Ok so a lot of people are to distracted by the contrived scenerio in the other thread so this is for a much more focused core discussion.
What happens when a Paladin's Oath goes against her Code of Conduct?
The example I gave before was a good aligned undead with a Paladin with Oath vs Undead. By all rights, the Paladin is MANDATED to kill the undead. The oath even specifically mentions that they know there ARE good undead. But they do not care. They are of a mindset that undead=thing to be killed. But killing a good person (even if they are undead) is generally considered bad by many people.
Or the Oath vs chaos and a chaotic good person...
Or the Oath of Vengence as a whole. They are not allowed to let a minor evil deter their quest...
So for a more focused discussion on THIS TOPIC, what do you guys think? How would you handle a conflict in Oath vs Code.
As a GM, I'd have Paladin take priority. In a case of substantial conflict, bonuses from the oath might be suspended. Any oath-specific "fall" would be to vanilla Paladin.
This assumes the player doesn't object or have something else in mind, though.
The specific oaths are stupid and go against one of the core principles of what a Paladin is supposed to stand for: Redemption.
You want to have Paladin's of X and Y? That's fine. But a Paladin doesn't get his divine powers from any deity. He gains them from maintaining his own righteousness. If a deity handed down an order to a Paladin that went against that code, I'd expect that Paladin to question the order if not downright refuse it.
I would personally ban any oath that would come into conflict with the original code of conduct. Or modify the existing codes so that exceptions can be made to spare creatures that are visibly making an effort at redemption.
The interesting thing is that there is actually a Redeemer archetype for the pally.
The interesting thing is that there is actually a Redeemer archetype for the pally.
A real shame it's limited to Half-Orcs only. I'd love to use this for other races as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for PFS, but I think that how the paladin code and the oaths interact with each other is something that the GM decides for his world and lets the players know ahead of time. Do you want the Oath to supercede? Great. Make sure your aspiring paladin players know at creation. Do you consider the Oath fluff and it's just a set of alternative abilities? Great. Make sure your aspiring paladin players know.
In my game world, the Oaths alter and supercede the generic paladin code. Paladins sworn to an Oath are different from paladins not sworn to an Oath.
The problem that I have with the contrived scenario is that it's ridiculously contrived to trap the hypothetical paladin (I mean... returns to her demon form just before the paladin walks in and has suffered so many negative levels that one hit from a smite charged weapon kills her).
In my world, an Oath against Undead wouldn't fall for killing a good aligned undead as long as she ensured that no fallout would cause innocents undue suffering. For example, if Zorge the Good Lich is a living lock on the Gates of Hell, and this is widely known, then Sue the Oathbound Paladin should leave him be (or quest to find a way to transfer the lock onto another object and then send him to his rightful rest). If Sue stumbles upon a good-aligned ghost in some abandoned ruin and decides to send the ghost to its rightful rest, then, in my world, Sue's status is fine.
|
I see the Paladins as gaining their power through self-righteousness(thus using charisma instead of wisdom like other divine casters) so in my opinion most people use a very westernized christian version of what the code actually means. Honour is different in different societies and should be treated as thus. The oaths on the other hand are very much spelled out so I would actually say that oath trumps code because a paladin wouldn't take an oath that would conflict with their code in the first place.
Another opinion of mine, which may be more pertinent to the other thread but it has too much noise, is that a paladin shouldn't fall by accident. It should be a choice the character makes. The presented situation may be complicated, and both outcomes could be bad (fall vs. some other bad plot outcome), but the player shouldn't have to guess which one will make him fall.
Pure opinion.
I personally agree. I feel like evil is mostly intention. Otherwise you could never play a combat paladin (the difference between a "good" kill and a "evil" kill is intention). Accidents lack the malice and such of evil acts. Now granted, willfull ignorance is no excuse either though.
Standard paladin code takes priority.
It's even supported by the rules as breaking the oath result in the loss of the oath-specific powers, while breaking the code results in loss of all the powers, oath included.
Destroy all undead. Put to rest the poor souls turned against their will. Prevent the taint of undeath from spreading to the newly dead, blessing or burning the corpses as necessary.
They have to destroy ALL undead, regardless of their acknowledgement of good undead or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously?
Lazar did a great job there, are you so locked in you refuse to acknowledge when someone is right, really?
Also going by the letter for a paladin code rather than spirit is completely missing the point.
Actually im curious about this... an oathbound is supposedly temporart. When ypu complete your mission you are free pf your oath and revert to regular paladinhood.
Paladins who take up an oath may make a sacred promise to their god or temple to perform some specific and grand action associated with the oath. For example, an oathbound paladin who takes the Oath of Vengeance may be tasked with killing the orc warlord who razed her home city, while a paladin with the Oath against the Wyrm may be asked to secure a nonaggression pact with a family of dragons. When a paladin completes the sacred promise, the oath is fulfilled, and she may abandon the oath if she so chooses; she may then select another oath or become a standard paladin or a different paladin archetype.If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities.
So from this, once you complete your promise you can revert to traditional paladin. But it does not have that language for if you break your oath. And since the oath speficially replaces class abilities while in effect, losing your oath specific abiloties may or may not bar you from the abilities they replaced (since ypu are still technically bound by your oath, even if you break it). So, from the verbage, it looks like you dont revert if you break your oath...
Seriously?
Lazar did a great job there, are you so locked in you refuse to acknowledge when someone is right, really?
The fact is, regardless of what the fluff says, the mechanics say, with NO grey area what so ever that they are BOUND to slay ALL undead. No if, ands, or buts. Good aligned or no, theu have to. If the oath was better written to allow allowances from good aligned it would be a different story because that could show the variance in views of the oathtakers.
This is why I personally find many of the oaths very poorly written because they are TOO black and white and pretty much require things to be stereotypes to function without issue.
For.instance, i would change the code to mandate the destruction of evil undead. That way there is a common agreed ground between the different views of the undead oathed but they have freedom on things like good aligned.undead.
So perhaps you shouldn't go by the exact wording and instead follow the spirit of the archetype, I honestly don't get why that's so hard for people :-)
So rule 0 solves everything?
True, but one of these readings in in line with the paladin oath. The other is not.
Regardless, right now the Oaths may not be very well written, so absent any errata, the best course of action is to houserule it.
Regardless, right now the Oaths may not be very well written, so absent any errata, the best course of action is to houserule it.
I do usually house rule it, but I usually have my players write down their code and look it over and give them the go ahead so there is no.question what is and is not in their code.
The rules as of now is that overall a paladin should choose the standard code over the oath when they conflict because it has less worse consequences.
The rules as of now is that overall a paladin should choose the standard code over the oath when they conflict because it has less worse consequences.
That is true.
Since RAW is pretty quiet on it I usually run this for "an evil act"
It is about true intent. What you REALLY were feeling.
