other?
I think so.
Can a Paladin refuse to serve an order by a ruler whom the Paladin has good reason to suspect is possessed by a demon?
I think so.
Can a Paladin serve Sarenrae, even in Taldor?
Certainly.
Can a Paladin serve Sarenrae as part of the outlawed Dawnflower Cult?
I tend to think not --
But that's because of the Cult's strong neutral leanings (which would be even stronger if Sarenrae didn't rein in her more fanatical Cult members).
Can a Paladin of Sarenrae protect Dawnflower Cult members in Taldor?
To me, that should provoke soul searching --
Not an immediate "fall from grace," but rather the bread and butter of roleplaying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there may be some confussion. Originally, Taldor was written to have outlawed all churches and followers of Sarenrae. This was done to protect itself, as warmongers within Qadira called the Cult of the Dawnflower had instigated Qadira to war, and Qadira had essentually backstabbed Taldor when it was weak from fighting another war.
It has more recently been errata'd so that Taldor only outlawed the Cult of the Dawnflower, (or maybe all of Sarenrae's faith hundreds of years ago, but it didnt last long).
The Scenario was written before this change, and just involves normal followers of Sarenrae, which at the time where, but are no longer outlawed. They are not Cultists of the Dawnflower.
|
|
| 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.
A Paladin of Sarenrae must follow Sarenrae's law. Not Taldor's. A Sarenite Paladin going to Taldor is easy to justify-- because I must support Sarenrae's worshipers in Taldor, because I must bring Sarenrae's light to a blighted land that is presently without it, because serving the greater good justifies ignoring Taldor's bigotry against my Goddess....
Not at all hard to do.
|
|
So, a paladin may have sworn an oath, but unless that oath is to 'uphold the demands and wishes of whichever here today, gone tomorrow, inbred, spoilt brat psychopathic despot might be sitting on the throne of Taldor right this minute.'Respecting the inbred spoilt psycopathic despot IS part of the paladins oath.
then little king Joffrey McMurderpants will have to get to the back of the queue. Behind the more deserving recipients of his deity's mercy and protection.He has to be in the queue somewhere. If all you care about is doing the right thing then you're neutral good. Lawful Good is trying to hold onto two seperate ideas at the same time, so they are going to conflict on occasion.
On to the general subject of both alignments and Paladins...
For non-paladins, "Lawful" = I am consistent in my behavior, I live by codes and rules, I am highly disciplined and organized, I am traditional and I keep to my traditions. Following the law of a particular nation, even if one happens to be residing within that nation at the time, is NOT necessarily part of being "lawful" (the alignment), though it is certainly not against the alignment. One must ascertain what codes, modes of discipline, law, etc, the character has internalized and is now living by, to see whether the character is living up to his/her alignment or not.
For instance, I would expect a Monk to rigidly hold firm to the rules, codes and discipline of his/her monastic order, and I'll ding the character for failing to do so... but if the Monk ignores civil laws of the country the adventure is occurring in from time to time, I'm not going to call foul if the monk can reasonably explain why he/she felt it was more necessary to break the law in question rather than follow it.
"Chaotic" (the alignment) = I am free, I live as I choose to, I do not follow and/or live by any laws, rules, codes, traditions, etc, for their own sake. Others may see me as undisciplined and disorganized because I do what is convenient, not necessarily what is consistent.
In practice-- a "chaotic" character may follow the laws of the country he/she finds him/her-self in, because it's easier than having to face the consequences for getting caught (or it's just too much work and/or no gain to find ways to get away with it). He/she may follow mission orders quite closely, because that's how he/she gets paid (the orderliness imposed is not a personal choice). He or she may well be a very good team player-- life is much easier when you have friends, and you'd better be there for them if you expect them to be there for you. IMO, "chaotic" is about the motivations of the character, rather than necessarily being reflected in his/her deeds.
For Paladins-- yes, they have to respect legitimate authority. There is more of a requirement to follow laws and respect just rulers than there is for a non-Paladin who happens to be of lawful alignment. However, on the Paladin's code-- as a GM and player, I will look first to the Deity-specific code for the patron that Paladin follows, and if it appears to conflict with the generic code in the Core rules, I believe the Deity-specific code takes precedence.
As a further point to the above-- while a Paladin must respect legitimate authority, respecting does not necessarily mean obeying in all things. Paladins are NOT Cavaliers. A Paladin must have oaths to his/her patron deity (or the equivalent commitment thereof). The Paladin does not necessarily have ANY oaths to the King. There is also the issue that the Paladin is GOOD, not just lawful-- an evil ruler is not necessarily legitimate in the eyes of the Paladin and his/her God(dess), regardless of what the mortal laws of the land may say about the issue.
Furthermore, let's say the Paladin does have oaths specifically towards a ruler-- obedience to that ruler, and his/her laws, will take precedence over obedience to the laws of other nations & rulers; which may well mean that the Paladin will blatantly, purposefully and even remorselessly break the laws of a country he happens to presently be in (without IMO breaking his code) because he is following the laws and orders of his own country (not the one he's presently in), liege-lord and/or Deity.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
regarding the OP's game session:
I commend the players of the Paladins for finding alternate solutions and handling the situation well under trying circumstances. I cannot say anything at all favorable regarding the OP's stance and behavior, so for once in my postings here, I'll just say nothing more about it.
|
|
"The Scenario was written before this change, and just involves normal followers of Sarenrae, which at the time where, but are no longer outlawed"
I would expect any paladin to consider a law that outlaws an entire goodly church to not be a legitimate law.
As it is, part of the point is getting them out of Taldor, which would bring them into compliance with the law. (Worshipping Sarenrae is completely legal across the border.)
If a paladin sees a lawbreaker, must he turn them into the authorities? Or is it enough to convince them to make amends and obey the law going forward?
|
|
"The Scenario was written before this change, and just involves normal followers of Sarenrae, which at the time where, but are no longer outlawed"
I would expect any paladin to consider a law that outlaws an entire goodly church to not be a legitimate law.
As it is, part of the point is getting them out of Taldor, which would bring them into compliance with the law. (Worshipping Sarenrae is completely legal across the border.)
If a paladin sees a lawbreaker, must he turn them into the authorities? Or is it enough to convince them to make amends and obey the law going forward?
But they aren't law breakers of any law the paladin would care about in the first place. That's my point. Any paladin should look askance at the outlawing of any good deity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If only GMs could fall and be forced to atone.
|
Good is a hill. Help 15 orphans out of a burning building and then throw back in and you're evil.
I made a villain like that once. Sort of the opposite of the classic superhero schtick. Everyone thought he was a hero, but after he saved people 'unfortunate' things kept happening to them. People kept talking about how "death has marked them" etc.
It turned out that the guy was just nuttier than a fruitcake, and once he saved people, he thought that their lives belonged to him. Sometimes he'd get bored, put on a mask, and go take back what belonged to him.
|
|
But they aren't law breakers of any law the paladin would care about in the first place. That's my point. Any paladin should look askance at the outlawing of any good deity.
Who are you to decide what laws my paladin cares about? I think it depends on the padadin. A paladin of Sarenrae clearly sees the "big picture" but a paladin of Abadar would be a little more hard pressed to just flaunt the lawful authority of that town.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they aren't law breakers of any law the paladin would care about in the first place. That's my point. Any paladin should look askance at the outlawing of any good deity.Who are you to decide what laws my paladin cares about? I think it depends on the padadin. A paladin of Sarenrae clearly sees the "big picture" but a paladin of Abadar would be a little more hard pressed to just flaunt the lawful authority of that town.
You're correct that your paladin could choose to observe the letter of those laws, but I hardly think that a paladin need fall for preserving life and liberty of religious refugees over turning them over to a possibly corrupt government (and there are murmurs of such a thing during the briefing if I recall).
|
|
Not quite what I'm saying. A paladin of Abadar is going to need evidence that the officials are corrupt before he can, in good faith, ignore their authority. I agree with very little in the OP, but I agree that paladins who flaunt the law without taking the time to make sure violating it meshes with their code should suffer the consequences.
|
|
If a good deity is being outlawed, this implies corruption. Remember that one lawful evil NPC can make hundreds of lawful neutral NPCs do evil through the laws. That's why any paladin should be very suspicious of any such law like Taldor has.
I suspect that paladins of Abadar are constantly butting heads with their church by putting good ahead of straight law. Frankly, paladins of LN deities have never made much sense to me.
|
|
If a good deity is being outlawed, this implies corruption.Actually, in this case, it implies politics. Taldor and Qadira were at war, so Taldor outlawed the major religion of its enemy (or, as per the retcon, a militant faction of that religion).
I still can't see any paladin tolerating that. Politics or no. But that's just my interpretation. Too many interpretations; that's why I just usually think of paladins as warpriests with full BAB.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And interpretations are the problem. Any other class the player gets to interpret their character's reactions. Put a Paladin at the table and suddenly the GM starts second guessing and even out-right over-ruling the Paladin players' interpretation of their own character because their interpretation differs. It's not your character, people. If you don't think you should be telling the wizard how to play his character then you shouldn't be telling the paladin how to play his. Will a few people abuse this? Sure. But does this mean you should treat every player like a abuser because a few do?
|
|
Let me try to illustrate my last statement in another light.
Situation A:
Player: My Wizard casts Fireball.
GM: I think your character likes to cast Lightning Bolt so he should cast Lightning Bolt.
Player: But I think, in this situation, he would cast Fireball.
GM: It's my job as a GM to make sure people play their characters properly, and since I believe your character would throw Lightning Bolt, if you throw Fireball instead, I will punish your character.
Situation B:
Player: My Paladin tells the evil tyrant's guard I don't know where the orphans are.
GM: But you just saw them go down that ally 5 minutes ago and they said they were headed to the old church.
Player: Yes, but its technically the truth. I don't know for a fact that is where they are and even if I did, I believe it is within my code to lie by omission in order to protect the innocent.
GM: It's my job as a GM to make sure people play their characters properly, and since I believe that even a lie of omission violates the Paladin's code, if you tell the guards you don't know where the orphans are, I will punish your character.
If you think Situation A is bad GMing but Situation B is good GMing, then the problem with Paladins is not the player.
Does this mean you should always allow a player to play their character no matter how abusive they are? No. But a legitimate difference in interpretation is not an abuse.
Note: David, I am not responding to your post. I am expanding upon my last one.
|
|
Let me try to illustrate my last statement in another light.
I mostly agree with you but I think that you're going a LITTLE too far. Part of the GMs responsibility in PFS (and in most home games) is to do at least a little enforcement of the alignment rules.
So, Situation C :
Player: After barring the doors so none of the poor children can escape my paladin burns down the orphanage.
GM: WTF? You do realize that there are dozens of innocent children inside and you have absolutely no reason to do this, right? That its an evil act, right?
Player: Nah, I'm a Paladin of Sarenrae so fire is holy to me. The kids will all go to their appropriate place. Not evil. Holy fire is always good.
GM: I disagree. That is an evil act. You do it and you'll fall.
There are some actions so egregious and some justifications so thin and some players so clueless that the GM MUST step in.
|
|
Let me try to illustrate my last statement in another light.
I mostly agree with you but I think that you're going a LITTLE too far. Part of the GMs responsibility in PFS (and in most home games) is to do at least a little enforcement of the alignment rules.
So, Situation C :
Player: After barring the doors so none of the poor children can escape my paladin burns down the orphanage.
GM: WTF? You do realize that there are dozens of innocent children inside and you have absolutely no reason to do this, right? That its an evil act, right?
Player: Nah, I'm a Paladin of Sarenrae so fire is holy to me. The kids will all go to their appropriate place. Not evil. Holy fire is always good.
GM: I disagree. That is an evil act. You do it and you'll fall.
There are some actions so egregious and some justifications so thin and some players so clueless that the GM MUST step in.
And nothing I said in my statements contradicts anything you just said. I used the words legitimate difference in interpretation and abuse for a reason.
|
I look at my duties as a GM a little bit differently than some here. I primarily concern myself with running a fun game session for everyone at the table, adjucating as consistently and fairly as possible so that everyone has an even experience, and keeping the material as interesting as possible.
I tend to caution player's about their PC's actions only if they are obviously straying quite far afield. If your Paladin lies by omission, refuses to acknowledge the law of chaotic nations or laws against good deities, feels that evil doers deserve quarter only if they surrender and ask for it, ect., then I may not necessarily agree with your interpretation, but I won't caution you against alignment infractions until you begin telling me that your PC plans to steal the horse and kill the stable boy so there aren't any witnesses.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a bit of food for through...
We recently played a scenario where we were to prove the innocence of some captured Pathfinders (or let them hang if guilty). We were warned that it would not be wise for us to divulge our association with the Pathfinder Society.
The local sheriff, who is suspicious of all our nosing around asks our Paladin of Ragathiel "Are you guys Pathfinders?"
The Paladin responds "While my employer has asked that I keep their identity a secret I can assure you that as a champion of Ragathiel I am here seeking justice and that my employers seek justice in this matter as well, otherwise they would not have sent me."