| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How you feel about alignment in general is going to have a lot to say about how you feel about paladins. In non-PFS games, I usually require good alignment. If you truly cannot get along with a paladin, I don't think I want you in those games, because you can't be a part of the stories I like to tell. To me, the stories worth telling are good defeating evil, sometimes at great cost. A paladin fits these stories well. Robin hood could fit those stories well. A non-good character does not.
I've sometimes told starting groups (when it isn't just my normal group) is to "Think of your GM as a paladin when creating your character". So I agree with you. Other fantasy games don't have alignment, so I use those games to play/run stories where alignment isn't an issue. when I use Pathfinder, Alignment is huge part of the world - and really colors the stories that get told. Very Jedi Light Side/Dark Side feel. In that kind of situation, I want the characters to be heroes who are going out to stop evil things for no more reason that because it is the right thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1. Though it isn't the only way to play a paladin, as the same books also demonstrate.Paladins should be more like Micheal Carpenter from the Dresden Files, I walk my path and I liked you to walk it with me but I'm not going to force you, also lets kill demons.Considering Butcher is a gamer, and has explicitly stated he wrote Micheal to be the perfectly played paladin, I would agree with you. And so would Jim. :)
Yeah - Bahzell Bahnakson books by David Weber have another really great paladin in fiction.
|
Imho the Paladins class abilitys make him nearly a no-go for horror themed adventures wich i prefer as a GM and player.
And for me it feels in most normal adventures with a good party and evil foes he totaly outshine his bigger brother Cleric even in according to Ultimate Magic the most iconic cleric power of Channeling...
Never had this feeling with a Ranger to a Druid and Fighter...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Paladin's code is as restrictive as a lot of folks think it is.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Nothing in here says anything about not associating with chaotic allies, except perhaps a very broad reading of "anyone who consistently offends her moral code." Even then, if a paladin can deal with evil associates to defeat a greater evil, he can probably handle a CN Rogue, though it might occasionally cause him to need to cast atonement. I think a well-played paladin knows when to stop asking questions. What is that the Rogue's putting on his blade? Not my business. When the inquisitor says he's going to interrogate the evil cultist, it's probably a good time to go out for lunch, and I certainly don't want to quiz him on details of what he's going to do. A paladin's code is mostly a personal standard, not something that the paladin is obligated to foist on the entire party.
"Why all the Paladin hate?": Paladins were built and conceived to be disruptive. They are the kender of classes... :P
Now if you can unbolt the LG, have workable codes and surgically remove the stick up the behind of some paladins and it becomes almost workable. Then all you have to do is avoid DM that have a pathological need to make them fall and it can work.
Needless to say, I never play one and cringe when one shows up in a game.
I like playing paladins and having them in the group when I GM. I think they're great fun to play. But some groups have problems with them that, as far as I'm concerned, boil down to problems less with the class and more with how people understand the paladin, his code, and good alignments in general.
Sometimes, a paladin is just a bad fit for a campaign. Skull and Shackles, where you're playing pirates, would be problematic for a paladin. Those situations are relatively easy to deal with and fairly obvious to the GM.
But the whole behavior code and requirement to be lawful good exposes a lot of player dysfunction - sometimes about alignment (alignment is not a straightjacket, good and lawful don't have to be perfect - a major pet peeve of mine), sometimes between players (getting all busybody with each other's business), and sometimes between GMs and players (creating catch 22 situations that screw the paladin). All of these are ultimately game dysfunctional behaviors and should be avoided except in limited circumstances as part of a good story (as opposed to a crappy story that dysfunctional games lead to).
|
I think it is prudent to mention that Dieties have their own Paladin codes. By electing to play a paladin, you are playing a character with, not necessarily 'strong morals' as a whole, but a firm set of specific beliefs on how to live based on their dieties. Sarenrae's paladin code is super intense, whereas Apsu's is less so. The concept of paladins is something close, but not completely, to fanaticism. So much of the paladin's rp is decided. Many have said that a paladin doesn't have to be lawful stupid. But I would counter with, who do they worship? The array of paladin codes very on that demand. Torag for instance allows lying in specific situations. Lawful--Chaotic is a spectrum as Good--Evil is. A lawful paladin who "respects" the spirit of the law can still be lawful.
As a GM I do not aim to catch a paladin falling, but I do expect them to obey the code of conduct the character had to have agreed to and the player had to know about. It is part of being a paladin. If the player believes the character to really be a bit more wishy washy with the code, I give them an opportunity to rebuild into some semblance of what they were in other class levels.
In the end, paladins should believe in law and order, and respect for life.They are a pinnacle of what the paladin was built on.
All that said, I personally dislike paladins because they are a fairly powerful class. Which is possibly a contention with some because they just want to build a super powerful character, without any of the specific drawbacks/limitations/flavor of the class.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People hate paladins? BLOODY NONSENSE, OLD CHAP!
We have the best class features out of ANY class, objectively. Mages may get their silly spells, but really, what self-respecting adventurer goes out to face dragons in a skirt? Our clerical brothers and sisters may get better healing spells, but we get the HOLY PIMP HANDS OF JUSTICE! We can soothe what ails a berk or we can give him a good smiting! Plus, we're far more dashing. *Sparkling smile*
We cause havoc in parties? That's as barmy as ghost biggies! All these Chaotic-Not-Evil types need to belt up and behave like Real Heroes instead of the Secret Villain! What? I can't break the 4th wall with TV tropes? That's just blinkered duff mate and I will clap the ears and kick the Cobbler's Awls of anyone who says otherwise!
We're all sticks in the mud, you say? Fiddlesticks! We are all dashing charmers and, when the need arises, we have Divine Health to keep us from having any of the common ills befall us in the course of our righteous work in totty houses and taverns! And not only that, but only gormless jammies have not heard our wonderful jokes we make or seen the fabulous antics we get up to when we get right rat-arsed. We don't need a bit of the drinky-drink to make us brave, so when we get squiffed, it all goes straight to our sense of humor. Imagine the look on a fire elemental's face when it gets wazzed on! And yes, it did happen. I am a paladin, so I can put forth no twee porkies, unlike those rogue bounders! Those wankers do enough waffling and telling porkies for all of us!
Long story short, don't be porked by these barmy whingers! We paladins are sophisticated individuals that can have as much fun as the next berk, but we just look twice as smashing doing it! So put paid to those rumors and roll up a Paladin!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree to a greater or lesser extent with most of the opinions expressed so far. However, I would like to emphasize a particular portion that really bugs me. That is, everyone else piling on the heap arguing about what the paladin code means.
During a gaming session 4 players got into a long, involved, and heated argument about the paladin's actions. I (as the GM) and the player of the paladin were in agreement on what the code meant for that character and were not part of the argument. I quite literally could not get them off the topic. Eventually, the 2 of us went into the other room to watch a movie. It was almost 20 minutes before they even realized we had left the room let alone that we were completely pissed off at them.
Now I have a little blurb that is a permanent part of my campaign intro.
...
On paladins. If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor or warpriest. Those don't have the oath as part of the class.
1) If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day.
2) I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
3) A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
4) Detect Evil is a spell like ability. People can tell you are casting a spell like ability. They are likely to react. Especially if they can’t tell it is Detect and not Disintegrate. *
5) Other players can raise a point or ask a question during game play, but 2+ hour game stopping arguments about a paladin always / never must / can't / should / wouldn't whatever will not be tolerated. It is between the player and the GM. The rest of you just shut the heck up about it.
{{ That is during game time. Out of game time, please feel free to discuss it all you want. That is reasonable and encouraged activity. }}
...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I was just thinking there's a sequence in Death Masks where if I were DMing Michael would totally have fallen.Considering Butcher is a gamer, and has explicitly stated he wrote Micheal to be the perfectly played paladin, I would agree with you. And so would Jim. :)
This better be a crazy good pun to the fight scene where he literally falls on a Denarian
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like playing paladins and having them in the group when I GM. I think they're great fun to play. But some groups have problems with them that, as far as I'm concerned, boil down to problems less with the class and more with how people understand the paladin, his code, and good alignments in general.
Sometimes, a paladin is just a bad fit for a campaign. Skull and Shackles, where you're playing pirates, would be problematic for a paladin. Those situations are relatively easy to deal with and fairly obvious to the GM.
But the whole behavior code and requirement to be lawful good exposes a lot of player dysfunction - sometimes about alignment (alignment is not a straightjacket, good and lawful don't have to be perfect - a major pet peeve of mine), sometimes between players (getting all busybody with each other's business), and sometimes between GMs and players (creating catch 22 situations that screw the paladin). All of these are ultimately game dysfunctional behaviors and should be avoided except in limited circumstances as part of a good story (as opposed to a crappy story that dysfunctional games lead to).
Only ever ran into one Catch 22 situation with a Paladin. And it was clearly unintentional. The GM was having Drow raid a city above ground, and the party was to put an end to it, working alongside the Drow resistance which hated their current government, and wanted to end the surface raids. Thing is, they were still evil. They'd still be doing all the horrible things drow do, they just didn't care for the surface. My paladin couldn't justify overthrowing one government for another just as bad, but she also couldn't ignore the surface raids any longer.
Eventually, we got higher calling'd while the whole thing sorted itself out. I wasn't the only player playing a character who was unable to work with this revolution.
My Paladins tend to be less "GOOD FOR THE GOOD GOD!" and more good people whose powers come from the fact that they're good people.
A lot of GMs also misunderstand "Lawful".
"Paladins can't focus on archery. It's unfair to fight enemies from a distance."
Archery is totally fair game, and waaaay better for a defender of the people. Say an Orc raider wants to kill little Timmy. An armored, sword-wielding paladin can leap between them, sure. But then the Orc raider goes around Mr. Shiny and axes little Timmy. I can kill orc raider with arrows before he gets close. Also, hard to chase down evil if evil has more than a 25-foot movement speed.
"Paladins can't use disable device, lockpicking is inherently chaotic."
Paladins can totally use it. Disabling traps, opening dungeon doors, You do know having the key doesn't make forced entry into the next floor inherently more or less lawful, right?
"Paladins can't lie."
Yeah, this one's actually in the paladin's code, but I'd argue that in situations where information can be dangerous, Paladins have a right, a duty in fact, to at least not tell the whole truth. Going back to my previous story about the rebellion. Our higher calling got us sent back in time to keep the right people surviving a horrific tragedy that happened in the past. The paladin couldn't exactly tell people that she was a time traveler from the future, they'd have thought she was crazy, and that would've made helping more difficult. Instead, being a Kitsune, a race no one in the city had even heard of, she claimed that a similar calamity had been recorded in her people's history. This actually gave her credibility and authority on the matter.
"Paladins can't overlook crimes."
They totally can, depending on the crime, level of remorse, and how high the stakes are. Is the paladin really going to turn the rogue in for shoplifting when he may be able to help stop a warlock from taking over the world? Besides, maybe the Paladin things the rogue can change. He may have been a thief and a beggar himself before he was taken in by the church and saw the light. Perhaps saving this scoundrel's soul is his test.
The Paladin code is actually pretty sparse, and doesn't require you to screw over chaotic party mates. Evil party mates are another matter, but again, maybe your Paladin thinks that they can be redeemed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree it is less hate for the class as it is hate for the way people play them. Because most people just jump right into stick up butt goody goody mode for paladins.
Just like not all barbarians have to be blood thirsty dimwits, not all paladins have to be holyer than thou pricks.
I think a well-played paladin knows when to stop asking questions. What is that the Rogue's putting on his blade? Not my business. When the inquisitor says he's going to interrogate the evil cultist, it's probably a good time to go out for lunch, and I certainly don't want to quiz him on details of what he's going to do. A paladin's code is mostly a personal standard, not something that the paladin is obligated to foist on the entire party.
I'd argue that if the paladin knows enough to stop asking questions, then they know enough that asking questions would make no difference.
If their associates offend a paladin's moral code, then that's bad enough - if the paladin then hides behind "Didn't know, didn't ask, didn't care.", it only makes it worse.
Does it? There's nothing in the code about minding other people's business. If a paladin knows some of his associates have moral compasses a bit more crooked than his, then there should be plenty of occasions where he knows that he's better off not knowing. Of course, if he knows they're full-on diabolists, then "I didn't ask what they were summoning". doesn't really cut it. Unless you're the protagonist of Hellknight, apparently.
|
|
I'm reminded of a fan made movie where the paladin was with a group of evil leaning characters. Every time they needed to do somehting like torture a captive for information they had to get rid of him and it was a running joke that he never made his roll.
Rogue: We need to know what he know's but indicates paladin.
Party member I can't remember: There's evil ninja's outside.
Paladin fails his roll and runs out to confront the ninja's.
Punch, maim, multilate
Paladin returns: "I didn't see any . . . what happened here?" looking at beaten prisoner.
Rogue: "he fell off the chair."
Paladin fails his sense motive though he's suspicious enough to try: "Oh ok.
Other party member: "The ninja's are back."
Paladin fails roll and runs outside.
Pain, spindle, multilate
Paladin comes back: "Hang on he's worse than last time."
Rogue: "He fell off the chair again."
Paladin fails his roll again.
Kept on through the movie as every time the guy trying to be genuinely good and lawful needed to be gotten out of the way he'd fall for their tricks so he "legitimately" didn't realize he was adventuring with a bunch of evil basterds. Of course at the end he and the one goodish party member got rewarded by the gods while the others weren't.
Does it? There's nothing in the code about minding other people's business.
No, but if you know it's bad enough that you shouldn't ask, then you already know there's something breaking your moral code - if there wasn't, you wouldn't have to look away.
"I didn't ask." is nothing but the chaotic equivalent to "I'm just following orders."
Maybe a paladin can get away with that once or twice (chaotic actions don't cause automatic falls), but not consistently.
Who cares if you fellow travelers break your code? They aren't paladins, and can't be expected to follow your code in the first place. There's nothing in the code that says you have to make others follow the code, it's something for you to follow. There is, however, provision in the code allowing you to associate with flat-out evil people in certain limited circumstances, so I'd expect a CN Rogue or Barbarian, or N druid, to be even less of an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree it is less hate for the class as it is hate for the way people play them.
I think the class is built in a way that lends itself to bad play. While there can be disruptive players of any class, or even DM, they seem drawn to paladins like moths to a flame. Something just seems to pull out 'I'm better than you, my god said so'/'duddly do right syndrome' or 'the class is BALANCED with a role playing negative so it's MY job to keep testing him...'.
Who cares if you fellow travelers break your code? They aren't paladins, and can't be expected to follow your code in the first place. There's nothing in the code that says you have to make others follow the code, it's something for you to follow. There is, however, provision in the code allowing you to associate with flat-out evil people in certain limited circumstances, so I'd expect a CN Rogue or Barbarian, or N druid, to be even less of an issue.
Sure. But "What they're doing isn't my problem" isn't the way to do it. A paladin has to know what's going on so they can know if they are "anyone who consistently offends her moral code". Because "a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code" is part of the paladin code, and mentions those in the same breath as evil people - you can work with them, but only if you have to.
"I didn't know they were doing it" doesn't count, that's just shirking responsibility.
Nah, I'm dead serious. I don't want to be too spoilery, but end of chapter 28 is definitely a falling offence.This better be a crazy good pun to the fight scene where he literally falls on a DenarianHeh. I was just thinking there's a sequence in Death Masks where if I were DMing Michael would totally have fallen.Considering Butcher is a gamer, and has explicitly stated he wrote Micheal to be the perfectly played paladin, I would agree with you. And so would Jim. :)
There are spoiler tags...read it over a year ago cant remember what are you talking about and dont have books on me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm blessed with a group where the players that tend to take charge are more Lawfully inclined, and that pretty much everyone is invested enough in the game world to try acting like human beings.
Since our players tend to consider alien concepts such as 'repercussions' and 'collateral damage', disagreements with the Paladin player and party have been rare.
I have also just yet to see a lawful stupid Paladin, but that might be a case of the players setting examples to each other.
Either way, a large number (Not all!) of our PCs would take issue with many of the same things.
Excessive kleptomaniacs, necromancers and barbarians that pick fights with everyone and smashes everything are all examples of characters would all get along very poorly with most of our groups. Even my Diabolist would avoid working alongside such characters if he could.
I agree to a greater or lesser extent with most of the opinions expressed so far. However, I would like to emphasize a particular portion that really bugs me. That is, everyone else piling on the heap arguing about what the paladin code means.
During a gaming session 4 players got into a long, involved, and heated argument about the paladin's actions. I (as the GM) and the player of the paladin were in agreement on what the code meant for that character and were not part of the argument. I quite literally could not get them off the topic. Eventually, the 2 of us went into the other room to watch a movie. It was almost 20 minutes before they even realized we had left the room let alone that we were completely pissed off at them.
Now I have a little blurb that is a permanent part of my campaign intro.
......
On paladins. If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor or warpriest. Those don't have the oath as part of the class.
1) If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day.
2) I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
3) A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
4) Detect Evil is a spell like ability. People can tell you are casting a spell like ability. They are likely to react. Especially if they can’t tell it is Detect and not Disintegrate. *
5) Other
I think it sad, that stuff like that has to be written down and is not common sense. Especially the "ping on detect evil stuff" and the classic goblin baby . And all that is not for paladins only.
|
|
Does it? There's nothing in the code about minding other people's business. If a paladin knows some of his associates have moral compasses a bit more crooked than his, then there should be plenty of occasions where he knows that he's better off not knowing. Of course, if he knows they're full-on diabolists, then "I didn't ask what they were summoning". doesn't really cut it. Unless you're the protagonist of Hellknight, apparently.
Though this can be a good point, the key is the specific diety's code. What are the paladin's diety's ideals?
Are you a paladin of sheylyn? Did the rogue execute a well thought out robbery? That kind of planning and intellectual prowess is 'beautiful'. Now, admittedly, you would have to return the stolen items but, that heist though. Respect the laws but plead on the rogue's behalf that they are misguided.
However a paladin of Abdar in that situation would have to act differently. Robbery is illegal, send rogue to court to face justice appropriate for their crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing wrong with the Paladin class, just the way the character is played.
As a GM, I expect the following tenets to be upheld by a Paladin character mainly for the sake of gameplay:
The Paladin should lead by example, not by instruction.
Respect others who have different beliefs and values - Intolerance is not good.
Revenge and vengeance are chaotic motivations
Being Lawful Stupid does not reflect well on yourself or your God (rolled into this is the pointless or futile self sacrifice)
As GM I always remember that impossible moral quandaries always have a right answer. Even if the player doesn't know it the character would and the player can always ask me what their character would know is the right choice.
I agree to a greater or lesser extent with most of the opinions expressed so far. However, I would like to emphasize a particular portion that really bugs me. That is, everyone else piling on the heap arguing about what the paladin code means.
During a gaming session 4 players got into a long, involved, and heated argument about the paladin's actions. I (as the GM) and the player of the paladin were in agreement on what the code meant for that character and were not part of the argument. I quite literally could not get them off the topic. Eventually, the 2 of us went into the other room to watch a movie. It was almost 20 minutes before they even realized we had left the room let alone that we were completely pissed off at them.
Now I have a little blurb that is a permanent part of my campaign intro.
......
On paladins. If you want to play a holy warrior dedicated to X deity, please consider the inquisitor or warpriest. Those don't have the oath as part of the class.
1) If you want to play a paladin, you as player and I as GM will need to work it out before the game. What does your paladin require in certain types of moral/ethical quandary situations (goblin babies, surrendered opponents not near authorities, authorities are bad guys, slavery (or whatever) is legal in this country, redemption of devils/demons, pretty sure of guilt, lack of evidence, what crimes warrant capitol punishment, etc...) must be worked out and written down before game day.
2) I will allow a lot of lee way, but there are limits. I can not be convinced that horrible evil for the eventual greater good, torture, cruelty, greed, etc... are acceptable for paladin behavior.
3) A ping on Detect Evil does NOT justify unprovoked murder. A person/creature can be evil and not yet have committed any crime that warrants death.
4) Detect Evil is a spell like ability. People can tell you are casting a spell like ability. They are likely to react. Especially if they can’t tell it is Detect and not Disintegrate. *
5) Other
One of the laws of the Viscounty of Verbobonc in my Greyhawk ToEE campaign is that registering as Detectable Evil does carry the death sentence.
Revenge and vengeance are chaotic motivationsRagathiel would like a word with you.
Oh well, my campaign is set in Greyhawk and he's not a Greyhawk God. But, having looked up his code, the first tenet is I will avenge evil wrought upon the innocent, which is not the same as personal vengeance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you know there are ways to force other people to detects as certain alignments right?
So I can cast infernal healing on anyone and then kill them under the LAW? Sounds lawful AND good. :)
I can't really help it if the authors of the Pathfinder game have used the term but I can't see anything in the english definition of the word that strikes me as vengeance being a lawful act
Vengeance definition from Dictionary.com
1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble:
3. the desire for revenge:
4. Obsolete. hurt; injury.
5. Obsolete. curse; imprecation.
As GM I always remember that impossible moral quandaries always have a right answer. Even if the player doesn't know it the character would and the player can always ask me what their character would know is the right choice.
There's no clear right answer to a lot of situations.
Lots of people want to do the right thing in the real world, but behave differently. The paladin ought to behave with nuance.
As GM I always remember that impossible moral quandaries always have a right answer. Even if the player doesn't know it the character would and the player can always ask me what their character would know is the right choice.There's no clear right answer to a lot of situations.
Lots of people want to do the right thing in the real world, but behave differently. The paladin ought to behave with nuance.
By right answer, I mean one that preserves their Paladinhood. As GM, I am describing the game world to the players. Within that game world there are things the characters would know that the players may not. If the GM has engineered a scenario that requires the paladin to fall or kill their character then he's being a jerk and all the players should leave.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it? There's nothing in the code about minding other people's business.No, but if you know it's bad enough that you shouldn't ask, then you already know there's something breaking your moral code - if there wasn't, you wouldn't have to look away.
When you're a Paladin, 99.99% of people do not follow your moral code.
If your moral code tells you not to lie or use poison, then don't lie or use poison.
That doesn't mean you have to shun parents who lie to their children about Santa Claus, or punish an anaesthetist who uses a poison to knock someone out before surgery. They're aren't held to the same standards, because they're not Paladins.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really help it if the authors of the Pathfinder game have used the term but I can't see anything in the english definition of the word that strikes me as vengeance being a lawful act
Vengeance definition from Dictionary.com
1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble:
3. the desire for revenge:
4. Obsolete. hurt; injury.
5. Obsolete. curse; imprecation.
Vengeance is neither Lawful nor Chaotic, Good nor Evil. HOW The Vengeance is carried out and for what reasons determines the general alignment of the actions.
I'm reminded of a fan made movie where the paladin was with a group of evil leaning characters. Every time they needed to do somehting like torture a captive for information they had to get rid of him and it was a running joke that he never made his roll.
Gamers dorkness rising
Vengeance is neither Lawful nor Chaotic, Good nor Evil. HOW The Vengeance is carried out and for what reasons determines the general alignment of the actions.I can't really help it if the authors of the Pathfinder game have used the term but I can't see anything in the english definition of the word that strikes me as vengeance being a lawful act
Vengeance definition from Dictionary.com
1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble:
3. the desire for revenge:
4. Obsolete. hurt; injury.
5. Obsolete. curse; imprecation.
The reason for vengeance is by definition, seeking harm (or similar) to someone who has harmed (or similar) to yourself. Carrying it out is following your conscience, which is a chaotic act according to the PRD. Conversely seeking justice brought against the one who wronged you is a lawful act.
That doesn't mean you have to shun parents who lie to their children about Santa Claus, or punish an anaesthetist who uses a poison to knock someone out before surgery. They're aren't held to the same standards, because they're not Paladins.
That doesn't sound like any paladin I've ever seen... :P Did your paladin get that experimental surgery to remove their impacted stick?
The reason for vengeance is by definition, seeking harm (or similar) to someone who has harmed (or similar) to yourself. Carrying it out is following your conscience, which is a chaotic act according to the PRD. Conversely seeking justice brought against the one who wronged you is a lawful act.
Ah... So you're saying that Smite is evil, because it's meant to harm? That's the reason vengeance is wrong right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between Vengeance and Retribution is PR. Ragathiel's Paladins don't bother making it sound pretty. The work needs to get done, and bystanders don't have to like it.
The reason for vengeance is by definition, seeking harm (or similar) to someone who has harmed (or similar) to yourself. Carrying it out is following your conscience, which is a chaotic act according to the PRD. Conversely seeking justice brought against the one who wronged you is a lawful act.Ah... So you're saying that Smite is evil, because it's meant to harm? That's the reason vengeance is wrong right?
Nope, I never said vengeance was wrong, I said it was a chaotic motivation / act. EDIT: I never mentioned smite at all.
Does it? There's nothing in the code about minding other people's business.No, but if you know it's bad enough that you shouldn't ask, then you already know there's something breaking your moral code - if there wasn't, you wouldn't have to look away.When you're a Paladin, 99.99% of people do not follow your moral code.
If your moral code tells you not to lie or use poison, then don't lie or use poison.
That doesn't mean you have to shun parents who lie to their children about Santa Claus, or punish an anaesthetist who uses a poison to knock someone out before surgery. They're aren't held to the same standards, because they're not Paladins.
You're missing the point.
Ouachitonian's argument was "if they do something that would cause problems, just stick your head in the sand and pretend not to notice".A paladin may technically not be allowed to lie to children to pretend there's Santa Claus. But neither does that mean that he has to go "Nanana I can't hear you" every time Santa is mentioned, he can ignore that just fine even if it happens right under his nose.
On the other hand, a paladin isn't allowed to casually stab innocents. If the rogue has a habit of doing that, knowingly leaving him in a room full of innocents so the paladin doesn't have to watch isn't going to help.
If the paladin can't let it pass if he knows about it, then neither is he allowed to just intentionally "not know for sure".
Whether or not the paladin can travel with a rogue (or more likely alchemist) that uses poisons wasn't my point, and is an entirely different question.
My point is that willful ignorance doesn't allow a paladin to ignore stuff happening.
|
|
The reason for vengeance is by definition, seeking harm (or similar) to someone who has harmed (or similar) to yourself. Carrying it out is following your conscience, which is a chaotic act according to the PRD. Conversely seeking justice brought against the one who wronged you is a lawful act.Vengeance is neither Lawful nor Chaotic, Good nor Evil. HOW The Vengeance is carried out and for what reasons determines the general alignment of the actions.I can't really help it if the authors of the Pathfinder game have used the term but I can't see anything in the english definition of the word that strikes me as vengeance being a lawful act
Vengeance definition from Dictionary.com
1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble:
3. the desire for revenge:
4. Obsolete. hurt; injury.
5. Obsolete. curse; imprecation.
That definition, the more commonly used one is avenging yourself or someone else, regardless of whether the slight against them is justified.
If you go off that strict reading of what things are for alignment from that section then Non-Lawful can never tell the truth, or conversely, Lawful characters can never lie (Devils would have some words about that). Also Paladins are Lawful Good and they follow their conscience. Following your conscience even if it's against the law may be chaotic, but having a conscience is Good.
"Conversely seeking justice brought against the one who wronged you is a lawful act"
... that's vengeance.