Poisadins. Paladoisons?

[Warriorking9001]

To put my opinion on the topic, Though I don't know a massive amount about PF2 I wanted to give my opinion on it.

Though some say the "Ends Justifying the Means" mention is a bad example. I feel that the example IS a good one just because of a few things. 1: Cellion hit it on the head about how it's probably better to just put someone to sleep than hit someone with a stick until they fall down...

And admittedly this is more an inquisitor thing than a paladin thing but I just like the concept of that mentioned holy warrior with a chemist's kit.

Admittedly not to yabber about something but it reminds me quite a bit of the Spheres of Might Paladin, the Dirt Spattered Angel (and hell, the whole paladin with a chemist's kit idea came from this anyway). Where it said the use of poisons is frowned upon, but not completely illegal.

I also think that whether poison is right or not for a paladin depends on the faith. For example a lawful good Snake god surely would be more okay with poison than other deities. And what about races that naturally have poison like the Vishkanya? Surely a paladin among these would just see their own venom as another weapon in their arsenal to route out the unclean.

[Rob Godfrey]

Neuronin wrote:

Tranquilizer darts: A). I probably wouldn't imagine that some Lancelot type is spending their time as a zookeeper, this is an edge case to justify an immoral and empty argument. B). A sedative is different from a poison, but you still shouldn't be smearing it on your sword like some scumbag to edge out the competition in a fight.

Quick and painless: if you're using a quick-and-painless poison, what are you using it with? Obviously not some knight's weapon...that's not going to lead to a quick or quiet death. Are you using a blowgun and darts? You're going to make an armored champion of justice armed with a reed and a chemistry kit? This is a thought experiment I don't find compelling

Evening the odds: If you're not willing to risk death against unfair odds without resorting to trickery and crime (and there are almost NO societies that don't consider poisoning a mortal offense), you're not much of a hero. Also, you should probably have some friends? You're a high Charisma adventurer who's probably fairly rich.

Hierarchy of deeds: 'the ends justify the means' is not a particularly convincing knightly argument. Also, dark elves are not a paragon of fair play and heroic action. The poison they use to kidnap people to smuggle them into slavery and sacrifice is not a tool worthy of a hero. If 'save the innocent' or 'protect my friends' can be used as an out for every single possible tactic, trick, or action, then the whole thing is meaningless.

Poison the undead: Getting into ridiculous 'positoxin' territory here. Paladins are well-armed against specifically these foes (you mention holy water, which scorches the unclean through positive-negative interaction, which is violent but hardly dishonorable) and shouldn't need to use a special murder paste or nerve gas as well.

A lot of these are weird edge cases or bad faith arguments that miss a vital point: there is no just society which considers the use of poisons to be anything less than a crime. In Middle Age Europe, poisoning was considered to be...

if you are a misplaced christian crusader you would have a point, paladins aren't, at least not all, ones of Iomadea maybe, ones of Irori or Eristil or Seranrae certainly aren't and should not think that way (at least not many of them) that is before we get to paladins from other cultures entirely. If you are going to ban poisons then ban every item enhancement except holy and maybe axiomatic, they all give an 'unfair' advantage.

[Stone Dog]

I don't think that even in PF2 there should be poisoner Paladins. However, in that grey area between no evil acts and no dishonorable acts where protect the innocent lies there could be a necessary exception made.

For role-playing purposes it would not be plan A to carry poison around and a paladin wouldn't be happy about having to stoop so low to save lives, but I agree that the mere use of a chemical advantage isn't an automatic power down.

[dragonhunterq]

Stone Dog wrote:

I don't think that even in PF2 there should be poisoner Paladins. However, in that grey area between no evil acts and no dishonorable acts where protect the innocent lies there could be a necessary exception made.

For role-playing purposes it would not be plan A to carry poison around and a paladin wouldn't be happy about having to stoop so low to save lives, but I agree that the mere use of a chemical advantage isn't an automatic power down.

I'll be honest here I don't advocate paladins with a bandolier full of toxins. I really don't think anyone is.

For me, I would be giving serious stink eye at any paladin even thinking of carrying around poison on a regular basis.
In my games they will have to do some serious fast talking to persuade me to allow them to carry around a sleep poison.

In the right circumstances though poison use may be acceptable - emphasis on the 'may'. I don't agree with the absolutism of the OP.

[Rob Godfrey]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Stone Dog wrote:

I don't think that even in PF2 there should be poisoner Paladins. However, in that grey area between no evil acts and no dishonorable acts where protect the innocent lies there could be a necessary exception made.

For role-playing purposes it would not be plan A to carry poison around and a paladin wouldn't be happy about having to stoop so low to save lives, but I agree that the mere use of a chemical advantage isn't an automatic power down.

I'll be honest here I don't advocate paladins with a bandolier full of toxins. I really don't think anyone is.

For me, I would be giving serious stink eye at any paladin even thinking of carrying around poison on a regular basis.
In my games they will have to do some serious fast talking to persuade me to allow them to carry around a sleep poison.

In the right circumstances though poison use may be acceptable - emphasis on the 'may'. I don't agree with the absolutism of the OP.

I would have to side with 'depends on the god and culture the paladin comes from'.

[WillDM4food]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Not really, the OP has called using poison a vile and depraved act, so Malthraz' point is good. is a hunter vile and depraved for using poison?

Again, you're conflating things. There is a difference between a depraved and vile act and depraved and vile person. One depraved and vile act does not a depraved and vile person make. I would argue that someone who regularly and repeatedly uses poison, in the context of the D&D world, is in fact a depraved and vile individual. The difference between regular folks and paladins is that even a single act of questionable morality violates their holy vows. That kind of moral rigor opens up a world of fascinating role playing opportunities. If that level of constraint is not something a player is comfortable with, then don't play a paladin.

If we start down the slippery slope of moral equivalency then the idea of what it means to be a paladin disappears altogether. Take the following as an example. A village is invaded every year at harvest time by a group of depraved and vile bandits. This causes much hardship and suffering for the villagers, including some of their number dying each winter from deprivation and disease. A paladin appears. He/She steps up to defend the village from the bandits. While fighting off the bandits, the paladin has to risk his/her life to save a villager from being kidnapped or murdered by a bandit. In the world of moral equivalency, why would the paladin risk his or her life? If the Paladin dies, the village will just be raided again the following harvest season. More innocent people will suffer and die. So just let the bandits drag off one innocent villager because risking the paladin's life risks the greater good? The path of moral equivalency leads directly to a moral quagmire.
What about the classic fantasy trope of sacrificing an individual to a monster to ensure that the rest of the populace is safe from the monster's predations? (Sacrificing a citizen, usually a maiden, chosen by lot to buy off the local dragon being the most familiar example.) Would a paladin be ok with that bargain? The greater good would be preserved after all. I don't think they would. Bargaining with an evil, man-eating monster just to preserve the "greater good", doesn't seem either great or good and I'd argue that no self respecting paladin would ever engage in such behavior.

[FangDragon]

Neuronin wrote:

If we can't agree that putting a lethal toxin on your weapon is a vile, depraved act, then I think that's a gap we're not going to bridge.

Being honest I don't see how it's any worse than sticking a poison free weapon repeatedly into somebody. The net result is (usually) agonizing death either way.

[The Raven Black]

It seems many people still think that poison was forbidden because it was Evil. It wasn't

It was given as an example of dishonorable action. The dishonorable concept stems from Chaotic rather than Evil

I read all the posts explaining why using poison is proper for a Paladin and I cannot help but think of all the cases when players of Paladins were mocked or even scorned by their gaming buddies because the Paladin would refuse to use dishonorable means to victory

How stronger this peer pressure with the new code where poison is now explicitly allowed ?

How can a PF2 Paladin player now refuse to use poison because she sees it as cowardly and beneath her character's honor ?

Is this really being Lawful Stupid ?

What then will distinguish the paragon of Good and honor that the Paladin should be from the common murderhobo ?

[Alayern]

In support of the paladin using poison: Two arguments. One of Mercy, and one of Consent.

In the case of mercy, think of the person who dies a slow and painful death. A stomach wound in an antimagic zone (Mana Wastes), or of terminal illness in the cleric-starved Rahadoum. To let this person suffer, I think, would be against the Paladin's first tenant. While it says they cannot murder, it also says they cannot torture, and having a choice between:

"The wound is too grievous, I can give you this draught to take the pain away and ease you along. May we meet again on Heaven's glorious heights, dear friend."

And...

"I see you're in excruciating pain as you die, and I have this liquid that would take the pain away with the same end result, but I'mma let you suffer, cuz rules."

...seems to favor the first set-up. The actual poison itself is largely irrelevant, so long as it is painless and does as the paladin says it will, a la an ingestible painkiller in a massive dose. It could be said that this is murder but, given that torture and murder are considered equitable within the code, that question's for the gods.

In Golarion, the NG deity of the sun, benevolence, honesty, and mercy, Sarenrae, has a concept within her faith known as "The Final Mercy." Should an evil creature refuse to repent, and their continued existence would cause more harm to innocents, Sarenrae gives her worshippers, paladins and otherwise, to slay them. Particular to her faith is an overriding motive towards harm reduction, and mercy-killing an ailing innocent could reasonably fall under that.

In the case of consent, a paladin who knows he is going into hostile territory could coat his weapon with a numbing agent or paralytic to incapacitate without having to kill. When attacked, the paladin would warn any intelligent attacker, ideally before combat starts. The enemy has to mitigate the weapon anyway, so the paladin doesn't need to keep its presence secret–to wit, keeping it secret would be dishonorable. If the enemy chooses to fight the paladin anyway, they are acknowledging the risk and choosing to go forward anyway. I mean, who really reads the Terms and Conditions?

[The Raven Black]

I wonder which countries in Golarion would allow poison use, especially in combat :-)

For Mercy, I like the coup de grace myself. And I think a Paladin with a blade is far more common than a Paladin with poison

[Captain Morgan]

The Raven Black wrote:

I wonder which countries in Golarion would allow poison use, especially in combat :-)

Any that allows you to stab someone to death or set them on fire or use Dominate Person or....

I mean, there's probably gonna be some cultures and deities that have an absolute ban on poison, but it's not objectively worse than a dozen other things a Paladin is expected to do.

I mean, do you have your Paladin strip off their armor if the enemy doesn't also wear full plate? You're a champion of good fighting for the lives of others, not some insulted noble dueling for an affront to their honor. Poison being a line in the sand is pretty arbitrary.

[Steelfiredragon]

does fight mean duel or battle?

[Paradozen]

Rob Godfrey wrote:

If you are going to ban poisons then ban every item enhancement except holy and maybe axiomatic, they all give an 'unfair' advantage.

Why bother allowing Holy? It is twice the advantage of flaming/frost/corrosive/etc in raw damage, peels back a crucial layer of defense for many enemies you are trying to kill, and the only real protection from it, rather than a quick potion/spell, is casting 3 good aligned spells and shifting to neutral. I mean, sure it is good, but is it honorable? There are literal Angels that are not honorable enough for paladins, being good doesn't make something honorable.

[Rob Godfrey]

Paradozen wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

If you are going to ban poisons then ban every item enhancement except holy and maybe axiomatic, they all give an 'unfair' advantage.

Why bother allowing Holy? It is twice the advantage of flaming/frost/corrosive/etc in raw damage, peels back a crucial layer of defense for many enemies you are trying to kill, and the only real protection from it, rather than a quick potion/spell, is casting 3 good aligned spells and shifting to neutral. I mean, sure it is good, but is it honorable? There are literal Angels that are not honorable enough for paladins, being good doesn't make something honorable.

because holy is smite evil as a weapon property basically. If smite is ok, so must be holy.

[johnlocke90]

Cellion wrote:

Poison has always been a better tool for Paladins than anyone else. Think of it this way, if a Paladin is trying to apprehend the evil cultist leader, he can:

Approach the leader, offer an ultimatum, and then when the leader predictably fights for his life (see: every stat block with morale listing of 'fights to the death'), the paladin takes his sword and cuts gashes into the fellow's flesh until he falls unconscious, almost dead.

Fire a blowgun dart at the leader with sleep poison, knocking him unconscious almost painlessly. The paladin then ties the leader up and takes him to a jail where he can be interrogated.

Which of these two options sounds like its more evil? Because the first one involves a whole lot more bloodshed and pain than the second. Yes, the second is less honorable, but its a hell of a lot more peaceful and significantly less cruel. And in my mind its way more humane than dealing non-lethal damage to knock someone unconscious (mental image: paladin hitting someone with a stick until they pass out, covered in non-life-threatening welts), something that I've seen many paladins do in hopes of not killing their targets.

Aversion to poison stems from real life uses.

IRL, sleep poison isn't really a thing you use against people in a fight. There is a good chance it either does nothing or kills the person outright. Even in modern day, dosage has to be controlled very carefully and you have to hit very specific points on the body. Historically, poisons were just used to kill or horribly maim someone. Generally in traps(like smearing poo all over a stake hidden in the ground to give the victim a horrible infection).

[Neuronin]

Thanks to everyone for their replies! I've found them to be thought-provoking, challenging, and interesting.

Someone earlier asked if a hunter using poisons against prey is a depraved, evil person...I don't think so. I think there is a moral complexity to interactions between creatures at various levels of awareness and sentience (especially in the context of a fantasy game with simultaneous airs of antiquity and creatures that are definitely as intelligent and moral as a human being). But I still don't think a paladin should be doing it.

Raven Black above summed it up well, unaided by my throwing around of the term 'Evil act' vis a vis poisoning earlier: it's not just about alignment, it's about honor and virtue, EXCESSIVE honor and virtue. A (classic) paladin isn't just Lawful and Good, they're bound by a strict code of conduct that, if breached, causes them to lose their abilities, their status. Their powers LITERALLY stem from being gooder than good and fairer than fair.

A lot of the arguments I see break down to 'what if the greater good is served by getting dirty?' The answer, for paladins is, 'so'? They don't get to cut corners. They get all sorts of fancy powers and prestige. In exchange, they agree to do things on the up-and-up, potentially suicidally. Do it right or don't do it at all. Better to die a hero and live in shame. Is this the most utilitarian code of conduct to adhere to? No. If you want that...again, there's a whole wealth of classes that don't, and shouldn't depend on that. But the paladin's whole gimmick DEPENDS on that.

Think of it this way...name some great fictional/mythical heroes who depend on weapons dosed with toxins, see if they match up to the concept of a paladin. Bellerophon was mentioned! That's a pretty good example (mighty warrior, magic horse, slays monsters). Of course, what is the next thing to happen to Bellerophon after the chimera's defeat?

[The Raven Black]

So much weight is given to the Good part of the Paladin that it completely overshadows the Lawful part in some posters view. So much so that the latter might as well not be there

And in that case indeed keeping the Paladin Lawful-only makes little sense

But to me that is not a Paladin anymore.

[Athaleon]

The Raven Black wrote:

So much weight is given to the Good part of the Paladin that it completely overshadows the Lawful part in some posters view. So much so that the latter might as well not be there

And in that case indeed keeping the Paladin Lawful-only makes little sense

But to me that is not a Paladin anymore.

Paladin is already much more Good than Lawful. They radiate an aura of Good, not Law. They detect and smite Evil, not Chaos. Good tenets are a higher priority than Lawful ones in the PF2 Paladin's Code, as well they should be.

[Dracoknight]

Wouldnt the aspect that is more Lawful than Good be the Inquisitor?

[The Raven Black]

Dracoknight wrote:

Wouldnt the aspect that is more Lawful than Good be the Inquisitor?

There are Chaotic Inquisitors of Chaotic deities

I see the Inquisitor as Deity before Alignment and the Paladin as Alignment before Deity. YMMV

[gustavo iglesias]

Poison is considered vile for the same reason ADnD 1e paladins could not use a crossbow. It was declared that way by the Pope, and paladin has always been based in the holy champion of Christianity (hospitaler knights, Templar, teutonic knight, holy grail Arthurian knights, and so on). With the current shift from disguised champion of Christianity, to champions of Golarion /whatever Gods, the use of poison, or ranged weapons like the crossbow, is seen different, God by God

[The Eternal Keeper]

Well, to be fair with the pope and the crossbow, it was not just the crossbow he tried to ban, but all ranged weapons, and only against other Christians and everyone ignored him.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Neuronin wrote:

Think of it this way...name some great fictional/mythical heroes who depend on weapons dosed with toxins, see if they match up to the concept of a paladin. Bellerophon was mentioned! That's a pretty good example (mighty warrior, magic horse, slays monsters). Of course, what is the next thing to happen to Bellerophon after the chimera's defeat?

Okay, how about Heracles? Looking to atone for his sins by performing great acts of heroism, and frequently using arrows dipped in the toxic blood of the Lernean Hydra. And willing to defy gods in order to help people (freeing Prometheus, saving the princess of Troy from one of Poseidon's sea monsters, and wrestling death itself to save Queen Alcestis). Lots of people declare Heracles to have barbarian levels, but his most heroic feats weren't done by him going into a berserker rage, but by being canny and using the gifts the gods gave him.

[The Raven Black]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Neuronin wrote:

Think of it this way...name some great fictional/mythical heroes who depend on weapons dosed with toxins, see if they match up to the concept of a paladin. Bellerophon was mentioned! That's a pretty good example (mighty warrior, magic horse, slays monsters). Of course, what is the next thing to happen to Bellerophon after the chimera's defeat?

Okay, how about Heracles? Looking to atone for his sins by performing great acts of heroism, and frequently using arrows dipped in the toxic blood of the Lernean Hydra. And willing to defy gods in order to help people (freeing Prometheus, saving the princess of Troy from one of Poseidon's sea monsters, and wrestling death itself to save Queen Alcestis). Lots of people declare Heracles to have barbarian levels, but his most heroic feats weren't done by him going into a berserker rage, but by being canny and using the gifts the gods gave him.

Does not really match my headcanon for a Paladin though ;-)

[graystone]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Okay, how about Heracles?

Also Philoctetes, using Heracles' bow and poisoned arrows.

[johnlocke90]

Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety in addition to actual wrong doing. Even if poison use isn't evil, if its viewed as dishonorable a paladin would avoid it to keep his good name.

[kaid]

Neuronin wrote:

There is no 'honorable' way to use poisons. It is almost universally recognized as a severe crime to deploy poison as a weapon, and poison is famously a weapon of assassins, tyrants, and cowards.

I don't mind blackguards and dark knights and such being willing to use it...Laertes in Hamlet sure thought it was a great idea...but if you're going to start off with Paladins as champions of Lawful Good, going out of your way to say it's not a cowardly, dishonorable action to smear a substance intended to cause painful, lingering death (or, in the case of soporifics, dull the senses...like some kind of coward) on your weapon to eke out every possible advantage in a fight is not merely wrongheaded, it's disgusting.

(For what it's worth, in 1st edition paladins couldn't use poison OR flaming oil. Flaming oil is a notoriously famous way to burn down entire forests and townships...not precisely a heroic way to do things, either.)

There are many societies that use poison in every day use for hunting and have done so throughout a lot of human history. If you can light your sword on fire or project cold or some other effect I am not sure how much worse poison is than that. Also there are non lethal poisons that could be very appealing to paladins. If your goal is to bring somebody in for justice using something that lets you more safely apprehend the wrong doer with the least amount of physical injury to them as possible seems pretty nobel.

[Athaleon]

The Raven Black wrote:

Does not really match my headcanon for a Paladin though ;-)

Paladin threads in a nutshell.

[graystone]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety

They are? I missed that part of the code... "must act with honor" doesn't equal 'must APPEAR honorable'.

[gustavo iglesias]

The Raven Black wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

Neuronin wrote:

Think of it this way...name some great fictional/mythical heroes who depend on weapons dosed with toxins, see if they match up to the concept of a paladin. Bellerophon was mentioned! That's a pretty good example (mighty warrior, magic horse, slays monsters). Of course, what is the next thing to happen to Bellerophon after the chimera's defeat?

Okay, how about Heracles? Looking to atone for his sins by performing great acts of heroism, and frequently using arrows dipped in the toxic blood of the Lernean Hydra. And willing to defy gods in order to help people (freeing Prometheus, saving the princess of Troy from one of Poseidon's sea monsters, and wrestling death itself to save Queen Alcestis). Lots of people declare Heracles to have barbarian levels, but his most heroic feats weren't done by him going into a berserker rage, but by being canny and using the gifts the gods gave him.

Does not really match my headcanon for a Paladin though ;-)

But do you think he is a hero? Do you think it is an evil act if heracles use it? Or if Muabdib uses Gom jabbar?

[N N 959]

WillDM4food wrote:

Justifying immoral or even questionable actions is just not part of being a Paladin no matter what kind of armor you wear. If you want to be an "ends justify the means" kind of LG character, be a LG Ranger or Cleric. Erring on the side of honor and decency is part of the Paladin package.

I have to agree that this has been the ethos of the Paladin since AD&D. Regardless of real life examples, the class was specifically designed to force players into moral dilemmas. Paizo seems to acknowledge that, while also hoping to curtail the "no win" situations.

Quote:

Paladins receive tremendous advantages when facing evil foes. Whether it's a matter of game balance or just roll playing flavor, they pay for those advantages by adhering to an extremely strict, sometimes self defeating, moral code.

I agree with you, the point of the class is that you'll struggle with how adhere to the concept of being a Paladin in the context of the game. I think the problem is that the vocal minority on the forums are typically players who want those tools, but don't want to be constrained in how they are used. These people don't value or see the rigidity of the class' moral structure as an asset or defining feature, they view it as an impediment to playing the type of character they want to play.

Regarding poison use, the question we need to ask is why? Why was it taken off the list? Why do it? Mark commented that it's no different than a flaming sword in an combat allowing enhanced weaponry. But that ignores Neuronin's valid assessment that society, at large, views poison use as dishonorable. That's what should matter, shouldn't it? So Mark's comparison is an attempt to rationalize the use of something that is overwhelming viewed as evil/dishonorable. Again, why open Pandora's Box? Is the concept of a Paladin really better off allowing poison use?

Someone earlier in the thread gave some reasons as to what Paizo may be anticipating. Maybe there were situations where GMs were taking a strict liability policy without regards to context. I can certainly agree that if a Paladin had to use a "poison," not to defeat an enemy, but to secure someone for transport, it wouldn't make sense to have that be a basis for falling.

@Neuronin, I would agree with others that Paizo's intention is for the code to empower the GM to clearly identify situations where poison use would be dishonorable and thus preclude its use in normative combat. At the same time, removing poisons explicitly, avoids silly situations like using medicines, buying drinks, etc, being used as a basis for falling.

In other words, I don't think Paizo intends for Paladins to go out and by/use poisons.

[johnlocke90]

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety

They are? I missed that part of the code... "must act with honor" doesn't equal 'must APPEAR honorable'.

Honor is all about reputation. You don't do honorable things because they are good acts(although they might be those too). You do them in order to defend your reputation.

"One can distinguish honour from dignity, which Wordsworth assessed as measured against an individual's conscience[2] rather than against the judgement of a community"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour#Social_context

[dragonhunterq]

johnlocke90 wrote:

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety

They are? I missed that part of the code... "must act with honor" doesn't equal 'must APPEAR honorable'.

Honor is all about reputation. You don't do honorable things because they are good acts(although they might be those too). You do them in order to defend your reputation.

"One can distinguish honour from dignity, which Wordsworth assessed as measured against an individual's conscience[2] rather than against the judgement of a community"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour#Social_context

I disagree.

you should be using the definition of honour that goes:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:

The quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.

A paladin should on every level should be far more concerned with being honourable over appearing honourable.

[johnlocke90]

dragonhunterq wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins as knights in shining armor would be concerned with the appearance of impropriety

They are? I missed that part of the code... "must act with honor" doesn't equal 'must APPEAR honorable'.

Honor is all about reputation. You don't do honorable things because they are good acts(although they might be those too). You do them in order to defend your reputation.

"One can distinguish honour from dignity, which Wordsworth assessed as measured against an individual's conscience[2] rather than against the judgement of a community"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour#Social_context

I disagree.

you should be using the definition of honour that goes:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:

The quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.

A paladin should on every level should be far more concerned with being honourable over appearing honourable.

Paladins are already required to do whats morally right. Your definition would make honor redundant in the Paladin code, while mine would actually contribute something to the code.

Edit: Also, Paladins are Lawful. Lawful people care about reputation because reputation is vital to a functioning Lawful society.

Obedience to authority breaks down if leadership is not viewed as honorable.

[gustavo iglesias]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins are already required to do whats morally right.

No. They are required to follow their code. Lawful Good isn't always right.

[graystone]

johnlocke90 wrote:

Edit: Also, Paladins are Lawful. Lawful people care about reputation because reputation is vital to a functioning Lawful society.

They do? The LN monk hermit living in the wasteland cares about reputation?

johnlocke90 wrote:

Obedience to authority breaks down if leadership is not viewed as honorable.

Does it? Where does it say the paladin is in a leadership role? Does 'doing the right thing' require leading others? A paladin doesn't exist that works alone?

[gustavo iglesias]

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Obedience to authority breaks down if leadership is not viewed as honorable.

Does it? Where does it say the paladin is in a leadership role? Does 'doing the right thing' require leading others? A paladin doesn't exist that works alone?

Even better: a paladin can be a follower too. There is absolutely nothing in the class that entitle you to become the de facto leader of the group just because you can detect evil and heal people by laying hands on them.

[johnlocke90]

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Edit: Also, Paladins are Lawful. Lawful people care about reputation because reputation is vital to a functioning Lawful society.

They do? The LN monk hermit living in the wasteland cares about reputation?

johnlocke90 wrote:

Obedience to authority breaks down if leadership is not viewed as honorable.

Does it? Where does it say the paladin is in a leadership role? Does 'doing the right thing' require leading others? A paladin doesn't exist that works alone?

The monk would be neutral or chaotic if he is a hermit living in the wasteland.

And no, I don't think lawful characters work if they work alone. They become indistinguishable from a neutral or chaotic character.

[graystone]

johnlocke90 wrote:

The monk would be neutral or chaotic if he is a hermit living in the wasteland.

And no, I don't think lawful characters work if they work alone. They become indistinguishable from a neutral or chaotic character.

Nifty. So EVERY lawful creature is REQUIRED to do everything in a group like a herd animal. Where exactly was that written?

For the monk, let's take the Wasteland Meditant. "Some monks journey to remote and isolated corners of the world to find serenity and a heightened sense of awareness." Or Wanderer "Some monks wander the world in humility to learn and to share wisdom and philosophy from their teachers with those they meet, often aiding those who are in need." So LAWFUL monks that hang out in remote areas...

[Revan]

Also, per Pathfinder 1--*very few poisons are lethal.* If it it doesn't do Con damage, it can leave you paralyzed, comatose, insensate, or otherwise helpless, but they won't kill you.

[Talek & Luna]

I see two ways of looking at this dilemma.

1) this version is what I call the "video game" version of poison. Poison is just another tool that PC's & NPC's use and is just another flavor of damage along the lines of fire, cold, lightning, etc. For example Heros of Might & Magic has various poison spells that I will use regardless if I am playing the necromancer army or the human "knightly" armny. My alignment and choices are not affected bythe spells I use and my focus is soley on winning the game by any means neccessary.

2) This is more of the role-playing/simulationist approach. Where even in a highly magical world, governments tend to frown upon poison if nout outright outlaw it. It is heavily restricted in usage and even those who trade in it do not like drawing attention to themselves. Very much of a black market atmosphere where you have to know the right people to get your hands on poisons because it is usually considered unsavory by the poulace so I feel that the paladin runs into too many problems with the usage of poison and I will point these out below.

1) Matter of Law - Most poisons would be illegal in many settings where there is a strong government. You can justify shooting someone in self defense in our modern society much easier than justifying poisoning them.

2) Matter of Perception/Dignity - Poison is usually considered unsavory by the vast majority of the population and the thought of a paladin resorting to poison usage would most likely be off putting to the population at large. I have never heard of a heroic western tale where the hero uses poison to best an opponent. Would the paladin be as inspirational to the masses if they found out that her faith in her goddess was not enough and she had to resort to poison? I doubt it

3) Unsavory reputation - Those who deal in posions don't want it known that they do in most setttings. Theif & assasin guilds don't often overtly advertise their trade. I don't imagine ruffians befriending a paladin and sharing with him on their illicit wares unless it is to blackmail him later.

4) No real need for it. Paladins possess great martial skills, blessings of the gods, spells and smites. Do they REALLY need poisons? It seems like a tad too much.

5) Anyone who can justify poison use can also justify other unsavory methods such as lying, cheating, casting evil spells, etc. If paladins are supposed to follow a code of conduct where these basic tennets are upheld how can poison use be justified? It just breaks immersion

[Talek & Luna]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

graystone wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Obedience to authority breaks down if leadership is not viewed as honorable.

Does it? Where does it say the paladin is in a leadership role? Does 'doing the right thing' require leading others? A paladin doesn't exist that works alone?

Even better: a paladin can be a follower too. There is absolutely nothing in the class that entitle you to become the de facto leader of the group just because you can detect evil and heal people by laying hands on them.

No, its the fact that your charisma is through the roof! People who are very charismatic in life are few and far between. It would be absurd to think that a paladin with an 18 Charisma would not be the de facto leader of the group if there was not another member with an equal or greater charisma

[Talek & Luna]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins are already required to do whats morally right.

No. They are required to follow their code. Lawful Good isn't always right.

Yes it is. That is why it is lawful good. It seeks the most beneficial system for the most people. It is the most inherently unselfish alignment of the nine and the polar opposite of the most selfish alignment which is chaotic evil

[Steelfiredragon]

.... and that everyone is that.
every paladin has to be the party leader. it needs to be in the code.....

bah, what if the paladin who has 18+ cha is a bit reclusive nad or DOES NOT want be the leader.

[Steelfiredragon]

Talek & Luna wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

johnlocke90 wrote:

Paladins are already required to do whats morally right.

No. They are required to follow their code. Lawful Good isn't always right.

Yes it is. That is why it is lawful good. It seeks the most beneficial system for the most people. It is the most inherently unselfish alignment of the nine and the polar opposite of the most selfish alignment which is chaotic evil

so you are saying that LG is best good huh? and this is why the paladin needsto lose the lawful good to any good..

LG is not the best good, and even a LG paladin an be wrong and spend time in the jail for it.
lawful dumb

[Deadmanwalking]

Talek & Luna wrote:

Yes it is. That is why it is lawful good. It seeks the most beneficial system for the most people. It is the most inherently unselfish alignment of the nine and the polar opposite of the most selfish alignment which is chaotic evil

No. You are wrong. The difference between selfishness and selflessness is a Good/Evil distinction. It has nothing to do with Law or Chaos. A LE person is generally every bit as selfish as a CE one, and a CG one every bit as selfless as a LG one.

A CG person also seeks the most beneficial system for everyone. They just believe that to be a system with very few rules so that people can flourish free of such constraints, while the LG system is all about protecting people as much as possible via rules and structure, even from themselves in many cases.

We could argue all day about which is better (I even have an actual opinion), but that's a matter of practicality and not motivation. Neither is more selfless than the other.

[Usmo]

Talek & Luna wrote:

I see two ways of looking at this dilemma.

1) this version is what I call the "video game" version of poison. Poison is just another tool that PC's & NPC's use and is just another flavor of damage along the lines of fire, cold, lightning, etc. For example Heros of Might & Magic has various poison spells that I will use regardless if I am playing the necromancer army or the human "knightly" armny. My alignment and choices are not affected bythe spells I use and my focus is soley on winning the game by any means neccessary.

2) This is more of the role-playing/simulationist approach. Where even in a highly magical world, governments tend to frown upon poison if nout outright outlaw it. It is heavily restricted in usage and even those who trade in it do not like drawing attention to themselves. Very much of a black market atmosphere where you have to know the right people to get your hands on poisons because it is usually considered unsavory by the poulace so I feel that the paladin runs into too many problems with the usage of poison and I will point these out below.

1) Matter of Law - Most poisons would be illegal in many settings where there is a strong government. You can justify shooting someone in self defense in our modern society much easier than justifying poisoning them.

2) Matter of Perception/Dignity - Poison is usually considered unsavory by the vast majority of the population and the thought of a paladin resorting to poison usage would most likely be off putting to the population at large. I have never heard of a heroic western tale where the hero uses poison to best an opponent. Would the paladin be as inspirational to the masses if they found out that her faith in her goddess was not enough and she had to resort to poison? I doubt it

3) Unsavory reputation - Those who deal in posions don't want it known that they do in most setttings. Theif & assasin guilds don't often overtly advertise their trade. I don't imagine ruffians befriending a paladin and sharing with him on their illicit...

I must admit, I don't see much reason for poisons to be seen as especially illicit in a fictional society, where poisoning one's blade is likely less harmful to one's opponent(and less useful to the user) than simply enchanting it. Or improving its weapon quality, or whatever we're calling it in 2e. If I can openly buy scrolls of fireballs that can wipe out dozens of people at a time, I should be able to buy arguably less deadly poisons equally openly. Or are all magic items and weapons now also too unsavory to be sold outside the black market? Should spellbooks now be confiscated as illegal and underhanded weaponry? Ultimately, it seems quite silly to try and force some vague idealized image of medieval chivalry on a fantasy society when it makes such little sense.

[Neuronin]

Personally, I feel like the 'best good' is Neutral Good, as it's supposed to represent a desire for Good without deference to authority or a abrogation of responsibility in pursuit of freedom.

And, I stress, alignment (the 'lawful stupid' argument) is only a small part of what makes Paladin Classic what it is. The first D&D book I ever bought was the Complete Paladin's Handbook, which is one of those great old yammering books that's half rickety old 2e rules and half compendium of historical information and fantasy tropes about knights. Much of the book is spent investigating the MEANING of a paladin's code, expanding the 'be lawful and good and don't do chaos or evil' in ways that the best of gaming supplements (and fictional guides in general) pull off.

That's why Susano-o and Heracles and Rustam and Ilya Muromets and such are all fine examples of paladinhood (even if not 100% flush with Paladin Classic)...mighty, often divinely empowered, known for virtue...but they all make mistakes, fall from grace, and either die ashamed or seek redemption (or die and get redeemed by divine fiat, thanks Skydad). Without that central struggle between virtue and vice, that ability to fall from grace and struggle back to the light, that potential for overweening pride that costs the hero everything...the class loses something essential.

Usmo wrote:

Ultimately, it seems quite silly to try and force some vague idealized image of medieval chivalry on a fantasy society when it makes such little sense.[

A). I should think societies in general would, indeed, restrict the sale and availability of destructive spells and such. Indeed, I can point to numerous settings and products where the regulation of magic is part and parcel of the place, often times even a central element. Waaaay back when I started playing as a kid, our DM was always scrupulous about depicting the differences between freebooting about the savage frontier versus trying to make do in civilization, where we had to pay taxes, obey laws and strictures, and either turn in or hide our thieves' tools and weapons. I personally really enjoy that sort of play, and I don't think I'm alone.

B). We're talking about inherently silly premises. I don't think attempting to ground a fantasy in something approaching reality is silly...it's not strictly necessary, but I'd rather play a world-depicted-in-game than a game-depicted-as-world.

C). Also, again...the force towards fantasy goody-good chivalry isn't just coming from me. It's built into the class. Take a look at the iconic paladin. Take a look at another iconic paladin. Keep looking. They LITERALLY get a magic horse as a class feature.

[Jurassic Pratt]

I'll bring it up again, how are poisons different or worse than bane weapons or slaying arrows? Or hell, even Corrosive weapons?

They're all designed to make you more effective at fighting an opponent. In fact, poisons will actually have less impact on average than the others.

Poisons are not in any way more dishonorable than making your weapon "become slick with acid" or magic weapons specifically made to be more damaging/painful to creatures.

[graystone]

Talek & Luna wrote:

No, its the fact that your charisma is through the roof! People who are very charismatic in life are few and far between. It would be absurd to think that a paladin with an 18 Charisma would not be the de facto leader of the group if there was not another member with an equal or greater charisma

So that means that by default the sorcerer with a 20 cha would then instead be the de facto leader? Face it, there are plenty of other classes that are as likely to have or beat a paladins cha.

Secondly, high cha isn't the only thing used to pick a leader. The 'face' doesn't need to 'command'.