(and asmodeous doesn't have paladins)
THATS why there's no asmodean paladins...
If you dilute a poison until the medicinal properties outweigh the negative side effects it's no longer considered a poison by most reasonable people. I'm sure the OP will disagree.
Between this and the ranged combat thread I think we can reasonably assume the OP has become a troll :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to point again to my post on the first thread.
Paladins of deities can choose to follow their code instead of the general code.
We have word from publishers of Pathfinder than many of these can use poison without a problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I want to point out that the paladin’s code does not specifically prohibit using poison or even lying. What is does state is that a paladin must act with honor, and uses those as an example of dishonorable conduct. It does however specifically require a paladin to help those in need provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends. Curing someone who is suffering from a magical disease is helping others. The code also requires the paladin to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. If the person is not cured of lycanthropy they will be a threat to innocents so the paladin will be required to punish them.
Looking at the paladin’s code letting the lycanthrope remain a lycanthrope directly invokes two of the four clauses of the base code. So if you are saying that a paladin falls for using wolfsbane to cure lycanthropy you are saying that doing so is a dishonorable act. Do you really think that curing lycanthropy is a dishonorable act? Use of poison in combat is dishonorable, but using it in other situations may or may not be honorable.
So if a paladin encounters someone suffering from lycanthropy that is desperate to find a cure he falls no matter what he does. If he does not cure the person he failed to aid a person in need. If he lets the person go he failed to punish those that harms the innocent. And if he cures them he has acted without honor. That makes the paladin completely and utterly unplayable which is obviously not the intent of the paladin’s code.
Also as I stated before there are no game mechanics for medicine. The sole reason that wolfsbane is considered poison is that it is listed in the section for poison. Since there is no game definition of what is or is not medicine it is impossible to say that wolfsbane is not considered medicine. The game is purposely abstract in this case. I would not have any problem with someone with a healer kit giving someone with lycanthropy wolfsbane as a use of the healer’s kit. After all treating disease is a listed function of the heal skill.
(and asmodeous doesn't have paladins)THATS why there's no asmodean paladins...
That does nothing to alleviate the situation.
Paladins worshipping an Evil deity is akin to working with Evil, and is something that is both A. not acceptable unless in dire circumstances, and even then, once those circumstances alleviate themselves, they're back at each others' throats, and B. it would require him doing actions that are most certainly less than Good.
Either way, the Paladin would fall due to having his alignment change from fulfilling the duties and will of Asmodeus.
Hell, even Antipaladins can't worship Asmodeus (well, Tyrant Antipaladins could, but they're few and far between, and are a lot more controllable than their standard kin).
I think Asmodeus took a look at their respective codes of conduct, and said "You know what? This is stupid, I sure as hell won't endorse contracts so annoying and controversial that it causes more harm than good to my regime," and as such kept Paladins and (most) Antipaladins out at arms length for fear of being labeled the God of Badwrongfun.
Which is why I'm taking (part of) a page from Asmodeus' lawbook, because he's pretty damn smart for doing that in my opinion.
"I think Asmodeus took a look at their respective codes of conduct, and said "You know what? This is stupid, I sure as hell won't endorse contracts so annoying and controversial that it causes more harm than good to my regime," and as such kept Paladins and (most) Antipaladins out at arms length for fear of being labeled the God of Badwrongfun."
Since Asmodeus is just the GM running an NPC, you're probably right.
|
Wait. Would constantly figthing and defending the worldwound count as dire circumstances? Then your choice of deity would be considered ok. And rallying more men to defend the worldwound even if not near it is dire circumstances.
So you could be a paladin of daddy asmodeus. You just have to be the best paladin ever and constanlty be fighting even worse evils all the time.
New character found.
That doesn't work though since worshiping Asmodeus counts as evil action still, so hypothetical paladin of Asmodeus from Holomog would immediately become ex paladin <_<
Paladins worshipping an Evil deity is akin to working with Evil, and is something that is both A. not acceptable unless in dire circumstances, and even then, once those circumstances alleviate themselves, they're back at each others' throats, and B. it would require him doing actions that are most certainly less than Good.
A paladin can worship Irori or Abadar just fine and regularly not fall from Lawful Good for following a Lawful Neutral deity, which the trait allows the Paladin to treat Asmodeus of in regards for determining his alignment.
Furthermore, there certainly exists the possibilities of Lawful Neutral worshipers of Asmodeus, that are able to remain Lawful Neutral. If simply worshipping a given god was an act in alignment with that god, there would exist no followers that were one alignment step away. You don't have to adhere to the particular principles of that deity you don't agree with. A Lawful Neutral cleric of Asmodeus can focus on the aspects involving contracts, without ever actually dipping their hands into evil.
The whole purpose of this trait is to allow Lawful Good and True Neutral people to worship Asmodeus. If this is still somehow an alignment infraction, then the trait fails at the basic purpose it was intended for.
And, finally, if all else fails, the Gray Paladin exists as an archetype, which offers certain levels of leeway in one's alignment. So if nothing else, that in conjunction with the trait would still allow Asmodeus to have paladins.
I don't think an evil deity can have a good paladin. The paladin is expected to uphold the ideals of the deity and, if the ideals are human sacrifice, torture and slavery, a GOOD person wouldn't feel comfortable. That's not to say a good person doesn't worship and evil deity. They may just not be very pious or simple worship out of fear... it's all they've known. A paladin or cleric though, that's not just a worshiper. That's someone promoting the beliefs and a paladin should never believe in evil. That's why they made the antipaladin and it's different archetypes. Good should never promote evil, otherwise they no longer remain good. They would be neutral, at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I want to point out that the paladin’s code does not specifically prohibit using poison or even lying.
You just quoted it saying that it specifically prohibits it and then declared that it doesn't specifically prohibit it. We should believe you over our own eyes because....?
That doesn't work though since worshiping Asmodeus counts as evil action still, so hypothetical paladin of Asmodeus from Holomog would immediately become ex paladin <_<Paladins worshipping an Evil deity is akin to working with Evil, and is something that is both A. not acceptable unless in dire circumstances, and even then, once those circumstances alleviate themselves, they're back at each others' throats, and B. it would require him doing actions that are most certainly less than Good.A paladin can worship Irori or Abadar just fine and regularly not fall from Lawful Good for following a Lawful Neutral deity, which the trait allows the Paladin to treat Asmodeus of in regards for determining his alignment.
Furthermore, there certainly exists the possibilities of Lawful Neutral worshipers of Asmodeus, that are able to remain Lawful Neutral. If simply worshipping a given god was an act in alignment with that god, there would exist no followers that were one alignment step away. You don't have to adhere to the particular principles of that deity you don't agree with. A Lawful Neutral cleric of Asmodeus can focus on the aspects involving contracts, without ever actually dipping their hands into evil.
The whole purpose of this trait is to allow Lawful Good and True Neutral people to worship Asmodeus. If this is still somehow an alignment infraction, then the trait fails at the basic purpose it was intended for.
And, finally, if all else fails, the Gray Paladin exists as an archetype, which offers certain levels of leeway in one's alignment. So if nothing else, that in conjunction with the trait would still allow Asmodeus to have paladins.
The trait only lets them count as that alignment for the purposes of worshipping Asmodeus, it does nothing to alleviate other alignment issues that may crop up, such as the Paladin's or Antipaladin's code of conduct, or specific alignment restrictions for maintaining their class abilities.
It's a lot easier to worship a deity one step away from their current alignment because their ideals are a lot more in common, and any disputes are few and far between. Two steps is where things get a lot more tricky, and this is a prime example of it.
A traditional Paladin being tasked with indebting others to Asmodeus' power through temptation, contract bargaining, and so on, results in the Paladin doing things that, while probably Lawful, are most likely not Good, either. Sure, Asmodeus keeps his word, but when his word can result in something like "After we give you X, you forfeit your soul for me to torment and shape as I see fit upon your death," I don't think a Paladin will maintain his Good status for very long, and even if they throw the Paladin towards contracts that aren't that damning, the point is that the Paladin is basically doing the same things that a typical Devil would be doing, which means he's not much different than the apparent Evil that he fights. At worst, he becomes a powerful ally to Evil upon death when Asmodeus claims his soul (due to the trait wording). At best, he ceases to be Good for how he impacts the world, and as such loses his Paladinhood, making his appeal to Asmodeus much less valuable, and the likelihood that he becomes a worst-case-scenario much greater.
Even Antipaladins can't technically worship Asmodeus because they will break a contract when they feel it is no longer necessary for them to uphold it, even just for their own personal gain or amusement, and with that being Asmodeus' schtick, can't risk the flow of souls and other such acquisitions being compromised due to crappy "customer service." Tyrants get the green card, but as I've stated prior, they are few and far between, and are most certainly not typical Antipaladins, meaning Asmodeus wouldn't trust them any further than they can properly control them to fall into his complicated plans.
Point is that while yes, the trait lets them worship Asmodeus, one of two things will give (their worship or their class features), which will result in the trait not being worthwhile when desiring the best of both worlds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is why us goblins never write our ideas, how did you tall folks end up talking about Asmodeus paladins? didnt you have enough with the poison dirty dorty piggy issue?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I want to point out that the paladin’s code does not specifically prohibit using poison or even lying.
You just quoted it saying that it specifically prohibits it and then declared that it doesn't specifically prohibit it. We should believe you over our own eyes because....?
The use of poison is not directly prohibited by the code, but rather indirectly. The reason a paladin cannot use poison is because it is dishonorable, not because it is poison. To me it seems pretty clear that using wolfsbane to cure a magical disease is not a dishonorable act. This is especially true if the lycanthrope does not wish to be a lycanthrope and is a willing participant in the treatment. At this point the wolfsbane is not poison, but is medicine. The fact that the cost of wolfsbane is listed in the section of the book with poison does not change the fact that in this case it is medicine.
A paladin is also required to respect legitimate authority. A person would be considered a legitimate authority where his own body is concerned. If the person no longer wishes to be a lycanthrope and using wolfsbane could give him a chance to be rid of the disease that would fall under respecting legitimate authority. If the paladin ignores the wishes of the lycanthrope he is not respecting that persons authority over their own body.
A paladin is also required to help those in need. A person suffering from a disease more than qualifies as a person in need. Since being cured of lycanthropy is not a evil or chaotic act this also is required by the paladins code.
Lastly a paladin is required to punish those who harms or threatens innocents. An untreated lycanthrope is a threat to innocents and will probably harm them. But the lycanthrope himself could also be an innocent victim. By not curing the lycanthrope the paladin is harming the lycanthrope as well as other victims. It seems pretty clear that the paladin should do something if he can. If the only thing he can do is to use wolfsbane he would be putting multiple innocents including the lycanthrope in danger if he does not. This would be a clear violation of the paladins code.
So unless you can figure out a reason why using wolfsbane is a dishonorable act it is pretty clear that a paladin would not fall for using to cure a lycanthrope.
The use of poison is not directly prohibited by the code, but rather indirectly. .
Alright, I can buy that. "Its not poison" in this context is a lot better though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people intentionally ignoring the bit about deities having specific codes and James Jacob saying many can use poisons without issue?
Yeah. And if you guys disagree that its example, not straight up ban, I wanna know "so what does the 'and so forth' part include then?" <_<
No diseasing the weapons, no handing out plague blankets, no launching plagued bodies over the walls, etc.
No prayers to gods south of N.
No torturing
Not surrendering falsely, or falsely advertising your surrender conditions.
No fighting in enemy uniform
Are people intentionally ignoring the bit about deities having specific codes and James Jacob saying many can use poisons without issue?
I've given a response to it. Thats so far away from whats written, 1) that the codes are suppliments and 2) that it's free for all poisoning that yeah, i'm dismissing that idea.
I mean i get the idea that the idea of honor has been lambasted deconstructed turned inside out six ways from sunday. That bad DM's set up a paladin to fall at the drop of a hat or without warning or discussion at the drop of the hat for the stupidest things...(looks at topic).. but a paladin just isn't a paladin without it. Honor has to mean something or the paladin has no identity.
It has enormous effects. being able to trust a paladin envoy because he can't lie, isn't going to poison your drink, isn't going to drop the white flag and try to harpoon you with the pole sets up a more cordial conflict resolution system that ultimately saves a lot of lives. Yes, cutting corners helps you, here, now, but it hurts other people down the road. Thats the entire argument for lawful good and a paladin without it, just trying to be the best they can without any kind of honor or structure, just isn't a paladin.
Whats the difference between medicine and poison? Scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people intentionally ignoring the bit about deities having specific codes and James Jacob saying many can use poisons without issue?I've given a response to it. Thats so far away from whats written, 1) that the codes are suppliments and 2) that it's free for all poisoning that yeah, i'm dismissing that idea.
I mean i get the idea that the idea of honor has been lambasted deconstructed turned inside out six ways from sunday. That bad DM's set up a paladin to fall at the drop of a hat or without warning or discussion at the drop of the hat for the stupidest things...(looks at topic).. but a paladin just isn't a paladin without it. Honor has to mean something or the paladin has no identity.
It has enormous effects. being able to trust a paladin envoy because he can't lie, isn't going to poison your drink, isn't going to drop the white flag and try to harpoon you with the pole sets up a more cordial conflict resolution system that ultimately saves a lot of lives. Yes, cutting corners helps you, here, now, but it hurts other people down the road. Thats the entire argument for lawful good and a paladin without it, just trying to be the best they can without any kind of honor or structure, just isn't a paladin.
Whats the difference between medicine and poison? Scale.
I would agree with you except for the fact that "Honor" isn't an absolute. It is interpretted differently by different people.
"The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support
to the righteous. Their tenets include:
• I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together.
• I will seek out and destroy the spawn of the Rough
Beast. If I cannot defeat them, I will give my life trying.
If my life would be wasted in the attempt, I will find
allies. If any fall because of my inaction, their deaths
lie upon my soul, and I will atone for each.
• I am fair to others. I expect nothing for myself but that
which I need to survive.
• The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my
actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will
redeem them by the sword.
• I will not abide evil, and will combat it with steel when
words are not enough. I do not flinch from my faith,
and do not fear embarrassment. My soul cannot be
bought for all the stars in the sky.
• I will show the less fortunate the light of the
Dawnflower. I will live my life as her mortal blade,
shining with the light of truth.
• Each day is another step toward perfection. I
will not turn back into the dark."
That is the paladin code of Sarenrae. To me that includes a lot of verbage that harks back to honor.
It places emphasis on different areas but still requires honorable behavior.
It does not outright prohibit poison use, but does indicate that the paladin can do pretty much anything necessary to win a battle and survive.
I would say that the paladin would feel dubious about using a poison in battle. However if they do decide to use it their god doesn't seem like she would punish them, so long as the use was warranted.
With the question rased here, I feel she would honestly punish them for not trying every avenue to treat the curse. "I will protect my allies with my life. They are my light
and my strength, as I am their light and their strength.
We rise together."
|
|
The way paladin codes are written, most of them are "This God's paladin code includes tenets/adages these" while with Abadar it says something like "in addition to standard code of conduct, it includes" kind of way, which does imply that in most cases god specific god overwrites code of conduct <_<
Content wise, codes pretty much specify what honor means for that god's paladin. I think Iomedae and Torag are pretty much best example about that. So paladins are still expected to be honorable, its just that what it includes differs between gods.
James Jacob says that individual paladin codes override the general.
I linked to the post on the first page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with you except for the fact that "Honor" isn't an absolute. It is interpreted differently by different people.
There are disagreements over the fine lines but agreement on the underlying structure, just like any other metaphysical concept like good.
And if saranrae was the only one that didn't mention poison, or was one of a few, i might buy that.
But NONE of the paladin codes i can find mention poison. At all.
So either all paladins can use poison now, or the codes didn't bother to mention it because they are supplimental and informative. Because the section on how they work tells you that they're supplimental and informative. Point to something in the code of saranrae that's contrary to the paladin code. That kinda might say poison is okay... doesn't cut it.
A saranite would accept a surrender from an orcish army and try to redeem them. A torag follower (.. toragite sounds like a cool new metal) Runs up the red flag at the start of the battle and waits for the enemy to begin when they're ready. The honesty going into the battle , with the sides knowing exactly what they can expect from you, prevents larger conflicts. Being able to surrender saves lives, but how many battles never took place because you know exactly what happens when you charge a dwarven position?
James Jacob says that individual paladin codes override the general.
I linked to the post on the first page.
The codes flat out say that they are supplemental.
However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw
on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods—
those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone
for their deeds or lose their powers. Presented below
are brief descriptions of paladins from the individual
faiths of purity, as well as the deity-specific tenets of
their codes.
Faiths of purity, page 26. emphasis mine.
The deity-specific paladin codes are 100% meant to exist the "normal" paladin code. The normal code is for world-neutral generic paladins, and once a paladin worships a deity on Golarion, they're no longer world-neutral and must follow deity specific codes.
If a code doesn't cover a topic, then the paladin needs to extrapolate from the code. In this case, nothing in Shelyn's code says anything about using ANY sort of poison, so she's perfectly fine using knockout poison or any other to help her live up to the code.
I can point to a prominent figure within the company saying they replace. He also flat out says a paladin of Shelyn can use poison. I have looked at multiple of the paladin codes and do not see them saying they are in addition to.
I agree that poison would normally be dishonorable. I agree that normally paladins can't use poison. I also think in the case in question it is not poison but medicine. The difference is dosage and intent.
A paladin should always be highly skeptical about using poison and should have internal conflict. But if their deity does not forbid it, there should be no reason to punish for it so long as they stay within the bounds of their code otherwise.
Now I feel that some of the deity specific codes allow for a stretching of honor under certain circumstance.
Sarenrae: "The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer
fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will
strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
Can be taken to allow anything necessary to win an unfair fight.
Shelyn: "I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."
Can be read to mean that to protect the innocent I have no problem striking first. The protection of the innocent surpasses the normal bounds of the paladin's honor.
EDIT
What I am trying to say is that no paladin code allows for the wholesale use of poison for laughs. However under specific circumstances certain codes seem to allow for Paladin's to do whatever is necessary to serve their cause.
James Jacob says that individual paladin codes override the general.
I linked to the post on the first page.The codes flat out say that they are supplemental.
However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw
on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods—
those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone
for their deeds or lose their powers. Presented below
are brief descriptions of paladins from the individual
faiths of purity, as well as the deity-specific tenets of
their codes.Faiths of purity, page 26. emphasis mine.
Where does that say they are supplemental? I assume you refer to the first lines "However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods".
That can be interpreted to mean the codes listed are in addition to the core code, or it can be read to mean that there are strictures in individual codes that are not included in the core code, and they choose to live by these, instead of by the core code.It also says they draw on "Specific codes" which can be taken to mean that they follow only their specific code and not the general code.
It is making me rethink what James Jakobs said though. The devs are only human and are just as likely to make a mistake as the rest of us.
So perhaps James is wrong where he said that the codes replace. It could also be a misinterpretation of the text you quoted.
or it can be read to mean that there are strictures in individual codes that are not included in the core code, and they choose to live by these, instead of by the core code.
No. it cannot.
For starters, that is not intepretation that is making stuff up. Come on now.
Secondly, none of the codes refer directly back to the core code. None of them mention poison. You're not addressing this. If they were replacements, you'd expect at least some gods to mention the poison thing.
What I am trying to say is that no paladins should consider using poison. For the laughs. It is dishonorable. However under specific circumstances certain codes seem to allow for Paladin's to do whatever is necessary to serve their cause.
Even the core paladin code only mentions poison once in passing. I am not sure why it is not mentioned in the specific codes. It may well be because the ore code already mentions it. It could be because none of the gods actually care about poison that much. It could be for page count. We do not know.
What we know is it isn't mentioned and we have Dev quotes saying that certain paladin s can use poison. Now just because they can does not mean they should do it will nilly.
What I am trying to say is that no paladins should consider using poison. For the laughs. It is dishonorable. However under specific circumstances certain codes seem to allow for Paladin's to do whatever is necessary to serve their cause.
What you are describing is neutral good. Or chaotic good. Lawful good has rules. And while an ordinary lawful good character might break those rules "just this once" what seperates a paladin from a regular lawful good character is that they do not give up on their principles just because things got tough.
What we know is it isn't mentioned and we have Dev quotes saying that certain paladin s can use poison
you CONTINUALLY ignore this point. I think i have run out of benefit of the doubt that it's accidentaly
Using the listed logic, it is not certain paladins. it is ANY Paladin with a deity (you know, EVERY paladin on golarion) because NONE of the codes specifically mention poison
Either the codes are replacement and EVERY paldin can use poison OR>... just maybe, james jacobs was wrong about how the codes were supposed to work.
I would like to point out that paladins do not fall for committing a non lawful act. Only a full shift in alignment or an evil act, poison is also not inherently evil as their are good outsiders that use poison.
If using the poison to fulfill their code is neutral rather than lawful they can do so without so much as an atonement so long as they don't make a habit of it.
I said up thread there is a chance he was wrong. However it is just as likely that the intention that all golarian paladin's can use poison.
Or what I feel is the most likely third option, A paladin should never use any non honorable means, unless their code demand they do whatever is necessary to serve.
So Shelyn's code can be taken to mean, protect the innocent no matter what it is you have to do.
Sarenrae's code basically says, fight dirty if they fight dirty.
Torag says you must protect your own, but suffixes "I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag." so poison is probably out for Torag.
I think the gods care more that you are following their teachings and doing what needs to be done. I feel that Shelyn would be more likely to berate you for causing a fight with the mayor's innocent guards to go kill the evil mayor than she would with you subtly poisoning his food so him and only him die.
Does that make sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
would like to point out that paladins do not fall for committing a non lawful act. Only a full shift in alignment or an evil act, poison is also not inherently evil as their are good outsiders that use poison.
paladins DO fall for one dishonorable act.
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
That list is open ended and often subjective but it is crystal clear that poison is out.
If using the poison to fulfill their code is neutral rather than lawful they can do so without so much as an atonement so long as they don't make a habit of it.
No. Objectively, 100% wrong. Good is not the only consideration here. It is objectively dishonorable for a paladin to use poison. You fall for one act of dishonor. Poison is clearly dishonorable. Dishonor on your cow level dishonor. Use it once you fall. That is the rule, black and white, clear as crystal.
I said up thread there is a chance he was wrong. However it is just as likely that the intention that all golarian paladin's can use poison.
Absolutely not. Two options are not both equally likely just because you named two options.
Evidence that they are supplemental
1) It says flat out it's supplemental
2) If you read the codes, most of them are a religious specific take on the paladin code. They are obviously meant to work together.
3) they are all compatable with the core code.
4) it flat out says that it's supplemental.
5) the alternative is that if you squint, do a mental double back halflip and a twist, then an offhand comment in a splat book removed an iconic description on a class, but you need to do asmodean level rules lawyering to reach that conclusion.
So no. These are not equal. The idea that they work as replacements isn't remotely a valid option.
Or what I feel is the most likely third option, A paladin should never use any non honorable means, unless their code demand they do whatever is necessary to serve.
That isn't a code anymore. "Whatever it takes" is not a paladin. Or a good person.
So Shelyn's code can be taken to mean, protect the innocent no matter what it is you have to do.
That isn't lawful good anymore.
I think the gods care more that you are following their teachings and doing what needs to be done. I feel that Shelyn would be more likely to berate you for causing a fight with the mayor's innocent guards to go kill the evil mayor than she would with you subtly poisoning his food so him and only him die.
Does that make sense?
It does not make sense for a paladin or a lawful good character.
A cleric of Shelyn can certainly poison the mayor.(probably by making an elaborate garnish or something for him) Dishonorable but good. The entire law/chaos good/evil axis is about this kind of act.
A paladin of Shelyn cannot. They have a number of higher standards. That is dishonorable.
The cleric poisons the mayor. The mayors evil plot to raise zombie orphans for sweatshop labor was foiled. yay. good guys win.
That isn't ENOUGH for a paladin.
A paladin of shelyn would go out at night and organize the town into painting the buildings with horrific pictures of the mayor and his plans. Use those pictures to get the town council to rise up against him. The people to take to the streets to demand he be put on trial. THEN executed.
The cleric has gotten rid of evil for a day. The paladin has shown the town how to get rid of evil for the rest of their lives. That inspiration, getting the entire society behind you, is the entire point of being a paladin. And when you jump through hoops to allow the paladin an easy way out you lose that. And that's bad for the game. Trying to find ways to do things, much, much harder ways, within the rules makes for excellent and memorable role playing (even if it also results in some terrible times and absurd arguments like falling for passing the salt)
|
|
Aren't you arguing about your opinion rather than the facts? Not even talking about whether supplemental means "in addition" or replaces(in that case, why the heck Abadar is only one that actually specifically mentions code of conduct?), talking about your "LG can't use poisons ever"
Think about it in this manner: Use or lack of using poison isn't important, what is important is whether god specific god mentions honor. If it mentions honor, then that god's paladin can't use poisons(since using poisons is considered dishonorable), if they don't mention honor then paladins of that god just don't care about honor as much compared to other parts of the code.
Either way, using poison isn't inherently chaotic act, monks can use poison without problem. There isn't anything evil about using poisons either, so LG characters in general don't have reason to not use them, LG rogues can use poisons as much they want. What makes paladins lawful is strict adherence to their code, so it doesn't really matter whether they can use poisons or not since they still have rules they HAVE to follow or they fall. Paladin of Iomedae for example can't ever surrender :P
Aren't you arguing about your opinion rather than the facts?
No.
talking about your "LG can't use poisons ever"
Didn't say that. didn't hint that. Didn't imply that.
Honor is separate from Good. It is not universal to lawful. It is a paladin specific restriction. A paladin has to be lawful, good, AND honorable. Showing that poison isn't evil and isn't chaotic doesn't mean a paladin can use it.
|
Aren't you arguing about your opinion rather than the facts?No.
talking about your "LG can't use poisons ever"Didn't say that. didn't hint that. Didn't imply that.
Honor is separate from Good. It is not universal to lawful. It is a paladin specific restriction. A paladin has to be lawful, good, AND honorable. Showing that poison isn't evil and isn't chaotic doesn't mean a paladin can use it.
BNW, remember, this thread was about using Wolfsbane to cure somebody’s lycanthropy, not poisoning an opponent. Curing folks has to be honorable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW, remember, this thread was about using Wolfsbane to cure somebody’s lycanthropy, not poisoning an opponent. Curing folks has to be honorable.
My position is that it's not poison. So you don't need to try these mental gymnastics to let the paladin use poison. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Just because you want an obvious desired goal doesn't mean that whatever route you take to get there is valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the listed logic, it is not certain paladins. it is ANY Paladin with a deity (you know, EVERY paladin on golarion) because NONE of the codes specifically mention poison
Either the codes are replacement and EVERY paldin can use poison OR>... just maybe, james jacobs was wrong about how the codes were supposed to work.
James Jacobs is the one in charge of deciding how Golarion is supposed to work...
So on that basis the default no-poison paladin code can be for setting-neutral paladins or paladins who revere many gods equally without worshipping one in particular.
I prefer it that way. It allows more varied paladins.
Plus it reduces this kind of silliness:
NPC: "A giraffe has escaped from the zoo and is running wild in the city! Will you help us recapture it? I can give you all the tranquilizer blowpipe darts you'll need."
Paladin: "No! That would be dishonorable! I will hack the giraffe to death with my sword instead."
So on that basis the default no-poison paladin code can be for setting-neutral paladins or paladins who revere many gods equally without worshipping one in particular.I
Except its one board statement in direct contradiction to how it was printed and one rules interpretation to get there. If you're going to make a major change like that, you have to come right out and say it. Not say the exact opposite in the rule.
Subdual damage is a thing. So is wrestling. And bolas. Get your David Attenborough on and get in there.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, Wolfsbane is objectively a Poison, just like how Animate Dead is objectively an [Evil] spell. Simply because they have alternative (and helpful) uses doesn't change the original definition of the subject. Animate Dead being used to build a shelter or orphanage using the corpses of previous settlers, or even the orphans' parents' corpses, is still Evil (and quite ironic, really), even if the end result (a shelter or orphanage for people/children that need it) is good. Same concept with the Wolfsbane/Lycanthrope situation.
Other things which are "objectively" poisons;
Therefore, Paladins must never ever use these things in any way or they will clearly fall.
Or perhaps your argument is silly and only using 'poisons' to actually poison someone is meant to be prohibited.
Using Monkshood / Blue Rocket / Aconite / Wolfsbane to cure werewolves (or ward off vampires) is in no way an evil act and thus should not cause a paladin to fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin drops chocolate chip cookie near a dog
Falls
"Dogdammit..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I think it is agreed that using wolfsbane to cure lycanthropy is not actually against the paladin’s code. So the original post has been proven false. It seems that question is now is using poison inherently dishonorable.
That is a lot more tricky of a question and I think there are circumstances that would allow a paladin to use poison. If you are using poison to give yourself an unfair advantage in combat that would be dishonorable. Poison is generally shunned in many cultures and if that is the case you opponent will not be using poison. This would be giving yourself an unfair advantage so would be considered dishonorable. If on the other hand the use of poison is widely accept in culture and it is expected that your opponent will be using poison than it would not be dishonorable. So to the paladin from the pseudo European culture poisoning his dagger in a duel would be a dishonorable act. To the paladin from a primitive culture where poisoning your arrows is an accepted part of combat, it would not be a dishonorable act.
Using poison out of combat against an unsuspecting target will normally be considered a dishonorable act. On the other hand using poison that causes the victim to die a painless death to execute a legally condemned criminal would not be a dishonorable act. If the poison used for execution causes a lot of pain and suffering that would probably be considered a dishonorable act.
Questions of honor cannot be considered in a void they must be judged by the circumstance.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big Norse Wolf, I know you quote from a line in Faiths of Purity that suggests the deity specific codes are supplemental. Have you found something similar in the Inner Sea Gods hardcover?
ISG came later, and I believe includes all the codes from FoP, so it appears to be a replacement for FoP (and several other books). The explanation of the deity specific codes in ISG, although perhaps not completely clear, does seem to suggest that the codes are replacements.
'Paladin/Antipaladin 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 differeing interpretations on how to best implement a god's divine mandates....' (ISG 10)
Thus, the deity codes are 'a sample code that a holy warrior of the faith would follow,' not 'additional strictures a holy warrior of the faith would add to the normal paladin code.'
|
|
Yeah, I can't remember any quote from Inner Sea Gods either that says paladin codes are supplemental, which is why I was confused were you got that idea from.
Anyway, I think paladin codes replacing code of conduct is good thing since deity specific gods are still rather strict rules and they are more varied than code of conduct resulting in different type of challenges besides "how do I avoid lying without it being lie of omission". Like, for example, Shelyn's paladin has to ALWAYS accept enemy's surrender because they always have to give chance to redemption. Which means smart enemy could force paladin to protect their life from their allies by surrendering before they are about to die.
His idea is that they're supplemental because there's nothing in that text which says it replaces the standard code of conduct. At best, they're talking points for what a GM can expect a Paladin of that deity to follow in a game where the Paladin code is discussed prior to play.
At worst, it's even more responsibilities for a Paladin to uphold in addition to the standard assumptions, which makes sense for a rules-lawyer GM.
In addition, an Abadaran paladin upholds the following creed.
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like
their goddess. They provide hope to the weak and support
to the righteous. Their tenets include the following adages
Their
tenets include
the following adages
Their tenets include the following affirmations.
I don't see anything that says replace, instead of, or suggests that the rest of the code isn't in place.