Would you accept a Paladin using the fact that they haven't fallen as circumstantial proof they are in the right?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
No realistic city in a world of fantasy...
Did you really just write that phrase? Seriously?

To expand upon this, in order to be amenable to a modern audience, a fantasy world has to reflect modern sensibilities in some ways. Telling a player that they're character is being discriminated against because of their race, sex, gender, or religion is a pretty awful thing to do to that player (particularly if they were just playing someone who reminded them of themselves) so we find Golarion to be generally be a more tolerant place than the real world is sometimes. This is great.

Plus, people's notions of "historical accuracy" are pretty inconsistently applied to fantasy worlds, and people's notions of what "historically accurate" can be pretty distorted. To wit, there are people who complain that including non-white people to a fantasy setting would be "unrealistic" despite the copious evidence to the contrary.

Even so I figure "A city has pretty strict rules against murdering that person you saw do a crime instead of alerting the authorities" is not that unrealistic for any society that wants to have a justice system. Like "don't just kill people even if think you have a good reason" is basically step one when you want to have a system of laws.

Except that we're playing a game of heroic adventure. In most cases, "report to the authorities" isn't how we want the game to work.

It might work that way in a "real" fantasy setting, but this is a game and it's designed for gaming.

Pretty much.

All D&D/Pathfinder-style games follow a number of tropes. They have to for the game to exist. The biggest one is, quite simply, the local authorities are laughably incompetent and are very bad at their jobs.

Shattered Star, Carrion Crown, and Rise of the Runelords have major criminals performing necromancy and ritual sacrifice in their towns for weeks and months before PCs step in and solve it, from 0 to completion, in 2-3 days.

The local guards can't stop a Goblin attack. They can't put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4 to determine something is going on at the creepy haunted asylum. They don't realize that the evil spirits of people who died in the burning prison are causing trouble... Or even that the creepy place is haunted...

So it is highly amusing, and actually immersion breaking, when suddenly the GM has the lawyer for the obviously evil noble turn into Johnny Cochrine on the stand and the town sheriff that couldn't deduce the true identity of Lord Imav Illain suddenly becomes a master of criminal investigation techniques and manages to track down the PCs who slew her and saved the town. Then, there are the political issues that would come up if a politician didn't side with a known Paladin.

Can you imagine how much political suicide that would be? Paladins are heroes to the people, well known, myths and legend made flesh that are told in stories. Every school child knows what a Paladin is and what they represent. The warriors of justice and virtue, honorable to a fault, defenders of the weak, ally to good, enemy to evil...

There is no politician in any place that wasn't predominantly evil, that had a democratic system, that could remain in power if they snubbed such a person. The attack ads would rip them apart. They'd be tarred and feathered.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Lawful Good Paladin tells a lie knowingly? They lose their powers. There is a tangible and immediate effect in most cases. From their auras suddenly going down, to loss of powers.

Lies aren't evil.

Doesn't matter.

All of the Deity Codes only add to, not replace, the core Paladin Code of Conduct.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

They have to do that in addition to not performing evil acts. Lying, as in:

(not lying,

Is grounds for stripping of Paladin abilities instantly.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lawful good: erm... ahh uhm... faces a quandary here. (non paladins still wind up lying)

Not really. One can be deceptive without lying. The most obvious example is to stall the Chelaxians until the halflings have a chance to escape. ("All right, let me see that warrant. Wait a minute, these are supposed to have watermarks... where's the watermark? I need to check on something, and you're not going to come in until I'm finished with it.")

For a more interesting approach, I recommend reading Rex Stout's short story "Cop Killer." In this case, both Nero Wolfe and his legman, Archie Goodwin, are asked separately whether or not they have seen two fugitives,.... two fugitives that are, in fact, hiding in their house. And, of course, lying to a cop is a felony.

So Goodwin tells them, straight up, that he has seen them and knows where they are, but he's such a wise guy that they know he's just being sarcastic. Wolfe points out that the cops of course have the authority to search the entire house, but they will look like fools when they come out empty handed, and that he's not above publicizing this invasion of his privacy.


HWalsh wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Lawful Good Paladin tells a lie knowingly? They lose their powers. There is a tangible and immediate effect in most cases. From their auras suddenly going down, to loss of powers.

Lies aren't evil.

Doesn't matter.

All of the Deity Codes only add to, not replace, the core Paladin Code of Conduct.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

They have to do that in addition to not performing evil acts. Lying, as in:

(not lying,

Is grounds for stripping of Paladin abilities instantly.

The only way i can make sense of what you're trying to say is if you're being circular.

Paladins are the best good.

Paladins fall if they lie

A fallen paladin is no longer a paladin

A fallen paladin is worse than a not paladin

So paladins are the best good

You require your conclusion as a premise or the argument doesn't work.


I mean, a lie has two parts:

- The statement is false.
- You are making the false statement with a deliberate intention to deceive.

(Put aside issues of "intent is hard to show" the Paladin is judged by someone with backstage access to the metaphysics of the setting, they'd know.)

So if the Chelaxian Inspector asks "Do you have 2 Halfling slaves hiding in your attic?" a Paladin can say "no, there are no slaves hiding in my attic" because:

- They're not hiding, they're just sitting there playing cards to pass the time, anybody in the attic would find them right away.
- Once they've run away, they're not exactly slaves now, are they.
- There is no attic, an attic is for storage, the upstairs is a sleeping loft.
- Anything else that is technically true but nonetheless misleading.

renders the statement "not a lie" because it is, strictly speaking, true.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Except that we're playing a game of heroic adventure. In most cases, "report to the authorities" isn't how we want the game to work.

It might work that way in a "real" fantasy setting, but this is a game and it's designed for gaming.

I mean, I don't know about you, but in the game I want to play when the PCs commit some sort of crime within the jurisdiction of legitimate authority, I expect them to have to either answer to or avoid legal repercussions. If nothing else, this is a fun roleplaying scenario and lets people put their social skills to work (since everybody is going to need to testify, you can't just nominate the high charisma guy as the spokesperson.)

I mean "why did you break into the Duke's manor and murder him? If you had evidence that he was summoning demons, was there anything that made this so pressing that you couldn't let us know first?" is something the Sherrif (to say nothing of the Duke's relatives" would like to know. A lot of the time in official Paizo stuff the PCs either already have the official sanction of the Sherrif/Prince/Queen/whomever to deal with the problem, or you're talking about situations that lack legitimate authority (because you're in the middle of nowhere, the city is run by monsters, or the city has suffered a disaster, say.)

It feels like we've shifted the goalposts between "A sheriff who doesn't want the PCs just up and murdering people is unrealistic" to "it's not as much fun to do it that way" which is a different argument entirely, plus fun is subjective.

Well we shifted the goalposts a long time ago from "are people more likely to believe a paladin telling them their ruler isn't legitimate". :)

Murdering the local Duke turns it into more of a political thing than anything else and the obvious answer there for "Why didn't you go to the authorities?" is "The Duke was the local authority.". And generally "summoning demons" can be assumed to be pressing enough that you're not going to let him continue while you journey to the capital to consult with the King.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Lawful Good Paladin tells a lie knowingly? They lose their powers. There is a tangible and immediate effect in most cases. From their auras suddenly going down, to loss of powers.

Lies aren't evil.

Doesn't matter.

All of the Deity Codes only add to, not replace, the core Paladin Code of Conduct.

"Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

They have to do that in addition to not performing evil acts. Lying, as in:

(not lying,

Is grounds for stripping of Paladin abilities instantly.

The only way i can make sense of what you're trying to say is if you're being circular.

Paladins are the best good.

Paladins fall if they lie

A fallen paladin is no longer a paladin

A fallen paladin is worse than a not paladin

So paladins are the best good

You require your conclusion as a premise or the argument doesn't work.

Not really... You just have to understand that Good and Evil are things.

The Paladin is an individual who cannot lie.
The Paladin is an individual who cannot act dishonorably.
The Paladin is an individual who cannot commit any evil act what so ever.
The Paladin must always show respect to legitimate authority.
The Paladin must always help those in need.
The Paladin must always punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Nobody else fits that bill.

Nobody.

No other Lawful Good. No Neutral Good. No Chaotic Good.

A non-Paladin, for example may not lie, but they can.
A non-Paladin, may not act dishonorably, but they can.
A non-Paladin, may commit evil acts.
A non-Paladin, may, or may not, show respect legitimate authority.
A non-Paladin, may, or may not, help those in need.
A non-Paladin, may, or may not, punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Now, if you know, absolutely know, that someone cannot lie, cannot act dishonorably, cannot commit an evil act, must be respectful of legitimate authority, must help those in need, must punish those who harm or threaten innocents...

Are you going to call that person anything other than good? With ANYONE ELSE Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Chaotic Good, there is the possibility of them doing something evil, of lying, etc... With a Paladin? Nope.

Also yes, once a Paladin falls they aren't a Paladin. They lose their Paladin powers. If they are above 4th level you can even FEEL IT as a bystander when it happens. (Auras drop.)

Editing to add:

Also, yes, a Fallen Paladin is much worse than a non-Paladin. For the same reason that a Paladin is better than a non-Paladin. A Fallen Paladin you know broke their oath in some way. With a non-Paladin they may, or may not. With a Paladin they did not. With a Fallen Paladin? Oooh they darn sure did. They absolutely did something wrong, and that is how they fell, and they haven't atoned for it if they did either.

A Fallen Paladin is someone who cannot be trusted. They did something evil, they lied, they acted dishonorably, they disrespected legitimate authority, they willingly turned a blind eye to injustice, they willingly didn't protect people... They did something bad... They broke a promise that they swore to uphold.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Murdering the local Duke turns it into more of a political thing than anything else and the obvious answer there for "Why didn't you go to the authorities?" is "The Duke was the local authority.". And generally "summoning demons" can be assumed to be pressing enough that you're not going to let him continue while you journey to the capital to consult with the King.

I mean the reason that you ask these questions is not to punish the PCs for not anticipating them, but to get them to roleplay their answers to their questions. If the Duke is dead people are going to ask questions, and if the PCs don't hightail it out of town, or cover their tracks very well, they'll eventually get asked the question.

It might go something like:
"Were you in the Duke's Manor last night"?
-"Yes"
"What were you doing there?"
-"We had uncovered evidence that the Duke was involved in a plot to summon demons for nefarious purposes and were looking to find confirmation."
"Why didn't you consult the local authorities first?"
-"Frankly, we didn't know whether or not anybody on the force was in cahoots with the Duke, conspiracies are tricky like that."
"Well, what did you find?"
-"It seems like we stumbled into the middle of a demon summoning ritual, what with all the demons the Duke was yelling at in Infernal to kill us."
"Do you have any evidence of this?"
-"Yes, lots, here you go"
"Okay, stay in town, we may need to get back in touch."

I feel like occasionally asking the PCs to justify in character why they do the things they do is far from unreasonable.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Murdering the local Duke turns it into more of a political thing than anything else and the obvious answer there for "Why didn't you go to the authorities?" is "The Duke was the local authority.". And generally "summoning demons" can be assumed to be pressing enough that you're not going to let him continue while you journey to the capital to consult with the King.

I mean the reason that you ask these questions is not to punish the PCs for not anticipating them, but to get them to roleplay their answers to their questions. If the Duke is dead people are going to ask questions, and if the PCs don't hightail it out of town, or cover their tracks very well, they'll eventually get asked the question.

It might go something like:
"Were you in the Duke's Manor last night"?
-"Yes"
"What were you doing there?"
-"We had uncovered evidence that the Duke was involved in a plot to summon demons for nefarious purposes and were looking to find confirmation."
"Why didn't you consult the local authorities first?"
-"Frankly, we didn't know whether or not anybody on the force was in cahoots with the Duke, conspiracies are tricky like that."
"Well, what did you find?"
-"It seems like we stumbled into the middle of a demon summoning ritual, what with all the demons the Duke was yelling at in Infernal to kill us."
"Do you have any evidence of this?"
-"Yes, lots, here you go"
"Okay, stay in town, we may need to get back in touch."

I feel like occasionally asking the PCs to justify in character why they do the things they do is far from unreasonable.

There is nothing wrong with that, but different classes (or in this case Paladins) should be treated differently. IE:

"Were you in the Duke's Manor last night"?
-"Yes"

"What were you doing there?"
-"We had uncovered evidence that the Duke was involved in a plot to summon demons for nefarious purposes and were looking to find confirmation."

"Why didn't you consult the local authorities first?"
-"Frankly, we didn't know whether or not anybody on the force was in cahoots with the Duke, conspiracies are tricky like that."

"Well, what did you find?"
-"It seems like we stumbled into the middle of a demon summoning ritual, what with all the demons the Duke was yelling at in Infernal to kill us."

"Do you have any evidence of this?"
-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."


HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.

Right. So you basically GM fiat it away because you don't like the lore regarding Paladins.


HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.

Right. So you basically GM fiat it away because you don't like the lore regarding Paladins.

Except for the entirety of the second sentence, which is complete tosh, I'm glad to see that we're in absolute agreement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.

Right. So you basically GM fiat it away because you don't like the lore regarding Paladins.
Except for the entirety of the second sentence, which is complete tosh, I'm glad to see that we're in absolute agreement.

Oh give me a break. You are talking about a spell that doesn't exist specifically to counter one of the lore benefits of the Paladin.

Why do that? Why kick a player of a class like that? Players, well the RP'ers, play Paladin for the flavor, not just the powers. So to strip that out, for no benefit, it's not very cool... In my opinion at least.


HWalsh wrote:
Are you going to call that person anything other than good?

No, but

1)i never claimed they they weren't good.

2)That's not the question.

3) Good people can and do disagree on things.

4) even lawful good people can disagree on things.

That you have a good person that disagrees with you does not make you wrong.

As to the bigger picture, you're arguing epistomology vs actuality. Just because you have an easier way of knowing that the paladin is good doesn't mean that other people aren't good.


HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Right. So you basically GM fiat it away because you don't like the lore regarding Paladins.
Except for the entirety of the second sentence, which is complete tosh, I'm glad to see that we're in absolute agreement.
Oh give me a break.

I will be happy to do so. Stop posting drivel and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Quote:
You are talking about a spell that doesn't exist specifically to counter one of the lore benefits of the Paladin.

Yup. Custom spells as story hooks are a standard feature of Pathfinder adventure design. So, for that matter, are unexpected capacities used as a feature in mystery, adventure, or thriller stories.

Quote:
Why do that?

Because I'm a better, or at least more sophisticated, writer than you are. And also because I'm a more realistic writer than you are, and I'm smart enough to know that the bad guys work very hard to appear to be good guys precisely because they want to be able to use spurious goodness as a cloak for their activities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.

It's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake, but everybody else keeps making it, since paladins are far more well known than this one cleric of Norgorber.

But yes, you're right in a way. It's essentially a GM/setting call: What people know about paladins, to what extent classes are actually a thing in the world, how easy or safe it is to fake being one, etc.

Maybe nobody's ever seen a paladin and has heard no more than vague rumors and thus has no idea what a "aura of courage" would feel like or that a paladin would have one, thus foiling the cleric's evil plan through ignorance.
Probably should let your players know what kind of world yours is, before running into the assumption clash though.

And that, that plot? That's an adventure hook for the party paladin to hunt down the cleric and clear her order's name.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"Well, I can feel the aura of courage around you, so you're not lying. If you aren't in a hurry I'd like you to stay around town for a few days, but otherwise you're free to go. Though, I personally want to thank you for what you did."

... and then, later, it turns out that the local law enforcement was interviewing a chaotic evil cleric who worships Norgorber, but who has invented a spell that duplicates a paladin's aura of courage. And that's the last time he ever makes that particular mistake.

Yeah, I feel like the local authority asking "Do you have any evidence of this" is going to follow up "My word as a Paladin" with "Okay, but do you have any other evidence? We always want as much evidence as we can get, stuff we can put in a box to show the Duke's relatives would be especially helpful; you personally are probably not going to fit in the box we use for this."


Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Right. So you basically GM fiat it away because you don't like the lore regarding Paladins.
Except for the entirety of the second sentence, which is complete tosh, I'm glad to see that we're in absolute agreement.
Oh give me a break.

I will be happy to do so. Stop posting drivel and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Quote:
You are talking about a spell that doesn't exist specifically to counter one of the lore benefits of the Paladin.

Yup. Custom spells as story hooks are a standard feature of Pathfinder adventure design. So, for that matter, are unexpected capacities used as a feature in mystery, adventure, or thriller stories.

Quote:
Why do that?
Because I'm a better, or at least more sophisticated, writer than you are. And also because I'm a more realistic writer than you are, and I'm smart enough to know that the bad guys work very hard to appear to be good guys precisely because they want to be able to use spurious goodness as a cloak for their activities.

For a guy who thinks they're so sophisticated you were pretty obvious. Baiting, insulting, mockery. Nah, sorry, you're not sophisticated at all.

A bit of free advice from an author, by the way, a good writer works within a universe's confines, a poor writer has to alter the setting because they can't handle working within a universe's confines.


HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"I don't feel any more courageous around you. I think you're lying."

"Actually, I am a Tortured Crusader. You see, when I was a child-"

"Yeah, yeah, tell it to someone who believes that bullcrap. Take these lawbreaking scum away!"


thejeff wrote:


And that, that plot? That's an adventure hook for the party paladin to hunt down the cleric and clear her order's name.

That is a good plot, but for that plot to work the world at Large has to work the opposite way. If everyone else trusts the Paladin, then one guy doesn't that sets off the flag that something is up.

If everyone just treats Paladins as "just another guy" then it's just a suspicious and untrusting guy like many others.

You have to draw a world contrast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So if the Chelaxian Inspector asks "Do you have 2 Halfling slaves hiding in your attic?" a Paladin can say "no, there are no slaves hiding in my attic" because:

- They're not hiding, they're just sitting there playing cards to pass the time, anybody in the attic would find them right away.
- Once they've run away, they're not exactly slaves now, are they.
- There is no attic, an attic is for storage, the upstairs is a sleeping loft.
- Anything else that is technically true but nonetheless misleading.

I'd vote to convict if I were on a perjury jury and received any of those rationales for the defendant's conduct. Would you really not?

Language is ambiguous, there is always an interpretation sufficiently strained to render any sentence true in some sufficiently limited sense.

Defining 'lie' so narrowly as to exclude direct answers to direct questions is to define lie out of existence. The paladin can refuse to answer, he can question the authority of the investigator, but weaseling about what the definition of "is" is and so on is out of bounds.

You might enjoy this reenactment of a deposition transcript where a witness was contorting themselves to not answer questions they had a legal obligation to answer honestly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE

I really don't want paladins behaving like that though, honor and honesty require a more demanding attitude towards the truth. YMMV.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In any case, a paladin's auras only affect allies, so somebody interrogating a paladin in a hostile manner probably wouldn't notice something like an aura of courage anyway.


Ventnor wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

"Do you have any evidence of this?"

-"I have my word as a Paladin of Iomedae."

"I don't feel any more courageous around you. I think you're lying."

"Actually, I am a Tortured Crusader. You see, when I was a child-"

"Yeah, yeah, tell it to someone who believes that bullcrap. Take these lawbreaking scum away!"

And that totally works. The person is playing a Paladin that lacks one of the most common traits of the Paladin class. They're going to suffer the penalty for that.


Ventnor wrote:

"I don't feel any more courageous around you. I think you're lying."

"Actually, I am a Tortured Crusader. You see, when I was a child-"

"Yeah, yeah, tell it to someone who believes that bullcrap. Take these lawbreaking scum away!"

I feel like, if this is appropriate for the plot and the tone of the campaign and the Paladin PC is up for it, the "Paladin unjustly accused for a crime they did not commit" could be a fun subplot full of great RP opportunities, *particularly* for a Tortured Crusader.

If it's getting in the way of saving the country from the undead horde massing at its borders, you skip it, but I feel like that goes without saying. How things work is going to change with the needs of the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are there any Paladins that haven't fallen? From the number of threads on the topic I had assumed they were just a myth.

The Exchange

HWalsh wrote:
It has always been that way, it will always be that way, and to not at least nod to that fact, as it has always been, is disrespectful to the original creator of the D&D, and by extension Pathfinder, Gary Gygax.

You know, I have a lot of respect for EGG as the co-creator of that game, but that doesn't mean that I hold his words on alignment as holy gospel.

take just for example those two quotes from the Hack and Slash blog (original source can be found in the Dragonsfoot forums

Quote:
Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide
Quote:
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good.

Well, in both cases, acting like this would cause a LG paladin (there may be paladins of other alignments) in my game to fall instantly. And if that means disrespecting Gary, then so be it, because I would rather not play the game at all than to follow his guidelines on that matter.

Though to be honest, I don't think that Gary would feel disrespected at all just by me modifying parts of the game to better fit my personal preferences.


David knott 242 wrote:

In any case, a paladin's auras only affect allies, so somebody interrogating a paladin in a hostile manner probably wouldn't notice something like an aura of courage anyway.

Uses lay on hands, displays another Paladin specific power, yadda yadda. Any legitimate authority should be an ally, and that wasn't a hostile interrogation.

So you are just trying to call into question the Paladin being a Paladin.

Yeah, it's just, "I don't like the lore so I'm vetoing it."

That's fine. If, in your world, there is no way to tell if someone's a Paladin and people often lie about it that's fine.

In mine, it's rare for people to claim it and people can see things like divine health (there is a healthy glow about you) feel the auras (there is something I feel about just being around you) and the like.


Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So if the Chelaxian Inspector asks "Do you have 2 Halfling slaves hiding in your attic?" a Paladin can say "no, there are no slaves hiding in my attic" because:

- They're not hiding, they're just sitting there playing cards to pass the time, anybody in the attic would find them right away.
- Once they've run away, they're not exactly slaves now, are they.
- There is no attic, an attic is for storage, the upstairs is a sleeping loft.
- Anything else that is technically true but nonetheless misleading.

I'd vote to convict if I were on a perjury jury and received any of those rationales for the defendant's conduct. Would you really not?

Language is ambiguous, there is always an interpretation sufficiently strained to render any sentence true in some sufficiently limited sense.

Defining 'lie' so narrowly as to exclude direct answers to direct questions is to define lie out of existence. The paladin can refuse to answer, he can question the authority of the investigator, but weaseling about what the definition of "is" is and so on is out of bounds.

You might enjoy this reenactment of a deposition transcript where a witness was contorting themselves to not answer questions they had a legal obligation to answer honestly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE

I really don't want paladins behaving like that though, honor and honesty require a more demanding attitude towards the truth. YMMV.

This I definitely agree with. I'd be much happier with a paladin outright lying in a case like that, than paladins taking an Aes Sedai like approach to the truth.

Which, to put it back into world terms, would mean the Inspector would want to question the paladin at length and get very specific unambiguous answers to each question, probably from multiple angles.
Which, frankly, could be as simple as "Are there any halfings in this building?"


WormysQueue wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
It has always been that way, it will always be that way, and to not at least nod to that fact, as it has always been, is disrespectful to the original creator of the D&D, and by extension Pathfinder, Gary Gygax.

You know, I have a lot of respect for EGG as the co-creator of that game, but that doesn't mean that I hold his words on alignment as holy gospel.

take just for example those two quotes from the Hack and Slash blog (original source can be found in the Dragonsfoot forums

Quote:
Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before thay can backslide
Quote:
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good.

Well, in both cases, acting like this would cause a LG paladin (there may be paladins of other alignments) in my game to fall instantly. And if that means disrespecting Gary, then so be it, because I would rather not play the game at all than to follow his guidelines on that matter.

Though to be honest, I don't think that Gary would feel disrespected at all just by me modifying parts of the game to better fit my personal preferences.

He also follows up that bit by quoting "nits make lice" approvingly.

For all my respect for him for his part in creating the hobby, Gygax is not a moral arbiter in my games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
I really don't want paladins behaving like that though, honor and honesty require a more demanding attitude towards the truth. YMMV.

Eh, honor is nothing more than a system of rules designed to keep the nobles wealthy and women and the poor oppressed. There's nothing "good" about honor.


I would like to point out that one cannot code any form of divination to expressly identify class. I would also like to point out that Lay on Hands isn't paladin exclusive. Finally, the +4 change on fear saves could be caused from other factors that a paladin being present, such as the abscence of an antipaladin

So how are you identifing a paladin reliably? you've already admitted that it fails on archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

no


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No. Unless they sacrifice an infant to an evil god, very rarely will any one thing a paladin does lead to a fall. However, that one thing can be a domino in a chain that leads to the fall.
One should be wary of a paladin that justifies his actions by saying "See!? I haven't fallen yet!", as the key part of that statement is yet, not haven't fallen.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HWalsh wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

In any case, a paladin's auras only affect allies, so somebody interrogating a paladin in a hostile manner probably wouldn't notice something like an aura of courage anyway.

Uses lay on hands, displays another Paladin specific power, yadda yadda. Any legitimate authority should be an ally, and that wasn't a hostile interrogation.

So you are just trying to call into question the Paladin being a Paladin.

Yeah, it's just, "I don't like the lore so I'm vetoing it."

That's fine. If, in your world, there is no way to tell if someone's a Paladin and people often lie about it that's fine.

In mine, it's rare for people to claim it and people can see things like divine health (there is a healthy glow about you) feel the auras (there is something I feel about just being around you) and the like.

Why would anyone assume that the interrogator is an ally? The paladin might have legitimate reasons to distrust him, even if those reasons fall far short of having reason to smite him. On the interrotagor's side, he might not trust the paladin or regard him as an ally -- and normally a person would be considered your ally only if you and he both consider that to be the case.

In regard to using Lay on Hands -- how many people if any would be able to distinguish that power from a warpriest's Fervor? It is actually a good deal tougher to positively identify a paladin than you might think.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...

A Paizo staff member wrote a novel set in Golarion in which a paladin declared the honest, heroic protagonist to be a liar.

This saw them condemned to death.

The paladin was wrong; he did not fall.

Proof that a paladin can be wrong but not fall because he/she was tricked.

In this case...:
, tricked by a corrupt ex-cleric of Pharasma using fancy alignment-mangling magic items.

Proof, from a Paizonaut, that a paladin can make a wrong statement and not fall.

Ergo, proof that you should not accept the paladin as proof of fact because paladins only fall if they are knowingly wrong. And they have been fooled before, definitely, on Golarion.

---

I would also take another tack: any paladin using that as post-facto evidence should fall.

If the paladin was right, they should have the evidence which motivated them and can use that to prove themself correct.
If that proof is things only he witnessed, then zone of truth and deliberately failing the save will provide evidence of their honesty.

If they need the 'didn't fall' proof then they gambled with another person's innocence, that is reason to fall.

So, it's a non-argument.

I would ask the paladin to deliberately fail his save in a zone of truth and then ask him what his evidence was. Simple.

At that point, I could investigate and see if the paladin had been misled, possibly by a commune spell asking if he had been misled.

Silver Crusade

Psssst! Geraint, it was in the first book, Death's Heretic, not The Redemption Engine :3


Minor side note: Abadar's truth telling is a better option here as it targets an individual while Zone of Truth is an area of effect.

The reason that is relevant is that the caster of a single target spell knows if the target made their save or not, while the caster of an AoE does not.


GeraintElberion wrote:

So...

A Paizo staff member wrote a novel set in Golarion in which a paladin declared the honest, heroic protagonist to be a liar.

This saw them condemned to death.

The paladin was wrong; he did not fall.

Proof that a paladin can be wrong but not fall because he/she was tricked.
** spoiler omitted **

Proof, from a Paizonaut, that a paladin can make a wrong statement and not fall.

Ergo, proof that you should not accept the paladin as proof of fact because paladins only fall if they are knowingly wrong. And they have been fooled before, definitely, on Golarion.

---

I would also take another tack: any paladin using that as post-facto evidence should fall.

If the paladin was right, they should have the evidence which motivated them and can use that to prove themself correct.
If that proof is things only he witnessed, then zone of truth and deliberately failing the save will provide evidence of their honesty.

If they need the 'didn't fall' proof then they gambled with another person's innocence, that is reason to fall.

So, it's a non-argument.

I would ask the paladin to deliberately fail his save in a zone of truth and then ask him what his evidence was. Simple.

At that point, I could investigate and see if the paladin had been misled, possibly by a commune spell asking if he had been misled.

And if you don't have Zone of Truth or Commune handy?

If you're dealing with stuff like that, there being a paladin involved is pretty much irrelevant.

We've also come a long way from "Is a paladin likely to be convincing to ordinary people?" to "Is a paladin's word absolute proof?"

No. It isn't. But, all other things being equal, I'm going to trust the paladin (or even the person who shows the signs of being a paladin) over some other random stranger. He could be wrong. It could all be some clever ploy. It's still the way to bet.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
But, all other things being equal, I'm going to trust the paladin (or even the person who shows the signs of being a paladin) over some other random stranger. He could be wrong. It could all be some clever...

Bolded the part that I think is relevant. Because the more interesting situation for me would be if the opponent isn't just a random stranger, but a well-respected member of the community (let's say Justice Ironbriar or Count Senir from Prince of Wolves). Something like that would make the decision who's more credible a lot more difficult in my opinion

Dark Archive

The Redemption Engine ( by James L. Sutter), touches on this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It depends on the campaign setting, adventure type, GM, and party level/notoriety. Sometimes the Paladin has a strong reputation as such, sometimes the Paladin does not. Some campaign settings have Paladin as an official designation representing a type of knight as an exemplar of good and righteous, where a Paladin would be known as the hero the class was written for. Other settings have paladin a word synonymous with holy warrior or knight or crusader, and such figures are not always associated with being good for everyone. Some campaigns focus on politics and thus having a situations explained by "we are the good guys" or "I am a Paladin" should probably be met with "prove it.". And considering archetypes that blur the line, that can be tough. Other games prefer a focus on fighting evildoers and killing monsters, and saying we are the good guys/we have a paladin/etc. is plenty reason to avoid legal repercussion.

Overall, there are valid reasons to rule either way, and none of them have to be "I [like/dislike] Paladins.". So, as unhelpful a response as this may be, ask your GM.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A paladin of Sarenrae and a paladin of Abadar face off against each other in a war between Qadira and Taldor. Are both paladins in the right?


Mergy wrote:
A paladin of Sarenrae and a paladin of Abadar face off against each other in a war between Qadira and Taldor. Are both paladins in the right?

Maybe, good people can go to war with each other. There are sides in hypothetical wars a paladin couldn't join, but I can imagine a war with multiple sides a paladin could honorably join.

How's this for a worked example:

In the Inner Sea, half way in between Absalom and Golsifar, is an island. It's a tiny island, barely half a mile across, rocky, barren, unpopulated, and basically worthless. For as long as anyone remembers Taldans have included it on maps as part of Taldor, Qadirans has included it on maps as part of Qadira, but no one has really cared because no one actually went there or used it for anything.

Suppose meddling Pathfinders find that the island houses the entrance to a lost city, and that lost underground city is full of gold, millions upon millions of gp worth of the stuff, and suddenly it is very important who it belongs to. Both nations send troops to claim it, the commanders of the expeditionary forces square off, harsh words are exchanged, someone does something stupid and the two forces start fighting. When the smoke clears both nations declare ownership of the island and declare war on each other.

It's not an inspiring quest, it's a grubby, greedy, and vain war but it's been legally declared by competent authorities. You might think the relevant nobles who declared the war are stupid (or not), but they don't seem like they have to be *evil*. It seems abnormally judgemental to call the soldiers who fight it evil.

What's a paladin with feudal commitments to do? Mikos the Taldan paladin is told by his lord "Suit up, we're going to war!", Rashid the Qadiran paladin is hold the same thing by his lord. I would think 'respect for legitimate authority' means they both suit up and go to war.

Dark Archive

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
What's a paladin with feudal commitments to do? Mikos the Taldan paladin is told by his lord "Suit up, we're going to war!", Rashid the Qadiran paladin is hold the same thing by his lord. I would think 'respect for legitimate authority' means they both suit up and go to war.

I agree with you here. I also think that with your points in mind, I would not assume that the presence of a paladin always means that the paladin's cause is right.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

No.

Lawful good is not the best good

Lawful good is not the right good

Lawful good is not double plus good.

The paladin is not always right. The other goods are just as good, and equally valid. (Neutral good even more so)

Wrong.

Lawful Good Fighter tells a lie knowingly? They are still a Fighter, there is no way to normally tell.

Lawful Good Paladin tells a lie knowingly? They lose their powers. There is a tangible and immediate effect in most cases. From their auras suddenly going down, to loss of powers.

If you think that the other goods are just as good then you're simply wrong. You may not like it, you may rail against it, but when it comes to "Most Good" the Lawful Good non-Paladin may be a 10, but the Paladin turns that up to 11.

It has always been that way, it will always be that way, and to not at least nod to that fact, as it has always been, is disrespectful to the original creator of the D&D, and by extension Pathfinder, Gary Gygax.

We already know that isn't the case and that can be scientifically proven in-universe.

A Paladin of a certain level radiates an aura of good of a certain strength, which can be objectively assessed with Detect Good.

A good-aligned Cleric of equivalent level has just as shiny an aura of good. He just lied his ass off? Still just as shiny.

And next to them is a LN Cleric of LG deity, someone who has only ever done good deeds incidentally and accidentally, AND he also just lied. The only aura of good he has is what he's bumming off of his god, and yet, it's just as shiny as the so-called "uber-11Good" Paladin.

And the worst of it is this:

HWalsh wrote:

Not really... You just have to understand that Good and Evil are things.

The Paladin is an individual who cannot lie.
The Paladin is an individual who cannot act dishonorably.
The Paladin is an individual who cannot commit any evil act what so ever.
The Paladin must always show respect to legitimate authority.
The Paladin must always help those in need.
The Paladin must always punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Nobody else fits that bill.

Nobody.

If any of the above were true, there would be no such thing as a fallen Paladin. It isn't true because a Paladin can fall. The reason a Paladin can fall is because they have free will and they retain the choice to do good or not do good every second of every day (the same choice that every non-Paladin faces just as often).

A Paladin can lie (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).
A Paladin can act dishonorably (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).
A Paladin can commit an evil act (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).
A Paladin can show disrespect for a legitimate authority (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).
A Paladin can decide not to help those in need (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).
A Paladin can decide not to punish those who harm or threaten innocents (he just gets directly and immediately punished for doing so).

The only difference between a Paladin and a non-Paladin is the Paladin has a greater incentive to avoid doing wrong (he wants to avoid losing his shiny Paladin powers; Larry the upstanding Rogue, however, doesn't have to play that angle and can be good for its own sake). He, just like every non-Paladin out there, still has free will and the capacity to do the wrong thing. And every single time he chooses to do right, it remains solely and exclusively due to his willpower and integrity keeping him on the straight and narrow. The same willpower and integrity that any given non-Paladin also has.

Every time you show a Paladin who has faced this temptation or that moral struggle and still has his shiny Paladin powers, there's a Fighter with just as much moral gumption who faced the same struggle and didn't stray from the path of good either. And he did it without his Fighter abilities being on the line. And the only reason his aura of good isn't as shiny as the LN LG-deity-worshipping Cleric's or the good-aligned Cleric's or the Paladin's is solely due to his lack of divine spellcasting. That's it. No, the fact that at every junction, the Fighter COULD HAVE lied, or COULD HAVE been disrespectful to legitimate authority, or COULD HAVE committed an evil act is irrelevant. When the fact is that he didn't, that makes him just as uber-11Good as the Paladin.

More so, given he didn't need a carrot and a stick to get there. I've said that Paladins (as currently envisioned with the alignment restriction and the code of conduct, at least) are the worst example of a good guy character I can imagine, and I have yet to see anything to show contrary.


Tectorman wrote:

More so, given he didn't need a carrot and a stick to get there. I've said that Paladins (as currently envisioned with the alignment restriction and the code of conduct, at least) are the worst example of a good guy character I can imagine, and I have yet to see anything to show contrary.

I agree. It's like saying someone with a camera over their shoulder is honest. Most people who are more likely to get punished for doing wrong will do the right thing. Take away or lessen the chance for consequences, and you get to see their true character.


Trial by jury is something that is incredibly new.
It's not even followed everywhere irl.

Back in the olden days, it was trial by whoever-was-in-charge-at-the-time. Actual judges who were judges as their job/career was really rare.
And it was perfectly acceptable to take someones word as evidence/proof.

And that 'swearing an oath to god' that you would tell the truth was considered sufficient. Hell, we still testify "under oath" today.

In a world where gods can be consulted directly, and have been known to make their displeasure obvious, someone going "I swear by Iomedae, I tell the truth, may she strike me down should I lie", should have people shuffle slightly aside from the guy giving the oath. Just in case.

So most people, commoners I mean, would probably take Sir Shiny McGoldenhairs word that what he's doing is right, IF he had a reputation for justice, honour and the favour of a god.

Silver Crusade

Natan Linggod 327 wrote:

Trial by jury is something that is incredibly new.

It's not even followed everywhere irl.

Only if you consider 900 years "incredibly new." And that's just the modern format; similar systems existed for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years earlier.


As civilization (with codified system of laws) started as far back as 8 thousand years ago, yes I consider 900 years ago incredibly new. And yes I was considering only our 'modern' version of it*.

And trial by jury was by no means common among civilizations. In feudal nations even less so.

And that doesn't change the rest of my point either. Reputation and station were all entirely accepted as weighting the evidence of someones word. Noble vs peasant for eg.
Now take into account that in Golarion there is physical evidence of a gods favour as well (Having divine spells for eg), and I think that most people would be more than willing to accept a paladins word that something is right. Assuming they're known to be a paladin/holy warrior of a Good god of course.

*As an interesting aside, I think the earliest version of any kind of trial by jury was during ancient greece.

The Exchange

Tectorman wrote:
More so, given he didn't need a carrot and a stick to get there. I've said that Paladins (as currently envisioned with the alignment restriction and the code of conduct, at least) are the worst example of a good guy character I can imagine, and I have yet to see anything to show contrary.

You seem to assume that everything the Paladin does, they do for the big reward (or because of the camera at his shoulder), while the fighter in your example does what he does only for his inherent goodness.

And while I agree with a lot about what you say about this fighter, I think that this goes a bit too far. The relationship between paladins and their deity isn't based on a deal. The Paladin would be exactly like this fighter even without her divine powers. But (maybe)unlike the fighter, she does this seeking "to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve" (CRB 60). For this dedication, they eventually get rewarded with those divine powers, while the fighter, even when he shows the same dedication, is not. Only the gods know why it is that way, but they certainly don't choose people who need a carrot and a stick to behave.

Or simply put: You can't choose to be a paladin, you get chosen, and even being every bit as virtuous as the fighter in your example might not be enough to get chosen. But being only the tiniest bit less virtuous for selfish reasons (and "I want to be a paladin for the powers that come with it" is majorly selfish) certainly doesn't get you the job. So now, paladins aren't the worst examples of good guy characters, they are actually the best. As far as lawful good characters are concerned, at least, NG and CG characters might disagree with that line of thinking.

51 to 100 of 189 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Would you accept a Paladin using the fact that they haven't fallen as circumstantial proof they are in the right? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.