| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That 'insane' suggestion has already been implemented in systems such as D&D 5e, and it doesn't seem to cause any disruption there. Plenty of people have asked for it to be in PF2 as well.
In PF1, it's just another possible house-rule, like allowing non-chaotic Barbarians, or removing alignment from the game entirely. You're free to have your preference, but you can't expect others to share it.
step one : this or the mass form of this
step two : Undetectable Alignment (might need help from a bard\cleric for this one).
done.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I love paladins. I love that their powers are tied to their faith and their conduct. I love that they can produce moral quandaries, and I love that even with these restrictions there are countless ways to play one.
But . . . you were straight-up BadWrongFunning someone by name in an Advice thread. It's perfectly fine to give advice--however good or bad you feel that advice is--that includes house rules. It's not fine to repeatedly respond to a user's posts in different threads with "Hey everybody, that person doesn't really play Pathfinder! Shun!" It brings the community down. Don't be that poster.
Nevertheless, disparagement of that sort is not cool and almost certainly against the Community Guidelines down there. ↓ (Disclaimer: I am just a pig, not a moderator.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin's code of conduct is literally the definition of what a paladin is. You've just named one reason I refuse to use 5th ed as toilet paper, and a reason I likely would refuse to touch pf 2.0 if they implement that. You take away the CoC, you've literally destroyed the founding concept of the entire class.
Literally all the core deities that can have paladins take away the code of conduct.
And then replace it with their own, different code of conduct, which varies wildly from god to god. Which is good. Instead of the code being this abstract, nebulous ideal of benevolent warrior dude, it's a specific relationship with one's god.
Also, Pathfinder has multiple ways to remove, broaden, or modify a Paladin's code of conduct. Like, say, the Vindictive Bastard. Which is literally saying "no" to falling. Do you refuse to touch the current Pathfinder?
5e does not remove the paladin code. It changes and renames the paladin code. You have your oaths, which form the nature of your relationship with your ideals and your god.
Here's the thing that happens every time the game has the lawful-good must-be-within-one-step-of-deity Paladin. Someone will raise a perfectly valid point about a perfectly valid character. Like, "I want to make a holy warrior paladin of the Elven people. This is a neat, perfectly reasonable character concept that should exist, but all the elf gods in Faerun are chaotic/good and can't have paladins!" and the devs turn around and say, "Here's the paladin of freedom! They're exactly like a paladin but with some really minor tweaks and they're chaotic/good! Now make your Paladin of Corellon Larethian who already would have worked just fine if we hadn't written the Paladin into being one-size-fits-all!" Or the blackguard. Or the anti-paladin. Or the paladin of slaughter. Or the paladin of tyranny. Or the gray paladin. Or the paladin of still being a really nice dude but sometimes using poison. Or the paladin of tax evasion.
Here's the thing. All of those are the same thing. They are all the holy warrior committed to an ideal or deity, whether that cause is the violent justice of Iomedae, or the oppressive tyranny of Bane, or the nebulous general benevolence of the Sovereign Host, or being the pretty warrior who fights for love and justice. They are all paladins. What's important is, what are their ideals and their relationship to those ideals. Because what it means to be a paragon is very different under Torag versus Shelyn.
What fifth edition does remove is not the code, but the mechanic of falling, because that is and always has been a deeply problematic mechanic that deserves reconsideration. The interesting thing about the paladin is their relationship with their deity or ideal, and their quest to live up to it. But falling as a mechanic turns the friend and guide that the code is supposed to be into a hammer, where if you slip up, you are afflicted with a fate literally worse than death, and become an NPC warrior. That is, was, and always has been a terrible idea as a game mechanic, and is the root of many of the root of decades of bickering and alignment wanks.
"Must be lawful/good" and "fall if you commit an evil act," are boring, uninteresting, and unessential to the notion of Paladin. It's much more interesting to make the consequences roleplay-related instead of taking away all of a PC's class abilities.
You know what is interesting?
Here's the code for Paladins of Torag.
"My word is my bond. When I give my word formally, I defend my oath to my death. Traps lie in idle banter or thoughtless talk, and so I watch my tongue.
"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.
"I respect the forge, and never sully it with half-hearted work. My creations reflect the depth of my faith, and I will not allow flaws save in direst need.
"Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag."
Now, here's the code for Paladins of Shelyn.
"I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
"I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
"I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
"I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
"I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm, unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
"I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world’s potential for beauty is lessened."
Putting two characters side-by-side who aspire to these completely different ideals, who sometimes stumble but always try? That is fodder for an interesting Paladin story and character dynamic. What's more, the code of Torag endorses and even requires some very morally questionable behavior in times of war. That "offer no mercy, accept no surrender" mindset promotes many acts that may normally be considered evil and worthy of falling for other paladins, but which are appropriate to the ideals of Torag, and the relationship between a paladin of Torag, their god, and their community. And the exact opposite of what a Paladin of Shelyn would be expected to do. This is a dynamic that feeds good storytelling, rather than shutting it down or punishing it.
It's infinitely more interesting than...
"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."
Which leads to situations like, "You lied to the BBEG's border guards to get into the evil empire and liberate the people. You violated the code. Rules explicitly dictate that you lose all class abilities until you can receive a fifth-level spell and go on a quest to atone," or alternately, the paladin shuts down the plan to trick the border guards for fear of falling due to their code.
And it means another party member's entire build won't get shut down because someone decided to bring a paladin, and instead, the group gets to play around with an interesting character dynamic. That makes for a better game, and a more entertaining party dynamic than, "I am required to either refuse to associate with or slay this other PC or I lose all my class abilities."
So, in conclusion? No, removing the code as a mechanic is not insane. Disagreeing with you is not madness. Calling disagreeing with you madness is not conducive to discussion. Removing or altering the code does not ruin the Paladin. And your specific vision of the Paladin is not the only valid vision.
I disagree with Lady J on many of her points about paladins and alignment in other threads. That does not make her insane, nor does it make personal attacks appropriate.
Moving away from the paladin, which is a problem but I'd like a tad more info.
1)While the Paladin could be an issue(Sounds like Palabro so no worries) I take it the rest of the team is also okay with Necromancy?
2) Better question; DM is okay with is this? By that I mean DM's tactics and the world reactions? Necromancy is usually frowned upon in fiction and most DMs do frown on minions.
I know the OP asked for help with the Paladin but there might be other issues the player faces. Necromancers are a hard sell to most. I do hope things work out for OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate paladins.
And now we've arrived at the real issue.
I hate that one screw up, and you're a crippled fighter looking for a 9+ level cleric to cast an expensive spell for you so you can keep being a paladin.
One screw-up? Hardly. An egregious pattern of violating your code, sure.
I hate that most GMs like to intentionally throw those kind of moral conundrums your way just to screw with you.
Most GMs? Well, that's a made-up statistic. It may be your experience, but it's not normal. Further, if you've got GMs who are looking for methods to screw with you, look no further than your GMs for your problem.
[quote[But that is the defining, core definition of a paladin. As my GM pointed out in an in-game plot with an NPC fallen paladin, they're built to fall. Making it just to retirement with your powers intact and never having fallen is an extraordinary feat, in and of itself. Removing that, either as a house rule or because WotC are a bunch of crack pots, is utterly bonkers. You're getting a LOT in trade for that code of conduct.
Load of hooey. None of my groups have had fallen paladins, ever. There's a difference between reading Internet angst and thought-problems, and what goes on daily at gaming tables.
And I don't disparage her because she plays with such drastically altered rules. I disparage her because she then goes on the advice forum and, worse, the RULES forum and starts foisting her drastically altered rules on to threads as if they are the core rules of the game.
Try: "thank you, but we're trying to find a solution based on the rules, not your variant of them." Or... not.
First ask your gm if necromancy is inherently evil in his world. If he says yes ask the paladin player if his character thinks necromancy is evil. If he says yes then your going to have to make a few human sacrifices and take the wretched curator(agents of evil) story feat. This lets you remove the evil tag from animate dead, probably because it doesn't look nearly as bad anymore
One screw-up? Hardly. An egregious pattern of violating your code, sure.
The code is ambiguous on many things. This is not one of them.
"...and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
One strike and you're out is one of the few things clearly baked into the code/fall mechanic. One willing evil act, and you fall. A GM who says, "You lied one time! Fall!" is 100% rules compliant. And also a dick.
Most GMs throw away the written code in favor of something more reasonable and flexible. However, the only written guidance remains that badly written one strike and you're out mechanic. However, this is a houserule. A good and necessary houserule, to deal with one of the game's most poorly written mechanics.
As the player is not in the GM's head, they don't know where the GM's line is, and the mechanics of falling create a mindset of fear. The code, even under a reasonable GM, becomes an enemy and threat that drives the Paladin to wet blanket anything remotely questionable, rather than the code being a friend and guide the Paladin aspires to. Unless, of course, there is a lot of trust and communication about what the code means in this game.
As always, communication is The Most Important Thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One screw-up? Hardly. An egregious pattern of violating your code, sure.The code is ambiguous on many things. This is not one of them.
"...and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
One strike and you're out is one of the few things clearly baked into the code/fall mechanic. One willing evil act, and you fall. A GM who says, "You lied one time! Fall!" is 100% rules compliant. And also a dick.
Most GMs throw away the written code in favor of something more reasonable and flexible. However, the only written guidance remains that badly written one strike and you're out mechanic. However, this is a houserule. A good and necessary houserule, to deal with one of the game's most poorly written mechanics.
As the player is not in the GM's head, they don't know where the GM's line is, and the mechanics of falling create a mindset of fear. The code, even under a reasonable GM, becomes an enemy and threat that drives the Paladin to wet blanket anything remotely questionable, rather than the code being a friend and guide the Paladin aspires to. Unless, of course, there is a lot of trust and communication about what the code means in this game.
As always, communication is The Most Important Thing.
That's one specific part of the code. There's nothing inherently evil about associating with an evil creature while you are attempting to redeem them. While other parts of the code as written proscribe association with evil creatures, that's not an evil act, which would trigger an immediate fall.
That's entirely debatable.
Which is entirely the problem. The code is written as a one-strike nuclear option, and what triggers The Bomb is quite unclear.
But if you're going by the written rules on associates, simply not getting regular atonement spells as you go for the mere act of associating with the necromancer in order to stop the BBEG is grounds for falling, and the frequency is unspecified.
You can work things out by changing the code and how it works, by communicating, by making it clear you're not going to treat the code as a hammer to screw over the paladin and they don't have to be afraid or shut everyone down, but that takes significant communication and houseruling.
But using the rules that are written, it's not workable by any reasonable measure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't the Paladin be trying to help the Necromancer onto a Better path instead of every one being afraid there is going to be some horrible confrontation? The game can easily go smoothly.
This isn't one of those games where someone announces they are playing a CE character and someone else wants to play a Paladin.
Don't try to fix this in game.
It's all good. The party was three Int-based casters before he showed up asking for a class "that's not too complicated." I was actually the one who suggested paladin or cleric. He was the one who asked for alternatives. I believe the phrase was, "I like the way paladin plays, but I want something that won't conflict with the necromancy."
Pala-bro is a good dude. I'm just trying to help him find that workable alternative.
Emphasis mine. I was going to say that it was his own fault for deciding on Paladin when he knew there was a necromancer planning on creating undead, but then I read this part.
Warpriest and melee-focused Cleric or Oracle are definitely good alternatives here. Yojimbo archetype Samurai is also something to consider.
I mean, he wrote that after I made my comment. His initial post didn't have that information.
As someone who had a very similar (but reversed role situation happen) it was an upsetting process. I was playing a kingmaker campaign as a paladin (and the party had agreed to allow me to serve as the king role since I had the highest charisma) with a party of other neutral or good characters. Then a friend wanted to join, and when he showed up it was with a necromancer sorcerer who proceeded to usurp my character's position as king because they had a higher charisma and declared the country to be evil and necromancy legal.
Before such events occurred I suggested that my character probably would have killed his on the spot or at the very least not continued on with the necromancer in the party. Out of character I was cajoled into continuing despite my reservation. When the necromancer finally made the declarations I made up excuses about why I had to quit that game. It was a very upsetting process.
I'm glad that's not what is occurring here.
I mean, he wrote that after I made my comment. His initial post didn't have that information.
As someone who had a very similar (but reversed role situation happen) it was an upsetting process. I was playing a kingmaker campaign as a paladin (and the party had agreed to allow me to serve as the king role since I had the highest charisma) with a party of other neutral or good characters. Then a friend wanted to join, and when he showed up it was with a necromancer sorcerer who proceeded to usurp my character's position as king because they had a higher charisma and declared the country to be evil and necromancy legal.
Before such events occurred I suggested that my character probably would have killed his on the spot or at the very least not continued on with the necromancer in the party. Out of character I was cajoled into continuing despite my reservation. When the necromancer finally made the declarations I made up excuses about why I had to quit that game. It was a very upsetting process.
I'm glad that's not what is occurring here.
Sorry man. That sucks. I hope you found a more considerate group.
Maybe I'm being daft, but where does Pathfinder consider animating dead an evil act?
The rule was codified in Horror Adventures. I got the copy + paste below from the section titled "Additional Information on the Evil Descriptor" over here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/
"Casting an evil spell is an evil act, but for most characters simply casting such a spell once isn’t enough to change her alignment; this only occurs if the spell is used for a truly abhorrent act, or if the caster established a pattern of casting evil spells over a long period. A wizard who uses animate dead to create guardians for defenseless people won’t turn evil, but he will if he does it over and over again. The GM decides whether the character’s alignment changes, but typically casting two evil spells is enough to turn a good creature nongood, and three or more evils spells move the caster from nongood to evil. The greater the amount of time between castings, the less likely alignment will change. Some spells require sacrificing a sentient creature, a major evil act that makes the caster evil in almost every circumstance."
Cheers for that...interesting...casting Protection from Good 2 times is enough to change your alignment, regardless of what you use the spell for. It goes on to say that it works the same for spells of other (alignments) as well, so as a Neutral caster, if you cast Bless Water or Protection from Evil 4 or 5 times your alignment will shift...which seems a bit much.
It gets more interesting if you explore what the Hell that even means.
Like, if you make a evil criminal drink five potions of Protection from Evil, they become good!
The codified rules for it in Horror Adventures are really weird. It's a roleplaying thing, so the GM should decide how much is too much for casting Evil spells.
Now is that an evil act? Cause your forcing someone to do something against their will, though it'll change their alignment to Good? *head-explodes*
Even if it is, you can just drink a few of those potions, yourself, and you'll be good again!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now is that an evil act? Cause your forcing someone to do something against their will, though it'll change their alignment to Good? *head-explodes*Even if it is, you can just drink a few of those potions, yourself, and you'll be good again!
It just occurred to me that I can wait until 8th level and then draw magic circles against evil as per the occultist ability to maintain my alignment. Ya know... If my GM rules that it counts as casting a spell. Shenanigans!
And now that I think about it, that could be some pretty good RP too. My dude could meditate inside of the thing to dispel the evil influences of associating with undead. Pala-bro would probably appreciate the gesture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since mindless undead don't use the subject's soul, I think a Paladin could tolerate working together with someone who did that as long as they used their undead minions for Good and the enemy was a big enough Evil to warrant needing to, but creating intelligent undead would probably be an automatic "nope, can't work with someone who does that".
"They're summoned, uh, xenomorphs!"
Yo... Are you an actual wizard? This whole thread wound up being a moot point thanks to scheduling problems for my paladin friend. However, I just came back to it today and noticed your oddly predictive post. I therefore thought you would find this amusing: My dude's very first casting of animate dead was for a homebrew Xenomorph:
http://www.penandpapergames.com/forums/showthread.php/15370-Predator-amp-Al ien-(Xenomorph)-stats-for-3-5e?s=86bf801cbf3ea223895479002e5a4145&p=134 979#post134979