|
To establish, up front, the rules as written for Pathfinder Society:
gods in the Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The
Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods
and Magic, or any other source listed in the Additional
Resources document.
Characters with any number of levels in any of these
classes must select a deity.
• Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, and warpriests.
This seems straightforward. Paladins (and inquisitors, but I care less about them and don't feel like typing out both so just assume they're included) must have a deity in Pathfinder Society. Except... that's not really in line with Golarion canon. Per James Jacobs:
Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
And more recently:
The wording is a bit loosy-goosy, but nothing in there should be taken as "All paladins must worship deities." Just "MOST paladins should worship deities," if anything.
So, in accordance with Golarion lore, an atheist paladin, or a paladin who venerates a god like Cayden Cailean or Milani, is entirely possible. So why, exactly, are paladins still required to worship a deity? There isn't a mechanical benefit for being an atheist, and worshipping an alignment inappropriate deity for another mechanical boon like an obedience or trait is already forbidden by the paladin's mechanics. In universe, the Pathfinder Society has no reason to turn away an atheist paladin. The restriction makes no real sense and is, in fact, kind of arbitrary when you think about it.
Removing this restriction from Society would be pretty low impact, wouldn't affect any current builds negatively, and open up roleplaying opportunities for no real negative cost. So I come here with a question: what actual purpose does restricting paladins (and inquisitors) this way serve, and if there really isn't any strong practical purpose, why not get rid of it?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple answers is, because they (Paizo) said so. How a character is governed by their worship (which is a specific and meaningful game mechanic) is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate. We table GMs are not the GM for the campaign. We are more like narrators. Our Paizo development team is the GM for the campaign and in order to define some level of consistency from table to table, they require that all characters who receive their divine power directly like paladins, inquisitors, clerics, and many archetypes must select a deity. Anything else is really just subjective analysis and thoerycrafting that results in varied levels of argument on the basis.
Remember that PAthfinder rules are not always the same as PFS rules. James is a designer for the overarching game, not specifically for OP. Sometimes it is decided that the general rules have to be modified to meet the needs of OP. There was a time when these characters did not have to select a specific deity, but it was causing problems. Which is why the rule was created. Allowing a paladin to worship a deity that was chaotic or even neither lawful nor good caused all kinds of issues with how that interacts with their base tenets.
|
FedoraFerret, I encourage you to dig back into the Society Archives. (This forum.) Discussions of paladin alignment have been going on since at least 2010 (when I joined) and are always some of the most contentious threads.
Long story short, all kinds of arguments about what a paladin code could (or could not) encompass, whether a certain deity's portfolio (or a concept you decide to worship) could overrule basic paladin codes, and related items. Similar arguments ensued for other divine classes. Passionate voices with multiple viewpoints. The point is - all kinds of arguments. While you can come to an agreement with your home game GM, you are going to have different GMs in PFS. Who probably won't all agree with all your arguments, even if a previous GM did.
For consistency's sake, something needs to be concrete. Bob said it well.
The simple answers is, because they (Paizo) said so.
|
|
The simple answers is, because they (Paizo) said so. How a character is governed by their worship (which is a specific and meaningful game mechanic) is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate. We table GMs are not the GM for the campaign. We are more like narrators. Our Paizo development team is the GM for the campaign and in order to define some level of consistency from table to table, they require that all characters who receive their divine power directly like paladins, inquisitors, clerics, and many archetypes must select a deity.
That isn't an answer to my question. I'm not asking "what is the reason that we have to follow this ruling," I'm asking "why did Paizo make the ruling in the first place?"
There was a time when these characters did not have to select a specific deity, but it was causing problems.
An answer to my questions would be what problems it was actually causing, because for the life of me, I can't see them.
Allowing a paladin to worship a deity that was chaotic or even neither lawful nor good caused all kinds of issues with how that interacts with their base tenets.
At no point did I argue that they should. I think they should be able to venerate such a deity, a distinction which specifically exists as a nod to roleplaying a level of respect and acknowledgment to deities that are outside of your alignment, which doesn't remotely overshadow the paladin's first commitment, which is to their code. One can have both, prioritizing one over the other. And, in fact, it is entirely within the bounds of the rules to do both as a paladin in PFS. My paladin worships Apsu, venerates Milani, but doesn't pursue or exposit Milanite ideals. And this all ignores the idea of an atheist paladin, who follows, worships, or venerates no god, but instead fights for the basic ideals of good and law.
The point is - all kinds of arguments. While you can come to an agreement with your home game GM, you are going to have different GMs in PFS. Who probably won't all agree with all your arguments, even if a previous GM did.
"Paladins and inquisitors are not required to follow a deity." Easy enough. "There has to be a ruling" does not equate to "the ruling that was made was the best one."
|
|
That isn't an answer to my question. I'm not asking "what is the reason that we have to follow this ruling," I'm asking "why did Paizo make the ruling in the first place?"
That's really semantics since the answer to both is the same. Just like when you were a kid growing up and your parent's said, "because I said so" as reason why you had to do something a certain way.
If we have learned one thing in nearly 10 years of OP, Paizo rarely provides the why anymore because it just invites arguments and encourages us to pick the reason apart with little to no productive resolution. Usually when someone asks why, it is because they disagree with a rule and want to illicit a change. However, before a reasonable argument can be made we need to know the basis for why it was made in the first place. Suffice it to say, there are people who would agree they don't like the rule, but there are a lot who would also say they like it. The main thing to remember with this particular rule is that for many years, it did not exist. Paladins were as described in the CRB. However, with the additional of splat books bringing to light more options for paladins including deity-specific codes and players pushing the bounds of what a paladin could get away with, without suffering any punishment, it create all kinds of problems at the game table. One of the solutions was to create a more restrictive rule for paladins having to select a specific deity.
I'm not making a value statement, just explaining how it is. To be perfectly honest, my paladin of Cayden Cailean was not happy when he had to select another deity since his attitudes and beliefs did not match any other option. He had a long history (9 or 10 levels of play) that already defined who he was. The rules change forced me to make meaningful changes in how he was played to fit the dogma of his new deity.
That being said, I saw first hand some of the problems that paladins brought to the table and while I don't like it, I think the rule is good for PFS. And to be honest, its no more/less disruptive than the deviation from the evil spell rules that were made in hopes of making OP gameplay more consistent and less combative.
Like with any other ruling, we are certainly welcome to object and suggest it could be different another way. Just don't expect Paizo to provide much if any commentary regarding the why especially in cases that are soo steeped in alignment which is and of itself probably them most argued about topic in all of gamedom.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An answer to my questions would be what problems it was actually causing, because for the life of me, I can't see them.Though I am a PFS Newbie, I am not a newbie to Pathfinder, or to power builds.
Paladins are already a very popular dip. Very popular dip. Primarily because of a specific power called, "Divine Grace."
This power, I am sure you are aware, allows for Paladins to add their Charisma Bonus to all of their saves. This reason makes Paladins one of the highest save classes in the game.
It is also the reason why so many people try to get Paladins to be non-Lawful Good.
This, in and of itself, isn't that bad... Sort of...
So, let us say, for example, that you can be a Paladin of Desna. Currently you can't do that. Let us suppose, for just a moment, that you could.
You could, with no prerequisite, get Desna's Shooting Star:
"You can add your Charisma bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls when wielding a starknife. If you do so, you don’t modify attack rolls and damage rolls with your starknife with your Strength modifier, your Dexterity modifier (if you have Weapon Finesse), or any other ability score (if you have an ability that allows you to modify attack rolls and damage rolls with that ability score)."
Now, this particular ability is *really* powerful as it also automatically carries with it the benefits of Double Slice, a roundabout Weapon Finesse and a roundabout Starry Grace (but better as it can be used in TWF mode)
Toss in a level of Lore Oracle, Nature Oracle, or Scaled Fist Monk and now your Charisma is your AC, Attack, Damage, and Saves oh my.
This can be set up and online as early as 3rd level with any race/class combination.
Congratulations, you have created the Monodin. An (all but 1 level) full BAB Paladin who uses Charisma for everything and gets ridiculously high saves, damage, and attacks for very little point investment.
In fact even without the Oracle/Monk Dip this build is almost superior...
He's not proposing non LG Paladins and iirc in PFS the deity you worship has to be within one step of your alignment if you're getting mechanical benefit from them anyways. So it wouldn't be possible for the Paladin to get Desna's Shooting Star even with an atheistic paladin.
|
|
It is also the reason why so many people try to get Paladins to be non-Lawful Good
Once again: I am not arguing for that. Paladin's alignment restriction would go nowhere. You couldn't get Desna's Shooting Star as a paladin because paladin still has to be Lawful Good, and you can't worship a deity, as per the rules definition, unless you're within one alignment step of them. This is different from a paladin venerating Desna, believing in freedom and the pleasures and comforts of the open road and offering up prayers when traveling or going to bed for a good night's sleep, but not being able to gain any mechanical benefits.
I will state again, separate from everything else: I am not arguing that paladins should be any alignment they want. A godless paladin still has to be Lawful Good.
@Bob: I've always hated telling children "because I said so" too. Rules should have reasons, those reasons should be known. That being said, I think "people were abusing being godless for no consequence" isn't really an argument that can be made, because that's not relevant to having a god or not. Whether I follow a god or not doesn't change whether an action is against the basic paladin code or not, or is evil or not. It's on the GM to properly adjudicate what qualifies as good or evil. In fact, the opposite argument could be made. I've seen of Ragathiel or Abadar use their deity to try and get away with some pretty borderline evil things. And they didn't, because the GM didn't let them. An atheist paladin doesn't even have that argument.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also the reason why so many people try to get Paladins to be non-Lawful Good"because I said so" too. Rules should have reasons, those reasons should be known.
if they explain to everyone that wanted to know why a ruling is or isnt, than it wouldnt be good enough. someone would than argue there answer and want a response. it would never stop. there have been alot of threads started this season of WHY. people give there opinion of why they think so. it turns into a back and forth of opinions. asking is OK, but expect no official answer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always hated telling children "because I said so" too
That may be true for a lot of people, but the reality is, as our "parent" ie campaign leadership, they are not required to justify their decisions to us. Sometimes we just have to accept things are as they are.
I would encourage you to do some historical forum searching from before this rule existed and see how many and often we had lengthy arguments going on about paladins, especially unusual or borderline ones that were causing all kinds of conflict as people tried to "sell" their ideas and actions to others. That is the reason why this rule was put into place. Current leadership does not really need to justify why the rule is what it is because there is a searchable history to explain it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the OP meant atheist as in someone not worshiping a god even if that isn't the definition in Golarion.
Agreed, some folks understand atheist and non-associated to be synonymous. With the discussion of what atheism means in a world where gods can tangibly affect the world as a physical entity, such as countries like Rahadoum, I can somewhat understand the basis of the conflation.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I don't see how any of that is different than now where there are lengthy people talking about Paladins and trying to sell their ideas and actions to others.
I would encourage you to do some historical forum searching from before this rule existed and see how many and often we had lengthy arguments going on about paladins, especially unusual or borderline ones that were causing all kinds of conflict as people tried to "sell" their ideas and actions to others.
I'm pretty sure the OP meant atheist as in someone not worshiping a god even if that isn't the definition in Golarion.Agreed, some folks understand atheist and non-associated to be synonymous. With the discussion of what atheism means in a world where gods can tangibly affect the world as a physical entity, such as countries like Rahadoum, I can somewhat understand the basis of the conflation.
Having run a scenario recently where it comes up the definition for atheism is unchanged. Not at all certain who qualifies but its explicitly called out in Port Godless that Rahadoum is incorrectly called an atheist country.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a huge difference between an atheist and a divine spellcaster that doesn't worship a specific deity. James Jacobs refers to the latter.
Not cool to take something he said out of context to make this argument.
Thats at worst an honest mistake, not dishonesty. That context is very counter intuitive and easily missed, if it doesn't outright require doing archeology through the boards to figure out that the word may have a different definition around here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, and here I am being mad that paladins must have a deity, but can't use the paladin codes from the "Faiths of (x)" books. I mean, what's the point of being a paladin of Torag if you are told you'll fall for the following?
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag."
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this ruling/clarification either shortly predated my time as an employee (early 2013) or shortly followed it. Having all divine magic come from a deity, demigod, or other spell-granting entity (e.g. mythic character) in the campaign setting is something that's been reinforced verbally in the office several times since then. As a result, there hasn't been any push to change the paladin's deity requirement internally.
I certainly can't speak to James's post from 2011, and I'd much rather not relay specific colleagues' feelings on the matter in general out of a concern that I'd misrepresent them.
How a character is governed by their worship (which is a specific and meaningful game mechanic)
Can you explain this? I've never seen this expressed in any way at all. Worship is usually an untouched box of pure fluff to avoid offending people.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "worship" has mechanical meaning in the game. Sure you can use it colloquially to describe a character's feelings towards a deity or even an ideal, but that is more akin to reverence, or respect, etc. Worship within PFS requires that you are within one step of the deity's alignment and often involves gaining tangible benefits from said faith such as granted spells, etc. How it affects divine classes is fairly obvious, but it becomes more hazy when applied to non-divinly based PCs.
The concept becomes more apparent when benefits are involved. Say my paladin buys a Tankard of the Drunken Hero. In order to gain all the benefits, I have to worship Cayden Cailean. Except my alignment is too far to allow me to "worship" him and therefore I do not qualify for all the magic. Sure the character can use the word worship to describe his feelings towards Cayden, but for mechanical purposes, he does not worship, rather he reveres or shows respect for, or whatever analogous term you want to use.
Its kind of like calling a scimitar a cutlass. You are playing a pirate so a cutlass would be appropriate, but you also want to have Dervish Dance so you can have Dex to damage. You call refer to your sword as a cutlass all your want, but the reality is, its a scimitar.
Not sure if my explanation is eloquent enough to make sense outside my head :-)
The word "worship" has mechanical meaning in the game. Sure you can use it colloquially to describe a character's feelings towards a deity or even an ideal, but that is more akin to reverence, or respect, etc.
Worship within PFS requires that you are within one step of the deity's alignment and often involves gaining tangible benefits from said faith such as granted spells, etc. How it affects divine classes is fairly obvious, but it becomes more hazy when applied to non-divinly based PCs.
Ah, I see. That... isn't generally what is 'colloquially' meant as worship. I took it as the actual acts of faith, prayer, sacrifice, etc. i.e., actual worship. Not 'reverence or respect' or 'how to toggle class features' (ie, spend an hour of no real activity at a designated time of day)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, we needed to come up with two words to refer to the two states of following a deity in campaign rules. Worship got the call for mechanical benefit because that's the most often used word in actual game mechanics and prerequisites.
<from the guy who helped write the rule.>
|
|
Ah, I see. That... isn't generally what is 'colloquially' meant as worship. I took it as the actual acts of faith, prayer, sacrifice, etc. i.e., actual worship. Not 'reverence or respect' or 'how to toggle class features' (ie, spend an hour of no real activity at a designated time of day)
Well, the game can be quirky when it comes to some of the terminology. Certainly what you describe would be considered "worship" by standard definition, but that is largely fluff and does not necessarily qualify within the game mechanics as there are additional requirements to meet, such as within one step of alignment.
You can say your CG character worships Asmodeus to aid in understanding the suite of actions it might be taking and its belief/faith. However, for purposes of game mechanics, you cannot worship Asmodeus because you are more than one step away in alignment. If there was a feat or magic item or effect or spell or whatever with "worship" being a requirement, you could not qualify even though the actions you take would be considered worship from a theological perspective. I was just trying to say there is a clear difference between the fluff of worship and the crunch.
I hope that makes sense.
|
|
See, and here I am being mad that paladins must have a deity, but can't use the paladin codes from the "Faiths of (x)" books. I mean, what's the point of being a paladin of Torag if you are told you'll fall for the following?
"Against my people's enemies I will show no mercy. I will
not allow their surrender, except to extract information.
I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet
even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a
way that brings honor to Torag.""Against the Enemy of my people I will show no mercy."
The Paladin code doesn't say you have to show mercy, nor does it ever say you have to accept a surrender. A Paladin doesn't have to accept surrender by default. Paladins of certain gods might have to, but that is an additional item.
I agree with your interpretation (full post agree), but wanted to highlight that I've heard it argued that not accepting a surrender is an evil act when it comes to paladins, even when you tell them that you will not accept their surrender and giving them the unimpeded chance to regain their weapon before executing them. Torag is definitely cool with that, but not Shelyn (in most cases). I think that should be differentiated, but since the "bonus codes" are not legal in PFS, you can't use it as a justification for your character's action if a GM disagrees.
With any paladin thread comes the alignment questions and there's endless debate about the possibility of a fall. Some of the codes clarify that there are actions that might be allowable for some paladins that aren't allowable for others. It's a really interesting differentiation among the deities and I find it frustrating that a GM could reasonably rule against what is an appropriate in-character action to make someone fall.
#IamGodwin'sLaw
|
|
Good points to be sure, but remember it is still up to the GM to decide in that moment if an action or lack of one would cause a fall. As long as they provide a warning (per the rules) you might not like it but you have to follow their ruling or risk falling. It is extremely hard to retcon a judgement call. I've only ever seen a player ignore a GM's warning once and then try to get it retcon'd after the fact and I did not overturn the fall because they were warned and did it anyway. YMMV
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing a clear "we don't do alternate paladin codes" policy in the Additional Resources. I also don't see a clear "we do alternate paladin codes" policy.
- Divine Anthology lists them as legal, but the book doesn't really explain how they work in combination with the base code.
- Inner Sea Faiths lists them as legal. I don't have that book so I don't know if they explain the combination.
- Oathbound paladins from Ultimate Magic are legal but those clearly add their code to the base code.
- Inner Sea Gods lists whole chapters as legal, including the paladin codes therein. It doesn't explain if this is as a substitute to or in addition to the base code.
The consensus locally is that the base code stands unlesss clearly contradicted by the specific one (which is vanishingly rare); otherwise the specific one is merely an addition.
|
|
I'm not seeing a clear "we don't do alternate paladin codes" policy in the Additional Resources. I also don't see a clear "we do alternate paladin codes" policy.
- Divine Anthology lists them as legal, but the book doesn't really explain how they work in combination with the base code.
- Inner Sea Faiths lists them as legal. I don't have that book so I don't know if they explain the combination.
- Oathbound paladins from Ultimate Magic are legal but those clearly add their code to the base code.
- Inner Sea Gods lists whole chapters as legal, including the paladin codes therein. It doesn't explain if this is as a substitute to or in addition to the base code.
The consensus locally is that the base code stands unlesss clearly contradicted by the specific one (which is vanishingly rare); otherwise the specific one is merely an addition.
Its already been pointed out that they are in addition to the main code as per the book so I'm not sure why it would need a consensus in an area to make it so.
Faiths of Purity Pg. 26
Quote:
However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whats the absolute contradiction you're seeing Lau?
The context is people asking about the alternate paladin codes as if they replaced the whole of the CRB paladin code. I don't think they should; they should add to them and provide context and focus to them. Only if they actually clash should you take the code of your specific deity over the generic paladin code.
The point is that outright contradictions between the CRB base paladin code and deity-specific paladin codes are extremely rare. The only thing that springs to mind is:
act with honor (not lying, not cheating,
I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.
It goes to great length to say it's not a contradiction, but I'm not sure how you can be truthful, honorable and forthright and mislead people.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its already been pointed out that they are in addition to the main code as per the book so I'm not sure why it would need a consensus in an area to make it so.
Faiths of Purity Pg. 26
Quote:
However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers.
Funnily, that books happens to be the one that's not a legal source for paladin codes. And at any rate, it's a bit iffy for one non-Core book to rely on a different non-Core book for explanation of how you should understand it, without even a reference like "this mechanic was first introduced in..."
|
|
I know one situation where my Pali of Sheyln and the Other Pali in our emerald spire party were help hostage by a baddie who help two of our party members (@-3 but stablised hostage)
We looked at the two players and pointed out that is another player , who played a Pali of Torag , had been playing they’d be dead..
Not all palis play by the same code