| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've observed that the people who most badly want paladins to be changed seem to be the people who have, or fear that others have, the least flexible view of their codes. I, and all of the GM's under whom I've played Paladins, have interpreted it more loosely, with the Paladin's own judgment permitting them to resolve contradictions in accordance with their own nature and out of their deity. I've never fallen or had someone under me fall as a resultIt's open enough that you can't point to the code and say the narrow read isn't correct. For instance, you see an escaped slave duck into an alley and seconds latter guards come up and ask 'did you see a slave come by here?'.
Does the paladin fall because he doesn't respect a 'legitimate authority' and makes a lie of omission? Or does he fall for not helping 'those in need'? Both are legitimate readings of the code and this is a situation that isn't contrived in the least and it creates a catch 22 in the code where the paladin has no good option: it's even less tenable if the DM is out to create these kinds of encounters.
I don't think it's a catch-22, or that the paladin has no good option, personally. There's plenty of options. Answering slowly and asking questions to delay the guards, politely and openly declining to answer even if it has negative consequences for the paladin, stepping into the alleyway to bodyblock the guards and informing them that yes, you did see a slave pass by...
Paizo can't jerkproof the game. Yes, a GM who doesn't like paladins can make life hard for paladins. A GM who doesn't like anything can still make the game miserable for someone who plays it. They don't need to be able to use codes of conduct or misinterpret morality, they'd find other ways.
When I say you would make it clear that Paladins have a choice, what I mean is that you would make it clear that no choice would necessarily make them fall. They can choose amongst the precepts of their code when they come into conflict, and they don't have to worry about defensible choices causing them to fall. What is defensible would depend on the ethos of the specific God or other Force giving them their powers.
That's NOT how the rules are written though. Where does it imply that any are optional or only to be followed when convenient? They are written as pretty immutable IMO. Again, if you're more lenient with the code, things go easier but that really doesn;t solve the issue with the base code for others.
In my book, that would be an evil Act. If you're holding out for some Cosmic objective morality, you're going to be quite unsatisfied. In any case, the fact that this would vary from Paladin to Paladin is a good thing. It's what stops all of them from being the same.
Good to know: In my book, it's clearly in the middle of the road neutral. They have NO idea why they are slaves: they could be slave because of war, because of a crime they committed, because of a lawful agreement [indentured servitude]. Not every instance of slavery is or should be counted as evil in a fantasy game. That and who is checking for consent for all those animal companions, mounts, ect that HAVE an intelligence score? Are paladins expected to figure out if every intelligent animal is being held against their will? Maybe they should get speak with animals instead of detect evil...
Paizo can't jerkproof the game. Yes, a GM who doesn't like paladins can make life hard for paladins. A GM who doesn't like anything can still make the game miserable for someone who plays it. They don't need to be able to use codes of conduct or misinterpret morality, they'd find other ways.
This is where I disagree the most. Having these issues come up doesn't have to mean the DM is being a jerk [it CAN though]. Just reading the code and letting the game progress can have these situations come up. I've seen plenty of legitimate 'this is evil [or some other code violation]' and 'it isn't' happen in games, between players and/or DM's and no one was out to 'be a jerk' at the time.
|
When I say you would make it clear that Paladins have a choice, what I mean is that you would make it clear that no choice would necessarily make them fall. They can choose amongst the precepts of their code when they come into conflict, and they don't have to worry about defensible choices causing them to fall. What is defensible would depend on the ethos of the specific God or other Force giving them their powers.That's NOT how the rules are written though. Where does it imply that any are optional or only to be followed when convenient? They are written as pretty immutable IMO. Again, if you're more lenient with the code, things go easier but that really doesn;t solve the issue with the base code for others.
In my book, that would be an evil Act. If you're holding out for some Cosmic objective morality, you're going to be quite unsatisfied. In any case, the fact that this would vary from Paladin to Paladin is a good thing. It's what stops all of them from being the same.Good to know: In my book, it's clearly in the middle of the road neutral. They have NO idea why they are slaves: they could be slave because of war, because of a crime they committed, because of a lawful agreement [indentured servitude]. Not every instance of slavery is or should be counted as evil in a fantasy game. That and who is checking for consent for all those animal companions, mounts, ect that HAVE an intelligence score? Are paladins expected to figure out if every intelligent animal is being held against their will? Maybe they should get speak with animals instead of detect evil...
Paizo can't jerkproof the game. Yes, a GM who doesn't like paladins can make life hard for paladins. A GM who doesn't like anything can still make the game miserable for someone who plays it. They don't need to be able to use codes of conduct or misinterpret morality, they'd find other ways.This is where I disagree the most. Having these issues...
Right, which is why I suggested a change rather than asserted that things were currently the way I was describing. It is kind of a leap though, to move from the idea that paladins have the ability to navigate technically unresolvable contradictions in their code to the idea that they can abandon their code the moment it's convenient. Just because they can lie if it's very clearly the only way to save an innocent person doesn't mean they can lie whenever it would give them a slight advantage at whatever they were trying to do. The flexibility I'm talking about is for cases where they cannot possibly satisfy their entire code to the letter and can only ever abandon a portion of it, even through inaction. I think the interpretation I have where their answers to such situations allow for them to be diverse despite having a stringent code is just a better one and makes for a better game then them being doomed to fall because they wind up in a situation like that through no fault of their own.
However, every instance of slavery should indeed be treated as evil. It might be possible to have a slave without committing any evil acts if the slave just happens to cooperate with whatever you ask them to do, but the moment they step out of line you have to either except that they are disobeying you or torture them, which is an evil Act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...until the RAW brigade arrives.
This is where I disagree the most. Having these issues come up doesn't have to mean the DM is being a jerk [it CAN though]. Just reading the code and letting the game progress can have these situations come up. I've seen plenty of legitimate 'this is evil [or some other code violation]' and 'it isn't' happen in games, between players and/or DM's and no one was out to 'be a jerk' at the time.
I've only seen two instances of a GM considering something evil, and the player (who was me in one of those cases) disagreeing, and it got talked out without problems except in the case where both were pretty new to the game. I've seen many, many more disagreements over "there's a paladin in the party, they're going to fall if I do anything not good, or they're going to stop me and I don't get to have fun, or something" while the GM and the paladin's player both stare at each other in confusion because neither of them had been planning to object. I don't know if it's just a lot of coincidence, but it leaves me with a certain amount of skepticism about how common problems with falling paladins really are, and how much it's just something people are nervous about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get twelve different guises, why can't paladins have nine?
I agree. Certainly, it could not have the "help a person in need" clause unmodified.
Maybe, but I have always been a paladin is a holy warrior of a god kinda guy. So to me, there should not be one code, but dozens, if not hundreds, all based off your order or church or what have you. D&D was Always bad to go English, Germanic or french and forget all other cultures.
A paladin of an island culture is not likely to have the same code as fantasy England
which era of England?
Eh, Fantasy England is always mismash and never as bad s it was.
which era of England?
The fantasy era. Duh.
Fantasy England tends to mix and match man.
to the guillotine! but that would probably be an evil act as is can take 4 or even more attempts to execute some one via guillotine.
most methods of execution can fail
just keen the blade and it should work ;)
even the sharpest of blades can get stuck multiple times on the spinal cordto the guillotine! but that would probably be an evil act as is can take 4 or even more attempts to execute some one via guillotine.most methods of execution can fail
just keen the blade and it should work ;)
Not an adamantine one...
A Final Blade Waraxe? I gotta see this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what I *think* is going to happen with the Paladin is that it's going to stay the same (with some cleaning up of the language) but Paizo is also going to make it very easy to drop all of the alignment mechanics in the entire game for people who want to do that.
So you still need Paladins to be virtuous; morally upstanding; protectors of the weak; doers of the right thing in the right way; who do not lie, cheat, or steal but if you can figure out a way to make a CN person behave like that, and the GM is on board, you're good to go.
Probably as good a threading of the needle as we're going to get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that would be the ideal, rather than some arbitrary and unimaginable morass of 'Does the Paladin fall'.
Think of all that memory space we could save!
adamantine is expensive not even some of the bigger cities could afford to put one of those in the budget and even if they could it would likely be the 1st thing some adventuring party of hoodlums would steal due to its value over literally anything else they could get their hands on
You execute everyone in a single location and set the blade only on execution day. Does every podunk town, village and outhouse need it's own death dealing machine?
adamantine is expensive not even some of the bigger cities could afford to put one of those in the budget and even if they could it would likely be the 1st thing some adventuring party of hoodlums would steal due to its value over literally anything else they could get their hands onYou execute everyone in a single location and set the blade only on execution day. Does every podunk town, village and outhouse need it's own death dealing machine?Actually It's far more likely that executioners would be assigned regions and travel around accompanied by guards to execute their job at different towns and villages.
While they might not go out to the middle of nowhere, their victims would be gathered at a convenient location nearby the village in question (likely the lords mansion, or the governor of an area).
A traveling guillotine? Interesting concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Citizen Z, you have failed to pay your taxes for the year. You have a choice, as all noble Galtan citizens do. Either render your life into service to the State or choose your Freedom "
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Watching the any alignment option get BTFO by LG only is just....pretty much the best thing on this forum.
I guess an hour after polls opened was a bit too early to call it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Paladins should be any holy warrior, alignment doesn't matter.
Thought about having to GM a CN paladin and threw up in my mouth a little.
But seriously, I've played with GMs that don't use alignments (that's always an option for people who don't like them), but it seems to take a flawed system and make it broken. Not that an alignment system is ever going to be perfect without all GMs being advanced students of philosophy and or theology, but it general does a decent job.
In a game where so much of the player's time is spend dealing with supernatural good and evil beings (such as demons, devils, undead, and celestials), I don't really think you can say "there's no such thing as good or evil" and have it make sense for more than a few minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Paladins should be any holy warrior, alignment doesn't matter.Thought about having to GM a CN paladin and threw up in my mouth a little.
More so than any other 'committed CN' character? I mean, it's famously the alignment people want to use so that they can:
Step 1: Write into your character's personality that he is a dickbag
Step 2: Play like a dickbag
Step 3: If called out on dickbaggery, claim that you're just roleplaying your character's personality
But seriously, I've played with GMs that don't use alignments (that's always an option for people who don't like them), but it seems to take a flawed system and make it broken. Not that an alignment system is ever going to be perfect without all GMs being advanced students of philosophy and or theology, but it general does a decent job.
In a game where so much of the player's time is spend dealing with supernatural good and evil beings (such as demons, devils, undead, and celestials), I don't really think you can say "there's no such thing as good or evil" and have it make sense for more than a few minutes.
PF Unchained has rules for moving alignment to Outsiders (and Undead?) only. I would go further and remove its mechanical effects entirely. Good and Evil can certainly exist without being tangible and measurable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our GM for our Hell's Rebels campaign decreed "THERE WILL BE NO ALIGNMENT (for mortal folks)"
It would seem like such a thing would be liberating and freeing but we actually found ourselves REALLY REALLY looking carefully at our choices curing the campaign thus far because our followers would use whatever examples we set for them as their guidelines for conduct.
Just a thought and some insight...