Why all the Paladin hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

801 to 850 of 961 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.

Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

And yet countless GMs have managed to do so. This is a forumgoer problem, not a problem with the average pathfinder player.

You don't get to claim you're a good gm if you can't make a decades old core book class work in your campaigns. People do it every day, you just cant be an antagonist gm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.

Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

And yet countless gms manage to make this unworkable code work in their game without completely rewriting it simply by not being antagonists to the players at their table and working to ensure everyone has fun as opposed to setting out to hamstring a class they don't personally like yet presents no real power issues compared to any 9 level caster.

If you cant make paladins work in your games you're overestimating how good a gm you are. Full. Stop.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:


Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

Have you tried reading the code as if you were lawful good instead of lawful evil?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying. Looks like we have a series of people who aren't capable of GMing for a base book class that's been around for decades.

Like i said...bad gming.

Bad gming is letting a player play a Paladin without re-writing that tosh code.

Claiming it's bad GMing to find the Paladin's code unworkable is a failure in literacy.

And yet countless GMs have managed to do so. This is a forumgoer problem, not a problem with the average pathfinder player.

You don't get to claim you're a good gm if you can't make a decades old core book class work in your campaigns. People do it every day, you just cant be an antagonist gm.

Decades?

The 3.5 code was playable. It's PF that messed it up.

3.5 -- "A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities"

PF -- "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"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like contextually "grossly violate" and "violate" are more or less synonymous. After all, you wouldn't use "violate" for a minor breach or infraction. If you're reaching for "violate" you're talking about something that is not within the realm of ordinary behavior, something easily anticipated, or something for which one cannot easily make amends.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like contextually "grossly violate" and "violate" are more or less synonymous. After all, you wouldn't use "violate" for a minor breach or infraction. If you're reaching for "violate" you're talking about something that is unfixable without extreme measures.

It helps when you aren't playing with dwight from "the office" too


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

It helps when you aren't playing with dwight from "the office" too

This statement holds no matter the context.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying.

Not really. It backs up the fact that Paladins have a history of problematic interactions, regardless of whether it's the GM who is causing the problem, or even the Paladin himself who is running the table amok because if a GM cries fowl he's considered a badwrongfun GM for trying to enforce the Paladin's Code on the player.

The fact of the matter is that problematic gameplay and promotion of toxic player/GM behavior, two things that Paladins as players end up creating, is not something healthy for my table. I'd rather maintain my table's happiness than adhere to rules that will only serve to ruin said table. And if you disagree with that sentiment, you wouldn't have fun at my table no matter what class you decided to play, and I wouldn't want a player at my table who doesn't view that ideal as a priority.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying.

Not really. It backs up the fact that Paladins have a history of problematic interactions, regardless of whether it's the GM who is causing the problem, or even the Paladin himself who is running the table amok because if a GM cries fowl he's considered a badwrongfun GM for trying to enforce the Paladin's Code on the player.

The fact of the matter is that problematic gameplay and promotion of toxic player/GM behavior, two things that Paladins as players end up creating, is not something healthy for my table. I'd rather maintain my table's happiness than adhere to rules that will only serve to ruin said table. And if you disagree with that sentiment, you wouldn't have fun at my table no matter what class you decided to play, and I wouldn't want a player at my table who doesn't view that ideal as a priority.

THIS DOESN'T EXIST FOR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. Thats what you don't seem to get. This is an abnormal situation, people play with paladins constantly all over the country/world and have for decades without the problems or kafkatrapping the handful of internet misanthropes complaining about them on the boards have apparently constantly experienced.

At some point y'all are going to have to acknowledge that the common thread is your own attitudes toward the class and not some systemic problem with its design.

The very fact that people constantly DO make it work make your claims that it doesn't work come into question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
THIS DOESN'T EXIST FOR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS.

Please post your statistical data that backs up your claim of how many have ever ran into paladin issues in the past.

Ryan Freire wrote:
And yet countless GMs have managed to do so. This is a forumgoer problem, not a problem with the average pathfinder player.

Have you personally talked to all of them? How are you collecting this information since you claim it's only those on the internet that have the issue? Sounds to me like you're using anecdotal evidence to reinforce your preconceived POV: That you don't have a problem, hence those having it MUST have bad DM's.


Don't think so dwight. The evidence is anecdotal and its that its the same group of MAYBE half a dozen posters constantly complaining about the issue.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder if, instead of complaining about a problem with the Paladin itself, people would be better served working with the people they play with to come to an understanding through which the Paladin is not a problem.

And on doing so, also realize that whatever they did to make the Paladin work for them and the people they play with, is not the only way to do this and other people might prefer things that are mutually exclusive (like I'm not going to play a Paladin in any game where "Paladins can be any alignment" is a thing and I don't want to run a game where people run around as Chaotic Neutral "Paladins.")


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
The evidence is anecdotal and its that its the same group of MAYBE half a dozen posters constantly complaining about the issue.

YOU were the one claiming to KNOW what the majority of player feel about the paladin and that they've never had issues.

I can use the exact same anecdotal evidence YOU used on my side: 'well, every time there is a paladin thread there is "the same group of MAYBE half a dozen posters constantly" defending the paladin!'. See how anecdotal evidence works! ;)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I wonder if, instead of complaining about a problem with the Paladin itself, people would be better served working with the people they play with to come to an understanding through which the Paladin is not a problem.

I wish I COULD do this, but I'm almost never with the same group twice as I play online. This means I'm always with a new group that has different ideas on how paladins should be played: It's one of the reasons I think my POV is SO different from people like Ryan Freire: I see a LOT more groups/Dm's than he does most likely and I don't get to 'vet' them like I would do in real life.


The difference is I'm not claiming there's a structural problem with a long term class that renders it just unplayable.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence and thus far the only evidence offered is that bad gms who exist as antagonists to their players exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread disappoints me.


Ryan Freire wrote:

The difference is I'm not claiming there's a structural problem with a long term class that renders it just unplayable.

Extreme claims require extreme evidence and thus far the only evidence offered is that bad gms who exist as antagonists to their players exist.

Everyone except "group of MAYBE half a dozen posters" agrees with you isn't extreme? IMO, that's a LOT more extreme than there being an issue with the paladin. And years of people playing them is NOT evidence of anything: people played long term classes like monks and rogues and they still thought they needed unchained.

So I see no difference in your use of anecdotal evidence. I, however am not laying the blame for the issues with the class to any one thing: You seem sure that the only possible way that an issue could come about is from the DM and that seems worse than the issues with the paladin...

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a player once play a Barbarian that he insisted was unkillable. I would burn through Heal spells trying to keep him alive, and he would continue provoking as many opportunity attacks as he could just to prove his unkillability.

He was disruptive, and I could conceivably blame the Barbarian class for encouraging the way that he played. I mean, he thought he was an unstoppable engine of death? Where would he get that idea?

The problem with the Paladin is much the same, though its effects are more easily felt. The fact is that, much like many classes, the Paladin isn't for everyone, but everyone thinks they can be the hero, and isn't the Paladin supposed to be the archetypical "Hero"? Why, then can't I be a Paladin?

We see, through experience and observation, that people tend to play characters that mirror themselves in some way, and that roleplaying tends to say something about our own character. It therefore follows that some people, in a very "practical" sense, are Barbarians, others Wizards, others Rogues, etc. Not in class, perhaps, but archetype.

How many people do we know that we would consider Paladins? People that are so genuinely good that you could personify them as embodiments of righteousness and justice? I would argue very few, and more likely none. If we, ourselves are unrighteous, how can we be expected to roleplay that way?

Conversely, if we are running a game, how are we, as unrighteous as we are, to determine whether or not a Paladin is meeting the levels of righteousness mandated by the class code of conduct? The problem, it seems, is that we all think ourselves capable of judging or embodying a Paladin, when in fact we really aren't. What then are we to do?

Just have fun and tell good stories. It's not as complicated as all that. DMs, talk to your players, and Players talk to your dms, and be willing to toss away frivolous bickering about the nature of morality for the sake of having fun with friends (unless, of course, that is what you consent to being fun, in which case you probably aren't here).

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen conflicts between players, or between players and DMs over paladin alignment restrictions or codes of conduct in any game I've been a part of.

I am running a campaign for my son and his friends. In it a 10-year old is playing a paladin without any issues at all.

It just isn't that hard.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never had or played a paladin who is disruptive. Neither has my husband.

Pathfinder Paladins are fun, holy warriors of a select (okay any LG, LN, or NG) set of faiths. How they act isn't guided so much by being LG as by who they worship. A paladin of Lymnieris is going to act a lot differently than a paladin of Ragathial, though both worship LG Empyreal Lords. Same with a paladin of Korada vs a paladin of Arshea.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I wonder if, instead of complaining about a problem with the Paladin itself, people would be better served working with the people they play with to come to an understanding through which the Paladin is not a problem.
I wish I COULD do this, but I'm almost never with the same group twice as I play online. This means I'm always with a new group that has different ideas on how paladins should be played: It's one of the reasons I think my POV is SO different from people like Ryan Freire: I see a LOT more groups/Dm's than he does most likely and I don't get to 'vet' them like I would do in real life.

Honest question, graystone, from someone who hasn't played a "virtual" Pathfinder game - how tricky would it be to have a discussion with the GM (and, ideally, other players) either in a recruitment thread or via PM to cover issues like "How do you see the Paladin code working?"

I ask, as I see you mentioning this different groups thing as an issue all the time, but it strikes me that early communication should be the key to resolving most of the problems you say you run into with virtual table variation.


dysartes wrote:

Honest question, graystone, from someone who hasn't played a "virtual" Pathfinder game - how tricky would it be to have a discussion with the GM (and, ideally, other players) either in a recruitment thread or via PM to cover issues like "How do you see the Paladin code working?"

I ask, as I see you mentioning this different groups thing as an issue all the time, but it strikes me that early communication should be the key to resolving most of the problems you say you run into with virtual table variation.

I find that alignment is something that does not translate well to a quick post about "How do you see the Paladin code working". It generally takes playing the game and seeing how you interact with the party and the DM to see how it all plays out. Even if a DM is fairly relaxed about the actual code, they could be persnickety about what is and isn't evil. Add to that the fact that trouble paladins generally don't advertise the fact that they are there to kill everyone else's fun.

For perspective: A rough estimate of paladin's in games I've been in.
1/2 had no issues.
1/3 had some issues, but we're not enough to stop the game.
The remaining @17% were real table flippers.

And I'd like to point out that it's been as often a player issue as it's been a GM issue [or both]. I'm not sure when it became assumed that the problem is always the DM. From my POV, I generally find that the more lax the DM is about alignment in general, the less paladin issue there are, though sometimes there are DM that ONLY seem to care about alignment when it comes to the paladin.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Users thinking it's only GM's fault and not player's is not accurate. It's tantamount to saying the latters should have free rein in how to portray the paladin, when it's not the case. At the end, the former is doing the decision about the standards of which the PC is beholden, whilst staying reasonable (yes, pricky GMs do exist, but same for players)

I then usually ban paladins from home games I GM unless I'm sure the player knows how to compromise. Because the excuse of " I'm a paladin so I can judge the others' behaviours ", well but no.


graystone wrote:
I find that alignment is something that does not translate well to a quick post about "How do you see the Paladin code working". It generally takes playing the game and seeing how you interact with the party and the DM to see how it all plays out. Even if a DM is fairly relaxed about the actual code, they could be persnickety about what is and isn't evil. Add to that the fact that trouble paladins generally don't advertise the fact that they are there to kill everyone else's fun.

Code was an example; I'd probably look to discuss with the GM about how he saw other problematic elements if I was considering a character as well.

graystone wrote:

For perspective: A rough estimate of paladin's in games I've been in.

1/2 had no issues.
1/3 had some issues, but we're not enough to stop the game.
The remaining @17% were real table flippers.

Any examples for the 1/3 group, graystone, or the table-flippers? Again, this virtual Pathfinder thing is an arena I've not stepped in.

graystone wrote:
And I'd like to point out that it's been as often a player issue as it's been a GM issue [or both]. I'm not sure when it became assumed that the problem is always the DM. From my POV, I generally find that the more lax the DM is about alignment in general, the less paladin issue there are, though sometimes there are DM that ONLY seem to care about alignment when it comes to the paladin.

I think the DM issue is because a lot of examples people have given have been DMs setting philosophical "traps" with no way around making the Paladin fall.

I'm not going to argue that a Paladin player in a group couldn't be problematic, but I suspect some of that is Paladins in groups that aren't suitable (which should've been covered in a pre-game discussion), and some is players that shouldn't be playing Paladins ;)

The Exchange

Yeah it's all like in the good ol' AD&D times...


The problem is the alignment, and paladin having been tied down to it. Especially since PF code is full of stupid. That word grossly was very important. It's not really the classes fault per se it just amplifies existing problem.

So I would say that anyone who has some sanity would agree to the premise that different people have different moral views. And that those views can be diametrically opposite.

Now when you couple that with:

1) Absolute morality. Something is evil/good just because it is, it does not need to make sense. Something akin to laws of physics just makes it so.

2) Those are never defined by the game/setting.

As a result the GM and players need to make assumptions based on the facts available and their own POV on morality. And when there comes a situation that those POV do not match that is when the code becomes an issue.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, it's not. For example, 1D12 and 2D6 aren't the same because the 2D6 is more likely to have an average roll, whereas 1D12 is more likely to have a lower/higher roll.

But on average 2d6 will have the higher roll - 7 vs 6.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
I think the fact that you admit you turned the class into NPC only because you couldn't gm for it kind of backs up what i'm saying.

Not really. It backs up the fact that Paladins have a history of problematic interactions, regardless of whether it's the GM who is causing the problem, or even the Paladin himself who is running the table amok because if a GM cries fowl he's considered a badwrongfun GM for trying to enforce the Paladin's Code on the player.

The fact of the matter is that problematic gameplay and promotion of toxic player/GM behavior, two things that Paladins as players end up creating, is not something healthy for my table. I'd rather maintain my table's happiness than adhere to rules that will only serve to ruin said table. And if you disagree with that sentiment, you wouldn't have fun at my table no matter what class you decided to play, and I wouldn't want a player at my table who doesn't view that ideal as a priority.

THIS DOESN'T EXIST FOR EVEN THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS. Thats what you don't seem to get. This is an abnormal situation, people play with paladins constantly all over the country/world and have for decades without the problems or kafkatrapping the handful of internet misanthropes complaining about them on the boards have apparently constantly experienced.

At some point y'all are going to have to acknowledge that the common thread is your own attitudes toward the class and not some systemic problem with its design.

The very fact that people constantly DO make it work make your claims that it doesn't work come into question.

The amount of Paladin Falling Threads made on these boards disagrees with the assessment that it's not an issue for the majority of players. Saying it's just the same dozen or so players having the issue is both a disingenuous argument, and one that's blatantly unproven. Anyone with any sort of history on this board would know this.

And that only includes the Paladin Falling issues that were brought up to us, here. I imagine there are numerous other threads created on other boards, by other posters, or even situations where it simply wasn't brought to the attention of the public in any way, shape, or form. As the saying goes, "For every murder, there are a dozen more that go unnoticed."

You can't sit there and say the design isn't an issue when both sides use it as a means to justify their bad behavior. The fact that such a thing exists only serves to create problems at a table, problems that I will not tolerate taking place at my table. Got it? There is zero tolerance for rules whose only shown purpose is to disrupt table time with arguments between players and GMs.


You want fun times with a paladin? Introduce an NPC who presents as one but has the exact personality of Miss Manners. She's super lawful and cordial, but whether she's good in an RPG sense can be debated.

(She takes great joy in doing things correctly even if it is annoying. She's the one who properly uses her own stationary for RSVPs, but also because it won't fit neatly in the card box.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like contextually "grossly violate" and "violate" are more or less synonymous. After all, you wouldn't use "violate" for a minor breach or infraction. If you're reaching for "violate" you're talking about something that is not within the realm of ordinary behavior, something easily anticipated, or something for which one cannot easily make amends.

Negligence is an accident. Gross Negligence is a felony.

Words matter. And we can only assume that falling constantly is the intent given just how much stronger a paladin is then fighters and rangers in the CRB.

If Paizo didn't want it to work differently than 3.5, they wouldn't have changed the wording.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is when some GMs clearly try to break the intent of a Paladin.

The most common is the GM that says, "Killing is evil!"

And makes the Paladin fall for killing a Goblin in self-defense.

Killing is not an evil act and never has been. Killing is neutral. Murder is evil.

I've played Paladins for 29 years. I've never had a GM force a fall. A Paladin is fine if played as a virtuous and honorable hero.

They can kill when it is warranted. They can drink in a pub. They don't have to be chaste. They simply need to be good an honorable.

Michael Carpenter (Dresden Files) is one of archetypal Paladins in fiction and he's left quite a body count in his wake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not even the intent of the paladin people try to break, but the expectations of the game itself.

I mean, at its core, Pathfinder is a game of stabbing things to get their stuff to stab bigger things who in turn have better stuff. Trying to torture the exact definition of an evil act or find something in the actual code of chivalry to render paladins unplayable ("Buffs are an unfair advantage. Dishonorable. No bows, that's a filthy peasant weapon, killing bad, etc) are basically missing the point of pathfinder. I mean, I know these boards love nothing more than RAW, but come on. Do you REALLY think it was dev intent to have a class that's utterly unplayable or a walking liability in terms of being a lawful stupid asshat who has a fantasy megaphone announcing his presence everywhere to evil doers for honorable combat?


If you don't want to randomly lose class features both Cavalier and Warpriest exist.


A class that randomly loses class features? That's an interesting concept. Maybe that's how the Chaotic-Good equivalent of Paladins should work. "The gods of Chaos are fickle. A Chaoladin who violates his code or even one who doesn't may or may not lose any or all of their class features at any time."


Rhedyn wrote:
If you don't want to randomly lose class features both Cavalier and Warpriest exist.

The point isn't that they can lose class abilities, the point is you (as the GM) shouldn't ever go out of your way to try to force it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules are very clear. Paladin class features are up to GM whims. Any other expectation is just being a munchkin.

ANY minor violation of an ambiguous code removes your class features and this was a deliberate change from previous editions. You want all the power of a paladin with none of the intended responsibility. You can't expect the GM to house rule in your favor. That's being a bad player. Which is evident by all the people here calling GMs bad if they don't change the game rules to cater to their vaguely good power fantasy.


Rhedyn wrote:

The rules are very clear. Paladin class features are up to GM whims. Any other expectation is just being a munchkin.

ANY minor violation of an ambiguous code removes your class features and this was a deliberate change from previous editions. You want all the power of a paladin with none of the intended responsibility. You can't expect the GM to house rule in your favor. That's being a bad player. Which is evident by all the people here calling GMs bad if they don't change the game rules to cater to their vaguely good power fantasy.

But how can I be responsible for anything if everything is subject to GM whims!?


150 PFS games. I think i have had the paladins code come up twice.

Once was that they couldn't just beat up a pair of competing archeologists. Once was that they couldn't bash the troll: he had a badge.

in 300? games as a player. I think i've seen it make the player use some creative wording to infiltrate a bad guy base. Thats about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
A class that randomly loses class features? That's an interesting concept. Maybe that's how the Chaotic-Good equivalent of Paladins should work. "The gods of Chaos are fickle. A Chaoladin who violates his code or even one who doesn't may or may not lose any or all of their class features at any time."

Darn it - I read that as Koala-din initially, which amused me :)


Rhedyn wrote:

The rules are very clear. Paladin class features are up to GM whims. Any other expectation is just being a munchkin.

ANY minor violation of an ambiguous code removes your class features and this was a deliberate change from previous editions. You want all the power of a paladin with none of the intended responsibility. You can't expect the GM to house rule in your favor. That's being a bad player. Which is evident by all the people here calling GMs bad if they don't change the game rules to cater to their vaguely good power fantasy.

All rules are GM whims.

Find a better argument.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Find a better argument.

Find a better class

Or stop whining if a GM won't houserule restrictions on your abilities away.


You admit it's an "ambiguous code".

Most GMs, given ambiguity, will try to choose an interpretation that makes the game more fun for their players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

You admit it's an "ambiguous code".

Most GMs, given ambiguity, will try to choose an interpretation that makes the game more fun for their players.

It's not the nice GMs I have a problem with.

It's entitled players that are calling others bad GMs if they don't get beneficial houserules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure expecting your GM to not be a d+#@+ead is simply the social contract.


Nah man, that's just spoiled players acting entitled. I mean, they picked a paladin after all! They should know they're signing up for the GM arbitrarily deciding on them losing all class features.


Matthew Downie wrote:
A class that randomly loses class features? That's an interesting concept. Maybe that's how the Chaotic-Good equivalent of Paladins should work. "The gods of Chaos are fickle. A Chaoladin who violates his code or even one who doesn't may or may not lose any or all of their class features at any time."

You'd have to actually randomly gain class features too. I'm thinking something like 13th Age's "Chaos Mage" (absolutely my favorite class in that game) where when you want to cast a spell, you draw marbles (or similar) out of a bag to see what spell you can cast. You have an ambient "reality warping" field which changes periodically and involves rolling on a table.

Really, the Chaoladin should get to roll on lots of tables to determine what they can do. Rolling on tables is fun.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I understand that players have a different view of morality than myself in relation to numerous topics, and as such I'd rather not force my ideals of what a Paladin should do or exemplify, and have a player with a different set of ideals try to understand my view of morality, and accept it as their own for their character.

Ah, OK, that helps me understand your position.

I DM from the basis that choosing to play a paladin entails playing the character's view of morality, as determined by their acceptance of the relevant paladin code, and with any ambiguities talked out beforehand. People who aren't comfortable doing that don't do it in my games, any more than people whose real-life religions make them uncomfortable playing clerics of fictional deities. The player's view of morality is no more relevant to acting consistently in character than my own personal view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Nah man, that's just spoiled players acting entitled. I mean, they picked a paladin after all! They should know they're signing up for the GM arbitrarily deciding on them losing all class features.

I can't tell whether you mean this statement sarcastically, but as a GM I would endorse a literal reading thereof. You trust your GM, you should be entirely happy to sign up for them getting to make that scale of decision. You don't trust your GM, why are you playing with them ?


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


But how can I be responsible for anything if everything is subject to GM whims!?
In what way is any game of Pathfinder not entirely, by definition, subject to GM whims ?

Thanks to Rule 0, always. But really the whole thing is mostly a semi-joke response to Rhedyn who evidently has the expectation that the player is responsible for following an unspecified code that exists solely in the GM's head and the GM has no obligation to explain any of this at any point prior to actually falling which is about as ludicrous as it comes.

And yeah, my entitled post should have a /s for sarcasm.

I have nothing against paladins beyond people acting like twits on the GM and Player side as they try to take the code to unplayable conclusions (kafkatrapping vs lawful stupid respectively)


Rhedyn wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

You admit it's an "ambiguous code".

Most GMs, given ambiguity, will try to choose an interpretation that makes the game more fun for their players.

It's not the nice GMs I have a problem with.

It's entitled players that are calling others bad GMs if they don't get beneficial houserules.

Houserules such as...?

If it's ambiguous, all interpretations are houserules. An interpretation that makes the Paladin fall unexpectedly on a GM's whim is a malicious house rule.

801 to 850 of 961 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the Paladin hate? All Messageboards