Poisadins. Paladoisons?

[Dracoknight]

Well at least it allows the Paladin to use poison to take out vermins, even if a innocent was to be affected it would be the Paladins duty to provide the affected with a antidote when such a event may occur.

Also if its a "Dex-a-din" a Paladin could use poisoned blades in a duel, and upholding his honor by providing the antidote to his duel partner at the end of combat. And in some events even ask for conditions for the duels for him to uphold.

I dont see the lack of poisons from the code as a big issue, however i see it as a very interesting point as it starts people thinking of situations you can use and cannot use poisons to fulfill the code by the hirachy.

[AnimatedPaper]

bookrat wrote:

It's defined as "honorable" to keep the peasants and lesser folk out of the prestigious ranks of the paladins. When *we* do it, it's ok, but when the plebs do it, it's dishonorable. That'll keep 'em down where they belong.

Historically, that's pretty much what it came down to, yes.

Also, I leave y'all alone for a few hours and this and someone refers to JudeoChristrian values (which, btw, is a loaded term, ask almost any Rabbi) to defend their position springs up?

Dishonor. Dishonor on all of you, including your cow.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

graystone wrote:

knightnday wrote:

I hope the paladin isn't taking too many notes from Lancelot and Arthur. They are not exactly paragons of virtue as far as I can remember.

LOL Yep, Lancelot, accused of treason for both his affair with Guinevere and for the homicide of his fellow knights during his escape from the court... SUPER honorable... Nothing says 'paladin' like several counts of TREASON... :P

And even before that, he had a really bad habit of sleeping in other knights' tents that he'd happen across while questing, and then when the knightly owner would return and react in presumably the same way ANYONE would ("HEY! Who are you and why are you in MY tent, sleeping on MY cot?!"), Lancelot would just beat the poor sap up! Rude!

[The Raven Black]

graystone wrote:

knightnday wrote:

I hope the paladin isn't taking too many notes from Lancelot and Arthur. They are not exactly paragons of virtue as far as I can remember.

LOL Yep, Lancelot, accused of treason for both his affair with Guinevere and for the homicide of his fellow knights during his escape from the court... SUPER honorable... Nothing says 'paladin' like several counts of TREASON... :P

More like fallen Paladin TBH

Edit : Just realized that I commented on two of Graystone's posts in a row, which may seem like I am targetting you. I swear that is not the case. Sorry about that :-(

[The Raven Black]

bookrat wrote:

graystone wrote:

So these are 'honorable' but poisons that 'normal' folk can use that do similar things is dishonorable'?

That's it! We figured it out!

It's defined as "honorable" to keep the peasants and lesser folk out of the prestigious ranks of the paladins. When *we* do it, it's ok, but when the plebs do it, it's dishonorable. That'll keep 'em down where they belong.

Or just a magic vs non-magic dichotomy that has nothing to do per se with fantasy class struggle ;-)

[Elegos]

If 2 warriors duel, using the same armour, weaponry, and both their weapons are poisoned, both are in full awareness of said poison and both have agreed to the terms of said duel, is that dishonourable? If so why?

[Unicore]

I am pretty confident that if I have a player that wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae, bringer of Mercy, and she wants to be a studied physician as well, bringing people medicines and healing when she can and ease their suffering when she cannot, I am not going to make her fall for administering poisons to the dying that she cannot help, or who ask her for that mercy. Maybe some of you would, but it would be rather pointless of Paizo to try to force me to interpret the gods of the world I am GMing exactly one specific way, instead of just putting out some general ideas and letting each game take the form that suits it best.

[Neuronin]

Unicore wrote:

I am pretty confident that if I have a player that wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae, bringer of Mercy, and she wants to be a studied physician as well, bringing people medicines and healing when she can and ease their suffering when she cannot, I am not going to make her fall for administering poisons to the dying that she cannot help, or who ask her for that mercy. Maybe some of you would, but it would be rather pointless of Paizo to try to force me to interpret the gods of the world I am GMing exactly one specific way, instead of just putting out some general ideas and letting each game take the form that suits it best.

You could just use your dagger. Warriors in the field used misericords to put suffering knights out of their misery in antiquity and throughout fiction . That said...personally, I don't hold it against anyone to provide quietus to the doomed through medical aid. Nor do I believe that a prohibition against using poisons includes alcohol, medicine, potions, et cetera. That hardly justifies sliming your weapon with blue whinnis paste and getting away with it because it's 'honorable' now.

[Davor]

Neuronin wrote:

On the 'if you wanna be fair, ditch the armor and magic weapons' beat: diluting the argument at hand by trying to bypass genre and themes is poor form, and it merely serves to take up space. Paladin Classic is a virtuous armored warrior who uses martial skill at arms to fight the enemies of law and good. Poisons are widely considered underhanded and illegal; weapons and armor are not. That this needs to be said, in regards to a fantasy roleplay game of this caliber, is embarrassing and trite.

On the 'how is poisoning someone any worse than impaling them'...I agree, in real life! I don't think violence is a wonderful thing. In real life. This is a game simulating swords-and-sorcery adventure fiction. There are heroic fantasy warriors who only use their fighting skills for good, in this game (and if they don't, boom! Lose powers!) Again, trying to divide every point into particles to come to the conclusion 'poisons are a valid weapon for a virtuous warrior, no harm no foul' is a distraction, and I reject it summarily.

You can reject these arguments if you like, but that's just avoiding them. The point is, IF there exists a world in which violence is a task undertaken by the virtuous (which the Pathfinder world is), and there is no fundamental difference between using a Corrosive War Pick, a Vial of Acid, or a bottle of poison in regards to how in pain and dead you make someone, why is one of those things more honorable than the other? IF one of those things is more honorable than the other, what does being honorable even mean? To a paragon of Lawfulness and Good, if honor is arbitrary, why is it important to the class's identity?

[Malk_Content]

Unicore wrote:

I am pretty confident that if I have a player that wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae, bringer of Mercy, and she wants to be a studied physician as well, bringing people medicines and healing when she can and ease their suffering when she cannot, I am not going to make her fall for administering poisons to the dying that she cannot help, or who ask her for that mercy. Maybe some of you would, but it would be rather pointless of Paizo to try to force me to interpret the gods of the world I am GMing exactly one specific way, instead of just putting out some general ideas and letting each game take the form that suits it best.

Its an awesome concept, although only really applicable to low level. Afterall at a certain point, with a few notable exceptions, a Paladin absolutely can heal any affliction.

[Neuronin]

Davor wrote:

The point is, IF there exists a world in which violence is a task undertaken by the virtuous (which the Pathfinder world is), and there is no fundamental difference between using a Corrosive War Pick, a Vial of Acid, or a bottle of poison in regards to how in pain and dead you make someone, why is one of those things more honorable than the other? IF one of those things is more honorable than the other, what does being honorable even mean? To a paragon of Lawfulness and Good, if honor is arbitrary, why is it important to the class's identity?

We've circled around this argument several times, and you handily skip over the cultural context, the historical arguments, and the literal mechanics of the thing each and every time. If you're capable of pretending that poison does not carry significant real-world stigma (and that the game and game worlds are not a disassociated phantasm completely unrelated to and outside the bounds of popular conceptions of morality and ethics), that's your perspective.

If you've got a fundamental aversion to the concept that 'honor' holds any value because the means all lead to a dead foe (which, in the context of real-world ethics and actions, I largely agree with), then that's a personal problem. It doesn't change what paladins were, have been, and what I feel they should be (and, since we're getting LG paladins based on the elder editions as a starter, I'm not alone).

'The ends justify the means' is almost literally the antithesis of Paladin Classic. They're based upon mythic and fictional chivalric knights. They have a fairly simple, fairly loose code that asks a small amount: don't lie. Don't cheat. Be faithful. Be trustworthy. Dosing someone with arsenic or tranquilizers 'because, hey, they're gonna die anyway!' should not fly for a character who's power LITERALLY comes from virtue and purity. The class depends on a higher standard. If you dislike that, if you find it trialsome...fine! Play a fighter. Play a rogue. Play a acid-storm throwing wizard! But, for a paladin, the dog doesn't hunt.

[knightnday]

Neuronin wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I am pretty confident that if I have a player that wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae, bringer of Mercy, and she wants to be a studied physician as well, bringing people medicines and healing when she can and ease their suffering when she cannot, I am not going to make her fall for administering poisons to the dying that she cannot help, or who ask her for that mercy. Maybe some of you would, but it would be rather pointless of Paizo to try to force me to interpret the gods of the world I am GMing exactly one specific way, instead of just putting out some general ideas and letting each game take the form that suits it best.

You could just use your dagger. Warriors in the field used misericords to put suffering knights out of their misery in antiquity and throughout fiction . That said...personally, I don't hold it against anyone to provide quietus to the doomed through medical aid. Nor do I believe that a prohibition against using poisons includes alcohol, medicine, potions, et cetera. That hardly justifies sliming your weapon with blue whinnis paste and getting away with it because it's 'honorable' now.

The problem has been that over the years many a GM has used alcohol, medicine and the like as a 'gotcha!' moment for a paladin in an excuse to have them fall.

The new change doesn't tell paladin players to run out and start poisoning everyone they meet. Instead, it removes the nebulous language and argument about what poison is and how it can be used, giving paladins one less fight at the table.

[AaronUnicorn]

Talek & Luna wrote:

knightnday wrote:

If you don't want paladins to use poison then you adjust it for your campaign, the same way someone might if they want paladins of different alignments.

No, how about if you WANT paladins to use poison adjust it for your campaign. I like the thought of a warrior with Judeo-Christian values that fights for a just cause. If you don't enjoy that idea than play something else. Do not play a paladin.

The Pathfinder Paladin is NOT a warrior with Judeo-Christian values. The Pathfinder Paladin is a Lawful Good warrior who follows a code written in the book and (in PFS or in 2e) follows one of the deities in their campaign setting.

For most of the people playing, that isn't a setting that includes an Abrhamic deity.

Seelah is a Paladin of Iomedae. She isn't a Christian warrior.

[Unicore]

bookrat wrote:

My guess is that historically, people are comfortable with fire and feel like they can defend against it, while chemical weapons are (were) strange and new and people feel defenseless.

I think it would be cool if Paladin's of Erastil refused to use fire as a weapon, due to it's destructive power in nature and because it is supposed to the tool of the hearth and family. I would much rather have individual paladin codes like that then see paizo attempt to create some kind of artificial hierarchy for their entire universe about the morality of each and every way to kill someone.

[bookrat]

Unicore wrote:

bookrat wrote:

My guess is that historically, people are comfortable with fire and feel like they can defend against it, while chemical weapons are (were) strange and new and people feel defenseless.

I think it would be cool if Paladin's of Erastil refused to use fire as a weapon, due to it's destructive power in nature and because it is supposed to the tool of the hearth and family. I would much rather have individual paladin codes like that then see paizo attempt to create some kind of artificial hierarchy for their entire universe about the morality of each and every way to kill someone.

I like that idea, and I think Paizo does as well.

While there is a general code for paladins to follow, all paladins in PF2 will be required to follow a deity, and each deity will have some anethema that the paladin will be required to avoid in addition to the general code.

They do say that the anethema are rather broad to allow for players to customize their paladins. So I think it would be possible to have a paladin of Erastil that avoids fire as a weapon, but not poisons.

[Neuronin]

knightnday wrote:

The problem has been that over the years many a GM has used alcohol, medicine and the like as a 'gotcha!' moment for a paladin in an excuse to have them fall.

That's obviously a bad GM call, and I'm totally against it. Avoiding bad GM calls, however, is not a great excuse to say it's cool for capital-G Good Guys to put basilisk venom on their spear before they do battle with Lord Fauntelcrotch's Skull Raiders, but they ALSO have the Power of Pureheart simultaneously.

Coincidentally, that's why I'm skeptical about the new oath hierarchy: it's there to cut down on bad GM calls, but it doesn't CHANGE bad GMs, it just makes a legalist element out of what was previously a moral code. Bad GMs (and folks who just plain hate goody-two-shoes stuff) will still find a way to screw paladin players, and you've potentially introduced a world of utilitarian 'badass' paladins in exchange for...not terribly much.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Neuronin wrote:

knightnday wrote:

The problem has been that over the years many a GM has used alcohol, medicine and the like as a 'gotcha!' moment for a paladin in an excuse to have them fall.

That's obviously a bad GM call, and I'm totally against it. Avoiding bad GM calls, however, is not a great excuse to say it's cool for capital-G Good Guys to put basilisk venom on their spear before they do battle with Lord Fauntelcrotch's Skull Raiders, but they ALSO have the Power of Pureheart simultaneously.

Coincidentally, that's why I'm skeptical about the new oath hierarchy: it's there to cut down on bad GM calls, but it doesn't CHANGE bad GMs, it just makes a legalist element out of what was previously a moral code. Bad GMs (and folks who just plain hate goody-two-shoes stuff) will still find a way to screw paladin players, and you've potentially introduced a world of utilitarian 'badass' paladins in exchange for...not terribly much.

I think we're beginning to zero in on your problem: you expect the new code to be some cureall for bad players and GMs to never exist in any game ever. Not only is that an impossible expectation, it's also one that the code wasn't meant to uphold or apply to, it's really a roleplay supplement that has mechanical implications for failure to follow the supplement.

The oath hierarchy isn't designed for bad players to be changed, as you expect it or want it to do, it's designed so that players always have a meaningful option to take in the face of any situation, and aren't meant to be caught in impossible situations that GMs may inadvertently throw Paladin players into. That's really all the new code does.

If a GM has a different idea of what each tenet means, that needs to be discussed prior to the start of the game, since Paladinhood is akin to a contract, in that contracts not drawn up (or enforced) by the contractor (the GM) instead benefit the contractee (the Paladin player).

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Elegos wrote:

If 2 warriors duel, using the same armour, weaponry, and both their weapons are poisoned, both are in full awareness of said poison and both have agreed to the terms of said duel, is that dishonourable? If so why?

Yes, and because an honor culture says it is.

Honor isn't a private relationship between two combatants, it is wrapped up in culturally relative notions of face, respectability, reputation, and propriety.

The culture passing judgment (to which the warriors may or may not belong) might have rules against poison for obvious reasons. Discouraging secret murder, arms control, restraining overspending on positional goods, etc... The reasons a culture might ban a given weapon are pretty obvious.

What makes those rules honorable is that they are rolled into the culture's conception of what is appropriate and acceptable. That's all there is to honor. The idea of "non-culturally specific honor" is gibberish. It's like asking "what is objectively fashionable?" it misunderstands what the words means. "Decent people don't do that, they do this" is what honor is about.

If Paizo wants honor to be important to Paladins it is going to run into a bunch of problems. 1) most Americans don't live in an honor culture and have no idea what it means. They will grasp for concepts like fairness or goodness by mistake. 2) 'honor' isn't self defining or generic, it is only coherent in relation to a particular culture's standards 3) Golarion does not contain sufficient moral philosophy to speak sensibly about what Iomedae, Abadar, and Serenrae might think about honor or how Korvosan notions of honor differ from Osirian ones.

I suspect Paizo is aware of those problems as has chosen to remove (or at least greatly downplay) standards of honor from the Paladin in order to have a more generic fantasy setting that requires less work to maintain and adapts more easily to a variety of player's preferences. Compare Golarion to Rokugan for example, Rokugan is explicitly a game about samurai and honor is given a vast wordcount and hundreds of pages to try to explain what the culture actually values. It was a major innovation when Golarion got a sidebar for each of the core deities Paladin's codes. L5R is set in one nation, not Golarion's scores of cultures. L5R assumes the PCs are all members of the samurai caste, Golarion defaults to Pathfinders and wandering mercenaries (the 'hobo' is really the important part of muder-hobo for this purpose, the PCs might be from any nation or culture and may differ from each other and the locals wherever they are, it's a game about atomic individuals not people deeply enmeshed in social obligations), it's a really different setting and probably not one that can support games about honor.

[Diego Valdez]

I have removed some posts and the replies to them. Attacking other posters doesn't advance the conversation, nor does it make anyone right. Do not make posts that attack other posters. If it is difficult to compose a post that doesn't attack other posters step away from the keyboard and do something else. After some time to cool down revisit the post you were trying to make.

[Neuronin]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I think we're beginning to zero in on your problem: you expect the new code to be some cureall for bad players and GMs to never exist in any game ever.

Thanks for the reply! This is...kind of a jump from my meaning, however. I don't believe it's really possible to militate against incompetent DMs or bad-faith players of all sorts. Inevitably, either through mistake, malevolence, or laziness, you'll end up in situations where the paladin's code is unfairly used against them.

My ideal solution would just be a sidebar explaining that the code should be used for roleplaying and worldbuilding opportunities in general, and specifically as a guide for removing the paladins powers when they've gone far over the threshold of acceptable conduct; not an excuse to ruin a player's day for not being, personally, a perfect paragon of moral uprightness (or some as some sort of 'lesson' about the unrealisticness of striving for moral excellence and the supremacy of seeking victory by any means necessary).

I've been watching White Wolf games and other products fail to teach people to not be jerks for a long time, though, so I don't expect that to have much effect. Again, the solution (turning a paladin's code into a mathematized 'program', like RoboCop) cannot accomplish this, and it dilutes the essence of the class as well.

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Golarion defaults to Pathfinders and wandering mercenaries (the 'hobo' is really the important part of muder-hobo for this purpose, the PCs might be from any nation or culture and may differ from each other and the locals wherever they are, it's a game about atomic individuals not people deeply enmeshed in social obligations), it's a really different setting and probably not one that can support games about honor.

I'm not so sure about this assertion. The games Pathfinder is descended from are hardly free of being about wandering adventurers and mercs-for-hire, and they never needed to adulterate the concept of 'honor' to better serve the kids of the 80s, 90s, and aughts. I think it's more of an attempt to refine an obviously fraught subject, and an attempt about which I am skeptical.

[gustavo iglesias]

Talek & Luna wrote:

knightnday wrote:

If you don't want paladins to use poison then you adjust it for your campaign, the same way someone might if they want paladins of different alignments.

No, how about if you WANT paladins to use poison adjust it for your campaign. I like the thought of a warrior with Judeo-Christian values that fights for a just cause. If you don't enjoy that idea than play something else. Do not play a paladin.

OR... play a paladin but pick a background different from that. Like a Garund Jungle paladin that uses a blowgun. Which is perfectly legal right now (minus the poison, which right now sucks anyway,) but it is an awesome character that can be played in the playtest, including the sleeping poison.

You can build your character however you want. You can't build mine, at all. Paizo certainly can set restrictions, like LG only. But if my pigmy warrior of Garund is LG, and follows the code, he is a paladin too.

And so far, in the playtest, poison is fine. When (and if) poison becomes non usable, then my pigmy paladin will use a short bow. But he will still be a paladin.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Neuronin wrote:

I'm not so sure about this assertion. The games Pathfinder is descended from are hardly free of being about wandering adventurers and mercs-for-hire, and they never needed to adulterate the concept of 'honor'

I suppose I have in mind the idea that you can't be honorable all by yourself on a desert island, you need to be enmeshed in a web of social obligations and cultural norms before interesting stories about honor can emerge.

In a Westeros game I can play a feudal knight who has obligations to the faith, obligations to his peasants, to his immediate lord, to his great house overlord, and to the kingdom generally. Those social relationships define the knight's sense of honor and you can get plenty of drama out of conflicts between them. My lord has converted to worship Rh'llor, what does honor demand? My peasants will suffer if I join my lord in revolt against my king, what to do? My lord is a monster, can I break my oath to him?

Setting up all those social connections requires (I think) a smaller more detailed world. Golarion is broad and necessarily shallow, L5R can drill down on those relationships and conflicting duties only because it focuses on one country. Golarion just can't. We've got pirates, 10th century looking crusaders, pulp expeditions to darkest Africa, Eygptian tomb raiders, evil AI's, and swashbucklers in revolutionary France all rubbing shoulders in the same setting. Golarion just can't go into the kind of detail a really social game needs, it's just too big. Over on the War for the Crown sub-forum (explicitly billed as a Game of Thrones style political drama) there is significant disagreement what the Emperor's *name* even is, let alone what his powers and duties are.

Your point about the past is well taken, Faerûn for example is certainly no better, it's a kitchen sink with a little bit of everything as well. How do you define honor for a Paladin who might be a human from Lastwall worshiping a LG deity, a Catfolk from the Mwangi Expanse worshiping a NG deity, or an android from Numeria worshiping an Empyrial lord who only gets one line on a massive table somewhere? What does Aegirran's theology dictate? Or Uskyeria's? Or even Torag's for that matter?

Honor is about living up to the expectations of your culture, but that is only possible if you have a detailed account of what your culture's expectations are, and *that* isn't possible if you have dozens of nations and hundreds of religions in your setting.

[Revan]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Neuronin wrote:

I'm not so sure about this assertion. The games Pathfinder is descended from are hardly free of being about wandering adventurers and mercs-for-hire, and they never needed to adulterate the concept of 'honor'

I suppose I have in mind the idea that you can't be honorable all by yourself on a desert island, you need to be enmeshed in a web of social obligations and cultural norms before interesting stories about honor can emerge.

In a Westeros game I can play a feudal knight who has obligations to the faith, obligations to his peasants, to his immediate lord, to his great house overlord, and to the kingdom generally. Those social relationships define the knight's sense of honor and you can get plenty of drama out of conflicts between them. My lord has converted to worship Rh'llor, what does honor demand? My peasants will suffer if I join my lord in revolt against my king, what to do? My lord is a monster, can I break my oath to him?

Setting up all those social connections requires (I think) a smaller more detailed world. Golarion is broad and necessarily shallow, L5R can drill down on those relationships and conflicting duties only because it focuses on one country. Golarion just can't. We've got pirates, 10th century looking crusaders, pulp expeditions to darkest Africa, Eygptian tomb raiders, evil AI's, and swashbucklers in revolutionary France all rubbing shoulders in the same setting. Golarion just can't go into the kind of detail a really social game needs, it's just too big. Over on the War for the Crown sub-forum (explicitly billed as a Game of Thrones style political drama) there is significant disagreement what the Emperor's *name* even is, let alone what his powers and duties are.

Your point about the past is well taken, Faerûn for example is certainly no better, it's a kitchen sink with a little bit of everything as well. How do you define honor for a Paladin who might be a human from Lastwall worshiping a LG deity, a Catfolk from the Mwangi Expanse...

SF Debris goes into this pretty well, actually. You're primarily discussing external honor--an honor defined by your accomplishments, your standing, your adherence to standards set by the group. Most traditionally, these standards are Klingon/Gorumite warrior values, but one could just as plausibly posit, say, a society of assassins which derives honor from always completing contracts, remaining unseen, raising no alarms, causing no collateral damage, making it look like an accident--or contrariwise, leaving a prominent calling card.

Internal honor is a matter of integrity, of having a code of right and wrong which you stick to. This you could absolutely 'have all by yourself on a desert island', though admittedly there probably wouldn't be much *challenge* to it there unless your code had spcific prohibitions that would make wilderness survival more difficult.

Chivalric codes were essentially a blending of the two, attempting to use the social pressures of external honor to inculcate the internal honor of morality in knights.

[bookrat]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Elegos wrote:

If 2 warriors duel, using the same armour, weaponry, and both their weapons are poisoned, both are in full awareness of said poison and both have agreed to the terms of said duel, is that dishonourable? If so why?

Yes, and because an honor culture says it is.

Honor has different definitions depending on the context it's used.

For example, there is an Honor clause for my own code of conduct from back when I was in the army. It was defined as the following: "Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do."

That is not the same version of honor that you seem to be using.

[Kudaku]

Revan wrote:

SF Debris goes into this pretty well, actually. You're primarily discussing external honor--an honor defined by your accomplishments, your standing, your adherence to standards set by the group. Most traditionally, these standards are Klingon/Gorumite warrior values, but one could just as plausibly posit, say, a society of assassins which derives honor from always completing contracts, remaining unseen, raising no alarms, causing no collateral damage, making it look like an accident--or contrariwise, leaving a prominent calling card.

Internal honor is a matter of integrity, of having a code of right and wrong which you stick to. This you could absolutely 'have all by yourself on a desert island', though admittedly there probably wouldn't be much *challenge* to it there unless your code had spcific prohibitions that would make wilderness survival more difficult.

Chivalric codes were essentially a blending of the two, attempting to use the social pressures of external honor to inculcate the internal honor of morality in knights.

That's a really interesting take on it! The difference you outline between external and internal honor helps me understand why some people struggle with chaotic characters that act "honorable". If we use the different kinds of honor you outline and I understand you correctly, Robin Hood (posterboy of CG) routinely disregards (or even mocks) external honor but values his internal honor very highly. He'll happily rob a corrupt bishop or ambush a tax man collecting illegitimate claims but wouldn't dream of stealing from the little man.

[Revan]

Kudaku wrote:

Revan wrote:

SF Debris goes into this pretty well, actually. You're primarily discussing external honor--an honor defined by your accomplishments, your standing, your adherence to standards set by the group. Most traditionally, these standards are Klingon/Gorumite warrior values, but one could just as plausibly posit, say, a society of assassins which derives honor from always completing contracts, remaining unseen, raising no alarms, causing no collateral damage, making it look like an accident--or contrariwise, leaving a prominent calling card.

Internal honor is a matter of integrity, of having a code of right and wrong which you stick to. This you could absolutely 'have all by yourself on a desert island', though admittedly there probably wouldn't be much *challenge* to it there unless your code had spcific prohibitions that would make wilderness survival more difficult.

Chivalric codes were essentially a blending of the two, attempting to use the social pressures of external honor to inculcate the internal honor of morality in knights.

That's a really interesting take on it! The difference you outline between external and internal honor helps me understand why some people struggle with chaotic characters that act "honorable". If we use the different kinds of honor you outline and I understand you correctly, Robin Hood (posterboy of CG) routinely disregards (or even mocks) external honor but values his internal honor very highly. He'll happily rob a corrupt bishop or ambush a tax man collecting illegitimate claims but wouldn't dream of stealing from the little man.

Definitely one way to read it! Of course, on the other hand, external honor systems are often emblematic of tribal/clan-based warrior/'barbarian' cultures traditionally depicted as Chaotic in D&D...which probably goes to show Law/Chaos is not a very well-defined dichotomy to begin with.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

@Revan
I suppose what the video calls external honor and internal honor I would just call honor and integrity. I prefer my terms because it keeps 'honor' as encapsulating a particular interest in reputation and social standing, rather than a generic sense of morality. You could use 'honor' for all moral systems, but that just flattens the language a bit. I'm not wedded to the terms, I'm happy to use whatever terms you like so long as they're clearly defined, it's semantics at that point.

The more substantive question is whether there is any formal content to the requirement that a Paladin act with honor. Honor (whether internal or external) is a matter of sticking to a code, it doesn't specify what the code is.

I agree that you could have assassins with a murderous honor code, presumably any group could have any code. Even more obviously the internal code a person hold themselves to could be anything.

If the code says a Paladin has to act with honor there are a handful of choices:

a) Take the requirement out of the code.
b) Leave the substance of the code of honor they have to stick to blank.
c) Detail specific codes for each of the hundreds of potential Paladin patrons.
d) Detail a few codes and encourage GMs and players to fill in the gaps.
e) Import the traditional chivalric codes that form the historical basis of the class.
f) Something clever?

I don't like (a), honorable paladins are enough of a trope that I think it would be sad to lose them.

(B) seems like a recipe for misunderstandings and 'why did my jerk GM make me fall' threads. To play the game we've got to get on more or less the same page, and cranking out a code seems like the bare minimum necessary.

(C) isn't possible. I count at least 50 Empyreal Lords for starters, not to mention all the nations and races that might have different honor codes.

(D) is possible, so at least there is that. If the codes don't vary dramatically from (e) then there isn't much point. If the codes *do* vary dramatically I don't know that the resultant class still looks much like a Paladin. Suppose the honor of Kelinahat (the LG Empyreal lord of intelligence, spies, and stealth) has secret agent "Paladins" who put on shinobi shozokolie, sneak around, steal documents, plant forgeries, and poison their foes. Sure, it could be an honor code, but at some point I start wondering why they're built using the Paladin chassis. The classes aren't infinitely flexible, a spy is going to need a lot more skill points and tricks and a lot less armor and smiting than the Paladin chassis assumes. Just play a religious ninja or inquisitor or something rather than trying to bludgeon Paladin class into that role.

(E) isn't great. After all, Glorion isn't Europe, Iomedea isn't Jesus, and some knightly habits haven't aged well. Still, it gives you a Paladin class that is recognizable as an instantiation of an archetype. I'm not wild about it, but I like it better than the alternatives.

(F) is obviously best, but what is it? Any ideas?

[Unicore]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

(D) Sure, it could be an honor code, but at some point I start wondering why they're built using the Paladin chassis. The classes aren't infinitely flexible, a spy is going to need a lot more skill points and tricks and a lot less armor and smiting than the Paladin chassis assumes. Just play a religious ninja or inquisitor or something rather than trying to bludgeon Paladin class into that role.

And this is really the root of the entire problem with trying to figure out what to do with the paladin as a class and attempting to balance mechanics with narrative elements.

Some people really like superman as a character. They want to play the the character who has great power that comes with great responsibility. In a game with much more rigid character class design, I doubt many people would be arguing as vehemently about having a very narrow definition of what a paladin can be. But Pathfinder has incredibly flexible character design with thousands of different flavors...and then the paladin. The more narratively flexible the paladin design becomes, the more mechanically unbalancing it becomes because the two were designed to counter each other.

People who love the superman vibe really hate the weakening of the class to open it up to other alignments and more flexible codes because the more the paladin becomes just like x class, only better, because it gets special divine boons, the stronger the argument becomes for nerfing the things that draws them to the class (smiting evil, divine grace, immunities to fear and disease instead of small bonuses, Divine bond, lay on hands, spell casting, etc.

Also complicating this is the fact that people who like the super powerful but traditionally restricted LG paladin with its specific code, already have that, so any back tracking feels like a loss. They don't want it to be a prestige class and they want to know that it will be a fully supported character class, which getting turned into an archetype sounds like it would limit.

Linking the powers that you get to the severity of the code that you adopt seems like it might be a way to start appeasing everyone, but you probably need a lot more space to explain it than a 1000 word blog to really put people's mind at ease.

What I think it would look like is a cavalier base class with a relatively loose code and modest, balanced powers. Then have a big list of the kinds of codes a character can adopt to become a more specialized holy knight that gains access to powers based on adhering to those codes. Breaking the individual codes would result in a loss of that power until the proper atonement was made, but it wouldn't be an all or nothing "fall." if one tenet was broken to uphold another.

[The Raven Black]

The revision of the Code in PF2 is quite clearly aimed at getting rid of all the biggest Paladin falls cases that appeared on the threads in PF1

[Darksol the Painbringer]

The Raven Black wrote:

The revision of the Code in PF2 is quite clearly aimed at getting rid of all the biggest Paladin falls cases that appeared on the threads in PF1

Even if it doesn't technically get rid of all of the Paladin falls cases, it gives Paladin players a more clear idea of knowing which GMs are "Gotcha" Paladin haters since the code is more concise than it was in the past, since I'm of the opinion that most future Paladin threads for PF2 will probably be a result of Paladin players complaining about their dick GMs.

[Malk_Content]

Unicore wrote:

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

Snip for brevity, and because I'm not really addressing specific lines.

The general idea that a Paladin can have mechanical benefits due to character based restrictions is a really poor idea in my eyes. Someone choosing to abide by those restrictins wanted them for their character anyway, they were going to keep to them because thats the kind of character they wanted to be in the first place. To me it is like dump stats where you dump cha because you never intended to use it. You aren't taking an actual flaw in exchange for power.

[Unicore]

Malk_Content wrote:

The general idea that a Paladin can have mechanical benefits due to character based restrictions is a really poor idea in my eyes. Someone choosing to abide by those restrictions wanted them for their character anyway, they were going to keep to them because thats the kind of character they wanted to be in the first place. To me it is like dump stats where you dump cha because you never intended to use it. You aren't taking an actual flaw in exchange for power.

Malk Content, are you suggesting that the developers do away with the Paladin class entirely then? That seems like it will have some ardent support from some quarters and militant resistant from others. What are your thoughts on the PF1 Paladin, is it a class you discouraged from your own tables?

[Malk_Content]

Unicore wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

The general idea that a Paladin can have mechanical benefits due to character based restrictions is a really poor idea in my eyes. Someone choosing to abide by those restrictions wanted them for their character anyway, they were going to keep to them because thats the kind of character they wanted to be in the first place. To me it is like dump stats where you dump cha because you never intended to use it. You aren't taking an actual flaw in exchange for power.

Malk Content, are you suggesting that the developers do away with the Paladin class entirely then? That seems like it will have some ardent support from some quarters and militant resistant from others. What are your thoughts on the PF1 Paladin, is it a class you discouraged from your own tables?

Putting behind spoiler to take up less space with a slightly off topic tangent.

Spoiler:

Oh no I definitely wouldn't want to get rid of it. Even if its something I personally dislike I'd never desire them to just throw away all the effort that went into it (and to do so would be very hypocritical of me as I argued against those wanting to throw out Goblins). I've also not actively discouraged it from my tables, but no player of mine has even thought about creating one.

I'm merely saying that if there is a roleplaying restriction, it should not mean its mechanics should be stronger to compensate. As those who seek out those restrictions won't be actually restricted by it (they wanted to play with that flavour) and you would have to make the abilities extremely OP to attract those who dislike the restriction but desire the power.

[Unicore]

Malk_Content wrote:

Oh no I definitely wouldn't want to get rid of it. Even if its something I personally dislike I'd never desire them to just throw away all the effort that went into it (and to do so would be very hypocritical of me as I argued against those wanting to throw out Goblins). I've also not actively discouraged it from my tables, but no player of mine has even thought about creating one.

I'm merely saying that if there is a roleplaying restriction, it should not mean its mechanics should be stronger to compensate. As those who seek out those restrictions won't be actually restricted by it (they wanted to play with that flavour) and you would have to make the abilities extremely OP to attract those who dislike the restriction but desire the power.

I see. The issue is that this is already how the Paladin class was built, which is what a lot of the most dedicated "LG only" folks base their argument on. The Paladin class will have to be nerfed considerably to pull it in line with other classes if only mechanical elements are considered in its design. Some of that looks like it has already happened, based upon the paladin blog, but we won't know how much until august.

The relevance to the OP here is that if there are mechanics rooted in the character class design of the paladin, I think elements like poison use should be tied to the exact nature of the code the paladin follows as opposed to a general attempt to fit it in a construction of Honorable fighting.

[Deadmanwalking]

They've already specifically said that thematic restrictions do not grant mechanical power in PF2. So the Classes are all built to be balanced sans Code if that's what people want.

Personally, I don't think that's a big change, as Paladins in PF1 were a solid Class, but not top tier by any means. They only looked overpowered compared to stuff like corebook only Fighter that was pretty suboptimal to start with.

[Unicore]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

They've already specifically said that thematic restrictions do not grant mechanical power in PF2. So the Classes are all built to be balanced sans Code if that's what people want.

where did they say that? I don't remember it being explicitly stated, and it really seems antithetical to the paladin character. Even without alignment, it seems like the paladin would be adhering to some kind of code or else what is the character?

As far as PF1 - I have mostly played Adventure paths and in my experience, the Paladin has far outpaced fighters, rogues, rangers, monks, samurai and inquisitors as martial focused/ damage dealiing characters (these are what I have seen). Smite Evil, Divine Grace, immunities (to fear and disease), and Divine Bond are massive abilities that are almost always incredibly useful in the APs I have played. Their spell list opens up some pretty awesome abilities for a Tanking character as well with scrolls and wands. As a part of a party, the paladin is the #2 character after a wizard/witch in parties I have played with.

I am all for a rebalancing of classes and not as attached to preserving the benefits the paladin has had as some of the folks arguing for preserving its PF1 form, but it seems like if the paladin loses powers based off of a narrative element, then the class is clearly balanced around its thematic restrictions.

[Revan]

Unicore wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Oh no I definitely wouldn't want to get rid of it. Even if its something I personally dislike I'd never desire them to just throw away all the effort that went into it (and to do so would be very hypocritical of me as I argued against those wanting to throw out Goblins). I've also not actively discouraged it from my tables, but no player of mine has even thought about creating one.

I'm merely saying that if there is a roleplaying restriction, it should not mean its mechanics should be stronger to compensate. As those who seek out those restrictions won't be actually restricted by it (they wanted to play with that flavour) and you would have to make the abilities extremely OP to attract those who dislike the restriction but desire the power.

I see. The issue is that this is already how the Paladin class was built, which is what a lot of the most dedicated "LG only" folks base their argument on. The Paladin class will have to be nerfed considerably to pull it in line with other classes if only mechanical elements are considered in its design. Some of that looks like it has already happened, based upon the paladin blog, but we won't know how much until august.

The relevance to the OP here is that if there are mechanics rooted in the character class design of the paladin, I think elements like poison use should be tied to the exact nature of the code the paladin follows as opposed to a general attempt to fit it in a construction of Honorable fighting.

Except it's not how the class is designed. With or without the code, the Paladin is definitely not substantially more powerful than the Barbarian or the Ranger; probably most of the 3/4 BAB classes like the Alchemist and Magus are on a par, as well, and it is substantially *less* powerful than any given full caster.

[N N 959]

DMW wrote:

They've already specifically said that thematic restrictions do not grant mechanical power in PF2. So the Classes are all built to be balanced sans Code if that's what people want.

They've said that...but the class is based on a class that was? In addition, how do they know the class is "balanced"? Do they have a spreadsheet, a formula, a database?

If they want the class to have a certain feel, how do they know that feel is actually "balanced" because they obviously don't have a formula which determines such a thing.

Revan wrote:

With or without the code, the Paladin is definitely not substantially more powerful than the Barbarian or the Ranger; probably most of the 3/4 BAB classes like the Alchemist and Magus are on a par, as well, and it is substantially *less* powerful than any given full caster.

Based on what? How do people know whether classes are "balanced" or not? Effectiveness/Perception, is 100% context based. I ran a certain PFS scenario alongside an Inv Rager Barbarian and the guy kind of sucked. Yeah, he could take a beating, but he wasn't much in the way of offense without Rage. Should have had a TPK but the GM cheated to let us drag someone out without paying the actual action cost.

Did that same mission for no credit paying alongside a Paladin...the pregen, iirc. The Paladin one-shotted the BBEG with Smite Evil.

I used to play City of Heroes. an MMORGP. In MMORPGs, balance is actually something they explicitly strive for. What's more, they can data-mine to draw strong correlations. I can tell you that many people had no clue what was actually balanced given the statistics. So I'm really really curious how people make assertions about balance without posting or referencing empirical data to back it up?

[Unicore]

N N 959 wrote:

So I'm really really curious how people make assertions about balance without posting or referencing empirical data to back it up?

my assertion is that the code for paladins exists as a part of its balance, and has since the paladin came into existence. Why on Golarion would you design a class with such strict standards to be applied across the board to every character that plays the class if it is purely for flavor? Why would there be such an outrage about changing the flavor if there were not mechanical elements attached to it?

And most obviously, the fact that you can lose your mechanical powers for violating your code is a strong indicator that a code that limits the tactical options of a class means that the class would be more powerful without those limitations.

[Deadmanwalking]

Unicore wrote:

Where did they say that? I don't remember it being explicitly stated, and it really seems antithetical to the paladin character. Even without alignment, it seems like the paladin would be adhering to some kind of code or else what is the character?

Oh, I'm not saying they advise removing the Code. I'm saying it's irrelevant to how mechanically powerful the Class is.

As for where it was said this make's Mark Seifter's feelings in that regard pretty clear.

Unicore wrote:

As far as PF1 - I have mostly played Adventure paths and in my experience, the Paladin has far outpaced fighters, rogues, rangers, monks, samurai and inquisitors as martial focused/ damage dealiing characters (these are what I have seen). Smite Evil, Divine Grace, immunities (to fear and disease), and Divine Bond are massive abilities that are almost always incredibly useful in the APs I have played. Their spell list opens up some pretty awesome abilities for a Tanking character as well with scrolls and wands. As a part of a party, the paladin is the #2 character after a wizard/witch in parties I have played with.

I've also seen Paladins in APs. They are good, solid, characters. But not notably more so than an Inquisitor or Occultist or Magus or several other Classes (they tend to have somewhat better Saves than those example, but only somewhat and all three I listed are much better casters). And not anywhere near as powerful as a full caster.

Unicore wrote:

I am all for a rebalancing of classes and not as attached to preserving the benefits the paladin has had as some of the folks arguing for preserving its PF1 form, but it seems like if the paladin loses powers based off of a narrative element, then the class is clearly balanced around its thematic restrictions.

Not necessarily. A lot of Classes can lose powers somehow (antimagic field, a Wizard's spellbook being stolen, breaking code for a Paladin, violating anathema for a Cleric). They don't need to be balanced on this assumption any more than martial characters need to be balanced on the assumption of their weapons never being stolen. All characters can wind up in disadvantageous situations if the GM says so.

If they're all balanced mechanically when not in specific scenarios like that then the game is still balanced 95% of the time, which is fine.

[N N 959]

Unicore wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

So I'm really really curious how people make assertions about balance without posting or referencing empirical data to back it up?

my assertion is that the code for paladins exists as a part of its balance...

Apologies Unicore, my question was not at all directed at you, but at those answering your question.

[The Raven Black]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The revision of the Code in PF2 is quite clearly aimed at getting rid of all the biggest Paladin falls cases that appeared on the threads in PF1

Even if it doesn't technically get rid of all of the Paladin falls cases, it gives Paladin players a more clear idea of knowing which GMs are "Gotcha" Paladin haters since the code is more concise than it was in the past, since I'm of the opinion that most future Paladin threads for PF2 will probably be a result of Paladin players complaining about their dick GMs.

Except that instead of having 2 sources for falling (the code and the alignment), we now have 3 (the code, the alignment and the anathema) and ranking the tenets in alignment order (ie Good > Lawful ) may actually make the Paladin more likely to fall due to alignment change (say a Paladin in Nidal, where traditions are LE)

So, not sure about any net gain here

[Unicore]

The Raven Black wrote:

Except that instead of having 2 sources for falling (the code and the alignment), we now have 3 (the code, the alignment and the anathema) and ranking the tenets in alignment order (ie Good > Lawful ) may actually make the Paladin more likely to fall due to alignment change (say a Paladin in Nidal, where traditions are LE)
So, not sure about any net gain here

This is why I like the idea that some of the paladin's powers should be tied to each aspect of their various codes and "falling" means losing access to that power until an appropriate atonement could be made. I feel like this makes the crime fit the punishment and lets the paladin character have more control over how their actions affect them. Also, it lets the different gods different anathema's grant different powers to the paladin and creates more of a unique feel to the different types of paladins, and could be a good starting point for looking at paladins of different alignments.

[Unicore]

N N 959 wrote:

Unicore wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

So I'm really really curious how people make assertions about balance without posting or referencing empirical data to back it up?

my assertion is that the code for paladins exists as a part of its balance...

Apologies Unicore, my question was not at all directed at you, but at those answering your question.

No worries. I never felt like your comment was directed at me, I just thought it a good idea to connect my claim and my evidence.

[gustavo iglesias]

N N 959 wrote:

They've said that...but the class is based on a class that was? In addition, how do they know the class is "balanced"? Do they have a spreadsheet, a formula, a database?

If they want the class to have a certain feel, how do they know that feel is actually "balanced" because they obviously don't have a formula which determines such a thing.

they are just saying they don't purposely give gifts to Paladin because of the code. The class might end being more powerful or less powerful than others, due to the general difficulty to balance thibgs, just like the magus and the monk might not be balanced either, but it is not a reward. Just like monks aren't explicitly made more powerful for being L only

Quote:

Based on what? How do people know whether classes are "balanced" or not? Effectiveness/Perception, is 100% context based.

How do people claim the opposite then (that the class is more powerful because the code, hence the code is needed to balance out an otherwise more powerful class)?