Kobold Cleaver wrote: To clarify, a paladin can still be afraid, can still hold back from confessing her love for someone out of nervousness, and can obsess inwardly with feelings of self-loathing, terror, or hesitance. A paladin can still be led to fall (or worse) because these feelings get to be too much for her.
What matters is that what she does is impacted solely by her own decisions. A paladin can still make bad decisions out of fear. But it's not "fight-or-flight" fear. It's not the instinct—the paladin is immune to that instinct taking over, barring blackguards. It's the feeling. It's the wear and tear that fear can have on their mind over time.
A paladin is immune to their base instincts of terror. Not their own personal demons.
This is a very reasonable view. I don't mean to imply that a paladin does not have a normal emotional range; part of my earlier point was that they do think and feel like normal people, they simply have a control over themselves that cannot usually be acted upon by outside forces.
Mr.u wrote: Why do you think belief in a deity is irrational? I think Paladins can and are reasonable and rational. Being religious does not make you irrational or stupid or unreasonable. Actually, I'd honestly say belief in a deity is INCREDIBLY rational in a setting where gods are objectively, observably real, hear people's prayers, and give their clergy magical powers.
Unless you're a paladin of Pholtus.
;P
I remember a few quotes flying around about Courage. One was from a batman comic where third Robin got hit with scarecrow gas... Had visions of previous robins telling him to get up and fight. "It was ok to be scared, but don't let that fear stop you from acting" He was able to push past the fear and rescue Bats.
The other may have been Captain America... or random internet quotes. Something about "Courage is not the absence of fear, but the willingness to fight despite it."
This is how I play my Paladin. He still has logic. He can still be cautious. He can still evaluate success based on the tool at hand. (Yeah... that Dragon is bigger then I thought. We better go back and get a Balista!)
My Paladin is a king, and he constantly second guess' and reevaluates his decisions to be the best possible king there is. His decisions have lives in the balance!!! He may want to run in and fight any threat there is... but sometimes that would be bad for the big picture. More lives are saved with caution and diplomacy.
He is not intimidated, he is not threatened, but he can still be convinced. Sometimes the 'threats' people use are actually valid points. (If you kill they'll send more to avenge me...) Valid point. I'll take it under consideration :P
But it isn't because of fear. It's logic.
I'd like to reply to all the posts, but I don't know if I have the stamina. I'll start with Blacky's and see how far I got. Let start by making a very important point.
This is a game.
Which means none of the rules or FAQs have to follow any real world logic. It means that the authors can bind totally incompatible elements without any rationale as to how they can coexist. A perfect example is infinite 0 level spells that do practical things yet have no effect on cottage industries. So having a discussion about how a fiction would actually operate is a lesson in speculation.
Blackwaltzomega wrote: This is a stereotype, and not a particularly accurate one. I'll start with this quote because it underscores the fundamental oversight in these discussions. Classes in D&D/Pathfinder are and always have been, based on stereotypes. The Fighter, Rogue, Barbrian, Wizard, Cleric...are ALL about stereotypes. The Paladin's stereo type is the religious zealot. And it is specifically that zealotry that gives the Paladin powers that even clerics don't have. When the class was introduced AD&D, the Paladin's code was meant to be a huge obstacle and restriction. This frequently caused problems at the table. The entire history of the class is punctuated with anecdote after anecdote of players who took a hardline with their Paladin...as they class was intended to do.
The very fact that all Paladin had to be Lawful Good is testament to the baked in unreasonableness of the class. Paladin's don't kill innocents and don't use torture...and doing so causes them to cease to be Paladin's. No other class suffers such severe punishment for failing to follow a specific set of rules. Not even Clerics.
The entire point of the Paladin class is that they do not compromise their beliefs. That is antithetical to reasonableness.
Quote: Perhaps this is just my way of looking at it, but Paladins aren't robots. This is probably one of two of the most popular cliches when people try to justify reasonable behavior by a paladin. It essentially proves nothing. Robots have no emotions, Paladins are driven by them. When a reasonable person might use a captured demon as a bargaining chip to secure the release of his friends, a Paladin would kill it on sight.
Let's look at a quote from the PRD on Paladins,
PRD on Paladins wrote: In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. A "reasonable" person does not have an "ironclad" adherence to anything. Such an approach to morality and discipline would make one unreasonable, by definition.
Quote: For every knight of a church you point out, there's a paladin in another campaign who is empowered by absolute dedication to the ideal of good. This changes nothing. The paladin is defined by her "ironclad" adherence to their faith. It does not matter to what, only that she follows the code.
Quote: Good people CARE about others. Members of the Catholic church have murdered hundreds of thousands of people in both the New World and the Old. They did it because they believed it was justified and in service to their god. I can guarantee you that at the time society would have called them "good." Today, we call them butchers. The problem with discussion on Alignment is that the concept is a construct and does not reflect the way people actually operate. There is no absolute good or evil in real life. We can't detect someone's alignment in real life. But you can in Pathfinder. When we try to bridge real world alignment with game world alignment, we get logical inconsistencies and contradictions.
Trying to talk about what a Lawful Good person would do is an exercise in futility. But what we do know is that whatever a Paladin's code requires, the Paladin has an "ironclad" adherence. That does not allow reasonableness when others prevent the Paladin from adhering to that code. Remember, a Paladin will fall from grace by failing to follow their code. That's not something a Paladin is going to compromise on.
Quote: They're the class that most exhibits mastery over oneself, and in my view, someone that has attained that sort of self-mastery is very open to reason indeed. You're confusing Paladin's and Monks. There is nothing in the fluff that a Paladin has mastery of anything. A Paladin is driven by their code. A Paladin is a slave to its code. Their adherence to their code is "ironclad." That isn't mastery of anything but subservience. A paladin gains its powers not from internal enlightenment, but from conviction and faith.
PRD on Paladins wrote: Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future. Paladins are the most unreasonable of all the classes...by definition.
Mr.u wrote: Why do you think belief in a deity is irrational? I think Paladins can and are reasonable and rational. Being religious does not make you irrational or stupid or unreasonable. First, I didn't say believing in a deity makes a character irrational or stupid or unreasonable. What I said was the Paladin's zealotry makes them unreasonable. Not even Clerics are required to have an "ironclad" adherence to a code.
Paladins are a bit of a contradiction in D&D/Pathfinder. Let me see I can explain it clearly. The cornerstone of the Paladin is their faith. The concept of faith is a belief in something in the absence of proof. In the modern world, we say people who belief in god have faith because science does not recognize the existence of a divine being. But as you correctly point out, this is not at issue in the Golarion setting. So we can't say that Golarion worshipers have faith in their deity when there is proof.
But a Paladin has an ironclad adherence to their code and that is irrational/emotional. A reasonable person could be persuaded to compromise on their beliefs given the right circumstance. Why? Because they are reasonable. A Paladin cannot be convinced to compromise on their beliefs. Their adherence is "ironclad." Grant it, you can argue that the logically adhere because they know they'll lose their powers. But that's not the concept of the Paladin. Paladin's don't follow their code because they see it as the way to achieve/maintain their powers. The follow their code because they are emotionally committed.
So many people misrepresent paladins lately it hurts.
The paladin code explicitly prevents them to be sociopaths. Also they have proof of what they believe in so you reasoning falls apart.
Also if you want to convince paladins to not be good...
When you are right and have proof to it are you really required to compromise?
Basically the code compels the paladin to make the right choice instead of the easy or egoistical one. So really trying to make them stray from the just path to make a point is silly
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I questioned the wisdom of arguing this point further, but the hell with it.
Quote: I'll start with this quote because it underscores the fundamental oversight in these discussions. Classes in D&D/Pathfinder are and always have been, based on stereotypes. The Fighter, Rogue, Barbrian, Wizard, Cleric...are ALL about stereotypes. The Paladin's stereo type is the religious zealot. And it is specifically that zealotry that gives the Paladin powers that even clerics don't have. When the class was introduced AD&D, the Paladin's code was meant to be a huge obstacle and restriction. This frequently caused problems at the table. The entire history of the class is punctuated with anecdote after anecdote of players who took a hardline with their Paladin...as they class was intended to do.
The very fact that all Paladin had to be Lawful Good is testament to the baked in unreasonableness of the class. Paladin's don't kill innocents and don't use torture...and doing so causes them to cease to be Paladin's. No other class suffers such severe punishment for failing to follow a specific set of rules. Not even Clerics.
The entire point of the Paladin class is that they do not compromise their beliefs. That is antithetical to reasonableness.
No, the Paladin's stereotype is the fairy tale knight in shining armor slaying evil dragons. The "religious zealot" stereotype is the INQUISITOR's niche as the witch-hunter that is often flavored as persecuting enemies of their faith. Paladins fight EVIL. Inquisitors fight people they feel threaten their faith. The paladin's abilities are, by and large, based on larger-than-life fantasy heroes who derive powers from purity of heart and all that jazz. There is nothing saying that you're supposed to be an unreasonable zealot as a Paladin, merely that you have a code of conduct, which is not as rare or reason-shackling as you make it out to be. Monks lose their ability to progress as monks if they lose their lawful outlooks. Barbarians that become too lawful no longer have the capacity to advance as barbarians. Clerics that stray too far from their deity's beliefs lose ALL their powers. Druids that violate the code of neutrality or get too comfy with the artificial lose ALL their powers. Inquisitors and Cavaliers who go too far against their deity's will or the order's code will lose most of their powers until they atone.
Paladins are perfectly capable of diplomacy; in fact, aside from the Bard, who is by default the best at it in normal circumstances, they're one of the better classes for winning people over to their point of view peacefully with their naturally super-high charisma and diplomacy and sense motive as class skills. Nobody ever said Paladins have to be "my way or the highway" characters; thats how YOU see them. What the RULES say is you gotta stay worthy if you wanna keep lifting Mjolnir; don't get filth on that shining armor.
Quote: A "reasonable" person does not have an "ironclad" adherence to anything. Such an approach to morality and discipline would make one unreasonable, by definition. I disagree. Plenty of reasonable people have an ironclad approach to "rape is fundamentally wrong," "It is never OK to kill innocent people," and "there's a difference between what's right and what's convenient." If you're playing Lawful STUPID, sure, you can't be committed to something and willing to think about things, but if you're playing Lawful GOOD you should regularly be considering your course of action so you can best honor both your code and the good of the world. People can believe in things very, VERY strongly while still being perfectly reasonable people, and a Paladin is trying to be a good person holding themselves to extremely high standards. They can't afford to be unthinking, or how will they manage to live up to their ideals? Part of an ironclad commitment to doing the right thing is being able to think through what the right thing is when the world is complicated. Someone that just tries a bullheaded "my knee-jerk reaction is always the right one" approach to morality is going to fall, and fall quickly.
Quote: Trying to talk about what a Lawful Good person would do is an exercise in futility. But what we do know is that whatever a Paladin's code requires, the Paladin has an "ironclad" adherence. That does not allow reasonableness when others prevent the Paladin from adhering to that code. Remember, a Paladin will fall from grace by failing to follow their code. That's not something a Paladin is going to compromise on. A paladin will fall from grace if they GROSSLY VIOLATE their code. You need to do something pretty g~~@@&n drastic to so that, because for the most part paladin oaths are not that hard to follow if you're committed to being a good person. Be honorable. Be trustworthy. See the good in others and try to lead others to the light with your words and deeds, falling back on the sword only when you must. There's nothing in there about "force people to do things your way or not at all", but there's an awful lot about protecting your companions with your life, always defending the weak and innocent, having trust in others, doing what you can to protect all but the evil and irredeemable from harm, and generally living your life in a way you can be proud of.
So, you know, things Lawful Good characters SHOULD be trying to do anyway. Paladins just have an oath that commits them more strongly to various aspects of morality other characters follow.
Once again, having strong beliefs is not inimical to reason. Principled people are just as capable of acting rationally as others. Or are you going to say the Chaotic character whose default reaction to anything is to just go with the first thing that pops into their head is going to be easier to reason with than someone that has to evaluate their actions vis a vis their codes and ethics?
And no, by definition, the most unreasonable class is the anti paladin, who despite being chaotic evil is slavishly dedicated to spreading misery and pain wherever they go. Paladins seek the most righteous course of action, which might cause conflicts if you're playing a paladin in Mr. GM's Grimdark Grit-A-Thon where Chaotic Neutral is the most heroic anyone normally gets and you're expected to torture and kill innocent people to save the day, but for the most part a party should not have problems with the paladin unless they're stupid enough to try doing something evil right in front of him, and there's NOTHING in the rules that says the paladin can't dissuade them from this course of action with reasonable arguments, like how torture is rarely a truly effective way to get information but it's certainly an effective way to blacken the soul, or that it is incredibly stupid to try and deal with a demon or a devil, one of whom will lie like a rug and stab you in the back the second the whim enters its head to do so and the other of whom will almost never directly lie to you but will omit inconvenient information, twist words, and try to damn you whenever possible.
Blackwaltzomega wrote: A paladin will fall from grace if they GROSSLY VIOLATE their code. Paizo removed that wording.
Ex-paladins wrote: A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
Proud to be unreasonable.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
No, the Paladin's stereotype is the fairy tale knight in shining armor slaying evil dragons.
No, that's flat wrong. AD&D specifically came out with the Cavalier class to embody that aspect of the genre as a direct contrast to the religious nutjob that the Paladin embodied. Paladins are defined as "holy" crusaders.
Quote: The "religious zealot" stereotype is the INQUISITOR's There are no Inquisitors in AD&D or 3.x. Pathfinder introduced the class as compliment to the Paladin because the Inquisitor can be ANY alignment and is simply tasked with eliminating enemies of the cause without explicit restrictions on how. Which means an Inquisitor can make use of deception and compromise to achieve the end goal...you know, like negotiate with demons to eliminate an enemy. Something a Paladin could never do.
Quote: There is nothing saying that you're supposed to be an unreasonable zealot as a Paladin, merely that you have a code of conduct, which is not as rare or reason-shackling as you make it out to be. You're conflating concepts. You where trying to assert that a Paladin's immunity to fear makes them more reasonable than anyone else. This is patently false. A Paladin's "ironclad" adherence to code makes them the least reasonable class in the book. That does not mean they go about their day unwilling to compromise on what to have for breakfast or who gets to ride which horse. It means that they cannot be reasoned out of following their code of conduct. No other class has this restriction. By definition, this makes them the least reasonable class in the book.
Quote: Plenty of reasonable people have an ironclad approach to "rape is fundamentally wrong," "It is never OK to kill innocent people," and "there's a difference between what's right and what's convenient." No, they actually don't. If the person alleged to have committed their crime is their child, their spouse, or their favorite quarterback, then they suddenly can rationalize it. A reasonable person might agree to kill an innocent person so that a greater good can be achieved. A reasonable person accepts a rationale for doing something. A reasonable person will accept that some bad might have to be done to achieve some good. Or that it's not fair to expect everyone to be good. A Paladin cannot accept a rationale for violating its code because then she is stripped of her Paladin powers. That makes her unreasonable i.e. can't be reasoned with, when it comes to certain things...like doing a deal with a demon.
Black wrote: A paladin will fall from grace if they GROSSLY VIOLATE their code That's false. The word "grossly" is nowhere in the book. You're looking for an interpretation that gets you from A to B. That's fine. It's a game.
Quote: And no, by definition, the most unreasonable class is the anti paladin, I don't consider default evil classes as part of the discussion but I'd argue that the Antipaladin is by definition, afforded a wider latitude of choices than a Paladin simply because being Chaotic gives one more moral latitude than being Lawful. If I am Chaotic, I can commit lawful or neutral acts so long as it serves me. If I am Lawful, I must always be lawful, I cannot ignore laws.
But again, IMO, alignment discussions in D&D/Pathfinder are nonsensical because people don't operate like this. So we are trying to ascribe behavior based on an inaccurate categorization of human behavior. Alignments in Pathfinder represent constants, a fixed point of reference. In real life, there is no constant or fixed reference point for morality.
I'll end this post by saying, so what? I don't really care how people play their Paladins. But the class was intended to be a stick in the mud on morality, which by design makes it the least reasonable of the classes.
Removed some fighty posts and their responses. Let's not get into a back-and-forth alignment discussion, thank you!
N N 959 wrote: Blackwaltzomega wrote:
No, the Paladin's stereotype is the fairy tale knight in shining armor slaying evil dragons.
No, that's flat wrong. AD&D specifically came out with the Cavalier class to embody that aspect of the genre as a direct contrast to the religious nutjob that the Paladin embodied. Paladins are defined as "holy" crusaders. They did. Later on.
The Paladin was Galahad. With Lancelot for the fallen Paladin. You don't get much more Knight in Shining Armor than that.
All Paladins are knights in shinning armor. All knights in shinning armor are not Paladins.
Hrothdane wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
Proud to be unreasonable.
I imagine all Paladins would proudly put this sign on their front lawn.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: Hrothdane wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
Proud to be unreasonable.
I imagine all Paladins would proudly put this sign on their front lawn. A Shaw quote deserves a Chesterton.
“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”
or hey, two!
"He attacked reason...its bad theology."
Paladins are not unreasonable people as a rule. They are not frothing at the mouth lunatics bludgeoning people with swords for no reason.
Paladins operate from a very reasonable basis. They are warriors fighting for the ultimate good they encounter.
Their freedom from fear is not some sort of celestial brainwashing or lobotomy, its a demonstration of their conviction. And yes, you won't find a rule's cite for that.
Discussions of paladins ultimately lead to discussions of alignment, and as such aren't well suited for the rules board because alignment is really, really crappily defined by RAW.
Paladins have frequently ended up the scolds, but this is because, as I am fond of saying 'Good is not easy.' The paladin, even in RAW (even in 5e), is driven by his code.
The issue is that the knightly orders of chivalry are ill suited for interpretation by the average rules lawyer who's trying to find loopholes and work arounds all the time to avoid conflicting with say, a party member who's playing a CN jerk in his party. Not trying to weasel your way around the rules of your order, is one of the keypoints in the mindset of a 'true knight.'
A paladin is immune to intimidate.
I'd argue this is due to his convictions over-ruling the negative effects of fear. Its also to avoid the b@#&*~+! that the average bad DM used to try in the old days (I'll cast fear on a paladin and make him run away, and he'll fall for running from a battle, hur hur hur). The clarification is likely added for the same reason that PF added immunity to charm and compulsion to the pally. To prevent those kinds of shennigans.
He might listen to you threaten his family, tell him a hundred horrible things that might befall him, but he up and ignores your pathetic attempts at posturing and listens to what you're saying instead. He weighs the options presented to him and makes his determination on what the right path is, his conviction burning away your threats as the idle dross they are.
Most of a paladin's power set is designed to assure he retains free, and unimpeded will.
His choices have import and because he has no excuses for his choices (I was afraid! I was compelled! The nymph was really cute!) he therefore is held more highly accountable for them.
Spook205 wrote: They are not frothing at the mouth lunatics bludgeoning people with swords for no reason. This is a straw man. No one has claimed anything of the sort.
Quote: Paladins operate from a very reasonable basis. They are warriors fighting for the ultimate good they encounter. The first has nothing to do with the second. Paladins do not operate on a reasonable person platform. They operate from conviction, faith, belief, not reason.
Quote: Discussions of paladins ultimately lead to discussions of alignment, and as such aren't well suited for the rules board because alignment is really, really crappily defined by RAW. While I generally agree, this discussion isn't based on alignment, but on the method by which Paladin make their decisions and deal with moral choices. Paladins are unwavering in the morality. In most cases, there are not left with a real choice but are required to act in a way that upholds their code. This is not the foundation for reasonability.
Quote: Paladins have frequently ended up the scolds, but this is because, as I am fond of saying 'Good is not easy.' The paladin, even in RAW (even in 5e), is driven by his code. I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I think the point needs to be emphasized.
Being a Paladin was not meant to be easy.
Understanding that this is/was the design goal of the class is crucial to understanding my point. What people have been trying to do from 3.x is look for a way to make the class easy. People try and rationalize their way around the moral inflexibility of the class. That misses the entire point of the class.
Quote: Not trying to weasel your way around the rules of your order, is one of the keypoints in the mindset of a 'true knight.' Bingo.
This doesn't make the Paladin as a default unreasonable people, it does make them the least reasonable when it comes to morality. There's a difference which I think has been lost in people's rush to establish the "easy going" paladin paradigm.
In those little quotes, I believe Shaw and Chesterton are using two different meanings of "reason."
Shaw appears to actually be talking about practicality or pragmatism, while Chesterton appears to be referring to logic itself.
Thus, I don't see the conflict between them.
It's hard to reason about morality with a paladin because they right by default as they're in a world in which Good is tangible and intentionally empowers them. If they follow the code their choice is right.
They're are unreasonable as a Scientist is about the Earth being round and revolving around the Sun.
thejeff wrote: N N 959 wrote: Blackwaltzomega wrote:
No, the Paladin's stereotype is the fairy tale knight in shining armor slaying evil dragons.
No, that's flat wrong. AD&D specifically came out with the Cavalier class to embody that aspect of the genre as a direct contrast to the religious nutjob that the Paladin embodied. Paladins are defined as "holy" crusaders. They did. Later on.
The Paladin was Galahad. With Lancelot for the fallen Paladin. You don't get much more Knight in Shining Armor than that. The paladin is indeed the true blue shining knight in silver armor stereotype. WHo goes out and slays dragons and rescues maidens and is polite to old folks and children.
The cavaliar is the noble-born ridiculously devoted codesworn IDIOT of a knight, all about personal honor and glory, very, very LN. Lawful Stupid sums up the cavaliar code quite succinctly. i.e. intelligence check necessary to realize that facing Orcus with a dinner fork is probably unwise.
The paladin's code isn't ironclad because there are many, many ways to interpret what is more important within it, and all of them are perfectly valid.
When your gods are real, Good and Law are physical forces, Reason and Faith are exactly the same thing if you deem them so. You make your choice, and you stand by it.
A religious fanatic is someone who tolerates no deviation from their own worldview. That does not EVER describe a paladin, who are likely considerably more tolerant of the worldview of others then, say, a cleric. Because a paladin is there to be a martial arm and inspiration to others, not to proselytize and spread the power of their god in the face of all other gods, which a cleric is.
So, the fanatics in the game are the clerics and the inquisitors. You know, folks whose blind devotion to their god is so strong they actually get mighty spells because of it!
Paladins can certainly be pious, but being a Fanatic would be Lawful Stupid and inevitably cross part of the paladin's code, and he'd fall.
==Aelryinth
In Winter Soldier (the movie), Fury was being fanatical and "Lawful Stupid" at the beginning of the movie. Cap, the boy-scout paladin-type, stood up to him and got Fury to rethink. Paladins don't have to be Lawful Stupid, and non-Paladins certainly can be.
Also, Paladins might be immune to fear, but there are things we typically call fear that Paladins certainly a susceptible to. What we can Fear for our loved ones is really concern for our loved ones, which Paladins certainly are susceptible to.
Also, not to state the obvious, but, uh...this is a Pathfinder forum. AD&D is a ruleset about four systems removed. It's no more valuable a source than me referencing paladins in literature or movies—Miko Miyazaki of Order of the Stick is a great example of the "paladin" stereotype being discussed here. Funny enough, and avoiding spoilers, her interpretation doesn't fare quite so well as the more sensible interpretations shown by Hinjo, Lien, Thanh and O-Chul.
These four follow the Twelve Gods, but tend to focus more on helping people with the assumption that the Twelve Gods are inherently good and will want this to be done. Meanwhile, Miko is all about determining the gods' will and following it to the letter, and...well, her personal issues can lead to some misinterpretations.
My point is that AD&D is about as "canon" in a Pathfinder discussion as Order of the Stick is, if not less so—at least Order of the Stick is mostly based on D&D 3.x.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: What we can Fear for our loved ones is really concern for our loved ones And that's not the same thing.
I disagree with pretty much everyone here in that I fully believe paladins can be afraid (not "logically concerned"), but I already went over that above. I see the chemical instinct of fear as being very different from drawn-out fear, and I think a paladin would be fully vulnerable to the latter.
The difference is, as I think almost everyone here agrees, paladins can't be controlled by their fear. They're controlled by their minds. Where I differ is that I believe they can make bad choices because of fear—but that's a mark of their own failure as paladins, not of their lack of self-control. It's fully their fault if they chicken out and decide to leave their buddies for dead just to save their own skin—they don't get to claim the amygdala made them do it.
Aelryinth wrote: stuff... Wow. So much of your post is just flat wrong.
A Cavalier can be any alignment, a Paladin can only be Lawful Good. A Paladin is protected by "divine" powers, a Cavalier is not. There's a reason why Paladins are restricted to Lawful Good and Cavaliers are not. While both Paladins/Cavaliers/and some Samurai subscribe to a code, Lawful Good is the most restrictive of all the alignment options. LG affords the least margin for compromise of any of the alignments. Don't confuse that with a claim that LG cannot compromise at all. I am not saying that and never did.
Lawful Good is the least tolerant of other alignments and world view. Neutral is the most tolerant. Once again "least tolerant" =/= intolerant.
Reason and faith are not the same thing. That statement is nonsensical. Let's ignore the fact I am actually talking about being "reasonable," not about reason (logic), and address your fallacy. Reason is defined as good judgment. Faith is a belief in something in the absence of proof. One is never confused or used in place of the other. And as I said before, that concept of "faith" is really not an accurate term for a setting in which deities do exist.
Fanatic is not the right term for a Paladin, zealot is. 3.x opened the door for subscription to a cause rather than a god. So this removes the "religious" as a permanent label.
What's really noteworthy about your post and others like it, is how ardently you try to create a Paladin concept which is as easy going as the next guy in the party. Rather than embrace the unyielding conviction which is iconic of the class, you and others seek to rewrite the ethos and essentially neuter it. Why is that significant? Because it speaks to how incompatible/unenjoyable the stereotypical Paladin is to play in D&D/Pathfinder. People want the class without the moral baggage/handcuffs. So the easiest route is to try and change the communal view of the class and recast it as a Congenialadin.
I get it. And I really don't care how people play their characters, but I'll rephrase what Spook said earlier. The entire point of the class is to create that internal party conflict, to force players to struggle with what really is the right thing to do? Does the ends justify the means for a Paladin, or do the ends never justify the means for a Paladin? This is what the class offers. It's certainly everyone's prerogative to ignore that if they so choose. I don't really want to sit down at a table and have player vs player morality battles. So if a GM lets someone play a Congenialadin, I'm not going to complain.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: In Winter Soldier (the movie), Fury was being fanatical and "Lawful Stupid" at the beginning of the movie. Cap, the boy-scout paladin-type, stood up to him and got Fury to rethink. Paladins don't have to be Lawful Stupid, and non-Paladins certainly can be.
Also, Paladins might be immune to fear, but there are things we typically call fear that Paladins certainly a susceptible to. What we can Fear for our loved ones is really concern for our loved ones, which Paladins certainly are susceptible to.
Funny you mention this, because I was thinking of exactly this movie early.
Fury is 100% not Lawful, I'd peg him as Neutral Good.. Captain America is 100% Lawful Good. Fury will do whatever it takes to win the end game. Captain America will not. Captain America insisted that SHIELD be disbanded because it was tainted. Fury didn't care and would have kept SHIELD up and running, despite the infiltration and possibility of spies. Why? Because Fury is about results and Captain America is about method.
A Paladin's greatest fear is not failing the mission. She would rather fail the mission and adhere to her code than break it and succeed. That describes Captain America.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: My point is that AD&D is about as "canon" in a Pathfinder discussion as Order of the Stick is, if not less so—at least Order of the Stick is mostly based on D&D 3.x. An erroneous conclusion. Pathfinder is built on the foundation of D&D 3.x, which was built on the foundation of AD&D. In many cases, Paizo adopted the the 3.x paradigms entirely. Archeologist study ancient cultures to help them understand how the present cultures came into being. Understanding the how and why of AD&D tells us a lot about the how and why of Pathfinder because Pathfinder subscribes to many of the same philosophies.
Have/did you ever played AD&D?
I have. I enjoy it immensely, just like I enjoyed 3.0, and just like I enjoy other distinct rules systems like Grimm and Call of Cthulhu. :)
The problem with your reasoning is that you take "many of the same philosophies" pretty much for granted, assuming that despite the massive changes the core remains. AD&D is not good evidence. At best, it's an interesting perspective. Especially since, like I said, it's almost four rules systems apart.
So much has changed between editions and system changes that it's absurd to act like "AD&D did it" is any sort of citation for "Pathfinder does it". I have a halfling barbarian who will disagree with you most fervently on the matter.
I see the disconnect. You're talking about a "rules system." I'm talking about high level class concepts. You'd be more on the mark if I were talking about flanking, or Armor Class, or XP per level, but I'm not. I would agree that AD&D does not shed much, if any, insight on Pathfinder in regards to rules. But I'm not talking about rules. I'm talking about the design concepts behind classes. That is something that has been handed down and accepted by each iteration of the game. Some classes more than others and some less. The stereotype on which the classes in AD&D existed is by and large the same in Pathfinder...by design. Pathfinder was meant to be an improvement to D&D 3.x, not a completely different game. Paizo wanted all the people who loved 3.x to come and play Pathfinder and that meant keeping the core concepts intact.
N N 959 wrote: Aelryinth wrote: stuff... More stuff Actually, you're the one who is wrong.
The cavaliar in UA was held to the code of chivalry, regardless if he was LG or CE. Who he fought for didn't matter, but he was held to that code by hook or by crook. If he deviated from the code, no more cavaliar.
And that code was VERY strict. Plate +5 or full plate armor? Full plate, please. Dagger +4 or normal longsword? Longsword, please. Ugly horse and fight mounted, or fight afoot? Fight afoot, please. Deadliest foe on the field? Promptly charge him, none of this stealthing about and clever tactics and stuff.
It didn't matter if you were treacherous, used poison, fought for a CE emperor...you still had to adhere to the dictates of that code or lose your class benefits. You weren't just without fear, you had to prove it at every chance, and had to act the highborn noble warrior at ALL TIMES, and pursue glory.
It was a very Lawful Stupid code, and it got less tolerant as you got less good (your own allies were in the way of you charging to meet the enemy? Ride them down!)
So, no, alignment had nothing to do with the cavaliar's code. It was code that transcended alignments, and it was very unforgiving.
Your unbending view of paladins cleaving to one alignment seems to want to box all paladins up in the same package and viewpoint, removing any sense of thought, flexibility and tolerance from them. Which is utterly ridiculous on the sense of it.
I get that you don't like paladins or the idea of paladins. We all sense it. But that hardly makes a paladin a fanatic, because our definition of fanatic is much different then yours, obviously. A paladin is secure and firm in his faith.
If you want zealotry, find a cleric or inquisitor. That's their thing. And in their own way and their own codes, they are held just as firmly to a standard of behavior as any paladin...it's just a DIFFERNT CODE.
==Aelryinth
N N 959 wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: In Winter Soldier (the movie), Fury was being fanatical and "Lawful Stupid" at the beginning of the movie. Cap, the boy-scout paladin-type, stood up to him and got Fury to rethink. Paladins don't have to be Lawful Stupid, and non-Paladins certainly can be.
Also, Paladins might be immune to fear, but there are things we typically call fear that Paladins certainly a susceptible to. What we can Fear for our loved ones is really concern for our loved ones, which Paladins certainly are susceptible to.
Funny you mention this, because I was thinking of exactly this movie early.
Fury is 100% not Lawful, I'd peg him as Neutral Good.. Captain America is 100% Lawful Good. Fury will do whatever it takes to win the end game. Captain America will not. Captain America insisted that SHIELD be disbanded because it was tainted. Fury didn't care and would have kept SHIELD up and running, despite the infiltration and possibility of spies. Why? Because Fury is about results and Captain America is about method.
A Paladin's greatest fear is not failing the mission. She would rather fail the mission and adhere to her code than break it and succeed. That describes Captain America. "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
-Paladin Code of Sarenrae
"I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be."
-Paladin Code of Torag
Failing nobly isn't exactly the Paladin's line, although all of them do their utmost to accomplish their goals in a way their conscience and code will approve of. Still, I imagine the vast majority of paladins would break from the code and atone if doing so served the greater good than than stick to the code if there was no way to stop evil AND honor the code, which is a fairly rare occurrence. Usually it's just harder, and being a paladin's not for people who like doing what's easy over what's right.
N N 959 wrote: Spook205 wrote: They are not frothing at the mouth lunatics bludgeoning people with swords for no reason. This is a straw man. No one has claimed anything of the sort.
Quote: Paladins operate from a very reasonable basis. They are warriors fighting for the ultimate good they encounter. The first has nothing to do with the second. Paladins do not operate on a reasonable person platform. They operate from conviction, faith, belief, not reason. I reject your central premise.
Conviction, faith and belief are not against reason.
You seem to predicate this belief of yours on the fact that paladins hold to 'ironclad' ideals. You've focused on the 'ironclad' frequently, as if you believe having firm, objective beliefs is somehow something wrong. Especially in the case of the pally, where his 'ironclad ideals' are the ones the universe actually obviously operates on when it defines lawful good.
Wait.
Has this devolved to a "No! You're the doody head!" argument?
blackbloodtroll wrote: Wait.
Has this devolved to a "No! You're the doody head!" argument?
Sorta seemed like that awhile back to me. :(
And it definitely no longer has anything to do with if 'a Paladin is affected by the intimidate skill' any more.
Aelryinth wrote: N N 959 wrote: Aelryinth wrote: stuff... More stuff Actually, you're the one who is wrong. Well, let's see.
Aellryinth wrote: The cavaliar in UA was held to the code of chivalry, regardless if he was LG or CE. Who he fought for didn't matter, but he was held to that code by hook or by crook. If he deviated from the code, no more cavaliar.
And that code was VERY strict. Plate +5 or full plate armor? Full plate, please. Dagger +4 or normal longsword? Longsword, please. Ugly horse and fight mounted, or fight afoot? Fight afoot, please. Deadliest foe on the field? Promptly charge him, none of this stealthing about and clever tactics and stuff.
It didn't matter if you were treacherous, used poison, fought for a CE emperor...you still had to adhere to the dictates of that code or lose your class benefits. You weren't just without fear, you had to prove it at every chance, and had to act the highborn noble warrior at ALL TIMES, and pursue glory.
It was a very Lawful Stupid code, and it got less tolerant as you got less good (your own allies were in the way of you charging to meet the enemy? Ride them down!)
So, no, alignment had nothing to do with the cavaliar's code. It was code that transcended alignments, and it was very unforgiving.
Your unbending view of paladins cleaving to one alignment seems to want to box all paladins up in the same package and viewpoint, removing any sense of thought, flexibility and tolerance from them. Which is utterly ridiculous on the sense of it.
As I actually own a copy of Unearthed Arcana, I'll remind you that it was in this book that the Paladin was made a subclass of the Cavalier. If you failed your duties as a Paladin, you were stripped down to a Cavalier. So no, Paladins were stuffed in a smaller box than your non-Lawful Good Cavalier.
Quote: I get that you don't like paladins or the idea of paladins. We all sense it. In game terms, this is called failing your Sense Motive by 5 or more. I actually loved the Cavalier in AD&D as it became the only class I played. In PFS, I absolutely love teaming with Paladins. Why? Because it's free money. You get a teammate who has a a ton of fantastic abilities which were intended as trade-off for a restrictive code of conduct, but almost nobody wants to play them as the stick in the mud that they were intended to be. What's more, I've yet to see a PFS GM try and impose any restriction on them.
In fact, I've seen GMs go out of their way in PFS to accommodate Paladins doing or not doings things they really shouldn't be. There was a specific PFS scenario where a guy playing his 2nd level Paladin quit the character after the first encounter. Despite the GM trying to reshape the mission requirements as not being in conflict with his code, the player disagreed and said he couldn't play a Paladin in PFS and promptly quit the scenario and the character. Never seen that with any other class, have you?
My two favorite classes to team with are Cleric and Paladin. I'll choose those two over any other class if given a choice.
Quote: But that hardly makes a paladin a fanatic, because our definition of fanatic is much different then yours, obviously. A paladin is secure and firm in his faith. I specifically said the word "fanatic" is not accurate. I'm not sure why you are misrepresenting my position.
Quote: If you want zealotry, find a cleric or inquisitor. Zealotry requires zeal. The fact that a Cleric or Inquisitor might be zealous has zero bearing on Paladins. All three may be equally zealous. But there is no doubt that a Paladin is zealous.
PRD wrote: ..paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
You're undercutting your own defense.
You first quote the reason the paladin was made, which was AD&D. THEN you turn around and endorse him being put under the cavaliar, which was NOT the reason he was originally made.
So, stick to one set of arguments. I'm arguing the original paladin and cavaliar, you're arguing the paladin-under-UA-which-is-a-European-Knight-trope.
Which is definitely not the paladins we are talking about. We're talking about paladins, not over the top cavaliars.
Paladins can be zealous, indeed. But different gods have very different standards of zeal. Paladins of Rao would be calm, reasoned, and diplomatic, and zealous about being that way. A paladin of Erastil is all about family, friends and the farm, getting the harvest in, and protecting his neighbors from evil out in the dark, and he's very committed to that task without having to impress his faith on all and sundry.
Embodying teachings is not about zealotry, which many LG gods would frown upon. It's about quiet, deep faith and belief in what you are.
And your metagame mechanical reasons for loving the paladin are in direct contravention of his code. IN all truth, any LG character thrust into the same situation should have reacted approximately the same way. The paladin just had the guts to go through with it.
==Aelryinth
Spook205 wrote:
I reject your central premise.
Conviction, faith and belief are not against reason.
As I never said that, you haven't rejected anything I've said.
Quote: You've focused on the 'ironclad' frequently, as if you believe having firm, objective beliefs is somehow something wrong. Never said that, nor is that anywhere even remotely in the discussion. This conversation has been about whether a Paladin's fear immunity makes them more reasonable than others. I'll repeat the quote from Blacky that got me into this discussion
Blackxxxx" wrote: Arguably, paladins should be some of the most reasonable people on the planet, since fear can never taint their decision-making. Spook wrote: Especially in the case of the pally, where his 'ironclad ideals' are the ones the universe actually obviously operates on when it defines lawful good. Remember what I said about the game can juxtaposed incompatible traits and ignore whether it actually works? Good as a fixed point or constant is a fiction in our real lives. There is no way for us to measure an act or a person and determine whether it is "objectively" good. You can in Pathfinder. So you have real people having to make morality decisions e.g. sadistic choices, for which we can't know if its objectively good OOC, but the game can? Everyone who plays a pally of the same deity or cause is not going to agree on what is the right choice, but yet the game says there is an objectively right choice.
Aelryinth wrote: You're undercutting your own defense.
You first quote the reason the paladin was made, which was AD&D. THEN you turn around and endorse him being put under the cavaliar, which was NOT the reason he was originally made.
You're not making any sense or you're unable to follow the discussion.
You tried to claim that the Paladin is the KISA. I pointed out that AD&D introduced the Cavalier because not all KISA are Paladins. Then you tried to tell me that Cavaliers were "lawful stupid" but not Paladins. Except that the same book in which Cavalier were introduced to AD&D is the same book in which Paladins became a subclass of the Cavalier. So every criticism you leveled at Cavaliers, you unwittingly attached to Paladins.
Quote: So, stick to one set of arguments. I'm arguing the original paladin and cavaliar, you're arguing the paladin-under-UA-which-is-a-European-Knight-trope. Then you don't know what you're talking about because their never was a Cavalier separate from a Paladin in AD&D. When Cavalier came into being, AD&D stuck Paladins with the same burden.
Blackwaltzomega wrote: Still, I imagine the vast majority of paladins would break from the code and atone if doing so served the greater good than than stick to the code if there was no way to stop evil AND honor the code, which is a fairly rare occurrence Despite the fact that it might be very plausible, it's a rare occurrence because most GMs don't want put players in that situation. I don't. Nor do I want to see another player have to struggle with that or be a part of game where it becomes a focal point.
And I disagree, most paladins would not break their code and seek atonement, that would be gaming the system. Players will make that choice because they know it's an option. A paladin does not look for a loophole or a way out.
In Winter Soldier, Captain America stops resisting Bucky. He would rather die than fight his friend. HIs conviction means more to him than his life or the fact that if he stayed alive he might save more people in the future.
I will concede that Paizo has taken explicit steps make the Paladin more compatible with the typical demands placed on adventurers in scenarios. But we are all familiar with stereotype of the holy crusader who is unflinching and unyielding in the face of evil and Paladins are still meant to subsume that stereotype more than any other class.
N N 959 wrote: I will concede that Paizo has taken explicit steps make the Paladin more compatible with the typical demands placed on adventurers in scenarios. I disagree. A common predicament Paladins are placed in is the sadistic choice - commit a lawful act (follow the code) or a good one. In 3.5 paladins only fell if they grossly violated the code, giving them a significant out - They would refuse to commit the evil but lawful act and instead would commit the good one. now, the choice requires a paladin to fall for any violation of the code, meaning the gm can either no longer set up moral dilemmas for paladins with their value for role play, or if they do, force the paladin to fall. and that design makes paladins harder to work with, not easier.
Admittedly in the scenario where the choice is break the code or face added difficulty bringing the evil to justice, the choice is the added difficulty. But the brek the code or commit an evil act debate? Paizo has made that a harder decision.
As for GMs not wanting to put their players in 'that situation'? I know of a large numbers of players who refuse to play paladins because a 3.5 gm put them in 'that situation' and actually insisted that any unlawful act also caused them to fall. So, it is a thing that happens
burkoJames wrote: N N 959 wrote: I will concede that Paizo has taken explicit steps make the Paladin more compatible with the typical demands placed on adventurers in scenarios. I disagree. A common predicament Paladins are placed in is the sadistic choice - commit a lawful act (follow the code) or a good one. In 3.5 paladins only fell if they grossly violated the code, giving them a significant out - They would refuse to commit the evil but lawful act and instead would commit the good one. now, the choice requires a paladin to fall for any violation of the code, meaning the gm can either no longer set up moral dilemmas for paladins with their value for role play, or if they do, force the paladin to fall. and that design makes paladins harder to work with, not easier.
Admittedly in the scenario where the choice is break the code or face added difficulty bringing the evil to justice, the choice is the added difficulty. But the brek the code or commit an evil act debate? Paizo has made that a harder decision.
As for GMs not wanting to put their players in 'that situation'? I know of a large numbers of players who refuse to play paladins because a 3.5 gm put them in 'that situation' and actually insisted that any unlawful act also caused them to fall. So, it is a thing that happens This is less of a contradiction than you think. The lawful code the paladin is following tells them to do good acts. In a choice between a LN or NG action, the paladin will pick the NG one almost every time because Paladins are under no obligation to answer to morally unfit authority and the code they remain true to encourages them to do good whenever possible.
A paladin's within his rights to openly defy the law when the law is evil without contradicting anything in his code; in fact, for many paladins, opposing corrupt laws to do the right thing IS following the code.
"Corruption in the courts is the greatest corruption of civilization. Without confidence in justice, citizens cannot believe in their countries, and civilization begins to disappear. I will root out corruption wherever I find it, and if a system is fundamentally flawed, I will work to aid citizens by reforming or replacing it."
-Abadar's Paladin Code
icehawk333 wrote: It bugs me much more that intimidate is blocked by anything immune to mind-effecting effects. This is my issue as well. The fact that you can't Intimidate intelligent undead is much more perplexing than the fact that you can't scare a paladin, and flies in the face of a lot of the cultural materials that vampires are drawn from. Intimidate should be a fear effect, but not necessarily a mind-affecting effect.
burkoJames wrote: N N 959 wrote: I will concede that Paizo has taken explicit steps make the Paladin more compatible with the typical demands placed on adventurers in scenarios. I disagree. The way I see it, the fact that Torag allows a Paladin to mislead others when the general code says no lying, is a concession to players.
The fact that Sarenrae says retreat is better if you can fight another day, is a concession to players. Common foot soldiers will often stay and fight to the death against overwhelming odds. Heck 99% of the NPCs fight to the death in PFS scenarios. Yet Paizo is giving players a black and white way to retreat from a fight instead of dying. The Saranrae code doesn't even require insurmountable odds.
N N 959 wrote: burkoJames wrote: N N 959 wrote: I will concede that Paizo has taken explicit steps make the Paladin more compatible with the typical demands placed on adventurers in scenarios. I disagree. The way I see it, the fact that Torag allows a Paladin to mislead others when the general code says no lying, is a concession to players.
The fact that Sarenrae says retreat is better if you can fight another day, is a concession to players. Common foot soldiers will often stay and fight to the death against overwhelming odds. Heck 99% of the NPCs fight to the death in PFS scenarios. Yet Paizo is giving players a black and white way to retreat from a fight instead of dying. The Saranrae code doesn't even require insurmountable odds. Actually the general code allows a paladin to retreat, especially if it's in order to save his allies. The paladin isn't bound to senseless sacrifice.
Obviously he's willing to give up his life against stronger foes if this makes a difference (e.g. allows innocents or his allies to escape safely, or buying time)
Also, retreat=/=flee
|
