| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello! There's at least 2 people in my party, 1 being the DM, that are treating clerics and paladins as religious zealots. We're playing Kingmaker and they didn't vote in a LG Paladin of Abadar as Ruler because they feel his religion would have clouded his judgement. In play, he hasn't RPed a zealot or pushed his religion on anyone.
I tried saying it's not fair to compare our Earth religions to Pathfinder's and that electing a paladin of Abadar as Ruler is not the same as electing a Catholic Bishop to Ruler. The DM said "When a man of a god rules....it tends to be gods who truly rule....not men. (The Paladin has not exhibited zealotry, but since he is part of an order of zealots.....its difficult to let prejudice stand aside" and "Paladins are far more devout than anything in our world. They have so much devotion to the powers of law and good that these belief systems actually give them power, actually manifest in the physical world. They believe so strongly....magic manifests. Its like voting in an ultra pope......one that can actually talk to angels for advice......you're right its not the same....its far far far more severe. Its more like voting Jesus Christ as ruler." --- is it?
Another player said "Electing a member of the church of Abadar to a leadership role, is the equivalent of electing a priest to be president. "
Is that fair? Am I wrong in my view of clerics and paladins? Yes, RP comes into play of course but is it fair bias or stereotype to have against clerics and paladins, especially those of Abadar?
Thanks for your feedback.
Go find out how many of the American Presidents have been strongly religious.
Quick answer: most of them.
Religion doesn't mean you are a zealot, though most zealots are religious.
Your GM is being a jerk, but if that's how he runs his setting, that's how he runs it.
Most of my players tend to ham up the religion part of their characters, so most divine casters are very outspoken preachers of their faith.
Conversely, you can have a soft spoken, highly religious person who keeps their beliefs to themselves.
So to answer your question, it would appear that religion=zealot in your game. If you don't like this, don't play a religious character.
Hello! There's at least 2 people in my party, 1 being the DM, that are treating clerics and paladins as religious zealots. We're playing Kingmaker and they didn't vote in a LG Paladin of Abadar as Ruler because they feel his religion would have clouded his judgement. In play, he hasn't RPed a zealot or pushed his religion on anyone.
I tried saying it's not fair to compare our Earth religions to Pathfinder's and that electing a paladin of Abadar as Ruler is not the same as electing a Catholic Bishop to Ruler. The DM said "When a man of a god rules....it tends to be gods who truly rule....not men. (The Paladin has not exhibited zealotry, but since he is part of an order of zealots.....its difficult to let prejudice stand aside" and "Paladins are far more devout than anything in our world. They have so much devotion to the powers of law and good that these belief systems actually give them power, actually manifest in the physical world. They believe so strongly....magic manifests. Its like voting in an ultra pope......one that can actually talk to angels for advice......you're right its not the same....its far far far more severe. Its more like voting Jesus Christ as ruler." --- is it?
Another player said "Electing a member of the church of Abadar to a leadership role, is the equivalent of electing a priest to be president. "
Is that fair? Am I wrong in my view of clerics and paladins? Yes, RP comes into play of course but is it fair bias or stereotype to have against clerics and paladins, especially those of Abadar?
Thanks for your feedback.
*Clouded his judgement*
"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce. He expects his followers to obey all meaningful laws, but not those which are ridiculous, unenforceable, or self-contradictory. He is also a great proponent of peace, as war inevitably leads to the degradation of trade and the stifling of prosperity for the general public. He advocates cautious, careful consideration in all matters, and frowns on impulsiveness, believing that it leads to the encouragement of primitive needs. Abadar discourages dependence on government or any religious institution, believing that wealth and happiness should be achievable by anyone with keen judgement, discipline, and a healthy respect for all sensible, just laws."
I agree with alexd1976. Except a zealot in this relgion is more of an enforcer of JUST laws and the common good. In today's world it would literally be a normal police officer. That is your mighty zealot of Abadar... a law enforcer.
If they took even a small amount of time to read up on Abadar they would have read this passage and not flat out reject it.
All you have to do to be a good leader is LITERALLY adopt the statue of the church of abadar. If anything, everyone should want a leader that worships Abadar. Unless such person would rather live in a plutarchy society or monarchy.
Asmodeus isn't bad either. :D I mean, HE is bad, but a state that adopted him as their patron could be LN, and a pleasant (if restrictive) place to live.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Switzerland. :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, paladins are zealots that wish to overthrow the government of this great nation, thereby ending its prosperity, and as such they should be exterminated.
...he says while thumbing the red pentagram in his pocket.
Paladins and clerics are whatever the table has agreed that they are. Barring that, they are whatever the GM perceives them to be in his/her setting. There are no mechanics to adjudicate when discussing the religious zealotry or lack thereof for classes that are designed, narratively, to be religious.
Yes, paladins are zealots that wish to overthrow the government of this great nation, thereby ending its prosperity, and as such they should be exterminated.
...he says while thumbing the red pentagram in his pocket.
2112 reference? If so, then it's probably bards that wish to overthrow the government...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think the DM has the right of it, but in a completely backwards way. Who WOULDN'T want a paladin as their leader? I mean, the whole Jesus thing is a monumentally dumb comparison, but come on! You've got a guy dedicated to upholding righteousness and order without oppression or evil running your country? And if he ever willfully does anything wrong, he loses his paladinhood and you immediately know, so he can't EVER be corrupted?
I ask again: WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PALADIN RULING YOUR COUNTRY???
I ask again: WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PALADIN RULING YOUR COUNTRY???
Because there are eight other alignments?
For the OP, yes, anyone who says "My god is better than other gods and I'm going to dedicate my entire life to serving my god to the extent that I hold an ordained religious title like priest" is probably very much a zealot. It's pretty much impossible to be that guy and NOT be a zealot; zeal is part of the job description. If that guy believed some other god was better, he would worship that one instead, right?
Given that premise, it's expected that he will do nothing against his god's doctrines and covenants and will probably, whenever possible, enforce those doctrines and covenants upon himself and most likely upon anyone else he cares about - after all, he does worship the best god and he is a "priest" (et al.) of that best god, and it is his job to help everyone else find the truth of that best god.
The more political power he has, the more likely he is to push those doctrines and covenants onto the people over whom he holds power, for their own good AND because it's his first job (assuming he was a priest before he was a politician). While I admit that this is a personal choice that each such priest/leader must make and therefore it's possible that a priest/leader might make secular decisions separate from his religion, history has shown that that never happens - theocrats ALWAYS dictate policy according to their religion. They always have and it's very reasonable to assume the next one will too. So reasonable that I would never vote a theocrat into power because I can predict what he'll do to such a high degree of accuracy that, while I admit he might surprise me, I won't take that risk because it's a negligibly low chance of happening.
In short, while I don't think your GM should enforce this as game policy, I think the players/PCs who feel this way are justified in their actions.
Disclaimer: There is a difference between a PRIEST who becomes a political leader vs. just some religious guy who becomes a religious leader. Yes, most U.S. presidents have been religious, but I don't think any of them have held an ordained priesthood in any religion. There is a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah...paladins, especially of Abadar, are exactly the kind of people you should want running your country. Assuming you like order and goodness.
Only extremely chaotic or evil individuals would probably find the rule of a paladin to chafe too much. LG, NG, LN, NN should all definitely enjoy his rule. LE and CG can probably get behind it. The LE guy is probably going to be doing discreetly evil stuff behind the government's back, but he's going to enjoy the fact that if he ever gets caught he's going to jail and will have a fair trial and efforts will be made to apprehend rather than straight up kill him (depending on the severity of his crimes). The CG guy might be annoyed at the restriction placed upon his activities, but since it's a good country it's likely the it wouldn't be too terrible. He'd probably just be annoyed with the bureaucracy rather than the actual laws.
NE and CE are probably the only people who wouldn't enjoy a LG country.
As to the original question though, no clerics and paladins don't have to be zealots who would want to establish a theocracy. They don't have to be zealots. A cleric or paladin who was the ruler of a country would certainly be guided by their deity, but that doesn't necessarily make the country a theocracy.
In fact, in a good country which had a cleric or paladin as it's leader it is possible they would try to make sure that all patrons of non-evil deities had a place and that they were as inclusive as possible in caring for and respecting their rights and practices. Which is something that theocracy usually did not do well with (other religions).
A paladin worshiping abadar I can see as a good leader but there are some LG deities that I doubt would make a good role model for a nation. Ragathiel for instance.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if he ever willfully does anything wrong, he loses his paladinhood and you immediately know, so he can't EVER be corrupted?
Lol - that just makes me think about a potential tabloid journal story -
"Rumor has it that the king has a level 10 cleric on standby for a weekly atonement spell every Saturday morning after his debauchery Friday night!"|
|
NE and CE are probably the only people who wouldn't enjoy a LG country.
True - but NE generally aren't fans of any country which isn't ruled by them or their faction, and CE just don't like countries which are solidly run by consistent laws.
I'd also say, while those are 2/9 of the alignments, of the races the country is likely made up of, they're likely only a few percent of the population at most.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fantasy setting where gods grant miraculous powers that that was the case on this world then we'd probably see nothing but religious zealot presidents. I mean who wouldn't vote for guy who can resurrect you family members.
The only reason you don't see religious leaders running for president is they probably aren't eligible due not being a US citizen and why would they take lower job. President over some mortals or working for the big guy upstairs guaranteeing you as good spot in the afterlife. Seem to me the Pope or a bishop would not want to be the leader of a nation.
Depends on the deity
Because there are eight other alignments?
I ask again: WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PALADIN RULING YOUR COUNTRY???
Right, lets break that down.
So, a Paladin (as said above, especially one following abadar) would logically be well received as a reasonable authority figure.
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin. Would you want him running things?
Keep in mind, that in a democracy, evil people get to vote.
Most kingdoms are probably NG or CG moreso than they are LG.
LG can be very restrictive.
If you read up on Asmodeus, it basically describes feudal society as the ideal.
So... yeah...
|
|
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin.
Really? I would have said Hellknight. Hardcore LN all the way.
Now - he mostly fights evil - but those are the bulk of people who break the law anyway. If an idealistic revolution rose up to overthrow the oppressive regime, I don't think Dredd would have any compunctions about shutting it down with extreme prejudice.
I'd actually argue that clerics and paladins are religious zealots, or at least they would probably be considered as such when you consider some of the religions holidays that their more devoted clergy is going to carry out. Clerics following Urgathoa running around and murdering random people a certain day of the year comes to mind.
However, all of that is less of a problem when a religion is certifiably good
|
|
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin. Would you want him running things?
Keep in mind, that in a democracy, evil people get to vote.
Most kingdoms are probably NG or CG moreso than they are LG.
LG can be very restrictive.
If you read up on Asmodeus, it basically describes feudal society as the ideal.
So... yeah...
Lawful Good as a morality is restrictive on what you, as an individual, do, but nothing about being Lawful Good means being repressive, or oppressive, or any of the other bad -essives. Most places are PROBABLY lawful neutral, which makes sense given Asmodeus' viewpoints.
Also, ya no, Judge Dredd is the EPITOME of Lawful Neutral... maybe even Lawful Evil.
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin. Would you want him running things?
Keep in mind, that in a democracy, evil people get to vote.
Most kingdoms are probably NG or CG moreso than they are LG.
LG can be very restrictive.
If you read up on Asmodeus, it basically describes feudal society as the ideal.
So... yeah...
Lawful Good as a morality is restrictive on what you, as an individual, do, but nothing about being Lawful Good means being repressive, or oppressive, or any of the other bad -essives. Most places are PROBABLY lawful neutral, which makes sense given Asmodeus' viewpoints.
Also, ya no, Judge Dredd is the EPITOME of Lawful Neutral... maybe even Lawful Evil.
Good point. LN then. ;)
Asmodeus worshippers can be LN. :D
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin. Would you want him running things?
Keep in mind, that in a democracy, evil people get to vote.
Most kingdoms are probably NG or CG moreso than they are LG.
LG can be very restrictive.
If you read up on Asmodeus, it basically describes feudal society as the ideal.
So... yeah...
In a society, most people (in golarion as well as real life) are not evil. They are the "minority vote" if they don't break the law and end up disallowed to vote. Which cuts that vote even smaller.
LG can be restrictive. Especially when people assume they have to act like zealots.
Are we talking about a democracy, or feudal society? Cause, the OP and I are referring to an elected position, not a king.
|
|
I'd actually argue that clerics and paladins are religious zealots
Part of the issue is that in the past century or two we've changed the connotation of 'zealot' to being inherently bad.
Originally - it was a specific group of Jews who wanted to kick out the Romans and reinstitute a Jewish state in Israel. (Their movement ended 60-80AD) Now - that's bad if you're a Roman, but it definitely has different connotations now.
|
* Shakes head *
"Why would anyone think I'd be a zealot about the gods other people worship? Shelyn gets along with just about everyone! Though... You might not want me in charge anyway because I may not have all the skills one needs to rule. There's more to government than just diplomacy and smiting the occasional demon that comes along!"
________________________
Lyric is bright (for a paladin) but let's face it. Few Paladins have positive intelligence modifiers. Paladin skills are precious, precious things... Lyric with her high charisma, charm and ability to make friends everywhere is better suited as a figurehead than an actual leader.
I am seriously tired of the equation that some people have of Paladin = Zealot.
Paladins have a rainbow of gods and personalities. They may be LG and tolerant, or they may be incredibly narrow minded, or they can be somewhere in between. Just like everyone else.
I'll also note that in our Kingmaker game we were all happy to let the Paladin rule. Kaz is the best of us, and always strives to do what is right.
|
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin.Really? I would have said Hellknight. Hardcore LN all the way.
Now - he mostly fights evil - but those are the bulk of people who break the law anyway. If an idealistic revolution rose up to overthrow the oppressive regime, I don't think Dredd would have any compunctions about shutting it down with extreme prejudice.
Dredd was raised on the book of the Law, he enacts every action he makes based on that book. He wouldn't necessarily look at the effect of a culmination of actions that ended up to a good act but would instead look at each action whether they broke the law or not and punish you fairly and accordingly for each law you broke.
you can defiantly play a paladin this way, most would not though, and you could make arguments for LG, LN, and LE because of how easily killing people comes to him and the lack of remorse he has for those kills. But Dredd is also in a world were good and evil are not tangible forces and if they were he would be more a force of good rather then evil.
He does't do things for himself or for power or raising his own status, he does everything for others, to enforce the law and protect the innocent (good), he is willing to die for his cause, but will not throw away his life for nothing. He holds himself up to this code (the law) higher then any other person would. its like it is a religion for him and he is the most devout follower.
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin.Really? I would have said Hellknight. Hardcore LN all the way.
Now - he mostly fights evil - but those are the bulk of people who break the law anyway. If an idealistic revolution rose up to overthrow the oppressive regime, I don't think Dredd would have any compunctions about shutting it down with extreme prejudice.
Dredd was raised on the book of the Law, he enacts every action he makes based on that book. He wouldn't necessarily look at the effect of a culmination of actions that ended up to a good act but would instead look at each action whether they broke the law or not and punish you fairly and accordingly for each law you broke.
you can defiantly play a paladin this way, most would not though, and you could make arguments for LG, LN, and LE because of how easily killing people comes to him and the lack of remorse he has for those kills. But Dredd is also in a world were good and evil are not tangible forces and if they were he would be more a force of good rather then evil.
He does't do things for himself or for power or raising his own status, he does everything for others, to enforce the law and protect the innocent (good), he is willing to die for his cause, but will not throw away his life for nothing. He holds himself up to this code (the law) higher then any other person would. its like it is a religion for him and he is the most devout follower.
I've never once seen a dead NPC evoke anything even vaguely resembling remorse from a PC... Dredd could have been LG for all we know, I've seen MANY characters played just like him.
Severe, yes, upholding the law, for sure... but he doesn't manipulate it to benefit himself, and seems to genuinely want to help 'the greater good'.
He could be LG. :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the cleric/paladin, and depends on the god. A cleric of Irori, for example, would probably actively seek NOT to proselytize, since that goes against the idea of everyone finding their own path (although they wouldn't hesitate to explain the faith to someone who expressed interest).
I feel like in a polytheistic system where the gods are undeniably known to be real, there's a lot less impetus for One True God syndrome. Sure, the cleric or paladin has a great deal of faith in their god and seeks to uphold their tenets, but it seems to be a lot more personal than going out and trying to convert people. A LG paladin will fight the forces of evil, sure, but they're not going to have any quarrel with worshipers of the good or neutral gods.
It depends on whether you're using "zealot" to mean someone who is extremely passionate about and devoted to their own religion, or someone who believes their way is the only way and disapproves of other forms of worship. I'd see no problem with the first type of person running a country (and that's actually how I've seen most clerics and paladins played). The second is what would cause issues.
If the player hasn't been RPing a zealot up to this point, there's no reason to think that he'd suddenly become one once in power. I think your GM might be operating with a pretty narrow definition of what being a cleric or paladin means.
Depends on the cleric/paladin, and depends on the god. A cleric of Irori, for example, would probably actively seek NOT to proselytize, since that goes against the idea of everyone finding their own path (although they wouldn't hesitate to explain the faith to someone who expressed interest).
I feel like in a polytheistic system where the gods are undeniably known to be real, there's a lot less impetus for One True God syndrome. Sure, the cleric or paladin has a great deal of faith in their god and seeks to uphold their tenets, but it seems to be a lot more personal than going out and trying to convert people. A LG paladin will fight the forces of evil, sure, but they're not going to have any quarrel with worshipers of the good or neutral gods.
It depends on whether you're using "zealot" to mean someone who is extremely passionate about and devoted to their own religion, or someone who believes their way is the only way and disapproves of other forms of worship. I'd see no problem with the first type of person running a country (and that's actually how I've seen most clerics and paladins played). The second is what would cause issues.
If the player hasn't been RPing a zealot up to this point, there's no reason to think that he'd suddenly become one once in power. I think your GM might be operating with a pretty narrow definition of what being a cleric or paladin means.
Pssh, not true at all. Asmodeus was the first, and views the other religions "with mild amusement".
He isn't such a bad guy: "The Church of Asmodeus is taking an active role in caring for the orphans left by Isger's Goblinblood Wars."
That's more than some of the GOOD religions do. :D
Less, not none. Asmodeus is also probably more self-important than the average god, and even he cooperated with the other gods to imprison Rovagug. Note that even in Cheliax, other religions aren't outright banned, and I'd argue that a cleric or paladin attempting to ban other religions or forcefully convert people (besides destructive ones) would fall more toward the neutral or evil end of the spectrum than good. The OP was talking about an LG character.
Putting it more simply, it's unlikely that followers of gods that are similar in alignment would view one another as following a "lesser" god, and followers of gods that don't agree would still likely respect each others' beliefs as long as they aren't diametrically opposed. Again, this depends on the individual cleric. You certainly CAN play a cleric or paladin zealot, but you don't have to.
He isn't such a bad guy: "The Church of Asmodeus is taking an active role in caring for the orphans left by Isger's Goblinblood Wars."
That's more than some of the GOOD religions do. :D
Er...to indoctrinate them into worshiping Asmodeus and training them to fight for the forces of Hell? That doesn't seem all that good to me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the OP, yes, anyone who says "My god is better than other gods and I'm going to dedicate my entire life to serving my god to the extent that I hold an ordained religious title like priest" is probably very much a zealot. It's pretty much impossible to be that guy and NOT be a zealot; zeal is part of the job description. If that guy believed some other god was better, he would worship that one instead, right?
No. Just no. This is not how faith works, in either the game or in real life. Many people possess a deep and abiding faith without being zealots...a word that has a very specific definition, which is not simply 'has zeal' but much more 'goes too far in his zeal'. Many people are extremely devout and consider their whole lives an offering to their deity without feeling that all others must worship the same way or anything else in the 'zealot' wheelhouse.
Nor is this actually how Clerics work. Clerical abilities do not come with 'ordaining' or anything of the sort...at least not inherently. Nor do Paladin abilities. Now, having divine powers does get you ordained (if you want), and many Clerics have gone to what amounts to seminary, but it's not universal at all that you go be a priest to become a Cleric. You become one through faith and devotion to the deity in question...which, as mentioned, isn't the same thing at all.
It's even less how Paladins work. Paladins aren't actually empowered by their deity, but by the force of their own honor and righteousness...hence why you can have atheist Paladins. This Paladin is also close to a deity...but so what?
Given that premise, it's expected that he will do nothing against his god's doctrines and covenants and will probably, whenever possible, enforce those doctrines and covenants upon himself and most likely upon anyone else he cares about - after all, he does worship the best god and he is a "priest" (et al.) of that best god, and it is his job to help everyone else find the truth of that best god.
Nope. He'll presumably enforce them on himself but "This is the right way for me to live." and "This is the right way for everyone to live." aren't equivalent statements, and even if they were...he's a Paladin, he's used to not everyone living up to the standards he sets himself, and to not forcing them to do so. Indeed, forcing them to do so is gonna drop him from Good real quick and lose him his Paladinhood.
The more political power he has, the more likely he is to push those doctrines and covenants onto the people over whom he holds power, for their own good AND because it's his first job (assuming he was a priest before he was a politician). While I admit that this is a personal choice that each such priest/leader must make and therefore it's possible that a priest/leader might make secular decisions separate from his religion, history has shown that that never happens - theocrats ALWAYS dictate policy according to their religion. They always have and it's very reasonable to assume the next one will too. So reasonable that I would never vote a theocrat into power because I can predict what he'll do to such a high degree of accuracy that, while I admit he might surprise me, I won't take that risk because it's a negligibly low chance of happening.
This is a load of b$%$$#$$. Very few leaders who happened to be religious have enforced all the doctrines of their Church of choice. Catholocism permeated everything to some degree in the middle ages, but that's because it was the only religion going. A polytheistic society is gonna have a lot less problems in that area. And in a more modern sense? This just doesn't happen.
To take an example from the game itself, Khemet III (the ruler of Osirion) is a Cleric of Abadar. A powerful one. He keeps this basically completely separate from his duties as ruler (hell, Nex and Pharasma are more popular deities in his lands, something he's done nothing to stop), beyond a respect for the rule of law.
And all that is aside from the fact that, as mentioned, Paladins aren't actually empowered by their Gods. Saying "Paladin of Abadar" is about as meaningful as saying "Bard of Abadar".
In short, while I don't think your GM should enforce this as game policy, I think the players/PCs who feel this way are justified in their actions.
I disagree profoundly.
Disclaimer: There is a difference between a PRIEST who becomes a political leader vs. just some religious guy who becomes a religious leader. Yes, most U.S. presidents have been religious, but I don't think any of them have held an ordained priesthood in any religion. There is a difference.
Uh...Paladins aren't necessarily priests. Also, the problem with a priest being President isn't their faith but being beholden to the church hierarchy. Which many priests in Golarion are not...making this not an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dredd's an interesting character. He's almost always been written by the same writer (John Wagner) but even so he's not always consistent. But humans are not always consistent.
Sure, he upholds the law and has absolutely no compunction about physically harming either lawbreakers who do not comply or those who threaten his city. But he has actually grown more sympathetic as he's gotten older (he's aged real-time since 1977). He's championed the cause of mutants, hated because they were different, to the point of self-imposed exile. I remember a one-off strip where he literally throws himself off a building to save a suicidal heroin addict.
He's mostly LN but he strives to make his world a better place. One that he can never enjoy due to Judges monk-like existence, but that others deserve. Lawful Neutral trying to be Lawful Good, which I think is pretty poetic.
But he's also nuked a city and killed literally 500 million people. So also that.
Hello! There's at least 2 people in my party, 1 being the DM, that are treating clerics and paladins as religious zealots. We're playing Kingmaker and they didn't vote in a LG Paladin of Abadar as Ruler because they feel his religion would have clouded his judgement. In play, he hasn't RPed a zealot or pushed his religion on anyone.
I tried saying it's not fair to compare our Earth religions to Pathfinder's and that electing a paladin of Abadar as Ruler is not the same as electing a Catholic Bishop to Ruler. The DM said "When a man of a god rules....it tends to be gods who truly rule....not men. (The Paladin has not exhibited zealotry, but since he is part of an order of zealots.....its difficult to let prejudice stand aside" and "Paladins are far more devout than anything in our world. They have so much devotion to the powers of law and good that these belief systems actually give them power, actually manifest in the physical world. They believe so strongly....magic manifests. Its like voting in an ultra pope......one that can actually talk to angels for advice......you're right its not the same....its far far far more severe. Its more like voting Jesus Christ as ruler." --- is it?
Another player said "Electing a member of the church of Abadar to a leadership role, is the equivalent of electing a priest to be president. "
Is that fair? Am I wrong in my view of clerics and paladins? Yes, RP comes into play of course but is it fair bias or stereotype to have against clerics and paladins, especially those of Abadar?
Thanks for your feedback.
The KM Player's Guide suggests the following faiths for paladins,
Erastil best, then Abadar, then Iomedae.For clerics it suggests…
Erastil best, then Gorum, then in no particular order Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Desna, Norgorber, Hanspur and Gozreh.
There is nothing in any of the core class descriptions that says all or even any of its members are zealots.
Zealots actually ARE mentioned in the Kingdom Rules in Ultimate Campaign, and the Game Mastery Guide includes Government Type modifiers for a Theocracy.
Anyone suggesting that any class or followers of any good deity in the game would be unfit for any kingdom leadership position is simply wrong.
Less, not none. Asmodeus is also probably more self-important than the average god, and even he cooperated with the other gods to imprison Rovagug. Note that even in Cheliax, other religions aren't outright banned, and I'd argue that a cleric or paladin attempting to ban other religions or forcefully convert people (besides destructive ones) would fall more toward the neutral or evil end of the spectrum than good. The OP was talking about an LG character.
Putting it more simply, it's unlikely that followers of gods that are similar in alignment would view one another as following a "lesser" god, and followers of gods that don't agree would still likely respect each others' beliefs as long as they aren't diametrically opposed. Again, this depends on the individual cleric. You certainly CAN play a cleric or paladin zealot, but you don't have to.
Er...to indoctrinate them into worshiping Asmodeus and training them to fight for the forces of Hell? That doesn't seem all that good to me.He isn't such a bad guy: "The Church of Asmodeus is taking an active role in caring for the orphans left by Isger's Goblinblood Wars."
That's more than some of the GOOD religions do. :D
Fair enough, they should either be put to death or allowed to starve on the street, that seems more "Good"...
errr.....
*scratches head and wonders about morality*
Wow, great discussion guys. Thanks for all the awesome feedback. It's helped me to hear what others think. I can see it going both ways. I get the sense many of you thinks it depends on the god, and it's Abadar in this case, and by definition of Abadar, they're not going around pushing their religion on people, or are fanatical about it. Even if they were fanatical about Abadar.. they would just want lots of.. banks? And laws? And civilization..?
I was specifically talking about Kingmaker, and Abadar, but I was also talking about non-evil religions in general for any campaign. In a previous Kingmaker campaign, I played a Cleric of Iomodae and once again the DM thought if I was Ruler I would establish a theocracy and push my religion over all others, making Iomodae's version of Sharia Law or something. (is there even one for her?).
I did say I wanted my god to be the patron god of the city, but I wouldn't exclude anyone. I wanted to look good in the eyes of my church to move up the ranks so I wanted to grow a following in our new kingdom. If we needed someone to build a bridge and I was part of Joe's Construction Company, I would suggest them since I work for them. Just like how a cleric of Iomedae would suggest his god. It doesn't make him a zealot, does it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think the DM has the right of it, but in a completely backwards way. Who WOULDN'T want a paladin as their leader? I mean, the whole Jesus thing is a monumentally dumb comparison, but come on! You've got a guy dedicated to upholding righteousness and order without oppression or evil running your country? And if he ever willfully does anything wrong, he loses his paladinhood and you immediately know, so he can't EVER be corrupted?
I ask again: WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT A PALADIN RULING YOUR COUNTRY???
Because the budget is in no shape for all this constant 'charity' (Lawful explanation), and the government officials are too corrupt for the money to make it to the blind/deaf orphans anyway (Chaotic explanation).
There are plenty of reasons why you don't want paladins specifically in charge, even if you accept that they are a great force for good and protectors of the people.
There are, of course, individual differences. A paladin of abadar might be better at balancing budgets and doing internal investigations than the average 'Imma get mah greatsword' types of the order's rank and file.
So it depends more on the individual than their 'class'. The class if a very, very fine part of his platform, mind you, but it isn't the only thing you consider when picking the leader of the nation. You need to look at the general attitudes of the area, how well his personal attitudes mesh with that, his reputation (not only for morals, but his experience with leadership and his history for success or failures), and his planned policies.
Abadar seems ideal for a patron of a civilization... it's kinda his thing. :D
I just like playing devil's advocate (literally, in this case).
|
|
Fair enough, they should either be put to death or allowed to starve on the street, that seems more "Good"...
errr.....
*scratches head and wonders about morality*
I figure that it's both.
The taking them in, feeding them, clothing them etc. is good.
The indoctrination etc. is probably inherently evil (not capital 'E' Evil, but probably more leaning towards evil than neutral)
When they actually have them doing things in the name of Hell, that's evil - probably capital 'E' Evil. (Though I suppose even that depends. If they're fighting demons from the abyss, those aren't evil acts.)
|
|
Fair enough, they should either be put to death or allowed to starve on the street, that seems more "Good"...
errr.....
*scratches head and wonders about morality*
I figure that it's both.
The taking them in, feeding them, clothing them etc. is good.
The indoctrination etc. is probably inherently evil (not capital 'E' Evil, but probably more leaning towards evil than neutral)
When they actually have them doing things in the name of Hell, that's evil - probably capital 'E' Evil. (Though I suppose even that depends. If they're fighting demons from the abyss, those aren't evil acts.)
This.
And the Good churches are absolutely doing stuff about orphans...where they can. Cayden Cailean, for example is a huge supporter of orphanages throughout the Inner Sea. But probably not in Isger...because Asmodeus's church has made his faith illegal there (and in Cheliax's territories more generally), which makes it rather hard for them to run orphanages.
So...it's Evil because they're actively preventing others from doing it so they can do it and indoctrinate the kids.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DM is meta gaming. A paladin of Abadar maybe with prestige class levels in Justicar is an excellent choice to rule.....IMHO...
I dunno about metagaming...but it definitely sounds like the GM is letting their real-life issues (presumably with religion) intrude into the game world at least a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, they should either be put to death or allowed to starve on the street, that seems more "Good"...
errr.....
*scratches head and wonders about morality*
The issue isn't that Asmodeus is helping; the issue is the price of his help =P
Asmodeus will help them live in this life, and is also looking forward to eternally torturing them after it's done.
(But Asmodeus wants to eternally torture all mortals. Free will is the first and greatest crime, after all =P)
@ OP - A lot of faiths would have zero interest in theocracy or in government in general. I suspect the typical Desnan or Caydenite or Calistrian would view themselves running a country to be a sign that something had gone horribly wrong in their life.
On the Lawful spectrum, Irori has little to no interest in rulership, while Erastil's leery of the big cities usually associated with kingdoms. (Erastil's a god who's always keeping Dunbar's number in mind).)
Zon-Kuthon's weird as heck, but Zon-Zon actually has a theocracy (Nidal) and it's horrifying. Zon thinks that only pain can bring enlightenment, and his people have a duty to spread enlightenment throughout the world.
Iomedae, Torag, Abadar, and Asmodeus would all be interested in leadership and rulership, but none of them would try to drive out all other faiths. (Edit: And being a competent ruler would pretty much be part of a priest's ethos's. Making a cleric or paladin of Abadar king WOULD be making a priest the king, but Abadar's the actual god of law and civilization. Being a good and wise ruler would functionally be a religious duty =P)
Rovagug's the only major faith I can see trying to outright exterminate all other faiths. Even most of the evil deities have allied deities. (Like Urgathoa and Zyphus, who share a divine realm.)
Judge Dredd was probably a Paladin. Would you want him running things?
Keep in mind, that in a democracy, evil people get to vote.
Most kingdoms are probably NG or CG moreso than they are LG.
LG can be very restrictive.
If you read up on Asmodeus, it basically describes feudal society as the ideal.
So... yeah...
Judge Dredd is a Hellknight
I've never once seen a dead NPC evoke anything even vaguely resembling remorse from a PC... Dredd could have been LG for all we know, I've seen MANY characters played just like him.
Severe, yes, upholding the law, for sure... but he doesn't manipulate it to benefit himself, and seems to genuinely want to help 'the greater good'.
He could be LG. :D
I've seen (and played) many characters who showed plenty of remorse over dead NPCs - even those they'd killed themselves. Usually in the "I wish I hadn't had to do that" sense but occasionally in the "Oh dear, I just really screwed up" sense.
Maybe the problem isn't that Dredd is LG, but that your LG players aren't really LG?
*slowly realizing that his friends are evil*
Oh...
My...
GOD!
;)