| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try checking out this page and the descriptions found therein. Hopefully that should help. Be wary, I've found these forums have an obsession with hating on paladins or doing everything they can to tinker with making them fall.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have played two Paladins and GMd for dozens more without incident. Don't let the vocal minority here in the forums scare you. Just be reasonably good and try not to impose any zealotry on other player. The GM is required to notify you if any action you take will be an alignment violation in their view. My advice is that even if you disagree, just do as they say and let it go. It's not worth the fight at the table over what essentially is a GM call. Talk to them after the game about your concerns and if they are a jerk about it, just don't play at their table anymore. Playing a paladin is not the big fuss some make it out to be.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
While I don't have much to add after BoB's comment above, here is a thought.
Try to present your characters motivations, objectives and behavior on the paper. Make a short description of him, perhaps half or quarter page long, which explains his attitude. You can often reference it that way, and perhaps help even your GM to envision him in the same way.
Adam
|
|
If I roll a Paladin what is their definition of lawful good?
The PFS campaign follows the Pathfinder RPG rules for alignment, as Nargemn quoted, and for the paladin's code.
If your GM thinks that your actions are likely to shift your alignment (in this case, away from lawful good), she must give you a formal warning, then only if you continue the same behaviour can she declare an alignment change.
However the paladin's code requires that she must not commit an evil act. This is a different and higher standard.
In either case you don't lose the character. You can recover your powers by paying for casting of atonement at the end of the scenario.
The Pathfinder Society is a Neutral organisation. It expects members to follow the Three Duties, including, relevantly, to cooperate and respect the claims of other Pathfinders. Other characters at the table may follow evil gods, act dishonestly, immorally and impiously, or otherwise strain the paladin's tolerance. If you can't find a way for your paladin to work with such people and still honour the code, then you should think seriously why you're playing that character in PFS.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should be ok.
For most scenarios it just doesn't come up.
When it does come up, the DM is required to inform you before you commit an alignment violation
Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn
any player whose character is deviating from his chosen
alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must
make sure that the player understands the warning and the
actions that initiated the warning.
Most people take that as alignment and articles of faith for the same reason: Lawful good, honor, and certain deities codes are all highly subjective. Getting on the same page as all the Dm's isn't possible, so the DM has to tell you how the objective laws of the universes morality are working tonight.
|
|
Also, if you own the Inner Sea Gods book, there are several paladin codes for specific gods in it that will give you an idea of what your god requires.
Just keep in mind these are in addition to, not in place of, the paladin codes. They might get you a little leeway but they're not supposed to replace the existing ones.
|
While I agree with both Bob and Wolf, be aware that there can be table variation.
From your OP it sounds as if you may have had difficulty with one local GM. If that is so, that GM has not only the authority but arguably the responsibility to enforce what he thinks Paladins should be (hopefully biased on the side of reasonableness).
On the other hand, in PFS "I was just following orders", also CAN be a defence.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I've had a similar issue with another character with a very questionable your character is evil so you can't use him anymore sorta thing.
I just want to tap in on this for a moment.
I have found a lot of people don't understand the alignment infraction system. A GM cannot tell you your character is evil and you cannot play them any more. At most they can require an atonement, and they must warn you in advance that an atonement will be required for your actions. Only a VO can declare your character irredeemably evil.
This is how it is supposed to go:
Player: I go to do X.
GM: You receive a warning from your god / conscience that this act wil make you evil.
P: I understand that it would normally be evil, here is why it is justified in the current situation.
G: No, that just isn't convincing.
P: I do it anyway.
G: Okay, you feel yourself slipping into evil ways, you will need an atonement at the end of this adventure.
At chronicle sheet time:
P: Okay, I paid for the atonement.
G: All right, I will also need to see your previous chronicle sheets.
P: Here you go.
G: Gee, I am seeing a lot of atonements here, can you explain them.
P: My character just gets frustrated very easily,
G: Okay, I really hate to do this, but this character is just wantonly evil, I am going to need to report this to our VL.
Later:
G: So that's the situation, what do you think?
VL: Gee, your right, that is really evil. Okay, I will mark the character as dead. Can you please email me the details, and I will forward them to Tonya for review? Also, I will email Player, and give him Tonya's email address and explain the procedure from this point forward.
Still Later:
Tonya: Okay, I am posting this incident to the VO forums with all the names removed. What do you guys think, is this character wantonly evil, or should they get to atone?
Majority of VOs: No, that is evil, hang em high.
Tonya: Sorry player, your character is just too evil for this game, please come up with a new one.
So as you can see, it is a pretty big deal. At most you should be out 500 / 3000 gp (2 / 8 PP) And even then, if the call was questionable you can appeal it to a VO, the same way you could if you thought your character died because of a questionable call. (Though I really wouldn't bother if it was just a 500 gp atonement.) But in any case, even this could not happen if the GM did not warn you *before you committed the act* that it would shift your alignment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've probably played nearly two hundred tables and GMed over 140. In all that time I've only seen a paladin lose powers once. That was at a table I was GMing and the abridged version of the conversation leading up to it went something like this:
Me: As you contemplate that action you feel your link to your deity weakening. (That would cause you to lose Paladin powers.)
Player: But in my opinion doing this would serve the greater good.
Me: I see why you would be willing to do this and indeed it won't cause an alignment change. But unfortunately I believe the action itself requires doing something your deity does not want done under any circumstances.
P: OK but I'm going to do it anyway.
Me: OK. You have lost your link to Shei.
And then we role played the atonement at the end of the scenario.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
If I roll a Paladin what is their definition of lawful good? Lawful Good can be pretty broad and don't want the GM to take your powers away because he thinks it doesn't fit your alignment. I've had a similar issue with another character with a very questionable your character is evil so you can't use him anymore sorta thing. Save me the time of the debate and waste of Chronicle sheets, that's potentially tons of time. :D
I am of the firm belief that anybody who plays a member of another organization: Priests, Paladins, Shieldmarshals, Hellknights, Rift wardens, whatever, in the society needs to have a firm and developed reason why working with the society forwards their organizations goals, and a good understanding of how far they are willing to compromise their organizations principles to stay in the society.
In the case of paladins, this could be that they are working with Ollystra(sp?) to try to turn the pathfinders into a tool for good or something similar.
|
|
Except the problem is this:
If one only plays in a given area, and there is a selected pool of GMs and they are all on the 'Must make a Paladin Fall' agenda (Or, alternatively, 'MUST give a Paladin a Pass' agenda for the opposite path) then the documentation could be in place for every scenario, with a player helpless to the system and having to pay for an Atonement every scenario they can afford it (or not in the more generous agenda path).
Now a player that's had the *forced Atonement every scenario* sits down at the table where the *got a pass for burning orphanages* player sits at.
Sure, there's table variation, but at a certain point that drives people away from the campaign -- "I HAD an awesome character, but I got hosed by local 'table variation' politics."
If I play a paladin whose deity is adamant about giving 'second chances(read: bringing wayward children back to the fold)' to folks, and then the GM goes 'giving this person a second chance is wantonly evil even though it's a good thing you're doing', where does the appeal process take one if that becomes 'yet another Atonement'?
On paper, one could have a *stack* of Atonements, yet be following both the Lawful Good alignment AND the printed desires of their chosen deity, yet not be 'wantonly evil' in such a case.
|
Different dieties have different codes also that would be worth looking in to. For example, a Paladin of Torag can lie freely if telling the truth would bring greater harm. A paladin of Sheyln is suppose to avoid killing anything or anyone that can potentially be redeemed. This is in addition to normal Paladin stuff. I think the codes are in Inner Sea Gods and some of the player Companions. I know the Paladin Code for Abadar is in "Faiths of Balance."
Ultimately, what constitutes an alignment infraction is up to the GM at the table. For example, if at my table a paladin of Sheyln just started trying to murder-hobo the evil cleric of Rovagug without asking for their surrender and trying to talk first, I would consider that breaking their code but I wouldn't consider the it breaking the code for a paladin of Sarenrae, whose faith holds the only unforgivable act to be worship of Rovagug.
Get to know your diety and act like a follower of that diety should and you should be fine.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
On the other hand, in PFS "I was just following orders", also CAN be a defence.In PFS, following orders will defend most alignment infractions, but will not help a character with class code violations.
No. Following orders doesn't defend anything. That language was removed from the guide 2 (3?) seasons ago. You are once again responsible for your own moral actions.
Please, if you hear people saying this, please set them straight.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Except the problem is this:
If one only plays in a given area, and there is a selected pool of GMs and they are all on the 'Must make a Paladin Fall' agenda (Or, alternatively, 'MUST give a Paladin a Pass' agenda for the opposite path) then the documentation could be in place for every scenario, with a player helpless to the system and having to pay for an Atonement every scenario they can afford it (or not in the more generous agenda path).
Yes, and this is the case where you appeal it to your VC / RVC. This is exactly what the appeal process is for.
Just like if you have a GM who starts every combat with an NPC surprise round.
Just like if you have a GM who consistently has NPCs coup de gras without justification. (Yeah, they are slavers and they are winning, but they coup de gras you anyway, um, because reasons.)
The answer for a GM abusing their judgement is to have the VC / RVC / Tonya* talk to them. Not to shackle every other GM in the OP.
*Only as a last resort.
|
|
Except the problem is this:
If one only plays in a given area, and there is a selected pool of GMs and they are all on the 'Must make a Paladin Fall' agenda (Or, alternatively, 'MUST give a Paladin a Pass' agenda for the opposite path) then the documentation could be in place for every scenario, with a player helpless to the system and having to pay for an Atonement every scenario they can afford it (or not in the more generous agenda path).
Now a player that's had the *forced Atonement every scenario* sits down at the table where the *got a pass for burning orphanages* player sits at.
Sure, there's table variation, but at a certain point that drives people away from the campaign -- "I HAD an awesome character, but I got hosed by local 'table variation' politics."
If I play a paladin whose deity is adamant about giving 'second chances(read: bringing wayward children back to the fold)' to folks, and then the GM goes 'giving this person a second chance is wantonly evil even though it's a good thing you're doing', where does the appeal process take one if that becomes 'yet another Atonement'?
On paper, one could have a *stack* of Atonements, yet be following both the Lawful Good alignment AND the printed desires of their chosen deity, yet not be 'wantonly evil' in such a case.
I know that it is a popular preconception (Woo, paladins, alignment, drink, etc.) but how many people have actually seen the stereotypical GM that is out to make paladins fall? I mean, in actual face-to-face games and not just conversations on the boards.
I've played a paladin from 1 to 14 and haven't ever really felt in danger of falling (well, there was this one time in Rachikan...) and this is having played with a handful of different GM's, locally and at conventions. I've got another paladin started up and at level three currently and am still not having a problem with it.
So, how common is paladin prejudice actually?
|
|
I am of the firm belief that anybody who plays a member of another organization: Priests, Paladins, Shieldmarshals, Hellknights, Rift wardens, whatever, in the society needs to have a firm and developed reason why working with the society forwards their organizations goals, and a good understanding of how far they are willing to compromise their organizations principles to stay in the society.
Paladins need to worship a deity.
There is no requirement that they belong to the organized church of that deity.
In fact, some deities don't even have organized churches on Golarian. Apsu comes to mind, but I know there are others.
In real life, many people belong to several organizations without conflict. I don't see why make-believe people need to offer greater justification than real people for having varied interests.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Perhaps I should have said Cause?
The paladins of Deity X are (defacto) an organization, in that they are a group of people working toward a common end. They may be an organization with a perfectly horizontal structure, with every paladin reporting to Deity X.
But the point still stands, that if you have dedicated your life to Apsu, to the point where Apsu is giving you powers to carry out their will, you should be out there carrying out Apsu's will.
Likewise, if you are a ShieldMarshall of Arkenstar, i.e. a badged officer in good standing in active service, you should have a good reason why you are galivanting around the world instead of doing what you are supposed to be doing, taking care of Arkenstar.
Most of the organizations that grant prestige classes are not just hobby groups. They are active organizations with a cause in the world and a code of conduct that occasionally stands in opposition to the Pathfinder Society.
Some, like Riftwardens are easier to justify. (You are supposed to close gates, the first step is finding the darn things, and being in the pathfinders helps with that.) But you still have to ask yourself, if the Pathfinders send you on a mission to open a gate, what are you going to do?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I know that it is a popular preconception Woo, paladins, alignment, drink, etc.) but how many people have actually seen the stereotypical GM that is out to make paladins fall? I mean, in actual face-to-face games and not just conversations on the boards.
I haven't seen one who was actively trying to make the Paladin fall. But I have sat at a few tables where the GM came down really hard on the paladin. As in "the shapeshifting spell caster has said he has surrendered, but we all failed out sense motives, and cannot tell if he is sincere, and we have no way to restrain him (shapeshifter) or prevent him from casting spells, let alone warning anyone else we are coming. He is evil, and we are in the middle of the Hao Jin tapestry with no way back till we finish our mission. The paladin wants to refuse his surrender but the GM won't let him, because that would be evil."
I have also been on a couple GM forum threads where people said (some variation on) "I have been preping this scenario, and I know one of the players is going to play a paladin, but if he does, and he goes on this scenario, he will automatically fall. Should I tell him to play something else?" (In most cases this came from assuming that the characters were required to be lawful stupid, or from bizarrely strict readings of the paladin code, and in several cases they came back afterward and said "Well, I was worried about it, but when it actually happened the Paladin came up with this really awesome compromise that let them do their mission, but still follow their code.")
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Flite
Having the silver crusade faction helps a LOT with that. Trying to get a group of murderhobos putting their signifigant combined muscle into something good is a pretty worthy cause (even if all you do is keep them from jumping down the slippery slope)
Agreed. I didn't say it was hard. I just said you need to have done it, because it will inform your justifications and make them more convincing.
|
|
I think that most of the people who GM for my deaf, cheery, singing paladin (who collects rude songs and drinks with trolls) are too busy getting their jaws off the floor ("What kind of a paladin are you again?") to worry about whether she should fall or not.
Play your paladin and have fun with it. That's what I do! You'll be fine!
|
Paladins need to worship a deity.
There is no requirement that they belong to the organized church of that deity.
In fact, some deities don't even have organized churches on Golarian. Apsu comes to mind, but I know there are others.
I think this got changed, but in the earlier pathfinder books, Apsu was specifically noted as not giving divine powers (so you couldn't be a cleric/paladin of apsu).
(Edit: Page 18 of Faiths of Purity. Looks like Gods and Magic allows it.)
|
|
I think this got changed, but in the earlier pathfinder books, Apsu was specifically noted as not giving divine powers (so you couldn't be a cleric/paladin of apsu).Paladins need to worship a deity.
There is no requirement that they belong to the organized church of that deity.
In fact, some deities don't even have organized churches on Golarian. Apsu comes to mind, but I know there are others.
You could be, you just didn't get any spells.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could be, you just didn't get any spells.I think this got changed, but in the earlier pathfinder books, Apsu was specifically noted as not giving divine powers (so you couldn't be a cleric/paladin of apsu).Paladins need to worship a deity.
There is no requirement that they belong to the organized church of that deity.
In fact, some deities don't even have organized churches on Golarian. Apsu comes to mind, but I know there are others.
yeah, they changed that. repeatedly. Why does this myth persist?
|
|
I've had a similar issue with another character with a very questionable your character is evil so you can't use him anymore sorta thing.I just want to tap in on this for a moment.
I have found a lot of people don't understand the alignment infraction system.
Note that it is not at all clear that the protections you mention apply fully to declaring a Paladin a non Paladin. They are held to a higher standard and would fall for actions that would not cause a character to become evil.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Note that it is not at all clear that the protections you mention apply fully to declaring a Paladin a non Paladin. They are held to a higher standard and would fall for actions that would not cause a character to become evil.I've had a similar issue with another character with a very questionable your character is evil so you can't use him anymore sorta thing.I just want to tap in on this for a moment.
I have found a lot of people don't understand the alignment infraction system.
Correct, in fact they clearly would not. That post was purely in response to the comment about losing a character to being declared evil, which as I have said, I have observed GM's doing and talking about doing without following the correct procedure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could be, you just didn't get any spells.I think this got changed, but in the earlier pathfinder books, Apsu was specifically noted as not giving divine powers (so you couldn't be a cleric/paladin of apsu).Paladins need to worship a deity.
There is no requirement that they belong to the organized church of that deity.
In fact, some deities don't even have organized churches on Golarian. Apsu comes to mind, but I know there are others.
Here are some links for reference:
There are paladins of Apsu, but they aren't an organization.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the problem is this:
If one only plays in a given area, and there is a selected pool of GMs and they are all on the 'Must make a Paladin Fall' agenda (Or, alternatively, 'MUST give a Paladin a Pass' agenda for the opposite path) then the documentation could be in place for every scenario, with a player helpless to the system and having to pay for an Atonement every scenario they can afford it (or not in the more generous agenda path).
Now a player that's had the *forced Atonement every scenario* sits down at the table where the *got a pass for burning orphanages* player sits at.
Sure, there's table variation, but at a certain point that drives people away from the campaign -- "I HAD an awesome character, but I got hosed by local 'table variation' politics."
If I play a paladin whose deity is adamant about giving 'second chances(read: bringing wayward children back to the fold)' to folks, and then the GM goes 'giving this person a second chance is wantonly evil even though it's a good thing you're doing', where does the appeal process take one if that becomes 'yet another Atonement'?
On paper, one could have a *stack* of Atonements, yet be following both the Lawful Good alignment AND the printed desires of their chosen deity, yet not be 'wantonly evil' in such a case.
This just isn't a realistic example of a problem.
1) we don't want a hard coded campaign rule on what makes a paladin fall. Every circumstance is different, and hard coding something like this would disallow that circumstantial difference.
2) we don't want to make rules vs the most extreme hypotheticals. That's just poor policy.
It's disconcerting to think these examples of dick GMs might be more prevalent than they really are.
|
|
I'm with Andrew on this.
I think this is one area where people tend to blow hypotheticals WAY out of proportion. As I mentioned above I've seen one paladin loss of powers in probably 350 tables of PFS. And even then there was an "out" but the player chose not to take it. The truly ambiguous situations are few and far between.
It's actually not a Herculean task to play a paladin. For Paladins to be in constant danger of falling you need either 1) A GM who hates paladins and wants to cause them trouble or 2) a player who wants the mechanical benefits of the paladin class without the responsibilities.
Either one is violating the "being a jerk" rule. But is anyone actually seeing either of these occur?