I still maintain that they are bound by both simply because there is no overriding Text anywhere that removes the default code. I would like to point out that a Paladin can uphold both, even under Torag. You are just not being imaginative enough to see how.
You don't need to outright lie to mislead someone.
You don't need to slaughter someone to defeat them. But even so, enemies of Torag are most likely universally evil and undeserving of mercy.
Acting in a way that brings honor to Torag, a LG deity, precludes wanton murder.
I think you should rework barbarians, too. They shouldn't be able to use weapons that are made by civilized countries, nor able to read and write. They should be incapable of having high intelligence scores and be inherently prone to violence against any who aren't of their tribe. After all, that fits with the historical definition of barbarian.
{. . .}
That sounds quite a bit similar to the 1st Edition AD&D Barbarian, except that instead of being incapable of having high Intelligence scores, they were incapable of having high Wisdom scores, and instead of being restricted from using weapons made by civilized countries, they were restricted from associating with spellcasters and using magic items (which they were supposed to destroy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the only restriction on barbarians there should be is that they can't speak Greek.
I personally think that the CRB code and Torag's code are quite compatible but it is true that James Jacobs stated that the deity-specific code was intended to replace the CRB code. I houserule that they add to it
If it was intended to, it is an incomplete replacement. There is no overriding text in the rules and there is no listed consequences for failing to uphold those tenants. Basically, the new "deity codes" are merely guidelines in how a Paladin who follows this deity tends to act in their service.
But yes, the basic code of the Paladin should be compatible with each deity that can/might sponsor a Paladin. The character is a Paladin first and foremost, a worshiper second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins who break their gods tenants do fall
Hmm, really? Where is the section in the new code where it describes the actions that lead to the fall? Where is the description of what falling does? If the new code overwrites the old one, it will need to account for each of these occurrences within the text itself.
It does not contain this information. Paladins serve the forces of Law and Good before that of whatever deity to which they wish to pledge themselves. That oath and code come before any other oath, unless it specifically says otherwise. It does not say otherwise.
So unless you are able to provide me with this specific overwriting text, I am not longer go to argue this with you. Your claim is false and must be substantiated with actual rules. Do not try to use a cleverly worded argument to try and make a case for it. Nothing short of specific rules will win this for you.
The devs have also said their posts are not the rules, so...
How ironic, Paladins being the epitome of good, would lead to so many bad threads in their name.
Batman would be ashamed of what you've done with his class!
Batman's nowhere near being a paladinHow ironic, Paladins being the epitome of good, would lead to so many bad threads in their name.
Batman would be ashamed of what you've done with his class!
Just what we need, an alignment debate inside a paladin thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Dexter is a Paladin.
More seriously, the point of ambiguity in the paladin shown is the definition of honorable. Everyone has a different definition so I would go with the player to define and agree their version of honor. Erastil Paladins clearly don't mind ranged weapons as an example. Paladins come from everywhere, so one size does not fit all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Dexter is a Paladin.
Hush, rabble rouser. ;)
Supermanpushedfirst.
So, you admit he is a Paladin!
Works for me!
so besides the fact the the devs have stated the god tenants replace the normal code of conduct your gona say that there's nothing to back up my claims?
The Devs may have said one thing or another. The codes may have been intended to replace the original code of conduct. No actual rules have made it to print, as of yet, to implement that intention. So, for all intents and purposes, you are using homebrew/variant/houserules.
Yes, you have nothing factual to back your claims with. Until you get actual rules in print, or a nice FAQ answer, you have nothing to back your claim up.
Sorry. I don't mean to be harsh (if it appears I am). I just grow weary arguing this point.
Presuambly a paladin who worships Torag (or any god with a specific code) has sworn an oath to uphold said code. This would make violating the deity's code a dishonorable act, and potential cause a fall.
Assuming the player has access to said code.
Not everyone can afford Inner Sea Gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the player has access to said code.
Not everyone can afford Inner Sea Gods.
My personal preference is that each order of paladins has their own code rather than one overreaching code. That way they are a bit different from each other and means that players don't start out knowing their weaknesses from several iterations of the game ago.
Not knowing that certain paladins can certainly lie, or use poison or otherwise not act as people have come to expect from "real world" groups or certain books can add dimension to the world as far as I am concerned.
Then again, I change some powers as well, but I'm a weirdo. :)
so besides the fact the the devs have stated the god tenants replace the normal code of conduct your gona say that there's nothing to back up my claims?The Devs may have said one thing or another. The codes may have been intended to replace the original code of conduct. No actual rules have made it to print, as of yet, to implement that intention. So, for all intents and purposes, you are using homebrew/variant/houserules.
Yes, you have nothing factual to back your claims with. Until you get actual rules in print, or a nice FAQ answer, you have nothing to back your claim up.
Sorry. I don't mean to be harsh (if it appears I am). I just grow weary arguing this point.
"Paladin/Antipaladin Code: Not all gods allow paladins
among their faithful, but for those who do, this sidebarprovides 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. If a god instead has antipaladins
(Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide 118), their code is
listed in this sidebar."
Simply put, this doesnt even bother mentioning the base paladin code and for most english speakers:
"this sidebar provides a sample code that a holy warrior of the faith would follow."
Directly means this is the code they follow, not another code written in another place.
For the antipaladin the same:
"their code is listed in this sidebar."
Their code isnt listed on another book, it is listed directly on the sidebar.
Im posting this just to provide the written text. You are free to believe whatever you want are house rules i suppose, but dont go expecting others to agree on this one.
I think there's even one of them, maybe abadar? that references some of the basic tenets as included in his code most of the others dont.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know about the sidebar in each deity's portfolio. There is never a clause that states they use that code over their usual one. Merely including the terminology "provides a sample code that a holy warrior of the faith would follow" reveals that these are guidelines towards behavior, not a strict code of conduct. They don't provide any of the information needed to determine when the follower has grossly violated them or the consequences of the fall.
They CANNOT be a replacement without that information. They are, effectively, additional oaths a Paladin takes on while he attempts to serve that particular deity. This conclusion also reinforced in that every sidebar where a Paladin/Antipaladin code is listed, there is the phrase "Its tenants include..." Where do these new tenants go to be included? In the original code. Include does not mean overwrite, it means to add to.
I'm done. I've laid out every possible bit of evidence I can. If you fail to understand how this works, as written, I can do nothing for you. Do what you want in a home game. Just don't think it is anything more than a house rule, to be left AT your table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out we are in the homebrew forum.
The issues brought up in this thread are exactly why I posted this topic in the Homebrew discussion thread to start with. My take on Paladins is not cannon, but rather a suggestion for why some of the tenets and restrictions might be in place. I could also mention specific restrictions in place in my home campaign such as how often one might expect to face another PC classed foe, or an enemy who is of a PC race vs a monster race, etc. However I wanted to get a more clinical feedback on my original post outside of that framework to see where it might go.
It has become clear from the discussion in this thread (not to mention the many others on the forums) that if paladins are to be allowed in my home campaign at all their code of honor, duty to their deity, etc will need a much better write up before the campaign starts than the ones we are currently using as a base line from cannon material. Also there would need to be clarification on the topic of to what extent does The Code apply to an "honorable foe" vs a "monster"? What exactly qualifies as an "honorable foe"? Do the same restrictions apply when fighting an undead apply when fighting another human (or other PC race)? Is it honorable to throw fire on an undead because it is a monster, but not on a human, elf or dwarf you just happen to disagree with? ETC ETC (NOTE: I hate gnomes. It is always honorable to throw fire on them! LOL)
Fascinating discussion however.
PS. On the note of "Just allow players to play the way they want to", I completely agree!! There are tons of other gaming groups out there which do not have the restrictions my home campaigns impose in order to create a unique game play experience. Many of those campaigns would likely be a better fit for someone who felt the restrictions of my home campaign were too tight for them. No harm / no foul on that one, nothing but love for ya! Seriously.
My campaigns however are simply different. Those differences are always disclosed up front (fully printed out as "The Players Guide to Lazlo's Campaign") and new players are tasked with either accepting the fact that my campaign is different, or find a different gaming troupe. It isn't harsh, nor draconian, nor mean spirited. It is simply a different style of gaming which must be understood and accepted by those at the table, in order to have a seat at that table.
[Funny side note: we have another player who also DM's and runs a cannon RAW version of Pathfinder. He has helped me write most of the variant rules we use at the table.]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so besides the fact the the devs have stated the god tenants replace the normal code of conduct your gona say that there's nothing to back up my claims?
Just to be clear, the devs have stated both ways, some saying they replace, and some saying they add on to, so there is no clear answer.
As written, (and also as intended by some), they add to the existing code, and do not replace it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had thought that the deity specific codes replace the general one, but this discussion had me look more carefully at the wording in various sources. I don't think that the wording in Inner Sea Gods is clear either way, and perhaps seems to lean a little towards replacement, but then I looked in the Player Companion volume Faiths of Purity. It says:
Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bond with their gods- those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers. (pg 26, near beginning of first column)