Here is a piece I've been working on for my home campaign as a way of bringing some common sense to the restrictions of a LG Paladin.
-------------
Campaign restrictions for Paladins within Lazlo's LCM setting: Paladins may not use ranged weapons such as a Bow, Crossbow, Firearms or Slings. Paladins may not use explosives or fire as anti-personnel weapons, although they may be deployed to blow open a door, or against a siege tower, etc. Paladins may never use poisons, subterfuge, bushwhacks or sneak attacks against their enemies. Under the code of Chivalry paladins follow such weapons & tactics are considered cowardly. Thrown weapons, such as a javelin, are allowed although still not considered honorable (it does not allow for face to face combat) and thus generally avoided by the paladin.
NOTE: Warfare in the middle ages frequently included tactics such as poisoned weapons, poisoning a well or other water supply, using a catapult to throw a diseased body over a castles walls to infect those within, killing a foe in their sleep, etc. The paladin however would perceive such actions as a dishonorable act of murder and react violently against the mere suggestion that such would be acceptable.
Further, having the party rogue team up with the paladin to sneak attack a "worthy foe" that the paladin has challenged for single combat would likewise earn the paladin's ire. Perhaps going so far as to have him disengage from fighting his foe to defend him from such a dishonorable attack.
Knights prefer to fight their enemies face to face as they felt this was the way honor was not only earned, but also how it was shown to worthy foes. Given the opportunity to do so, such knights would ignore lesser opponents on the battle field (such as a lowly conscripted foot soldier, or mangy goblin) and seek out more worthy foes such as other knights, or powerful beasts. Paladins would likewise seek out for personal destruction spell casters of evil deities or ones which were known to manipulate the minds and will of their enemies.
These are not "class flaws" of the Paladin, rather this is the nature of their character just as much as a mage not getting a full BAB attack table.
A note on a Paladin’s Code of Chivalry:
Historically on Earth there were many orders of knights which followed a code of chivalry similar to that of the paladin. In fact the paladin class was originally based upon a more fantastic & romanticized version of the Knights Templar. In spite of their adherence to what could easily be called Lawful Good values and beliefs, the Templar understood that their code of honor was not followed by most of the world. Some knights would certainly use this difference in values to create undue tension and make unrealistic demands of others, although such an approach quickly lost them friends and much needed allies. Most Knightly orders however taught their adherents to follow the ideal that the only way to change the world was to become the change they wanted to see in the world. In this way they would often lead by example.
In spite of the presence of Knights / Paladins in larger battles, standard battle field tactics (such as the use of ranged weapons, fire, catapults, etc) were still used without creating undue friction with the knights. This is largely because such tactics were not being used against "worthy foes", such as the knights of the opposing army, but rather directed at those unworthy of the honor of single combat such as lowly conscripted foot soldiers.
These Knights were more than simply a mounted cavalry in nice armor. They were the best trained, and best equipped military officers who were sanctioned by both the king and the church (both of whom felt the knight’s ultimate loyalty should belong to them). Because of which their actions, manner of dress, treatment of enemies, etc etc were expected to reflect the highest of ideals of their kingdom. Uniforms & armors were expected to be cleaned and polished given any reasonable opportunity to do so. Weapons sharpened, horses & equipment maintained with impeccable care. Women were to be treated as ladies, enemies were to be treated with respect & civility, etc.
[NOTE: In the real history of Earth such high minded ideals were just as often ignored depending on the moral fiber of the individual knight in question, many of which would more accurately be classed as fighters than paladins. As such some knights were certainly guilty of war crimes, rape, murder, and God only knows what else. All of which would frequently be overlooked by both kings and the Church as long as the knights in questions were turning their hostilities against the enemies of their sworn sovereign and getting the results demanded by their rulers in their campaigns of conquest.]
An excellent movie about the Knights Templar was “Kingdom of Heaven” starring Orlando Bloom. To understand paladins better it is suggested to read up on the Knights Templar or watch a couple documentaries of them (available on netflix, youtube, etc).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the off chance this is not a joke, you appear to be aiming at just making it so your players don't play paladins.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree that these are horrific restrictions. This is a great way to ensure none of your players ever build a paladin.
Historically on Earth there were many orders of knights which followed a code of chivalry similar to that of the paladin.
Not really. The Paladin of D&D and Pathfinder is very much a projection of modern enlightenment values and ethics on what is already a highly romanticized imagining of historical knights. They have essentially no basis in reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us know how the game goes after a player tries following this for a bit, does it seem to have increased or decreased the enjoyement of that player and the rest of the table? That is the real test of anything in the game afterall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful so that you don't accidentally try to make a Fighter fall . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I agree! In fact the historical knights could be true bastards, in fact if you re-read my original post all the way to the bottom you will no doubt notice that I said the same thing. However while the paladin is a historical figure, it is only so from the most idealized perspectives of knights where men actually lived up to the ideals they set before themselves and each other.
As for the "unrealistic" restrictions making no one want to play them, those are some of the most real aspect of this particular rewrite of the paladin. Think about it for a sec: cant set your enemies on fire. Nothing particularly honorable about fighting that way. Cant poison them: same thing. Cant use ranged weapons: knights typically did not do so as they felt honorable combat was done face to face. This is where fantasy and reality deviate however. In reality tactical options like ranged combat or poisons were used as a weapon of opportunity, in fantasy however there is no reason for it to be so.
In all honesty, one option I've looked at for the paladin in my campaign was to simply remove the class from game play entirely. Perhaps replacing it as an archetype for the Fighter, or an off shoot of the Inquisitor or WarPriest. Still a concept I toy with frequently.
Either way, constructive feed back is welcome. Responses like, "OMG this sucks" however add nothing to the conversation. If you don't like it, feel free to actually state why so it can be put on the table for discussion.
Alright. Constructively, how would you handle Paladin's from different cultures? Elves, for example, use bows so much they are automatically proficient in them. It's clearly something they have no trouble using. Why would they not use them? They aren't Medieval Earth Knights.
Be careful so that you don't accidentally try to make a Fighter fall . . . .
LOL - love it! Would a paladin have used the same tactic? No, but then this was not a paladin. Would my rogue have used the same tactic? Yep, and then likely killed all of the guards that showed up after the slaver. As for the slaves themselves I would have likely freed them, put them on a ship to distant shores, etc etc. As for your CN Ranger, sounds like my sorta guy. Also sounds like he likely took a CN alignment so no one could ever pull the "but that is against your alignment" argument on him.
As a Paladin how would I have played (or DM'd) such an encounter...
I'd have to give that one some thought. I can say that lying is pretty staunchly against a paladin's sense of honesty so I'd have had to go a different direction with that part. Probably with asking a more basic question like why was a paladin in an area of the world where slavery was legal to begin with, and what factions were directly opposed to it (if any)?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful so that you don't accidentally try to make a Fighter fall . . . .
Actually, that is very much possible. According to Gods and Magic:
"When he is angered, forges grow cold, shields crack, and even the simplest plan carries a feeling of dread. Earthquakes (wether localized or expansive) are the ultimate indication of his displeasure, but those who survive a deadly quake are considered blessed."That's just for Torag, but pretty much all the greater gods in Gods and Magic do stuff like this. Ofcourse, that doesn't take away the fact that that GM tried to make the Fighter fall for adhering to Torag's paladin code.
As for the OP, I know the catholic church banned the use of bows and arrows. I don't see how that applies to a fantasy game in which you fight dragons. Not using explosives might make sense much more than not using poison makes sense.
@ Azten - I completely agree with your point about elven paladins. However I'd point out that according to RAW the elves are mostly chaotic good. So if we assume that "mostly" covers 70% of the population that only leaves 30% to cover everything else with Lawful Good at the polar opposite end of the Law / Chaos spectrum. On top of this, there are currently dozens of classes available in Pathfinder, each of which with dozens of archetype variations available. In other words, I don't expect to see many elven paladins randomly appearing given the odds to the contrary. In short, the elven paladin should be an anomaly of which there would likely only be a small handful of in the campaign.
Let's go with it for a second however: if the elf in question was an adherent to a deity which allows for paladins (such as Iomedae for example) they would be bound by her tenets for what constitutes honorable combat, whatever that might be. The argument of "but I'm an elf" simply would not cut it. If they could not handle that then either a change in deities would be required to one which specifically allowed paladins to used ranged attacks, or a change in race or class to better fit the play style the player was actually hoping for. For example, a War Priest or Magus could be played VERY similar to a paladin and have absolutely no issues with ranged combat (among other tactics).
|
The biggest problem I see here is that their code doesn't account for fighting non-humans. Not using bows against a dragon or any number of flying outsiders is pretty silly for any paladin who's unable to fly. And a restriction on using fire in combat doesn't make a lot of sense when that might be the only way to actually kill a foe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem I see here is that their code doesn't account for fighting non-humans. Not using bows against a dragon or any number of flying outsiders is pretty silly for any paladin who's unable to fly. And a restriction on using fire in combat doesn't make a lot of sense when that might be the only way to actually kill a foe.
Trolls would auto win.
@Deighton Thrane - Here again is an excellent point. I'd have to agree that the "paladin code of honor" applies itself well when fighting strictly humans, dwarves, orcs, etc but does have some room for growth when you get further from that scenario.
That said, I'd agree that "unworthy foes" such as demons, dragons, various undead, etc etc would not fall under the same heading as a "worthy foe". Thus restrictions on things like not using a bow would not apply to a flying foe such as a dragon, neither would a restriction vs the use of fire apply to situations like a rodent swarm. In both cases these would not be looked upon as a "worth foe".
Perhaps a better way to address this would be to outline what WOULD constitute such a foe, than to attempt to address all the things that would not. I thank you for drawing that to my attention.
@the David - Paladin restrictions for not using poison goes back to the very first editions of the game as such tactics were universally considered "evil". If it is not mentioned by name under the current Pathfinder rules I can only assume that to be an oversight.
A point about poison use: If you look here under the RAW Paladin's Code of Conduct it specifically states paladins are not allowed to use poisons. Not just my idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point with the elves was that 'honorable combat' isn't a religious thing, but a cultural one. If we take gods themselves as examples, then Abadar and Erastil are both gods that not only have ranged weapons as their favored weapons, but have amazing options for those weapons too. Are their Paladins restricted unnecessary by medieval Earth customs that got made up and mostly ignored?
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe
There is nothing in that code I see to prevent ranged weapons and if we take 'eschew unfairness' to mean you fight fairly then taking a bow to use against a bow wielder would be what you must do, since getting close to him and attacking with a sword is unfair to him.
Then there is what sounds a lot like racism. If something isn't humanoid it's not worthy? It's somehow lesser than this person and the paladin just knows it because he's humanoid and the other creature isn't? That doesn't sound like he's acting with honor.
I think that it's important to remember that it isn't a perfect simulation of history, but rather a shared storytelling experience designed to be enjoyable by all participants. If this is what makes your party happy, run with it. But if it only makes you happy, be prepared to lose it or negotiate on something more fun.
A point about poison use: If you look here under the RAW Paladin's Code of Conduct it specifically states paladins are not allowed to use poisons. Not just my idea.
Those are just examples. Many Golarion deities have specific codes of honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it me, or is it Paladin Awareness Week?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it me, or is it Paladin Awareness Week?
Foes of righteousness = enemies of righteousness.
Righteous foes = foes that are righteous
NOTE: Warfare in the middle ages frequently included tactics such as poisoned weapons, poisoning a well or other water supply, using a catapult to throw a diseased body over a castles walls to infect those within, killing a foe in their sleep, etc. The paladin however would perceive such actions as a dishonorable act of murder and react violently against the mere suggestion that such would be acceptable.
Further, having the party rogue team up with the paladin to sneak attack a "worthy foe" that the paladin has challenged for single combat would likewise earn the paladin's ire. Perhaps going so far as to have him disengage from fighting his foe to defend him from such a dishonorable attack.
Both of these things are going to make the Paladin significantly less workable in a usual, team-based DnD game. It expands the existing problem of a Paladin forcing certain styles of play on the party.
Already, a Paladin obviously shouldn't be adventuring with a necromancer. But here, a Paladin shouldn't be adventuring with Rogues, period - an entire class - and violently assaulting their own party members for proposing the sort of suggestions that are routinely bandied around in a DnD game.
If you want a game where the Paladin is the moral compass and moral enforcer of the party, enhancing the existing trait where having a Paladin dictates what type of character others play, these are usuable restrictions - if not, you're making it worse.
If you want all those additional strictures on a Paladin, you should use a Paladin Oath. I can't find one that matches your requirements in the existing Paladin Oaths, so you'll have to make your own ("Oath of Chivalry", perhaps?) -- but make it have some real benefits, or no Paladin in their right mind will take it.
By this sort of logic shouldn't this also apply to Cavaliers, seeing as Cavaliers are actually members of a chivalric order while most Paladins are not?
A paladin of Erastil is more than likely a bowman from a rural town who became a champion of his god, not a member of some elite group of nobles. Archery is his god's preferred form of combat and yet Erastil is a LG god. Why on earth would a paladin who isn't a knight be unable to use his god's favored weapon while a cavalier who IS a knight can?
I specifically omitted the Cavalier from this comparison for 2 reasons: 1) the heavy crossover between the two classes (which become even more blurred depending on archetypes chosen, etc)
2) They simply aren't allowed in the campaign I play / DM in (See reason #1 above) and thus there is less reason to invest the additional energy into the class.
In short, the cavalier was excluded as an act of omission not as an oversight. Besides this is about a paladin's Code of Honor, Chivalry, and alignment.
I think that it's important to remember that it isn't a perfect simulation of history, but rather a shared storytelling experience designed to be enjoyable by all participants. If this is what makes your party happy, run with it. But if it only makes you happy, be prepared to lose it or negotiate on something more fun.
Actually most of the restrictions I mentioned in the original post came from my players! In fact I'd not originally planned on having Paladins in the campaign, and instead using Fighter, Cleric & WarPriest combinations and archetypes. The original post however was the suggested compromise by one of my players. We all liked it and decided to go with it.
My original idea for the campaign allowed for the church structure to be set up as: Cleric: Priest (archetype), WarPriest, Fighter: Knight (Archetype) with Druid, Witch & Rangers representing the "primal casters", and Wizard, Magus, Bard and similar arcane casters representing the arcane establishment of higher learning.
A point about poison use: If you look here under the RAW Paladin's Code of Conduct it specifically states paladins are not allowed to use poisons. Not just my idea.Those are just examples. Many Golarion deities have specific codes of honor.
Completely agree with this statement. That said, are you aware of any deities that allow Paladins (specifically) to use poisons? I actually am serious with that question and not simply trying to be argumentative. From what I've seen of your posts over the course of time you are likely must stronger in Golarion lore than I am on this matter. The only context I could see it would be as a way of taking a prisoner alive via the use of a sleep or paralytic poison.
And yes, I understood it to be an example, but was making the point that the ban against poison use (specifically) wasn't simply something that I pulled out of the air but had been a long standing aspect of a paladins restrictions due to their code of honor. As I'm sure your aware, that restriction goes back to much earlier editions of the game.
Silver Champion Paladins in Golarion must worship Apsu, and get the poison spell on their spell list. Therefore, either they are allowed to use poison, or the god they worship grants them a spell which only serves to make them fall.
Temptation is a funny thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silver Champion Paladins in Golarion must worship Apsu, and get the poison spell on their spell list. Therefore, either they are allowed to use poison, or the god they worship grants them a spell which only serves to make them fall.
If this is the only exception, I am more likely to believe that the spell being added to the Paladin's list is a mechanical oversight, rather than blatant approval for the Paladin to violate his code of conduct. A Paladin has the ability, and sometimes the motivation, to engage in whole sale murder, but he doesn't as it would violate his code of conduct.
probably not seeing as how one of the drakes they can get can spew out poison at the paladins enemies
Not seeing your point. There are plenty of good aligned creatures that use poison as a natural defense/attack. The Paladin is bound by his code, not his drake, strong willed as it is. Using poison is against the Paladin Code. It is not called out as Evil. It is definitely not Good, as it can cause undue suffering. It falls somewhere in the neutral spectrum between good and evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Silver champions are often concerned by their drake allies’ pragmatic natures, however, and are sure to treat them with respect, knowing that these lesser dragons must constantly be inspired to act on their better natures."
They can be concerned their ally uses poison, but still respect them and ally with them. This does not mean they can use poison themselves.
well considering there's only one god that archetype can worship and their code says nothing about not being able to use poison they wouldn't be breaking their code if they did so
-I am the talon of Apsu’s wrath. I strike where I am needed, but only when evil has been unmasked and there can be no doubt of my enemy’s malice.
-When my purpose is unclear, I will walk the roads of the world to find a fresh focus. Every road leads to a new beginning.
-Nothing is worth sacrificing my life for, except protecting the lives of others. I will retreat when needed, and come back to vex my foes once again.
-Mercy is offered, but only once. Should I be betrayed in my moment of kindness, I will not stop until I have put my enemy down.
-It is not enough to slay evil and carry on. I will spend the time necessary to help those I’ve protected to fend for themselves.
Nothing in that code overrides the default Paladin code. Both apply. One does not override the other unless it explicitly says so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. There is nothing I can find that says a Paladin's Code of Conduct is replaced by a deity's Paladin Code. Notice how they are also called different things.
all codes override the generic paladin code otherwise you would have conflicting codes and then no matter what a paladin does they would fall
Nope. You'll need to provide some rule citation to back that claim up. Specific overrides general and there is no overriding going one unless it explicitly says "This overrides/replaces the normal Paladin Code of Conduct".
If they do replace the Standard Code, and they don't because they do not say they do, then Deity Codes would allow a paladin to do the follow as long as it wasn't specifically against the code: Rape, pillage, poison, murder, own slaves, be tyrannical, sacrifice babies, and kick puppies.
Yeah, that sounds like a Paladin all right. Good job pointing this out, Lady-J, because now we know you're in the wrong.
specific does override generic when following a god with a new code that code overrides the old code
Unfortunately, you haven't provided any rule citation showing this is a specific rule overriding a general rule. Unless it says that the new code overrides the old, you are bound by both. I won't continue to argue about it until there is new, factual evidence.
In fact, here. I will provide the relevant rules in the Inner Sea Gods under Paladin Oaths:
Code: Not all gods allow paladins among their faithful, but for those who do, this sidebar provides a sample code that a holy warrior of the faith would follow. Individual paladins may vary somewhat in terms of which aspects of a god's tenets they prioritize highest, and two paladins of the same faith may still have differing interpretations on how best to implement a god's divine mandates.
Not only is the text missing the specific vs generic override, but it even says these oaths can be interpreted differently by individual Paladins. I.e., the oaths are not set in stone and binding. They must continue to use the default code of conduct while attempting to maintain their deity's wishes. They can not serve two masters and the Lawful Good Code takes precedence.