Here's another way to look at it. How is giving wolfsbane to someone suffering from lycanthropy, in an attempt to cure them to they don;t die or kill countless others, a dishonorable act? In what way is it an evil act? The code of conduct for paladins (it's a little different for each deity, but they're all basically the same...BASICALLY) is set up so they are honorable and good. They don't poison, cheat or deceive to get an upper hand. So, can anyone answer those questions?
Because they used a poison to do it.
Poison = dishonorable in all cases. There’s no clause in the Paladin code that says “the Paladin cannot use poison except if the other person really needs it.” It’s black-and-white, written in stone, no ambiguity.
No using poisons. For any reason. Otherwise, you’re just one of those weak-willed warpriests who lack the conviction to go the extra mile.
Not that ridiculous. Paladins not using Poison is a part of their code. Just because some poisons have alternate uses doesn't mean the Paladin is clear to use it. Hence the Animate Dead analogy.
By that logic, Paladins can lie and break city laws if it ends up saving lives, to which point I say "What's the point of a Paladin Code?" Why have a mechanic in the game that does nothing but make the game implement some false sense of duty that doesn't really need to be upheld?
All this tells me is that Paladins can run games amok because anyone who uses their code against their playstyle is doing badwrongfun.
There's no ambiguity if it's a computer reading the rule. The code was written to keep a paladin noble and pure. Using wolfsbane to cure lycanthropy isn't an evil act. Just because it's a poison to do it, doesn't mean it's an evil act. How does he "lack conviction to go the extra mile" just by using wolfsbane? What if he gives penicillin to someone then they die because they're allergic. In this case, penicillin is a poison to that person and he used it. By the game rule, he's free and clear because it doesn't list it in the rule book as a poison. You have to look beyond the rule book and think about it in a rople-play situation. You also need to think about, as a GM, are you needlessly inflicting more restrictions on your player than needed. He's not using poison to hurt anyone. Not using it to gain the upper hand and he's not attempting an evil act in any way. Is there really a need to say, "The book says it's a poison, so you lose your abilities. Sorry, but it says so, right here", <points at the words on paper>. Like I said, there are computers that do that. Might as well play an MMO instead of a roleplaying game.
The ironic part about that statement is that computer programs are made up of coding, which means that a code should be followed to the T, otherwise that code is considered glitched out.
So, what you're suggesting to me is that the Paladin code is a glitch that needs to be fixed. Which, I'm sure everybody in this forum agrees on.
|
The ironic part about that statement is that computer programs are made up of coding, which means that a code should be followed to the T, otherwise that code is considered glitched out.
So, what you're suggesting to me is that the Paladin code is a glitch that needs to be fixed. Which, I'm sure everybody in this forum agrees on.
So Darksol, if a Paladin gives a peasant pumpkin pie and he gets hives because he was allergic to pumpkin (assuming both parties were unaware of his allergy), does the Paladin fall? Because the pumpkin pie was very much a poison to that peasant and the paladin is the one who gave it to them.
LOL!
Yeeeahhhhh..... I suppose so. I just know, I hate when I call the insurance company or credit card company or Amazon and they just spout back what their computer tells them to say as opposed to trying to rectify a situation. If people just stopped to think what the intention of a rule is instead of just spouting the rule itself, everybody would be a lot happier.
Allergic reactions don't exist in the game as a mechanic outside of maybe a spell, and that doesn't list it as a [poison] effect. In fact, neither does overdosing, even though we have a drugs/addiction section. Both are made up mechanics and have no relevance to the Pathfinder rules being discussed.
Inventing rules that simply aren't there is equally as ridiculous as the argument you're going against, to put things in your perspective.
Poison isn't evil. It's how you use the poison that determines whether or not it's evil.
Otherwise, a paladin would fall just from using pest control products.
Poison isn't evil. It's how you use the poison that determines whether or not it's evil.
Otherwise, a paladin would fall just from using pest control products.
Poison is dishonorable, though. So yes, a Paladin would fall for using pest control products.
There is no ambiguity, no opportunity for nuance. If you use poison for any reason, you fall. Those are the rules you agreed to when you became a Paladin.
Not that ridiculous. Paladins not using Poison is a part of their code. Just because some poisons have alternate uses doesn't mean the Paladin is clear to use it.Everything is poisonous in sufficiently high doses. A stringent reading of "Paladins cannot ever use anything that could possibly be poisonous, even if only in completely different circumstances from the ones they are using it in" leads to paladins who die of thirst in a few days, because drinking too much water can have harmful effects. Which is sufficiently much of a reductio ad absurdum for me to be confident that the intent of the rule is not such a reading, and that medicinal use of substances that are in other circumstances poisons is not forbidden if one is not using them as poisons.
That's not really my reading of the rule.
My reading involves any content on the Poisons list (or spells with a [Poison] descriptor) as being forbidden for a Paladin to use under any circumstance. That's it. A little excessive perhaps, but certainly not unreasonable or illogical.
People are taking my reading and strawmanning it to non-existent rules and real life concepts to claim my reading of the rules incorrect, when my reading (and the rules of the game) doesn't involve any of those things whatsoever.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya know, I think better thread on this topic is "Do people actually run the game this 'Intepret rules to letter as literally as possibly without use of common sense at all'" way or is it just way to pass time for some people?
Seriously, if this isn't trolling, what is this then?
Not that ridiculous. Paladins not using Poison is a part of their code. Just because some poisons have alternate uses doesn't mean the Paladin is clear to use it.Everything is poisonous in sufficiently high doses. A stringent reading of "Paladins cannot ever use anything that could possibly be poisonous, even if only in completely different circumstances from the ones they are using it in" leads to paladins who die of thirst in a few days, because drinking too much water can have harmful effects. Which is sufficiently much of a reductio ad absurdum for me to be confident that the intent of the rule is not such a reading, and that medicinal use of substances that are in other circumstances poisons is not forbidden if one is not using them as poisons.That's not really my reading of the rule.
My reading involves any content on the Poisons list (or spells with a [Poison] descriptor) as being forbidden for a Paladin to use under any circumstance. That's it. A little excessive perhaps, but certainly not unreasonable or illogical.
People are taking my reading and strawmanning it to non-existent rules and real life concepts to claim my reading of the rules incorrect, when my reading (and the rules of the game) doesn't involve any of those things whatsoever.
So, Darksol, are you going to admit that ALL of this thread is a strawman to show how Paladins having codes at all is stupid and should be ignored? It is rather cheeky to take people to task for using the whole thread's overall tactic against you, isn't it?
I mean, I do not like the Paladin’s focus on “honor” because honor is an inherently evil concept which is used to oppress and hurt those who weren’t born into privilege, but I think the rules are clear in this case.
If you want to play a game and simply go by every rule as it's written with no wiggle room or leeway, then that's your prerogative. I prefer a more relaxed approach where I understand what they mean by the rule and use common sense to implement it. It makes it more fun for the players and easier for the GM unless the GM doesn't want that guy cured and he's trying to find every way possible to avoid it... even becoming a rules lawyer and interpreting the rule as it's exactly written regardless of the intent of the rule.
By the way, the allergy analogy was an in character, ROLE-play example. I had a character in 1st edition D&D who hated dead things and never touched them. There's no game mechanic for that. It was role-playing. Some people like to apply real life things to the game to make it feel more organic. Not everyone plays like that and that's fine. I missed out on a cool magic bow because a dead elf was holding it and another character snatched it up because my character was trying to think of how to get it without touching or disturbing the corpse.
So, anyway, this is all going to come down between two types of player. The one who only follows the literal wording of the rules and the one who follows a more role-play friendly interpretation. Neither is right or wrong. Just 2 different styles that won't play well together. This thread can go on forever but neither side will convince the other because both think their way is better.
All I'll say, now is just have fun however you play and make sure everyone else is too. It's all about friends getting together to escape reality for a while. If somebody's not having fun, then figure out together how to make it fun for everyone. It's just a game.
I mean, I do not like the Paladin’s focus on “honor” because honor is an inherently evil concept which is used to oppress and hurt those who weren’t born into privilege, but I think the rules are clear in this case.
Actually, rigid codes of honor have value to societies, especially societies with high proportions of sociopathic, psychopathic or otherwise empathy impaired individuals. Hard and clear rules can cover for a lack of native empathy in a lot of ways. This is why we have laws telling you not to do things that you should already know not to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that ridiculous. Paladins not using Poison is a part of their code. Just because some poisons have alternate uses doesn't mean the Paladin is clear to use it. Hence the Animate Dead analogy.
Have you seen the LD50 of salt?
I mean, I do not like the Paladin’s focus on “honor” because honor is an inherently evil concept which is used to oppress and hurt those who weren’t born into privilege, but I think the rules are clear in this case.Actually, rigid codes of honor have value to societies, especially societies with high proportions of sociopathic, psychopathic or otherwise empathy impaired individuals. Hard and clear rules can cover for a lack of native empathy in a lot of ways. This is why we have laws telling you not to do things that you should already know not to do.
And then there are those laws saying that you have to murder family members because the family’s “honor” has been impugned.
Ya know, I think better thread on this topic is "Do people actually run the game this 'Intepret rules to letter as literally as possibly without use of common sense at all'" way or is it just way to pass time for some people?
Seriously, if this isn't trolling, what is this then?
I think we both know the answer to that question, and any discussion on the matter won't garner any valuable response due to it basically devolving to a case of one calling the other "Badwrongfun players," so your attempt in creating a better thread topic (even if sarcastically) didn't succeed. I'm disappointed in your lack of creativity, really.
From my perspective, it's people taking real life examples and made-up rules in an attempt to say that I'm wrong when neither of those things are applicable in the slightest when it comes to this topic. There's no such thing as overdosing in Pathfinder (not even in the Drugs/Addiction section, where it would probably belong), there's no such thing as surgery either, so using them as counter arguments is equally as silly as me saying Wolfsbane causes Paladins to fall. Two "wrongs" doesn't make one of those "wrongs" correct. That's just a misnomer of logical conclusions that doesn't make sense when put into an appropriate spectrum, which is Pathfinder rules.
@ Daw: Yes, I really am suggesting that a lot of the responses are a strawman. People have stated that overdosing and surgery and all this other stuff that Pathfinder has zero mention of, is the deciding factor for a Paladin not falling by using Poison in an alternative manner when it's not about whether the Paladin overdoses the target or fails surgery (which again, isn't possible in Pathfinder rules because there are no Pathfinder rules on the matter), it's about whether a Paladin falls for using a Poison, and not just any Poison, a well-known Poison that's objectively defined as such, even if it's for the greater good.
All the responses that I've garnered from this so far is that Paladins can break any damn rule they want as long as it's for the greater good. Hell, they can even outright breach their own code if it's for the greater good, which as I've stated before, garners the question of "Why the hell do we have a Paladin Code feature?" When all we've demonstrated is that the Paladin Code is pointless and serves no purpose since it does nothing good for the game, and it's always okay for Paladin players to run amok because if they don't, you're considered a horrible GM and have a badwrongfun table for it.
@ Shorticus: James Jacobs isn't a developer, and even if he was, developer comments aren't official, despite them giving some personal insight on the topic at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This argument is meta as hell.
The only argument for wolfsbane being a poison is that it's listed as such in the equipment section.
To the paladin, who actually exists in world, its a bundle of herbs that you wouldn't want to chew on. Just like half the other bundles of herbs or medicines out there. Or table salt. Or bakers chocholate. Or unripened bananas Or the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide (which takes out a large number of paladins annually)
You would need deadpool to come in and break the fourth wall to explain the difference to the paladin.
This is a rather weak rebuttal to the whole RAW discussion but it's the best one I have.
The root of this tall plant with blue flowers is toxic (see the page 560 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook), but herbalists use it in low doses to reduce pain and regulate the heart. Folklore says it can help a victim of lycanthropy throw off the curse.
Which states it has some medicinal uses and that the Paladin MAY in fact be able to take the lycan to an Herbalist who could perhaps dose the lycan in such a way as to not be harmful.
Again, I know this is a weak RAW argument, but if we wanted book text, there's book text.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, if we both know the answer to the question, can you answer it already?
Seriously, I have asked it at least twice and you haven't really given actual direct answer what is the point of the thread <_< Its infuriating that you keep evading answering the question. The best I can understand is that you are criticizing why paladin code of conduct existing in first place or criticizing how its written by raw?
Like, only reason why the code of conduct exists is that its role play challenge, the class' idea is about being uber good guy with anti evil abilities that gets those abilities from strict adherence to goodness and honor, so they would lose the power from not being paragon of goodness or honor. That is why people are being confused here, they are arguing about spirit of the rule instead of letter of the rule. If you just want to say that you think class features that tell you how to roleplay the character should stay out of class mechanics, you could do it in clearer manner that doesn't risk flame wars. And if you instead want "it says no using poisons, so paladin shouldn't need to be able to use ANY poison in ANY circumstance", well, umm, ok then? I don't really get why, but if you want to run paladins like that and players are fine with it, sure go on, but don't expect everyone else to agree about it.
*falls over laughing correcting a typo*
Seriously, I have asked it at least twice and you haven't really given actual direct answer what is the point of the thread <_< Its infuriating that you keep evading answering the question. The best I can understand is that you are criticizing why paladin code of conduct existing in first place or criticizing how its written by raw?
So wait, the paladin code of conduct doesnt work under a lawful evil deity? THATS why there's no asmodean paladins...
According to James' comment, this means that the paladin's code is INTENDED to be used as a means of reinforcing behavior that could be considered good and honorable, and that by and large evil lies in how one uses the tools at one's disposal. Using wolfsbane to help a friend recover from a terrible illness (or at the least TRY to) is definitely what I'd call a good act, at the least. It's certainly not evil from a Rules as Intended standpoint.
The statement is problematic on a few fronts. The strictures of a deity specific code are additional/ informative , not a replacement for the standard code. They've said as much in print multiple times.
Most (all?) paladin codes don't mention poison at all. So what he's saying is that it's free reign for paladins to use poison now? It was the one thing we knew was "dishonorable"
I think the problem people have is dissasociating "paladin" from "most good" or "extra good". A paladin isn't either of those things. If they were, if ALL they cared about was good, they would be neutral good and they're not. They have a code of honor, and if that sometimes leads to less good than it otherwise might in the short run, the entire point of lawful good is the belief that honor leads to more good over the long haul and bigger picture.
But even if you want to say that, sure, poisons are dishonorable, it does make it pretty clear they're not evil. And a paladin doesn't fall for breaking his code necessarily,
They do. The rules in a weird spot.
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
So while poison is definitely not evil (a tranq dart is certainly a kinder thing to do to a kobold than a mace to the face), it IS dishonorable. Honor is a very funny concept, and its very seperate from good.
This argument is meta as hell.
The only argument for wolfsbane being a poison is that it's listed as such in the equipment section.
To the paladin, who actually exists in world, its a bundle of herbs that you wouldn't want to chew on. Just like half the other bundles of herbs or medicines out there. Or table salt. Or bakers chocholate. Or unripened bananas Or the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide (which takes out a large number of paladins annually)
You're right, that argument is pretty meta. A lot of the arguments have been (even my "fighting fire with fire" counterarguments). Just because it makes sense in the real world doesn't mean it works that way in Pathfinder, unfortunately...
@ Bard of Ages: Taking the diseased individual to a professional herbalist that has knowledge of a much safer cure is probably the better decision for a Paladin to make than to try and solve the situation themselves with an option that has major risk involved that may kill the afflicted in question. And I imagine herbalists with knowledge of Lycanthropy cures are much more plentiful than, say, a 12th level Cleric, or a 12th level Remove Disease scroll, so it's a much more viable solution. The only problem might be consent, but since this isn't much different than handing over a criminal to the authorities for them to handle it, I feel that sort of issue wouldn't apply here.
Hats off to you, friend! A valid and relevant solution to the thought exercise!
@ CorvusMask: The "answer to the question" was in relation to the sarcastic hypothetical thread title you made. As for the purpose of the thread, I'll just respond with a "Yes" to your suppositions, because I find that a Paladin Code should be upheld strictly (because the life of a Paladin isn't supposed to be an easy one), and that Paladins shouldn't be able to just break it "for the convenient greater good."
As for the whole "roleplaying challenge," I feel like we thought about that too differently. In my opinion, a "roleplay challenge" should include moral quandaries in their decision, such as the one that I gave. Does the character feel that the afflicted should get a second chance at a normal life, even if it's not guaranteed, and at the cost of his own Paladinhood by giving him the Wolfsbane? Or does he cleanse that creature by sword for lack of a safe solution? Or, does he find a third, more appropriate option for the afflicted (that Bard of Ages suggested)?
The problem is that people didn't see that for what it was, and basically assumed that I was a GM that was having a typical case of badwrongfun with a Paladin player. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as that's what these kinds of threads devolve into, but I thought that starting out with saying that it was a thought exercise wouldn't result in such biased responses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that ridiculous. Paladins not using Poison is a part of their code. Just because some poisons have alternate uses doesn't mean the Paladin is clear to use it. Hence the Animate Dead analogy.
By that logic, Paladins can lie and break city laws if it ends up saving lives, to which point I say "What's the point of a Paladin Code?" Why have a mechanic in the game that does nothing but make the game implement some false sense of duty that doesn't really need to be upheld?
All this tells me is that Paladins can run games amok because anyone who uses their code against their playstyle is doing badwrongfun.
Two distinctions need to be made here.
1. "Evil" isn't simply a moral viewpoint in Pathfinder, it is a tangible energy. It has physical qualities like light and matter. Animate Dead uses this energy in its casting, which is why it has the evil descriptor. Even using it for a Good purpose, you're still dealing with that energy. Comparing it to a plant, which is not composed of Evil energy, such as wolfsbane, is inaccurate in that the plant doesn't hold/harvest/interact with evil energy.
An earlier user mentioned the dosage idea. The given example was an apple, which contains trace amounts of cyanide and arsenic, but giving someone an apple isn't going to hurt them, and thus, the paladin wouldn't fall. The same could be said for wolfsbane. When dosed correctly–ask your local alchemist for proper dosage requirements!–wolfsbane will cure the lycanthropy without killing the afflicted.
2. The "not use poison" idea is grammatically a sub-clause of "act honorably." Which means, acting honorably is the actual tenet of the code. Not using poison is merely an example. More to the point, the only item of the code that is explicitly stated as being punishable by "falling" is willingly committing an evil act. The other stuff is labeled "Additionally," meaning, not necessarily punishable but part of the code anyway.
3. Medicine in the assumed technology level of Pathfinder (using Golarion as an example) would entirely be herbal. Poultices, potions, vapors–which we now know to be unhelpful, but was common practice in Earth's equivalent technological era–and as an additive in food, herbs were the only way to heal people before pharmaceuticals. Surgery was so dangerous before germ theory that it was essentially a death sentence. St. John's Wort helps with heart disease, but too much could cause a heart attack. Chamomile aids in sleep, but too much can cause a melatonin imbalance, leading to insomnia or hypersomnia. Aloe can heal the skin after a sunburn, but eating it can cause all kinds of digestive unpleasantness. Wolfsbane can cure lycanthropy, but too much could cause a heart attack, much like St. Johns Wort.
Lastly, I don't know if you're using Golarion or a homebrew world, but Torag's (LG god of dwarves) paladin code says:
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allefiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
Which not only gives the paladin the ability to break the normal code so long as it serves the greater good, it gives the paladin the choice. The paladin could still be honest, but if it would endanger his people, he absolutely shouldn't be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who think a paladin should fall for using wolfsbane are applying binary logic to something that is not necessarily binary. Many things are classified as belonging to more than on category. Even in the rules this exists. Shields are listed as armor, but can be used as weapons. You can even take weapon related feats for shields. This is because the shield is both armor and a weapon. Wolfsbane is also both a poison and a medicine.
Darksol keeps referring to how the heal skill is used in pathfinder. But what he is not stating is it does not go into what the character actually does when the use the skill. The rules of the game only cover the game mechanics but saying that since they don’t give any description on how it is done that nothing is actually being done is silly. To use the heal skill actually has to do more than stand next to the patient and say heal. They are bandaging and treating wounds; they may even be performing surgical procedure, or administering medicine. The game does not explicitly sate what they are doing because it does not get into that level of detail because of lack of space and the fact the developers are not doctors.
The game also does not define what exactly is in a healer’s kit. Healer's Kit: This collection of bandages and herbs provides a +2 circumstance bonus on Heal checks. A healer's kit is exhausted after 10 uses. Since wolfsbane is a herb it could easily be in a healers kit. That means that a paladin that uses a healers kit could fall. Considering heal is a class skill for paladins it would probably mean that the paladin fell before the game even began.
|
|
More to the point, the only item of the code that is explicitly stated as being punishable by "falling" is willingly committing an evil act. The other stuff is labeled "Additionally," meaning, not necessarily punishable but part of the code anyway
Mostly agree with you but breaking any part of the Paladin code causes you to fall, not just an evil act. See BNW's post above for the quote.
Mislead. Not lie. Important difference.
Paladin at the door hiding halflings with chelaxians looking for them.
Lying "They were never here"
Misleading "I saw them heading south" (from the living room to the kitchen. They'll hit the root cellar and then take the tunnel west)
The people who think a paladin should fall for using wolfsbane are applying binary logic to something that is not necessarily binary. Many things are classified as belonging to more than on category. Even in the rules this exists. Shields are listed as armor, but can be used as weapons. You can even take weapon related feats for shields. This is because the shield is both armor and a weapon. Wolfsbane is also both a poison and a medicine.
Darksol keeps referring to how the heal skill is used in pathfinder. But what he is not stating is it does not go into what the character actually does when the use the skill. The rules of the game only cover the game mechanics but saying that since they don’t give any description on how it is done that nothing is actually being done is silly. To use the heal skill actually has to do more than stand next to the patient and say heal. They are bandaging and treating wounds; they may even be performing surgical procedure, or administering medicine. The game does not explicitly sate what they are doing because it does not get into that level of detail because of lack of space and the fact the developers are not doctors.
The game also does not define what exactly is in a healer’s kit. Healer's Kit: This collection of bandages and herbs provides a +2 circumstance bonus on Heal checks. A healer's kit is exhausted after 10 uses. Since wolfsbane is a herb it could easily be in a healers kit. That means that a paladin that uses a healers kit could fall. Considering heal is a class skill for paladins it would probably mean that the paladin fell before the game even began.
I'm not stating them because they don't exist, and if I did, I'd be making rules up. I'd rather follow the mechanics that we have than invent some mumbo-jumbo up in an attempt to fix something that doesn't technically need fixing and functions as intended already. The Heal skill was written to apply to all kinds of related situations, when in the real world we have multiple types of doctors for all kinds of different situations, and you even admit it yourself that the game is purposefully abstract because Heal [Trauma] and Heal [Illness] is silly. Also by this logic, we need to better define how the Grapple rules function because they aren't specific enough to explain why I can use a sword for one action while still being able to use a shield to defend myself, even though I'm still technically using both hands simultaneously, which Grapple is supposed to not let me do. But nobody gives a damn about that because Paladin characters aren't a main part of it.
As for the Healer's kit, no GM that I've been with or seen has suggested that Wolfsbane, or any kind of poison for that matter, is either standard or assumed in a Healer's Kit, and there is a lot of evidence that goes against this assumption that this becomes an absurdness equivalent to my apparent own.
Hey, tall folks, listen to me because ive found the solution to this.
This tall folk has a point, and i can see it. But i have think in the perfect way to solve this situation.
kill the sick besterd, then cry about the fact you could not save him. take his corpse with you and reincarnate him. Once he,s dead the disease is removed
you are all wellcome.
goblins rules
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
kill the sick besterd, then cry about the fact you could not save him. take his corpse with you and reincarnate him. Once he,s dead the disease is removed
This gave me a really funny comic idea about a lazy Paladin who'd rather pay his way to goodness than properly solve it.
-*Sees friend turn to Lycanthrope while not acting surprised.*
-"Oh noes, he's already turned, I can't save him now." *Stabs him to death because it's the quick thing to do*
-"Oh noes, he's fallen and can't get up, what have I done." *Throws his arms in the air non-chalantly, then goes to friendly neighborhood Druid*
-"Halp, my friend got hairy and I made him go splat, can you unsplat him?" *Druid reincarnates friend after extorting all kinds of cash from lazy Paladin*
-"Sorry, had no choice because God is a dick. You understand, right?" *Takes now-troglodyte friend and rides off into sunset. Troglodyte friend then tries to find ways to commit sudoku for looking more hideous than a Lycanthrope.*
I'll call him Lazius the Indolent. He'll be the best skirting Paladin that ever lived, always borderlining foolishness and doing only the bare minimum of what it takes to maintain his Paladinhood, even if it costs him fortunes to do so, because doing things the hard way is just not his style.
Thanks for the funny character!
kill the sick besterd, then cry about the fact you could not save him. take his corpse with you and reincarnate him. Once he,s dead the disease is removedThis gave me a really funny comic idea about a lazy Paladin who'd rather pay his way to goodness than properly solve it.
I'll call him Lazius the Indolent. He'll be the best skirting Paladin that ever lived, always borderlining foolishness and doing only the bare minimum of what it takes to maintain his Paladinhood, even if it costs him fortunes to do so, because doing things the hard way is just not his style.
Thanks for the funny character!
hahahahaha, glad i helped, i told u i had the solution hahahahaha, indeed that paladin will be the best
Lol. I've gotta give it to the OP, this is by far the most rediculous Paladin thread I've seen to date.
"Should the Paladin fall by curing someone of a horrible disease because the cure is poisonous in high doses."
Keep it up Paizo forums.
Just came here to say this. Kind of hard to take these people/questions seriously.
Everybody keeps arguing the same points. Nobody's gonna convince the other. None of it's wrong... though if we were in a face to face game, I would probably drop out of the game if my paladin loses his abilities for using wolfsbane to cure lycanthropy. That's just not a ruling that I could respect. But, it's not wrong. It's a difference of styles. If any of you go back and read the posts from the beginning, you'll see those who use the rules as a guidline for fun and those that use the rules as written to have fun. I've had those players in my games. One got mad because he only had one outfit. I asked him repeatedly if he wanted to buy another outfit and he said no. Fine. They traveled overland for a week. It rained on them. There was hot weather. A couple of cool nights. He had no tent because... well... there was no rules that stated anything bad will happen if he doesn't have one. Just like a change of clothes. When they finally got to the keep, the player was pissed because his character caught a cold. This was right after 3e first came out. He failed a couple of FORT saves. I know a lot of you would appreciate that and a couple of you would be just as pissed. That's the difference that everyone is arguing. What I did wasn't right or wrong, but it's not the same play style. It's not a rule in the book, but it's common sense. It's also the difference between role-play and roll-play. Using rules as written or being a little more freeform.
There's no point to arguing about this and it's getting dangerously close to becoming a flame war.
Instead of argue, why don't you guys give examples of play style to show your style of play. That's fun and can still try and show the other how much fun it can be to be different... since, as I said, there will be no winners as far as the current argument is concerned.
This has gone on a while, but I was just thinking that since the paladin code is a story based role set and not mechanic based, it's harder to objectively determine. I, as a player, know Wolfsbane is a poison according to game rules. Does Alistair the Fair know this? Is it even the same? He doesn't know that in 3 levels his lay on Hands dice get a boost.
This has gone on a while, but I was just thinking that since the paladin code is a story based role set and not mechanic based, it's harder to objectively determine. I, as a player, know Wolfsbane is a poison according to game rules. Does Alistair the Fair know this? Is it even the same? He doesn't know that in 3 levels his lay on Hands dice get a boost.
A fair question, one that doesn't involve the assumption of a "Gotcha!" GM or real life morals applying to Pathfinder morals for a change...
While the PC may not know of any of this (and would probably default to the murderhobo option of "Kill it" if he didn't), that doesn't mean he can't go out and research this stuff from a local library that may possess books on the stuff. Or, he might even spend ranks on the relevant Knowledge skill.
Or, find people who have knowledge of Lycanthropes and known ways to cure the disease so he can better deal with the situation.
As I've stated prior, Paladins have a hard road ahead of them, and they're supposed to. That's the entire point of a Code of Conduct: To make a Paladin fit a criteria that they, as characters, are meant to uphold. There are going to be tough choices to make, some that may ultimately cause him to fall if he makes the wrong one. And this can certainly be one of them if the gravity of the situation presents itself. When someone becomes afflicted with the curse of Lycanthropy, and the Paladin sees this manifest first-hand, what would he do?
Does he end the threat now with no turning back, him assuming that it is beyond his ability to cleanse? Does he try to subdue it and fix the problem by himself, risking a potentially innocent life in the process so it doesn't go on to harm others? Does he contain the beast in hopes of finding someone more capable of absolving the tainted creature of its affliction? If a situation makes a Paladin ask these sorts of questions, gauge whether they're valid solutions or not in regards to the situation as it stands, and acts according to the best of his knowledge, then that makes for a great test of a Paladin adhering to his code, and also makes for both great roleplaying experiences, and an overall enjoyable encounter for all parties involved.
But really, all this thread has told me is that Paladins are like Fight Club. And we all know what the first rule of Fight Club is...
More seriously, I think if I decide to take up reigns as a GM in the future at a table, I'd just ban Paladins from being playable because it seems everybody has PTSD regarding Paladin abuse from prior editions of this sort of game, and that's really shown in this thread when a hypothetical situation rustles everyone's jammies into a Tanglefoot Bag. No need to give players the option to relive their masochistic glory days as a Paladin who's just there to be abused by a GM and give them an excuse to get angry, make a fuss, and storm out of my table, potentially bringing others with him because they'd paint me out to be a bad guy.
Which isn't to say that I desire to make Paladins fall for no reason, but this thread also tells me that I can't seem to tell what it is that would cause somebody to get all riled up in relation to Paladins and playstyles, so I'd rather just cut that risk out straight away.
Ironically enough, I'd still keep Antipaladins as a choosable class, because nobody gives a damn about Antipaladins falling for not being ruthless enough, which never ever happens.
Well most of the problems of a Paladin are solved if you actually know the people you game with.
Paladins as an NPC class is an entirely viable option. Especially if you don;t want to deal with the potential headache of clashing with what player assumed would be ok when you have a completely different idea.
In my opinion, paladins have become a little overpowered. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne and one guy played a paladin. What's more, when he got the leadership feat, he took on a paladin as a cohort. I was constantly struggling to try and keep things exciting and challenging for the group while not killing the other players with something to challenge the paladin twins. I definitely had to beef up the combat encounters so the paladin wouldn't just waltz through them. I also had to be careful because anything the paladins couldn't kill in 1 - 3 rounds could kill any other member of the party fairly quickly. Even throwing neutral aligned critters at them was only a little better. Of course, they were power gamers and min-maxers. That made things a little more difficult. When I was a player in the group, I played a scholarly wizard who had a lot of knowledges. I got assassinated. Killed by a single bolt before combat even started. Then I learned... I made a conjurer with an Fighter (archer) / Rogue (sniper) cohort. Holy crap at the damage output.
Anyway... Paladins can be over powered. Yes, any class can be, but it seems like paladins have evolved in that direction since Wizards got ahold of the game and Paizo made no secret of the fact that classes got more powerful back when Pathfinder was in Beta.
|
|
I totally forgot the breaking code of conduct result in falling was under Ex-Paladin part instead of the code of conduct text <_< But yeah, either way, still agreeing with that "not using poison" is given example of acting honorably, not as rule. I mean, otherwise it would be really bad ruling since it says "and so forth" meaning if there are set of actions considered dishonorable that goes against common sense(like giving apple to someone), then player isn't given all information about it.
Also yeah, pretty much I'm sure that god specific codes' replace code of conduct, didn't that previous link about it say as much?
But yeah, back to topic, I think most are just confused since we don't see it as strict rule text that says "any item with poison tag is unusable by paladins". There is also that I think you had bit of Slippery Slope argument going on there "So if paladins can use a item that has poison tag in it in any capacity, that means they can break the rules as much they want!" which isn't really the case so that causes more arguments.