| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.
For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.
So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.
Overthrowing a GOOD government, that is trying to make the world, and its citizens lives, better, requires the characters be evil, (overly simplistic but valid). And yes, sadly, I do believe you are serious. Now the Paladins you cited are having to make possibly difficult decisions on whether the disruptions of Law is more or less important than fighting Evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, Lady-J continually bringing up One Piece as an argument against paladins (and authority in general, it seems) rather amuses me. Not that I don't like One Piece (In fact, it was one of the first manga I was ever exposed to and as such holds a special place in my heart) but because we have a rather similar situation of her "admirals fight pirates means they must be paladins" argument in a honest-to-Iomedae pathfinder product. You see, after years of pirates attacks on the innocent merchantry of her nation, a young naval officer decides that she has had enough. She petitions her government for the resources needed to clear out the pirate scum who infest the waterways, and even manages to get divine backing in order to ensure the success of her crusade. Classic paladin, right? No way an authority figure going against those who have broken legitimate maritime law could be anything else, could their? But here's the kicker
That might just indicate that even if someone follows laws and fights those who don't, they needn't be paladins at all. They could be hellknights. They could be devils. They could be the Evil Empire fighting "You rebel scum!"
It's funny how all authority isn't exactly the same, is it not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if overthrowing a kingdom isn't evil then the only evil act that really 100% must be done in the module is unleashing the demon prince which you can probably deal with after taking over the kingdom so its not much of an issue
The reason you have to be evil is that the name of the adventure is "Way of the Wicked". The point of it is being evil, just like the point of Skull and Shackles is being pirates. You're stating an assumption of the adventure so people come in with characters that fit with the assumptions of the pre-written material (which a GM is free to change if they want- we've discussed trying to run Hell's Vengeance with no evil characters.)
*Looks in on his favorite Paladin thread*
*Sees things have reached Godwin levels*
*Tears up*
Doctor Robotnik was right! Happiness is always so much more enjoyable when it's based on the misery of millions.
*Looks dreamy eyed out of the window*
Edit: *Throws a knife into the Thread, to see who goes for it first*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I hate Paladins, because it creates a situation of letting players run amok when the rules shouldn't let them versus putting your foot down and being called a badwrongfun GM for it. No matter what happens in the above situation, somebody at the table is getting hurt for it, and that's not something I ever want to foster at my table, and Paladins with their purposefully ambiguous code is just an avenue for such behavior to occur.
Even discussing it with my players beforehand won't necessarily solve the problem; it might just end up creating the problem before the game even begins, which I suppose is kind of better, but is by no means a cureall to the real root of the problem.
Stuff like this thread cropping up at my table more than it should is the reason why I ban Paladin PCs at my table: Too much headache for something that shouldn't have it, at a place where headaches are the last thing that should be occurring, which is my gaming table. The funny part is that Antipaladins are still allowed because they aren't anywhere near as disruptive to a table as Paladins are, which is ironic considering that Antipaladins are supposed to be polar opposites of Paladins...
So before people say I'm badwrongfun for banning a class, consider the above, and perhaps you'll find it not a silly solution to just nuke the problem option from orbit. Paizo does it all the time, and people still love them for it. I trust people will have the same attitude if I use a similar approach to the problem child that is a Paladin.
Not every group is mature enough to handle a paladin properly either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
at the time they were in power yes communism was viewed as the right way and capitalism was on par with satan much like how capitalism was the right way in the usa and communism was on par with satan then some one else took over and rewrote history
How does history view the rise of communism in Russia via a revolution?
Are those victors seen as the good guys, historically?
I had a counter response typed up for this, then I realized since you wrote this in the first place, I'm probably wasting my time.
So, good day, madam, and happy gaming!
|
if overthrowing a kingdom isn't evil then the only evil act that really 100% must be done in the module is unleashing the demon prince which you can probably deal with after taking over the kingdom so its not much of an issueif overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?You can't be serious.
*laughs so hard I fall like one of Lady-J's paladin in a game*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often play my druids with metal plate mail and heavy steel shields.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lady T,
Sorry that any disagreement with you seems to be an attack, and rather forces you to try and hurt those that have hurt you. Projection and its follow-on behavior is becoming the norm, sadly.
Your preference in playstyle is your choice. As long as you aren't attacking those you disagree with, and trying to invalidate their preferences, no biggie. Deliberately or not, you appear to be doing just that. We don't know you, so it gets harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt.
...And my Paladin of Abadar/Erastil/Ragathiel..., beheads thieves and hangs rustlers!
...
...
Am I doing it right?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As usual Lady-J plays a very altered version of Pathfinder which is absolutely fine. But Lady-J, I've shown you printed examples of Paladins who overthrow evil governments and don't fall. So it's pretty clear that Paladins can do that just fine. If you believe otherwise go ahead and houserule it like you do alot of other aspects of your game.
I should point out that there is some seriously different views on what honor means.This! The biggest divide is whether honour is an internal thing - a code of behaviour for you, or an external thing - a property that society affords you, if you act "correctly".
"Honour killing" tends to be associated with the latter definition.
On a baldric, obviously. You want to be able to draw it with a move action if necessary.I've had this come up in a pfs game. You can't kill the troll, he's wearing a badger.I'm curious HOW you wear it. As a hat? Strapped to your chest? Tied to a leg?
Now we never used badgers, but in original issue Runequest, gluing Rubblerunners to a shield became a thing for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often play my druids with metal plate mail and heavy steel shields.You joke, but I've tried my hardest to make this a reality.
Praise be to Our Lord in Iron!
Gorumite druids can in fact do that, according to inner sea gods
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No mercenaries do not just abandon their contract because they got a better offer as per their definition. There are some who would do that just as there are some who would abandon all their oaths and obligations because of 30 pieces of silver. However there are many, many examples of mercenaries who once the contract is agreed upon and signed fulfill it to the best of their ability. Whether that is because of their own personal honor or simply common sense in that if you keep tossing over the people who hire you for a better offer people will stop hiring you and you wont make any money.
Some interesting examples include the swiss guard who were originally a mercenary company that did such a good job they remained as the vatican guard even after the swiss were banned from acting as mercenaries. The flying tigers who while extremely well paid originated from a desire by the US to oppose the Japanese while remaining "neutral" and the varangian guard who were hired to begin with because they were less corruptable than the native country men they replaced.
In fact for a vast majority of our history mercenary companies where the main method of forming an army rather than having a standing one as we do today. If we move out of history into fantassy then it goes even further. There are novels of mercenary companies who fought and died to the last man AFTER the person who hired them had already fallen because that is what they contracted to do...
I think you may need to revisit your "Mercenary History", Particularly from the 11th century to the 17th century.
Wiki can help you out, here's two links:
Routiers.
Condottieri.
Now don't get me wrong, some of what you've said is true (mercenaries forming the core of armies etc.), but some of the other stuff is rather rose-tinted. A Goodly mercenary was very seldom a common sight, and that goes for most ages.
So was a goodly noble, historically speaking the majority of a countries upper class/government were right bastards. That doesn't mean the defination of a noble is someone who rogers the scullery made and has her husband executed for attacking a social better. Just like mercenary does not = will betray an existing contract for a better one.
more on topic when I play the kingmaker campaign game coming out I'm going to be founding a country that accepts anyone trolls, orcs, kobols, humans as long as they live by my laws. Am I legitimate or a monster army ruled by a mad wizard that must be destroyed?
|
|
if overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.
For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.
So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.
So whoever lead the war of indepdance in America (Abraham Lincoln?) And Ghandi are evil? Or all the Axis leaders who helped overthrow Nazi German?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
any one in any war is arguably evil that goes for both sides war is an evil thing and causes many innocents to lose their lives however many actions that lead up to many wars are also evil but evil deeds done to evil people doesn't make them good and while the world is a better place for some of those deeds taking place it was still an evil actSo whoever lead the war of indepdance in America (Abraham Lincoln?) And Ghandi are evil? Or all the Axis leaders who helped overthrow Nazi German?if overthrowing a government isn't an evil act then why does way of the wicked require you to be evil?To those arguing that Paladins can't be Freedom Fighters and have to treat even evil governments as legitimate authorities, there's plenty of in print evidence against that.
For the big one, there's plenty of Paladins in the Glorious Reclamation crusading against Cheliax in an attempt to overthrow it's government and they haven't fallen. Check Hell's Vengeance for some actual NPCs if you need actual mechanics and not just the fact that it's stated in general. And for another, the Player's Guide for Hell's Rebels mentions that playing a paladin will make it tougher, but is entirely possible. You know, the AP that is entirely about overthrowing a government.
So yeah, paladins clearly can be Freedom Fighters and do not have to treat an evil government as a legitimate authority.
Ah, I see. Well boys, looks like next time genocidal maniacs try taking over the world we ought to just let them, as fighting them would be bad.
You see Lady-J, most cultures have something called "The Golden Rule" which, as you know, says something that is some variation of the phrase "Treat others the way you want to be treated." Simple enough, right? Well, that rule has a natural corollary to it, which is to say, "If you are treating people poorly, than that means you are opening yourself up to be treated the same". This is a rather old proposition and has taken such forms as "an eye for an eye" and outlawry throughout history, and survives in some aspects in the criminal justice system of today. Now, we as (presumably) good people would find the notion of responding to a genocide with a genocide to be repugnant, but that does not preclude us from taking actions to protect the greatest amount of innocent lives possible. Innocents may always die in war, it is true, but the likes of Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler killed far more people off the battlefield than on it, and even in more recent years the Serbian and Rwandan genocides happened with little more than world leaders wringing their hands and doing nothing to stop them. Some innocents may die if you intervene, but all evil need to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Malefactor out.
So was a goodly noble, historically speaking the majority of a countries upper class/government were right bastards. That doesn't mean the defination of a noble is someone who rogers the scullery made and has her husband executed for attacking a social better. Just like mercenary does not = will betray an existing contract for a better one.
My point was more in the line of, well, taking people out of their historical context tends to lead to a rather warped understanding of said history. Was all mercenaries/nobles cheats/bastards? No, of cause not. However such a person was denounced in his time as being a bloodthirsty bastard, they quite often were very bad people. When a society mired in violence, start calling out certain people as being particularly violent, it usually merits looking in to.
Would a mercenary-band betray a contract? Well, yes it did happen, and in certain instances quite often, because power might actually favour said band.
more on topic when I play the kingmaker campaign game coming out I'm going to be founding a country that accepts anyone trolls, orcs, kobols, humans as long as they live by my laws. Am I legitimate or a monster army ruled by a mad wizard that must be destroyed?
Well, legitimacy usually requires the accept and recognition of those who are ruled, gained through mutual consent and understanding. Also to some extent (mostly in a international perspective) it also requires the same to exist between your state and neighboring states.
This means, that in order to be legitimate, your populace all need to accept and recognize your right to "rule" (run the government, set laws in place, provide protection...etc).
However any part of your population can then withdraw said consent to be "ruled" by your kingdom and thus declare your rule illegitimate (with their withdrawal goes any tax revenue, members in the military, resources and territory - if they can actually hold on to these things, and you don't just "take" them). This might have little effect between your "government" and the rest of your populace or it might have huge repercussions if more follow (effectively fragmenting your kingdom into smaller tribes).
Basically, BNW had some of it right, way back in thread. A bandit leader can be as legitimate a "king" as a Paladin can. As long as both can gather the consent to being ruled from their "subjects" they have Legitimacy.
So if you plan to rule a kingdom, you better be prepared for some long negotiations and hard compromises, if you want a thumbs up from everyone.
Edit.: Or you could just use, the historically tested and tried method of building your kingdom, on the bones of your enemies. Its tends to send a powerful signal if you bury all those who declare you illegitimate, and it makes negotiations much easier as there are far fewer interest to be appeased...
I mean, the basic assumption of the Paladin is that they do somehow manage to get through the day without committing evil acts deliberately. So while an ordinary person might react with angry words when they are inconvenienced, or attempt petty revenge against someone they perceived has wronged them, a Paladin is not an ordinary person and somehow manages to be above that.
So if you imagine someone who reacts without anger or intent-to-harm when, say, their nice white clothes are spattered with mud because someone else was careless, you're a good way towards understanding how to play a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, Lady-J, that is actually a good definition of evil. It's things we should not do, and that are not trivial.I dunno, I don't consider sticking my hand in a blender an evil thing and that's something non-trivial people shouldn't do.
And that my dear Tarik is a deliberate non-sequitur to blow smoke.
We expect more from you.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often play my druids with metal plate mail and heavy steel shields.and both of those should be perfectly valid nothing is stopping a monk from raging and the restriction for druids not being able to wear metal is silly as metal is naturally occurring plus they can use metal weapons so the restriction on metal armor makes literally no sense
My monks are all about the ragin' furor!
And my clerics of Caiden Caylen run thriving halfling slave markets!also workable, clerics don't have to get spells from gods so its entirely possible to get cleric powers from else were and then worship a deity and do things counter to what the deity stands for in main stream practices
Again, rules say it..I don't like it..so in my game we ignore it because we want to. Lady-J you might be reading the CRB but you aren't playing Pathfinder.
That's what makes these threads so hard, it divulges away from rational conversation because someone wants the way they play to be the standard.
ULG out. I'm done.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It had promise for a little while, then madness came.
It had promise for a little while, then madness came.
This isn't a Paladin thread... THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!!
*EDIT*
Removed text that was not relevant to the conversation.
|
|
Hmmmm it's just occurred to me the divine source path ability let's you grant spells to those who pray to you so technically you could have priests, clerics and Paladins. So if a lvl 20/10 mythic Paladin who got their powers from themselves acted in a way they normally wouldn't they'd still be acting in accordance with their gods (themselves) wishes even if they broke their own code. Would they then fall or would every other paladin serving them who is now not acting according to their gods wishes fall instead? For that matter what happens to a paladin who takes beyond morality?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
full bab good will/fort, smite, lay on hands, buffing auras/imunities and a bonded weapon/item is what a paladin is, just like full bab good fort weapon and armor training and bonus feats is a fighter classes are there do give class features the flavor is what the player does with the character flavor should not be tied down to classes and while you can use the features of a class to improve opp on your flavor a class should not force any type of flavor onto the player
I disagree completely with every single part of this. But I guess, every way of playing the game is the right way as long as the people at the table are all having fun.
But IMO, flavor is 100% of what I think of as defining a class and mechanics are just an attempt to make that flavor tangible through play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I called this btw.
But seriously You know their is people on the other side who would complain that the problem with the fighter is they didn't have fluff like the paladin. Their is people the want the exact opposite of what you do.
Paladin threads really express to me that old saying (shortened) you can't please all of the people all of the time.