|
Yes, that's MY POINT. Poison is NEITHER good or evil, hence you have to look at culture to see if it's honorable as there is NO universal constent for honor in pathfinder.Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
Actually there was kind of an unwritten one implicit in the PF1 code
It is far less present in PF2 yet still there (the lying thing)
But way I see it, the order of tenets is a definition of honor that applies to all Paladins whatever their cultural background. A meta-honor if you wish
I think we need to get back to the basics:
What is honor?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there was kind of an unwritten one implicit in the PF1 code
Not really. The code is a set of conduct and that conduct INCLUDES being honorable with a very limited set of examples [not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth].
But way I see it, the order of tenets is a definition of honor that applies to all Paladins whatever their cultural background. A meta-honor if you wish
I see the code as a code and not a definition of honor unless the entirity of acting with honor is [never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others]. Even that leaves what is thought of as "cheating", "lying" and "taking advantage" up to the culture: if it's an expected tactic, it none of those.
In-game there is no discussion, it's defined even if players/GMs can't agree OOC.
Here isn't? WHy wouldn't characters with different honors debate on what is and isn't honorable? How does the paladin know how to act?
I'm not following your logic here.
What you are saying is that even characters of non-human race/cultures that have never encounters humans are none the less required to follow a set of honor rules they have never heard of. How does that non-human paladin follow an honor they have no experience in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Culture is an irrelevant in-game mechanic for determining a paladin’s code because the paladin’s powers do not come from a cultural oath but a divine oath. The tenets of that code would have to be understood by the paladin to swear the oath and be granted those powers. Therefore the GM has a responsibility to discuss some of these issues with the paladin player, preferably before hand, but at least in warning before they take an action that falls outside the code.
If you want to GM paladins universally away from poison, make sure your player knows it and defend it from the perspective that thier god finds it dishonorable, or immoral or unlawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Culture is an irrelevant in-game mechanic for determining a paladin’s code because the paladin’s powers do not come from a cultural oath but a divine oath
It's a divine oath to follow a cultural oath [be honorable]. Do gods drop off honor manuals to new paladins?
Secondly, if you fold honor into the divine oath, is then varies by god and isn't a universal constent. This then brings up people worshiping the cultural variant of the god that might have different ideals of honor.
When I say there is no in-game debate, I mean in terms of whether a creature acts in accordance with an alignment. It is irrelevant what the PC believes to be true.
Didn't we agree we weren't talking about alignment? I'm talking honor and wondering who is responsible for spreading the 'one true human honor system' to the world.
Because a creature's oath taking is an affirmative act. A Paladin elects to take the oath and follow the Paladin's code.
The oath is to act honorably: it only gives a few example of that. Outside of those example, the oath doesn't cover it AT ALL. Why would a paladin that upholds his societies honor to the letter run into any issue about an oath to act honorably? The oath wasn't to 'act with medeval HUMAN trial by combat honor' but 'act with honor'.
Culture is an irrelevant in-game mechanic for determining a paladin’s code because the paladin’s powers do not come from a cultural oath but a divine oathIt's a divine oath to follow a cultural oath [be honorable]. Do gods drop off honor manuals to new paladins?
Not literally, but they don't really have to and the reason is not really culturally rooted in the pathfinder universe. When a Paladin takes their oath, it is very reasonable to assume that their deity invests their power into them because they trust that the internal moral compass of the character is capable of discerning the intentions of the code. That is not to say that the paladin wont eventually fall but if they do, it should be because they realize it on some level, that they have intentionally made a choice that violated the code.
What does that look like in play? It means that the GM is clearly communicating the expectations of the game to the player and if the player is going to do something to make their character fall, the player should be aware that that choice was made.
What is the alternative? Is paladinhood a secret moral trap designed by asmodeus to make otherwise good people turn evil because they are attempting to uphold an impossible standard?
While that sounds fun for a work of fiction, it doesn't sound fun as a big reveal to all the players of a game that has been going on for 10 years (just looking at pathfinder).
I agree that adding cultural constructs to the paladin code is a mistake because that becomes way to difficult for any designer or GM to attempt to legislate on a wide scale in a productive manner, and it is not necessary.
Whether it agrees with my position or not, I really hope that the CRB makes it clear where paladins get their power and how they are beholden to that power source in a manner that is clear and concise for the sake of players and GMs alike.
Regardless of whether you understand what 55 MPH means, you are either in violation of the speed limit or not. That is how alignment works in Pathfinder.
This is a great example, because depending on the culture, your conclusion isn't true.
In some cultures, you're exactly correct. However, I've lived in other cultures which say that it's ok to exceed the posted limit (ie not in violation of the speed limit) if the speed you're going is the same speed that everyone else is going. This is called "the speed of traffic" and it's actually MORE dangerous to go the posted speed limit if that speed is different than everyone else. If everyone else is doing 30, it's too dangerous to go 55. Likewise if everyone else is going 80, it's too dangerous to go 55. You go the speed to traffic, not the posted speed limit. But this is a cultural thing, and not all cultures believe it to be true.
Quite literally, depending on the culture, if the speed limit is 55, if everyone else is going 80, and if you are doing 55, then you may or may not be violating the law. In my home towm, you would be the one getting the ticket. In other places I've lived, everyone else would be getting a ticket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether it agrees with my position or not, I really hope that the CRB makes it clear where paladins get their power and how they are beholden to that power source in a manner that is clear and concise for the sake of players and GMs alike.
I agree, it needs to be clear. I'm not sure that a 'one true honor' rule is apropriate though. Different gods, and different aspects differing do to culture, will have different ideas of honor. Why would a god of commerce hold the same idea of honor as a god of mercy or one of strategy? I can't see different pantheons + different cultures comming to the same conclusions.
IMO, along with the anethmas should be a 'views on honor' section. Then it would be nice to have a section under the nations of the world and/or races to have a section like that too or in a big book of paladin/honor.
It seems a lost opertunity if paladins, no matter their race, culture or god have corbon copy thoughts on honor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. You're using a disanaloy and talking about whether someone is breaking the law. Whether you are breaking the law is irrelevant to whether you are going faster than, equal to, slower than the posted speed limit. More importantly, your understanding of the speed limit is irrelevant to your state with regards to it. Alignment works the same way.
:/
You said "violation of the speed limit." That's talking about the law, not about relative speed. There is no violation if there's no legal requirement to follow it.
But ok. Let's go with that. Let's go with "technically faster or slower or equal to the posted limit" as an analogy for "technically good or evil according to the universe."
Technically being Good according to the universe is a different thing than being Honorable, as they're two different clauses in the Code. So bringing up good and evil is irrelevant to the discussion of poison use in regards to Honor. Additionally, we know from the devs that using poion is not classified as Evil or even Not-Good, because the devs say a paladin can use it. Therefore, the physical use of poison is irrelevant to whether it's against the code - what's relevant is how it's used and what it's used for.
|
Search: N N 959. No citations found.Do you have an actual quote from TSR or Gary Gygax? If not, you're talking out of your nether region.
The debate here was if paladins were given "gifts" because they had a code, or were specially powerful because of said code, which would mean making the code more relaxed would made them "unbalanced" because they'd get "free stuff without a counterpart". They didn't, and they don't.
There is a passage on crating your character in the Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition DMG where using lawful and good alignments were penalties to balance out greater powers for a class. So were restrictions on wealth and amount of magical items used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
crating your character
Do you often package your characters in a slatted wooden box? ;)
|
|
Culture is an irrelevant in-game mechanic for determining a paladin’s code because the paladin’s powers do not come from a cultural oath but a divine oathIt's a divine oath to follow a cultural oath [be honorable]. Do gods drop off honor manuals to new paladins?
Secondly, if you fold honor into the divine oath, is then varies by god and isn't a universal constent. This then brings up people worshiping the cultural variant of the god that might have different ideals of honor.
When I say there is no in-game debate, I mean in terms of whether a creature acts in accordance with an alignment. It is irrelevant what the PC believes to be true.Didn't we agree we weren't talking about alignment? I'm talking honor and wondering who is responsible for spreading the 'one true human honor system' to the world.
Because a creature's oath taking is an affirmative act. A Paladin elects to take the oath and follow the Paladin's code.The oath is to act honorably: it only gives a few example of that. Outside of those example, the oath doesn't cover it AT ALL. Why would a paladin that upholds his societies honor to the letter run into any issue about an oath to act honorably? The oath wasn't to 'act with medeval HUMAN trial by combat honor' but 'act with honor'.
Yes, a God or Goddess does pass down direct commandments to a paladin. A paladin is a divine follower. The paladin accepts the rules No human example of an enlightened society uses poison as an acceptable means of dealing with other humans. Honor is defined by being truthful, keeping your word, fighting people in honorable combat, not resorting to dirty tricks such as poison use. Every modern western military has rules against poison use, ESPECIALLY in regards to coating weapons in combat as well as prohibitions against poisoning wells and water streams. You can google it. Stop trying to make excuses by using less technologically advanced societies as a basis for allowing poison. In modern culture it is taboo for any heroic and or civilized, professional soldier to use it.
|
|
No. You're using a disanaloy and talking about whether someone is breaking the law. Whether you are breaking the law is irrelevant to whether you are going faster than, equal to, slower than the posted speed limit. More importantly, your understanding of the speed limit is irrelevant to your state with regards to it. Alignment works the same way.
:/
You said "violation of the speed limit." That's talking about the law, not about relative speed. There is no violation if there's no legal requirement to follow it.
But ok. Let's go with that. Let's go with "technically faster or slower or equal to the posted limit" as an analogy for "technically good or evil according to the universe."
Technically being Good according to the universe is a different thing than being Honorable, as they're two different clauses in the Code. So bringing up good and evil is irrelevant to the discussion of poison use in regards to Honor. Additionally, we know from the devs that using poion is not classified as Evil or even Not-Good, because the devs say a paladin can use it. Therefore, the physical use of poison is irrelevant to whether it's against the code - what's relevant is how it's used and what it's used for.
That does not mean that the developers are not 100% wrong because in this instance they absolutely are.
They are simply making an excuse for the alchemist class which is a weak excuse. There are many potent alchemical formulae that do not require poison. Heck, if they are going to remove the concept of good and evil from fantasy, which is a huge no-no, they should just get rid of the designation of evil spells. If paladins want to create undead from sinners that have been lawfully tried and convicted of their crimes then who are the Paizo developers to say that she cannot do so!
|
|
Regardless of whether you understand what 55 MPH means, you are either in violation of the speed limit or not. That is how alignment works in Pathfinder.This is a great example, because depending on the culture, your conclusion isn't true.
In some cultures, you're exactly correct. However, I've lived in other cultures which say that it's ok to exceed the posted limit (ie not in violation of the speed limit) if the speed you're going is the same speed that everyone else is going. This is called "the speed of traffic" and it's actually MORE dangerous to go the posted speed limit if that speed is different than everyone else. If everyone else is doing 30, it's too dangerous to go 55. Likewise if everyone else is going 80, it's too dangerous to go 55. You go the speed to traffic, not the posted speed limit. But this is a cultural thing, and not all cultures believe it to be true.
Quite literally, depending on the culture, if the speed limit is 55, if everyone else is going 80, and if you are doing 55, then you may or may not be violating the law. In my home towm, you would be the one getting the ticket. In other places I've lived, everyone else would be getting a ticket.
The paladin code does not bend to the fact that you are in a different culture. You would be expected to uphold the tenants of your deity regardless. For example, you stated you were in the military. During the time you were part of the service, you are expected to follow military rules and regulations regardless of where you are stationed and you could be penalized by your branch of service for not following a rule or regulation even if the local culture or government did not have a prohibition in place for the rule your broke under your military code of conduct. Same rule applies for paladins. If you want to play a less stringent character then play any other class except a paladin.
Cultural rules & norms < paladin code
|
|
Way I see it, the question of poison is just a matter of heirarchy.
You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.
You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.
You must act with honor, never cheating, lying, or taking advantage of others.
You must respect the lawful authority of the legitimate ruler or leadership in whichever land you may be, following their laws unless they violate a higher tenet.no evil: does not speak of poisons
no harming an innocent: Based on my reading of this, if poison would reasonably improve your chances of saving the innocent - knock out a serial killer, or more quickly stop some brigands who are raiding a caravan, just to name the first two options to come to mind, then it would be virtually REQUIRED not just allowed. If it wouldn't, then the code is silent in this tenet.
act with honor: well, as poison was specifically called out as being REMOVED from the list, it's not inherently a violation. Which means, it's no different from other weapon enhancements, and not dishonorable - unless it violates the rules of a contest, in which case it's cheating and thus forbidden. I'd like to note that open battle does not generally count as a contest, or the like.
Finally, the law: if it's illegal and not required by the second, then forbidden. If either it's legal or it's necessary to greatly improve the chances to save an innocent, then the exception to this tenet makes this part silent.
That's the problem. Poison should not be removed from the list. It is distinctly dishonorable. All western militaries say it is outside the bounds of honorable combat. Just google is poison allowed in US military combat? and you will get a resounding no for any type of weapon use.
The only exception I could find would be for flashbangs and tear gas as they do not classify an irritant as a true poison for purposes of the rule. The only other exception I could find was for a tranquilizer. Anything that would cause damage as a poison is expressly forbidden even if that damage is no where near fatal. So ironically, drow sleep poison may be allowed for use in the United States Armed Forces but a poison vial doing 1D4 damage would be illegal and subject you to war crimes.
Now, does this mean that paladins should use poison? Absolutely not! Paladins are not supposed to be played as walking the fine line. They are the example of having a rigid code that separates them from their enemies and allies. Stop trying to force paladins into the grey. They do not belong there
|
|
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.
I am sorry that a DM caused your paladin to fall because he took a sip of alcohol or used medicine to help someone. That is cruel beyond belief. I wouldn't consider that DM a friend nor would I play in her games.
That type of play however does not justify swinging the paladin 180 degrees in the other direction and allowing poison use in combat and subterfuge as viable options. Paladins should always be above such underhanded tactics
|
|
You will get very different definitions of Good or Evil depending on the culture of your GM. Culture plays a very big role in determining good or evil in Pathfinder.Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.Poison use isn't strictly against code, but that doesn't mean its use can't be evil or dishonorable.Nothing says it can't be good and honorable either... Hence the talk of cultures. With 2e, it's neither dishonorable or evil at base.
So you are saying that Lamashtu is good if your culture envisions her as such? I would completely disagree and say that you are being duped. Gods are static representations of an ideal. They do not change alignment on a whim. Lamashtu can't grant you Good spells just because you want her to
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying that Lamashtu is good if your culture envisions her as such?
In Holomog they worships a female version of Asmodeus known as the Wily Linguist: They treat Asmodeus as a LN god, meaning a LG cleric can worship her. Culture matters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin code does not bend to the fact that you are in a different culture.
Umm.. that's literally part of the new Paladin Code. You have to abide by the laws of whatever country you're in. And since the paladin doesn't follow a specific country, then it doesn't matter if their home country forbids something or allows something that this new country does not. They have to follow the laws of the country they're in.
You would be expected to uphold the tenants of your deity regardless.
Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing the entire thread. And if the deity had no qualms about poison, then it's not against their code. It's entirely dependent on the deity and the current country/culture the paladin is located in.
For example, you stated you were in the military. During the time you were part of the service, you are expected to follow military rules and regulations regardless of where you are stationed and you could be penalized by your branch of service for not following a rule or regulation even if the local culture or government did not have a prohibition in place for the rule your broke under your military code of conduct.
That's not always true. There's no drinking age in Germany, and my fellow soldiers under the age of 21 were allowed to go out drinking, depsite it being illegal in the US.
One guy in my unit, whom I went drinking with nearly every weekend, got out of the army just after we returned from a tour in Iraq. His 21st birthday was in 2 weeks when he got home, and he wasn't allowed to drink back home.
The military didn't care one way or another. Therefore, drinking under 21 was allowed for us when we were stationed in Germany.
Same rule applies for paladins. If you want to play a less stringent character then play any other class except a paladin.
Cultural rules & norms < paladin code
The only thing a paladin must abide is his deity, his code, and the laws of the country he is currently in. If the laws of the current country and his deity have no issues with poison, then it isn't a violation.
|
|
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.
It may be a loaded term to you but that is exactly what the paladin is taken from.
Could I see a paladin in Ancient Greece/Rome? Nope
Does it borrow any tropes from Japanese/Chinese/Korean cultures? Maybe the lawful alignment but thats about it.
Does it borrow tennants from Buddishm, Shinto or Dao? None that I can tell.
Go back and look at the history of the paladin and you will see that from Gary Gygax's earliest thoughtson it was the white knight in shining armor. That is a heavily Christian & European trope. Heck the cleric was envisioned as a knightly order akin to the Templars and Hospitilars. Gygax said as much in interviews.
"As others have already explained, it was originally because Gygax was inspired by the stories of Bishop Turpin. While game balance was later cited as a reason to continue it, it was not the reason originally — note that in the original Dungeons & Dragons, all weapons did the same damage: 1d6. Thus, other than the availability of certain magical weapons, there was no advantage to being able to use a sword."
This quote was taken from https://www.quora.com/In-Dungeons-Dragons-why-are-clerics-forbidden-from-us ing-edged-weapons
|
|
The paladin code does not bend to the fact that you are in a different culture.Umm.. that's literally part of the new Paladin Code. You have to abide by the laws of whatever country you're in. And since the paladin doesn't follow a specific country, then it doesn't matter if their home country forbids something or allows something that this new country does not. They have to follow the laws of the country they're in.
You would be expected to uphold the tenants of your deity regardless.Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing the entire thread. And if the deity had no qualms about poison, then it's not against their code. It's entirely dependent on the deity and the current country/culture the paladin is located in.
For example, you stated you were in the military. During the time you were part of the service, you are expected to follow military rules and regulations regardless of where you are stationed and you could be penalized by your branch of service for not following a rule or regulation even if the local culture or government did not have a prohibition in place for the rule your broke under your military code of conduct.That's not always true. There's no drinking age in Germany, and my fellow soldiers under the age of 21 were allowed to go out drinking, depsite it being illegal in the US.
One guy in my unit, whom I went drinking with nearly every weekend, got out of the army just after we returned from a tour in Iraq. His 21st birthday was in 2 weeks when he got home, and he wasn't allowed to drink back home.
The military didn't care one way or another. Therefore, drinking under 21 was allowed for us when we were stationed in Germany.
The only thing a paladin must abide is his deity, his code, and the laws of the country he is...Same rule applies for paladins. If you want to play a less stringent character then play any other class except a paladin.
Cultural rules & norms < paladin code
The drinking laws are true because commanders let that slide. I had a relative who's brother suffered from alcoholism because he was stationed in Germany where the beers were much more potent than in the US.
But as an example you can be brought up on Court Martial charges for committing adultery while serving although there is no legal charge in civilian life for adultery. Adultery can be used as grounds for separation or divorce but you cannot be jailed for being an adulterer in civilian life.
The point is no deity of paladins should allow poison for paladins. It goes against everything in culture about paladins and is flat out wrong. The United States would jail you as a soldier for any use of posion in combat, especialy for coating weapons or using it to poison wells and water streams. I looked it up in the army field manual. The navy and marines have similar admonitions against it. You will be brought up on war crimes charges if they can prove you used poison.
It is also inherently unlawful and I cannot see governments admitting to its use let alone allowing unregulated sale or usage of it. I don't know how you could square that in any campaign, espcially a low magic one were detecting poisons would be very difficult without magic. Ergo, Lawful decress against poison use would stop a paladin even if his deity for whatever reason would not. Even drow society would execute someone caught using poison as the offense of being caught is worse than the actual crime
|
|
So you are saying that Lamashtu is good if your culture envisions her as such?In Holomog they worships a female version of Asmodeus known as the Wily Linguist: They treat Asmodeus as a LN god, meaning a LG cleric can worship her. Culture matters.
No way. Asmodeus is suckering those saps. There is no way he could grant paladins their powers even if he wanted to. If he can then shame on Paizo for screwing over paladins.
Imagine doing good deeds all your life and being consigned to the Nine Hells because your idiot culture couldn't detect a deciever like Asmodeus. Boy would I be steamed as a player. I have had some pretty Evil DMS but if Paizo allows that kind of baloney then they take the cake for cruelty beyond belief. That would be the ultimate "gotcha" way to make a paladin fall
I would suspect that aspect is not Asmodeus but just another deity with similar features. But then again I do not know the setting as well since it has been years since I played in it. Paizo has stated that astral beings like angels, demons and devils cannot change since they are manifestations of an ideal. Gods are no different, even a chaotic neutral deity cannot be whatever she wants. If she took on a lawful persona I would think that would create quite a bit of dissonance. If it didn't then every deity would be neutral to get the best of everything
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main issue is that people keep throwing around Honor like it's a word with a very specific definition, particularly in regards to combat, but the vast majority of people refuse to define specifically what it is.
Bookrat, for what it's worth, I actually have read your posts. I never responded to them because, internally, I always just went: "Cool. That seems reasonable," and just never put the words down for it. That's the thing: It's just really reasonable. Good job.
As for the honor thing, I'll be waiting for a hard definition of Honor, specifically in regards to combat, so that we can dissect whether or not it is appropriate for the game, or matters logistically.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitions of Good, Evil, Honor, etc. are rarely given because the chance of getting something wrong approaches 100%. Philosophers can't come up with a final answer that can't be poked full of holes, so what are the odds that some game designers will hit upon the solution? Too broad and you don't account for corner cases. Too specific and it's vulnerable to self-contradiction and inconsistency, or to being gamed (e.g. "my Paladin didn't lie, he merely implied an untruth!"). And, not that I think Paizo would do it, there's a chance to get things really wrong and make your system of morality a complete joke: Just look at the Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness.
One reason alignment is so contentious is that the idea of actions being Good or Evil intrinsically, regardless of intent or consequences, is so far removed from most people's moral sense (how many strict deontologists do you know?) that it's deeply unsatisfying even in a fictional world. Morality in Golarion is informed by culture—that of the authors—and while most of us belong to it, many of us will not agree with them about everything. It breaks immersion whenever it contradicts itself, which will happen constantly in a setting whose fluff and rules have many different authors. Additionally, the enormous implications of alignment being a universal physical quantity are never taken to their conclusion. Partly because it's a ton of work to figure out how civilization and culture would develop in such a different world, and partly (I suspect) because it would result in a very different and much less fun setting in which culture is irrelevant. That is how morality in Golarion, and under the alignment system in general, works—and why I would rather get rid of it.
What is balance in a game where the context has nearly infinite possibilities? What are we "balancing?" XP per hour? Gold per hour? Damage per attack? Average change to get hit?
Balance in a complex game is not simple, but it's real, and achievable. Possibilities are infinite, but some possibilities are far more possible than others. I think the best metric is the Same Game Test, which is essentially a measure of ability to handle a wide variety of challenges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bookrat, for what it's worth, I actually have read your posts. I never responded to them because, internally, I always just went: "Cool. That seems reasonable," and just never put the words down for it. That's the thing: It's just really reasonable. Good job.
Thanks! You weren't one of those who it was directed at, even if we've verbally sparred in this thread before. :)
It was more directed at those who insist on that specific undefined definition of honor. Which is still undefined as of this post, despite it being requested by multiple people multiple times.
Definitions of Good, Evil, Honor, etc. are rarely given because the chance of getting something wrong approaches 100%.
Here's the definition of Honor as it's used in my own code:
"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."
It absolutely can be defined, as I've just shown. It's just not a definition that is universal. And that's what I've been arguing this whole thread: that the Honor clause of the paladin code must be defined by the specific culture (whether that culture is from their deity, religious organization, country, people, or something else).
And if Honor is defined by a culture (which some people are adamantly refusing to accept), then there will be some cultures which don't care about poison use. And therefore there will be some paladins where the use of poisons is not a violation of the Honor Clause.
We're standing on this battle line of Honor, because that's the last refuge of those who claim that paladins can't ever use poisons. The only other thing restricting them from using it would be 1) God, 2) Law. If God doesn't say no and Law doesn't say no, what's left?
Everyone agrees that if God says No and Law says No, then the answer is No. But what about the other times? Some have claimed that No True Scotsman God will ever allow poisons, but that's yet to be seen.
What's left? A vague notion of it being dishonorable. So what's honor? [Cricket sounds]
Well, I've provided a definition of Honor. I think I'm the only one who's done so. And my definition doesn't preclude the use of poisons in every situation, every time. Hell, it doesn't even mention poisons.
It all goes back to the two things a Paladin must obey: God and Code. Poison has very specifically been removed from Code, so we know for a fact that the Code doesn't prevent poison. What's left? God. And that's really the only barrier. Everything else is just bluster trying to find something - anything - to completely 100% ban poisons in every situation for all times.
That's what this is all about. Should poisons be 100% banned for all situations for all times? Or are there some times when it's ok to use? Most of us think that there might be some times when it's ok to use. Some of use have a gut feeling that it's always bad and are desperately trying to prove it with the rules of the game. And then there are those of us who are completely redefining what a poison is in order to justify banning it 100%.
"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."[tangent]
Got your order wrong there :P
LDRSHIP not HRDLSIP
Shame on you :P
[/tangent]
Ha! But seriously, I was using the definition of Honor as it's listed in the Honor section. Look it up. :)
Heck, that quote I posted is a direct copy/paste straight from army.mil/values
Especially since the gods of Golarion are not real and based off of a long literary history of what passes for fantasy gods, coming out of a European tradition, Out of game culture is obviously a part of how deities codes will be defined.
However, it is unnecessarily restrictive to force the paladin class to exist only within that moral framework within the game. This is why it needs to be clearly stated whether the paladin gets its power from being a part of a specific order, or just the god itself. The hellknights, for example, are a specific order and cultural codes are absolutely relevant to their advancement. Clerics establish churches and, while mostly defined by the gods, also seemed to follow the orders of their churches or operate as heretical priests, which is ok, because their honor system is more lax than the paladin. But Golarion has been fairly loose thus far about having highly regimented orders of paladin specific groups. The only one I can think of is the one in Cheliax that serves as the NPC antagonists of the evil campaign. Thus it seems to make much more sense to link the paladin directly to an oath with her god.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.No. But it pretty much does chaos or law.No, it does not. In-game, chaos and law are universal constants. A tribe or group of people is either chaotic or lawful or neutral. But cultures in-game don't get to redefine those terms.
And once again poison was not given in PF1 as an example of an Evil Act, but as an example of a dishonorable act which is a Lawful notionAnd this is the challenge. To the extent that honor is connected with a specific alignment, it becomes fixed/immutable.
In truth, the alignment mechanics in these games are broken because they deal in absolutes which we don't have in RL. This means that things like "honor" for which we use real world definitions, can become nonsensical in a game where evil and good are absolutes.
My post is not about where poison use falls, but discounting the notion that a PC's cultural background affords liberties with regard to the Paladin Code. It does not and cannot.
See, you are making a mistake there assuming that Honor is Lawful alignment thing.
Because barbarian tribes who are Chaotic by nature of the class can also be honorable in 1e. Chaotic alignment isn't in conflict with Honor in 1e, so you could actually have honorable thieves :p
Honor has never been tied to alignment in Pathfinder, it has always been cultural <_<
If you want actual mechanical proof to it, check out Honor campaign subsystem from Ultimate Campaign, it provides Criminal and Tribal honor code among Chivalric and Samurai codes.
If you want direct reference that honor isn't tied to alignment, here is quote from same section:
"Honor is not a measurement of alignment, fame, or goodwill so much as a gauge of loyalty, trustworthiness, and fairness—one could be a kindhearted-but-flighty shogun with 0 honor points, or a cruel-but-stalwart monk with 100 honor points."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The paladin code does not bend to the fact that you are in a different culture.Umm.. that's literally part of the new Paladin Code. You have to abide by the laws of whatever country you're in. And since the paladin doesn't follow a specific country, then it doesn't matter if their home country forbids something or allows something that this new country does not. They have to follow the laws of the country they're in.
You would be expected to uphold the tenants of your deity regardless.Yes, that's exactly what I've been arguing the entire thread. And if the deity had no qualms about poison, then it's not against their code. It's entirely dependent on the deity and the current country/culture the paladin is located in.
For example, you stated you were in the military. During the time you were part of the service, you are expected to follow military rules and regulations regardless of where you are stationed and you could be penalized by your branch of service for not following a rule or regulation even if the local culture or government did not have a prohibition in place for the rule your broke under your military code of conduct.That's not always true. There's no drinking age in Germany, and my fellow soldiers under the age of 21 were allowed to go out drinking, depsite it being illegal in the US.
One guy in my unit, whom I went drinking with nearly every weekend, got out of the army just after we returned from a tour in Iraq. His 21st birthday was in 2 weeks when he got home, and he wasn't allowed to drink back home.
The military didn't care one way or another. Therefore, drinking under 21 was allowed for us when we were stationed in Germany.
The only thing a paladin must abide is his deity, his code, and theSame rule applies for paladins. If you want to play a less stringent character then play any other class except a paladin.
Cultural rules & norms < paladin code
Except for those acceptable poisons like tranqs, flashbangs, tear gas, etc.
So poisons are okays long as we don't call them "poisons", eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be a loaded term to you but that is exactly what the paladin is taken from.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.
I was being polite calling it a "loaded term." In the interests of keeping things civil, I'll spare you what the more correct term might be.
Go back and look at the history of the paladin and you will see that from Gary Gygax's earliest thoughtson it was the white knight in shining armor. That is a heavily Christian & European trope. Heck the cleric was envisioned as a knightly order akin to the Templars and Hospitilars. Gygax said as much in interviews.
"As others have already explained, it was originally because Gygax was inspired by the stories of Bishop Turpin. While game balance was later cited as a reason to continue it, it was not the reason originally — note that in the original Dungeons & Dragons, all weapons did the same damage: 1d6. Thus, other than the availability of certain magical weapons, there was no advantage to being able to use a sword."
This quote was taken from https://www.quora.com/In-Dungeons-Dragons-why-are-clerics-forbidden-from-us ing-edged-weapons
And if I was playing at his table, I would absolutely follow his rules. I don't. Not even in spirit. His legacy on the game should never be ignored, but we've moved on from quite a few of his ideas. We can move on from this one too, if it creates an interesting story the people at my table want to take part in.
See, you are making a mistake there assuming that Honor is Lawful alignment thing.
Because barbarian tribes who are Chaotic by nature of the class can also be honorable in 1e. Chaotic alignment isn't in conflict with Honor in 1e, so you could actually have honorable thieves :p
Honor has never been tied to alignment in Pathfinder, it has always been cultural <_<
If you want actual mechanical proof to it, check out Honor campaign subsystem from Ultimate Campaign, it provides Criminal and Tribal honor code among Chivalric and Samurai codes.
If you want direct reference that honor isn't tied to alignment, here is quote from same section:
"Honor is not a measurement of alignment, fame, or goodwill so much as a gauge of loyalty, trustworthiness, and fairness—one could be a kindhearted-but-flighty shogun with 0 honor points, or a cruel-but-stalwart monk with 100 honor points."
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.
Gorum is one. Reading his entry in Inner Sea Gods, he's also a deity whose theoretical CN paladins would be barred from using poison.
I'm sure I could find more, but at least one major god as an exception should be enough for this conversation as it applies to Golarian.
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.Gorum is one. Reading his entry in Inner Sea Gods, he's also a deity whose theoretical CN paladins would be barred from using poison.
I'm sure I could find more, but at least one major god as an exception should be enough for this conversation as it applies to Golarian.
Last I checked, his areas of concern were:
Areas of Concern Battle, strength, weapons
Domains Chaos, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
Subdomains Blood, Duels, Ferocity, Fist, Legend, Protean, Rage, Resolve, Tactics
Honour is neither an area of concern nor a subdomain for him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.Gorum is one. Reading his entry in Inner Sea Gods, he's also a deity whose theoretical CN paladins would be barred from using poison.
I'm sure I could find more, but at least one major god as an exception should be enough for this conversation as it applies to Golarian.
Last I checked, his areas of concern were:
Areas of Concern Battle, strength, weapons
Domains Chaos, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
Subdomains Blood, Duels, Ferocity, Fist, Legend, Protean, Rage, Resolve, TacticsHonour is neither an area of concern nor a subdomain for him.
I can see how you can arrive at that conclusion when you only read the Archives of Nethys, but if you actually read Gorum's entry in Inner Sea Gods, as AnimatedPaper cites, you'd see the passages that talk about honor and dishonor. You might even see where it specifically states that they believe the use of poison is dishonorable, and therefore Gorumites won't use poison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.Last I checked, his areas of concern were:
Areas of Concern Battle, strength, weapons
Domains Chaos, Destruction, Glory, Strength, War
Subdomains Blood, Duels, Ferocity, Fist, Legend, Protean, Rage, Resolve, TacticsHonour is neither an area of concern nor a subdomain for him.
Inner Sea Gods has a comprehensive writeup for each of the gods, you should check it out - it's a really good read! Here's the text Cyouni references:
When several leaders come together, there is usually some gruff posturing and a few brawls until a hierarchy is established. Underhanded tactics such as poison are considered dishonorable in these bouts, though spells that enhance the priest, his weapons, or armor are considered fair.
Gorum's philosophy is actually a really good example of how different cultures will have different definitions of what is and is not honorable. Gorum considers using poison in duels dishonorable, but surrendering to a superior foe is honorable and he expects surrendering foes to be spared:
Better to Die a Warrior Than Live a Coward: While Gorum doesn’t believe his followers should recklessly throw away their lives in battles they cannot win, agreeing to a fight and then fleeing a battle is the act of an unworthy cur. Surrender is honorable, for those who surrender may have a chance to redeem themselves in a later battle, but those who flee are best cut down before they shame themselves again.
Compare that to Torag's paladin code:
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
Accepting an opponent's surrender is honorable for the CN God of War and dishonorable (to the point of a paladin falling if he does) for the LG God of Protection & Strategy.
Paladins exist because they're heroes, even when someone tells them not to be. They're heroes, even when societal pressure says, "look the other way."
In older societies and even today, people too often aside. A paladin believes in the Good so strongly that they took an Oath to uphold it, irregardless of the society they are part of. After that, they CANNOT. They cannot look away--either at the level of the individual or the society. They will take the hard path each time.
Behavior like was seen is what the paladin's smite, and their role of the defender, is for. It is for the suffering mother, for the abused slave, or for the town trapped beneath the giant's impending footsteps.
It is for every one of those stories we've run across where someone looked the other way, or who argued against upsetting the boat. The paladin speaks up, acts, where others do not or refuse to do so. It does not mean doing so mindlessly, but it does involve action--or forming, then enacting, a plan TO act.
We need to refocus the discussion, away from alignment and towards what the paladin should be: a hero for the Good they have sworn to. A hero who does not shirk their Oath, or let it fall by the wayside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is: honour comes up constantly under the portfolio of lawful gods (even evil ones, sometimes), and never under the portfolio of neutral/chaotic gods.See, you are making a mistake there assuming that Honor is Lawful alignment thing.
Because barbarian tribes who are Chaotic by nature of the class can also be honorable in 1e. Chaotic alignment isn't in conflict with Honor in 1e, so you could actually have honorable thieves :p
Honor has never been tied to alignment in Pathfinder, it has always been cultural <_<
If you want actual mechanical proof to it, check out Honor campaign subsystem from Ultimate Campaign, it provides Criminal and Tribal honor code among Chivalric and Samurai codes.
If you want direct reference that honor isn't tied to alignment, here is quote from same section:
"Honor is not a measurement of alignment, fame, or goodwill so much as a gauge of loyalty, trustworthiness, and fairness—one could be a kindhearted-but-flighty shogun with 0 honor points, or a cruel-but-stalwart monk with 100 honor points."
As has been noted, Gorum is very much an Honor-centric deity, in the same mold as any (traditionally represented as Chaotic) barbarian/warrior culture is held to be. Cayden Cailean is also specifically mentioned for his utter refusal to compromise his moral integrity in his mortal days, despite his mercenary profession.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gorum talks about his worshippers surrendering. Torag talks about his worshippers accepting surrender from their foes. Definitely no the same and written with the idea that the worshippers might be PCs
Gorum's part aims at preventing stupid death for PCs. Similar in that to the new Paladin code
|
|
No, it does not. In-game, chaos and law are universal constants. A tribe or group of people is either chaotic or lawful or neutral. But cultures in-game don't get to redefine those terms.Culture does not determine good or evil in Pathfinder.No. But it pretty much does chaos or law.
I realize that I was not clear in my words. My apologies.
What I meant is not that a given culture defines what Chaos and Law mean
I meant to say that how you respect your culture defines whether you are Chaotic or Lawful
Way I see it, the litmus test of Chaotic vs Lawful is how one reacts when being told what to do. Lawful tends to obey (and needs reasons to rebel) while Chaotic tends to rebel (and needs reasons to obey).
And one's culture is the foremost source of being told what to do.
I think Lawful will respect it because it is tradition, while Chaotic will respect it because it makes sense personally