Iomedae.... Am i right ?

[Folund]

Hello everyone, first of all sorry for my bad english, im french Native.

I'm making a paladin of Iomedae, but my friends are all in disagreement each others with my character personality and mental.

I want to be someone with a brain and a heart, not a fanatic or a nazi beating everyone who look like evil or different than an Human.

Here for example : I'm in a relationship with a Dhampir, when i saw her i didint notice that was a Dhampir (Fail dice), and then after discuss and a detect evil who say she's not evil, i was like it's okay...

So we got a normal relationship with sex and everything, and then my character realise her true nature, but she's still not evil after all.

My question is : Can i play a paladin of Iomedae, who is not just beating everything ? Can i be tolerant, not racist and dont eradicate people if my detect evil say its ok ?

Help me please, i need a final true awnser

[Cavall]

Of course you can.

[Thunderlord]

Your problem is the classic "Lawful Stupid" Paladin problem. Hopefully that translates well. Dhampir's can be worthy of sympathy and not instantly smited (Smote?). Iomedae is the goddess of Honor, Justice and Valor and slaying your dhampir friend because of her heritage isn't doing her Justice or a very honorable thing to do. grab a Phylactery of Faithfulness and proceed as planned. If you try to feed some villagers to your friend, this item should warn you that your actions will cost you your abilities. As for roleplaying, Paladins need to not murder every outsider and evil person as they must remain Lawful. Murder is illegal in Golarion and for her Paladins. Maybe your town has a law against breathing while dhampir but that would be an evil law. Paladins should be the most tolerant characters in the party. The Ranger with favored enemy Orc will probably not like half-orcs much and let some racism slip.

[VRMH]

Thunderlord wrote:

Paladins should be the most tolerant characters in the party.

This may seem an odd statement, but it's quite true. Once a Paladin execrates something, they have little choice but to fight it with all their might. And so they have to be very, very careful about what they denounce.

[Nyerkh]

Dhampirs have as much free will as regular humans, and their very nature is not a crime or an evil act by itself.
For that matter, being evil is not a crime, acting on it is. But that's another story.

Anyway, Iomedae is a smart goddess, not a raving "kill them all" type. Thoughfulness, Moderation and Temperance are actually part of her Paladin Code.
Unforgiving when needed, but clever enough to know when that is.

You're correct in your approach. It's also quite simply much more interesting.

Loyal Bon > Loyal Con.

I also just have trouble with the idea of bigoted, racist, murder-happy douches qualifying as actual Lawful Good Paladins.
Even the most firebrand-y or grey-areas gods or patrons don't go that far. If Torag, Erastil and Ragathiel think it's too much, you probably shouldn't do it.

VRMH's answer is a very good guideline overall. Keep it in mind when in doubt.

[Folund]

Thanks for thoses reply, you guys make me happy i'm not alone thinking that lol :)

An other question... Woman Dhampirs... can be pregnant ? (OH SHIET lol)

[VRMH]

Folund wrote:

Dhampirs... can be pregnant ?

The fact that they even exist, suggests stranger things have happened...

[Zoin]

Erastil is the ultra conservative god. They are bigots, telling women to stay at home and have kids etc ...
I always hated alignment, and it's so subjective actually.
As a GM, appart for clerics and paladins, i never cared for alignment, asking players to define their character's motives, goals and morality.
For clerics and paladins, i'd ask them to stick to their religious morals, and forget about alignement.
A paladin of Abadar for exemple, would still be a paladin if he killed hungry peasants trying to steal the food from a merchant. He could also protect a slave trader, if slavery is alowed in his province.

A paladin of Raghatiel, i would see him like a "Judge Dread" type of guy.

Iomedae would be more of a "knight of the round table". (and for that matter, i guess an outside of marriage affair would be forbidden to a iomedae paladin)

A paladin of Sarenrae, i'd see it as a holy warrior from the desert, helping out the people, but going crazy to root out evil

A paladin of Shelyn would be the peace and love paladin, using force only when absolutely necessary.

Those are stereotypes of course :)

Also, note Golarion is way different than forgotten realms. It's not a world in black and white. Rememeber, clerics of Asmodeus are welcome (but probably feared) almost everywhere. Paladins could be member of the Hellknights, an order that is not that good to say the least.

Contrary to D&D, a paladin CAN associate with evil to reach his goals.

Here is the Paladin code of Iomedae :

Spoiler:

Paladin Code
The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong, crusaders who live for the joy of righteous battle. Their mission is to right wrongs and eliminate evil at its root. They serve as examples to others, and their code demands they protect the weak and innocent by eliminating sources of oppression, rather than merely the symptoms. They may back down or withdraw from a fight if they are overmatched, but if their lives will buy time for others to escape, they must give them. Their tenets include the following affirmations.
I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
I will suffer death before dishonor.
I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Folund wrote:

An other question... Woman Dhampirs... can be pregnant?

Yes, but they do not breed true (offspring are not dhampirs).

Advanced Race Guide wrote:

Some particularly zealous scholars even contest dhampirs' status as a unique race, instead viewing them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction. Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs' seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).

One usually assumes female adventurers have ways to avoid pregnancy, unless the GM is quite evil.

[Dracovar]

I think there's one caveat...

When you ask your Dhampir sweetie 'what's for dinner?' (or something similar) and you get an answer you don't like - you can smite her for significant damage.

It's an Iomedae thing - just check out Wrath of the Righteous...

/I say with a smirk and a wink...

[Melkiador]

Iomedae is fairly gracious. Torag is the deadly one, "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."

[Tacticslion]

Zoin wrote:

Erastil is the ultra conservative god. They are bigots, telling women to stay at home and have kids etc ...

... he says about the god who, in the book most such interpretations are taken from, not only presents a woman who is his cleric (she is an important if minor NPC in the AP), but also showcases a very decidedly strong and not-so-modest-looking woman cleric-or-ranger in said article as the ur-example (and pretty much only visual example) of his follower. I’m just saying that Erastil’s supposed mysogyny seems exaggerated.

To be clear, Erastil is an ultra-conservative god who believes in a rather traditional family unit, but he believes everyone should enter into the traditional family with predefined roles (men, too, not just women), but with plenty of room for exceptions or interpretation, so long as it airs in the over-all strengthening of the community and long-term survival of the species and/or people group. And every single actual example of how he treats females is positive, except, perhaps, Iomedae (with others achieving disapproval more from alignment or lack of “natural” concepts), and Iomedae has gotten a rather... harsh reputation, so...

Also, Infond some of the objections to Iomedae a bit overblown, and a formal retraction for any apparently mysogynist statements on the part of Erastil was made, so I find such arguments weaker, anyway. Otherwise, carry on!

[Kalindlara]

Re: Erastil, it's worth noting that, while the original text in Kingmaker was pretty unambiguous in its badness, they've walked that back as much as they can. Any holdover of the "women belong in the kitchen" version of Erastil is an aberration and not to be considered canon. ^_^

[Derklord]

First, you controll the character! If you don't want to play a Nazi, that's your choice! An alignment itself is more of a guideline anyway, so that shouldn't stop you. The paladin code is a different thing, but that's

Second, "While most dhampirs succumb to the innate evil of their undead heritage and devolve into the monstrous fiends depicted by society, a few reject their unholy conceptions, instead vowing to avenge their mothers by hunting the very creatures that sired them." (ARG pg. 96)
As there are non-evil dhampirs, killing a non-evil one soley because of race should generally be considered be an evil act.

Third, the most important thing to realize when playing lawful good, and especially Paladin (although the deity's code can shift it), is that you don't need to always act the pinnacle of lawful and the pinnacle of good, but that you should try to follow a mixture of the two. When acting lawful would have you act nongood, then acting good is more important. For example, you need not abide by the rulings of a prejudiced judge convicting an innocent. Likewise, when acting good would force you to act unlawful - presuming a just law, as per above - you should act lawful. For instance, a Paladin working for a government doesn't need to spare every mass murderer begging for mercy. In short, wehn your alignment components are in conflict, acting NG is better than acting LE, and acting LN is better than acting CG.

[Cavall]

Quote:

A paladin of Abadar for exemple, would still be a paladin if he killed hungry peasants trying to steal the food from a merchant. He could also protect a slave trader, if slavery is alowed in his province.

I honestly don't think a paladin of abadar would remain a paladin for killing the starving. He likely wouldn't remain employed, and if that's the Law of the land he would do his best to pursue changing that law.

Because wtf

[Kristal Moonhand]

I think you missed the part where they were stealing, hon.

[Zoin]

Remember, i said this is all stereotypes :)
Each religion will have variation according to the way of the land.
For Erastil, not ALL will be mysogynistic. But i would say, it's not that uncommon, at least in some parts of the world, and playing a mysogynistic paladin would be appropriate (and please, bear with me, i'm not saying being mysogynistic IS appropriate, i'm talking roleplay here).
For Abadar, my exemple might have been extreme, but i always have trouble picturing a paladin of Abadar ...

Paladins in Golarion are not all about being nice and saving the orphan and the widow ... but they are far from being fascists cold blooded murderers.
According to the religion, the laws of the nation, i think you can have very different paladins.
A peace and love paladin would be fine.
A torquemada like paladin would be fine too (again, i'm talking roleplay wise)
What is good and evil is so subjective, they will depend on the religion and the society you live in. This is why I believe (and bear with me, it's an opinion) that you should rely more on the individual paladin code than on generalities on alignment.

Playing a paladin is demanding and challenging. But can be really fun.
The main idea of Paladin is being uncompromising with your ideals, faith and code.
Play a paladin of Shelyn, and you will HAVE to try to redeem that demon. You have to try it, whatever the costs to you.
Play a paladin of Ioemdae, you'll have to be honorable at all times, and you won't let your companions lie and commit acts of lesser evil, even if it costs you.

But ultimately, playing a paladin, you have to take some time with your GM to discuss about your morality and code. That's the most important. You shouldn't care if your fellow players don't understant, disaproove etc ... Only you and your GM should be the judge of that.

[Cavall]

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

I think you missed the part where they were stealing, hon.

I didn't. I don't think killing someone for taking an apple is what a paladin is for.

That's not what a good person does.

[Derklord]

Cavall wrote:

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

I think you missed the part where they were stealing, hon.

I didn't. I don't think killing someone for taking an apple is what a paladin is for.

That's not what a good person does.

I agree - stealing out of necessity isn't even evil, that CN. Killing someone for commiting a non-evil act may be lawful, but it surely isn't good.

In this case, Abadar's paladin code says regarding bandits (i.e. people who steal for evil reasons) "If they will not come willingly before the law, where they can protest for justice in the courts, they will come under the power of my sword." So unless these hungry thieves actively resist arrest, the Paladin would be bound to take them in, not kill them. Remember, breaking your deity's Paladin code is not the only way to fall - changing your alignment does that, too! If I'd GM for a Paladin who's first reaction when encountering a starving food-thief was to kill them, I wouldn't give a damn about the local law or what the Paladin's deity was, I'd instantly change their alignment to LN.

I would definitely advise against playing a Paladin of a non-good deity. CG deities are actually pretty easy to do, though.

[Arachnofiend]

Iomedae is pretty smite-happy, but she isn't an idiot. If your dhampir girlfriend isn't evil you wouldn't be able to smite her even if you wanted to.

Also, a Paladin of Abadar would absolutely fall for slaughtering a peasant who attempted to steal a loaf of bread. That punishment is far and away unfit for the crime, and there is no instance in which a peasant (read: commoner 1) would be a genuine threat to someone with class levels in Paladin and the equipment to match. It'd be a heartless act which breaks the requirement that you be Good, and it being an inappropriate punishment for the crime that was committed would piss off Abadar as well.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Kristal Moonhand wrote:

I think you missed the part where they were stealing, hon.

Killing someone for breaking any law no matter the circumstance is likely to cause problems with most alignments, except maybe chaotic evil or neutral evil. Any good alignment is going to have problems with killing a starving peasant for stealing food. A good person encountering the starving peasant should do something about it.

Lawful alignments follow the law and most laws have prescribed penalties for breaking them. I don’t think I have ever heard of a law that prescribes death for stealing. Historically the harshest penalty for stealing is losing a hand, not being killed. So unless the law states that the penalty for theft is death killing someone for stealing is going to cause problems even for a lawful character.

Most neutral alignments will not care one way or another unless they are the victim of the theft. A true neutral character is not going to going to care unless they have a person stake in the matter. The chaotic neutral character not going to give a rat’s ass about what the law says.

So a lawful good character is not going to kill the starving peasant for stealing because it would conflict with both aspects of his alignment. A lawful neutral character would use appropriate force against someone breaking the law, but is more than likely to avoid using lethal force. A lawful evil person may use the fact the person was breaking the law to further some plot of his own. But unless killing the peasant is going to benefit him in some way will probably not bother.

The neutral good and chaotic good characters are going to help the starving peasant no matter what the law says.

[Melkiador]

Death has been the punishment for theft in many cultures through time. What if the food was stolen from also starving people? Isn’t that evil of the thieves.

[Ryan Freire]

Melkiador wrote:

Death has been the punishment for theft in many cultures through time. What if the food was stolen from also starving people? Isn’t that evil of the thieves.

And a lawful good person held to a paladins code and level of goodness would buy the food for them and then try to find them work, or employ them himself. (doable given the raw amount of wealth most adventurers have, 10 gold sets them up for months)

[RealAlchemy]

The paladins I play seek to redeem those who perform evil actions when possible, rather than just straight up smiting them. Exceptions for things like liches, wraiths, and evil outsiders of course. Those get the sword, or the lance, or the chainsaw.

[Derklord]

Melkiador wrote:

Death has been the punishment for theft in many cultures through time.

Sure. Doesn't make it any less evil, though.

Actively supporting evil laws is lawful evil, something a Paladin must not be.

[Melkiador]

Derklord wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Death has been the punishment for theft in many cultures through time.

Sure. Doesn't make it any less evil, though.

Actively supporting evil laws is lawful evil, something a Paladin must not be.

Actually it does make it less evil. Theft is evil. Theft kills the victims sometimes. Punishing such evils is sometimes justified.

[Cavall]

Yeah once again stealing an apple because you're starving from a guy that sells apples isn't going to make that merchant starve. And certainly not worth killing over.

Nice try Inspector Melkiador but it's still just a loaf of bread.

[Steelfiredragon]

yeah stop looking at things through today's so called high and mighty moral standards...

Vlad the Impaler killed the poor, corrupt public officials, ottomans and etc. And how he killed them got him his name and the fame for it.
Rhe world calls him a monster, Romania calls him a folk hero and I call him a product of the times.

The key words for cultures that had stealing as a crime punishable by death is " Of the Times" and not today

[Cavall]

Are we comparing Vlad the Impaler to a paladin?

OFF THE RAILS

[Steelfiredragon]

only partially

think it was crime and punishment
some cultures where theft was a death sentence and or hands chopped off and how I think all the posters above were looking at it.

And btw even by todays and " at the Times" standards Vlad Dracul II was was NO paladin and not even paladin like.

The Winged Hussars might be considerable for that though.....