Liberator paladins are problematic, and also, Channel Life is one of the strongest feats ever for paladins and paladin-multiclassers


Classes

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Let us start with liberator paladins. Their code of conduct is fairly problematic:
• You must respect the choices others make for their own lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t act that way.
• You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions. You must never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

Even by the standards of maliciously-read paladin codes, this one is a little heavy-handed. It imposes heavy restrictions on simply giving orders to others, and a liberator is not even in their rights to demand that an evil fellow stop killing innocents. The liberator has to stay quiet much of the time and simply murder people who are acting out-of-line.

Yes, there is a hierarchy that applies when two tenets are in conflict, with the liberator tenets low on the list. The issue is that there is, strictly speaking, no conflict as long as the liberator just straight-up kills an evil lad without negotiating first, so that is what a liberator must do. While redeemers are reasonable folk who try to talk things through first, liberators are violent vigilantes whose code pushes them towards murdering wrongdoers with no attempt at negotiation, because a liberator should not try to talk someone out of their life choices.

Besides that, the liberator's Liberating Step is not that good. Grab is a separate action, and Improved Grab is a separate free action, and thus it is impossible to use Liberating Step to reduce damage while simultaneously responding to an established Grab or Grapple. Either the liberator responds to the attack and reduces the damage, or the liberator responds to the Grab or Improved Grab and helps the ally escape, but not both. On top of all this, the line, "Finally, if the ally can move, they can Step as a free action, even if the ally didn’t have any hindrance to escape from" is unclear on whether or not it applies in response to an attack, or only in response to a Grab or Grapple.

Defenders and redeemers are good and reasonably balanced. Retributive Strike packs a strong punishment, but it generally calls for a reach weapon. Glimpse of Redemption is less situational and does not call for a reach weapon, but it is a bit weaker, especially against enemies who can bypass enfeebelement by tossing out spells and special abilities instead.

But I worry that paladins are a little too good on a certain point: Channel Life, a 4th-level feat.

Previously, when the multiclass archetype document landed, we had bards and sorcerers taking Paladin Dedication, Healing Touch, Basic Benediction (Deity's Domain), and Advanced Benediction (Channel Life) by 8th level, because 3 + Charisma modifier uses of max-level heal per day is seriously strong.

As of update 1.6, bards and sorcerers can still do exactly that, except that the four-feat investment is even better now, because Channel Life's heal no longer calls for somatic components, and the final version of the game will presumably allow Glimpse of Redemption in place of Retributive Strike for Paladin Redemption. Furthermore, since clerics have had their channel energy pools lowered, even clerics want to make this four-feat investment and earn that sweet, sweet Advanced Benediction (Channel Life).

Also in update 1.6, paladins themselves become the premier combatants by 4th level. They can take Deity's Domain at 1st and Channel Life at 4th, and just like that, they have 3 + Charisma modifier uses of max-level heal per day. I would go so far as to say that defender and liberator paladins are the strongest combat class in the game by 4th level, simply because they can whack enemies all day with hard-hitting attacks, but also use the game's most powerful and reliable combat spell, heal. That is some strong stuff.

Channel Life could use a change. Yes, I know that Paizo is fixing powers for the final release (which we will never get to playtest), and I am pointing this out precisely so that Paizo knows to watch out for the power that is Channel Life.


How do you suggest it's fixed? Should channel life require higher level, remove the increase of spell points, cost more spell points to cast heal (like the healing domain) or simply be removed?

Personally I'm starting to lean towards removing it, with the lay on hands buff it does seem less useful to the regular paladin and more a boost for healers multiclassing into paladin.

Silver Crusade

Colette Brunel wrote:
lso in update 1.6, paladins themselves become the premier combatants by 4th level. They can take Deity's Domain at 1st and Channel Life at 4th, and just like that, they have 3 + Charisma modifier uses of max-level heal per day. I would go so far as to say that defender and liberator paladins are the strongest combat class in the game by 4th level, simply because they can whack enemies all day with hard-hitting attacks, but also use the game's most powerful and reliable combat spell, heal. That is some strong stuff.

Agreed. And while it takes a bit of time to come online Paladins remain an incredibly attractive class to multiclass into.

My L10 or L12 Druid multiclassed into a Paladin of Shelyn is functionally unchanged by these updates. Wild Shape remains a trap for him. He heals via paladin, hits things with pointy sticks, and has lots of utility and AoE spells.

And for some reason has another cantrip :-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If anything the liberator code should be *more* restrictive since "never tell anyone to do anything" can always be managed by making suggestions or observations about consequences. I feel like the liberator code is absolutely trivial to follow no matter what you do, and should be more restrictive and more chaotic.

Plus, the "do not allow an innocent to come to harm when you could have prevented it" clause should take precedence allowing the liberator to say "do not set fire to that orphanage" with impunity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Yes, there is a hierarchy that applies when two tenets are in conflict, with the liberator tenets low on the list. The issue is that there is, strictly speaking, no conflict as long as the liberator just straight-up kills an evil lad without negotiating first, so that is what a liberator must do. While redeemers are reasonable folk who try to talk things through first, liberators are violent vigilantes whose code pushes them towards murdering wrongdoers with no attempt at negotiation, because a liberator should not try to talk someone out of their life choices.

Uh...no? Nothing in the Code prohibits negotiation or giving orders, only threatening people or actively forcing them to do things. It's debatable that orders occasionally fall into one of those, but only sometimes, and peaceful negotiation never triggers it at all (since persuasion is neither force, nor a threat).

Anyone who'd make them fall for petty stuff like this would likewise make the LG version fall for jaywalking (or breaking a law they've never heard of), which is equally possible, code-wise.

Colette Brunel wrote:
Besides that, the liberator's Liberating Step is not that good. Grab is a separate action, and Improved Grab is a separate free action, and thus it is impossible to use Liberating Step to reduce damage while simultaneously responding to an established Grab or Grapple. Either the liberator responds to the attack and reduces the damage, or the liberator responds to the Grab or Improved Grab and helps the ally escape, but not both. On top of all this, the line, "Finally, if the ally can move, they can Step as a free action, even if the ally didn’t have any hindrance to escape from" is unclear on whether or not it applies in response to an attack, or only in response to a Grab or Grapple.

I think it's pretty clear that the Step is either way, but I'd be happy of they clarified it (it's actively bad if that's not the case). The Step as universal also makes it really good since it basically trades your Reaction to cost the enemy an Action much of the time (at least, if they want to keep attacking).

The Grab/Improved Grab thing could definitely be better, though Paladins can now wind up with multiple Reactions, so it could see some use.


MaxAstro wrote:

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

To me, that seems like it leads some real weird places in behavior. Consider a liberator paladin confronting a mugger: he can't actually tell the mugger to stop, because that would be forcing him to act a particular way! At most, he can politely ask the mugger to stop, then beat him up if he doesn't.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...no? Nothing in the Code prohibits negotiation or giving orders

If you're ordering someone to do something, and they haven't already agreed to follow your orders (e.g. soldiers and the like), then you're forcing them to act in a particular way. Again, consider a liberator paladin in the role of a police officer: the police in conflict situations are all about ordering people to act in particular ways with the implicit or explicit threat of force.

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Roadie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

To me, that seems like it leads some real weird places in behavior. Consider a liberator paladin confronting a mugger: he can't actually tell the mugger to stop, because that would be forcing him to act a particular way! At most, he can politely ask the mugger to stop, then beat him up if he doesn't.

The mugger is threatening innocents, so he can force her to stop. Now, he wouldn't be allowed to prevent a local mage from dabbling in the dark arts if, after the liberator explained all the dangers of the dark arts, the mage decided to try them anyway. But if the mage became possessed by demons afterwards and started attacking the village? The liberator can fight back.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Roadie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

To me, that seems like it leads some real weird places in behavior. Consider a liberator paladin confronting a mugger: he can't actually tell the mugger to stop, because that would be forcing him to act a particular way! At most, he can politely ask the mugger to stop, then beat him up if he doesn't.

Saying 'Stop that!' is not forcing anyone to do anything (it can be a threat if you pull a sword while doing it, but is not normally), and threats can be used due to to points #1 and #2 of the Code, so it's not quite as bad as all that.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think your views on Heal are biased by the fact that your goal when GMing is to kill the party, which means you are inherently going to dislike abilities that hinder that. When a GM isn't actively trying to kill the characters in every encounter but instead focused on working with the players to tell a story then healing effects are incredibly useful for getting the players through tough fights and onto the next part of the quest. Unlike PF1, healing mid-combat in PF2 is actually good, and nerfing that to make healers feel worse seems like a mistake.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Roadie wrote:
If you're ordering someone to do something, and they haven't already agreed to follow your orders (e.g. soldiers and the like), then you're forcing them to act in a particular way.

Not as a random person you aren't. If I order someone to do something, without threatening them, they have no obligation to do it and suffer no consequences if they do not.

It is thus not a use of force.

Roadie wrote:
Again, consider a liberator paladin in the role of a police officer: the police in conflict situations are all about ordering people to act in particular ways with the implicit or explicit threat of force.

Oh, a Liberator pretty much can't be a cop. All orders a cop gives do indeed have an implicit threat of force, and are thus not Liberator-safe.

But 'can't be a police officer' and 'can't give orders' are not the same thing, and frankly an inability to effectively be a law enforcement officer seems like a pretty reasonable restriction on a champion of CG.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has made me much more sympathetic to the "I was just following orders" defense, apparently a lot of people feel a psychological need to obey everything someone tells them in an authoritative way.

Roadie wrote:


If you're ordering someone to do something, and they haven't already agreed to follow your orders (e.g. soldiers and the like), then you're forcing them to act in a particular way.

Roadie: Hey, pick up that litter, right now! I'm ordering you.

Me: Uh, no? [walks off]

Roadie: This makes no sense, I forced him to act in a particular way. What madness is this?


Evilgm wrote:
I think your views on Heal are biased by the fact that your goal when GMing is to kill the party, which means you are inherently going to dislike abilities that hinder that. When a GM isn't actively trying to kill the characters in every encounter but instead focused on working with the players to tell a story then healing effects are incredibly useful for getting the players through tough fights and onto the next part of the quest. Unlike PF1, healing mid-combat in PF2 is actually good, and nerfing that to make healers feel worse seems like a mistake.

I don't know, they just nerfed Clerics ability to do it. Paladins can do it more by spending a feat. They also get the other Paladin class features, which are better than the Cleric ones.

Clerics can still do more healing by preparing Heal in a bunch of spell slots, but with how limited those are on Clerics already, you've got a very one dimensional class if you do that.

Probably better to just play a Paladin. The mixed signals this updated is sending are confusing and frankly disappointing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People attempting to read the ethos of a life calling as if it's a delineated game mechanic or some form of software coding language are going to miss the boat entirely about the written statement.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
I think your views on Heal are biased by the fact that your goal when GMing is to kill the party, which means you are inherently going to dislike abilities that hinder that. When a GM isn't actively trying to kill the characters in every encounter but instead focused on working with the players to tell a story then healing effects are incredibly useful for getting the players through tough fights and onto the next part of the quest. Unlike PF1, healing mid-combat in PF2 is actually good, and nerfing that to make healers feel worse seems like a mistake.

If heal is a valuable spell in the encounters wherein a TPK is a serious possibility, then that makes heal a top-notch spell.

Of course, the crux of the issue could very well be that save-or-lose spells are greatly diminished in power by the monster math, thus making automatic-effect spells such as heal that much better.

Liberty's Edge

I do agree that Channel Life is very powerful, though I think making Channel Energy 1 + Cha for Clerics is a better solution than nerfing Channel Life. The Paladin's Lay On Hands is almost as much single-target healing already, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree. At the moment, Channel Life is essentially a must-have significantly above the power curve, and any character who can spare the Charisma would do well to multiclass into paladin just for Channel Life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
I think your views on Heal are biased by the fact that your goal when GMing is to kill the party, which means you are inherently going to dislike abilities that hinder that. When a GM isn't actively trying to kill the characters in every encounter but instead focused on working with the players to tell a story then healing effects are incredibly useful for getting the players through tough fights and onto the next part of the quest. Unlike PF1, healing mid-combat in PF2 is actually good, and nerfing that to make healers feel worse seems like a mistake.

Nah, I find it horrible too.

If it was 2 spell points, it'd be a lot more acceptable. But with Focus coming into play between here and release, things are headed to an improvement at least.

Also, the Channel ability feels too wide - I'd have welcomed a "1 use, plus half Cha bonus uses", which brings uses range to 1-4 rather than 0-6... but oh well.


Speaking strictly from a Paladin's perspective: "Since I have Channel Life, why would I use Lay on Hands?" d8s, heal from a distance if need be, why use LoH?
I don't like that at all. Pre1.6 you couldn't use Heal in combat (unless you had a free hand) so Lay on Hands was your go to spell. Post1.6? Lay on Hands is left in the dust... Tho I feel this could be easily remedied by having Channel Life cost 2 spell points. (which would make it equal to the Healing Font domain power)

Sooo... nobody's mentioned this yet. Does Lay on Hands permanently have the manipulate trait now that Warded Touch is gone?... Those Attacks of Opportunities will really hurt...


Liberator is a libertarian, that will kill you if your actions cause any harm.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Liberator is a libertarian, that will kill you if your actions cause any harm.

Uh...that second part doesn't necessarily follow. For reasons discussed above. And CG being pretty libertarian, especially in regards to personal freedom, seems quite reasonable to me...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

Let us start with liberator paladins. Their code of conduct is fairly problematic:

• You must respect the choices others make for their own lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t act that way.
• You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions. You must never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

A liberator in Cheliax meets a slave merchant (with slaves) on the road. Slavery is legal in Cheliax, so this merchant is not a criminal, no more than a rug merchant with a wagon full of rugs.

How does he deal with this?

He must demand and fight for the freedom of the slaves. Check. But doing so fails to respect the life choices of the slaver. He cannot force the slaver to stop being a slaver and definitely cannot threaten the slaver.

Simply attacking is not an option. One, that's illegal. While CG liberators might not care about the law very much, they might not want to instantly become a wanted outlaw and fugitive, either. Two, there is literally no way to draw a weapon, stride forward, and swing it at the slaver that is non-threatening* which means he cannot attack without violating the final condition of his first tenet.

Can't stop the slaver, can't NOT free the slaves, and cannot attack anybody.

Whatever he does is Anathema.

*A few months ago I had a man in my kitchen yelling at me and my wife while holding one of my steak knives. He was holding it like a weapon, but not pointing or brandishing it at us. Eventually, he did exactly that and threatened to kill me with that knife. But, long before he got to that point, I already felt (rightly so) threatened by the very fact that he was holding it like a weapon. Having experienced that, I would never say that a drawn/held weapon can be non-threatening in any confrontation of any kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

by being a paladin and telling a necromancer to stop messing with the dead, you are inherently threatening him with punishment or death should he continue, because it is literally your job to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, and now I've answered my own question.

The Liberator says "Hey, I've been carrying this bloody heavy sword I found on the road a while back. I'm tired of carrying this dead weight around all day. I'm want to sell it to you. No, scratch that, I want to just give the bulky thing to you." He says this with a big genuine smile on his face as he strides forward and offers the weapon hilt first as a gift. But then in the blink of an eye the Liberator grabs the hilt and whips that sword around, killing the slaver.

All without threatening him.

Of course, we could suggest that killing the slaver definitely stops him from acting according to his life choices.

But hey, he's dead. He has no "life" choices. And the code doesn't say anything about respecting his "death" choices...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thus was born the Paladin rogue dual class. (first shown in the D&D movie you know the one with that Wayans brother)


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the Liberator can be a CG communitarian anarchist too...

For the slavery example before, I think the problem is assuming that the liberator gives a damn about what's legal- categorically they do not. It does not matter if someone is a criminal- since they understand that laws are often tools of oppression and have little to do with morality. Little should be more abhorrent to a liberator than laws which serve to oppress. Offer the slaver a chance to free their slaves and repent and commit to a better path, or just kill them and don't feel bad about it- you have made the world a better place. At the very least the liberator should immediately commence freeing any and all captives and if the slaver attacks them they should defend themselves.

"My life choice is to be a slaver" is no more valid to the liberator than "my life choice is to slaughter orphans" or "my life choice is to summon demons." Just because people are free to make choices does not mean that there should not be repercussions for making the wrong ones. I mean, freedom *stops* at the point where you are materially harming other people (e.g. slavery, orphan murder.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:

Let us start with liberator paladins. Their code of conduct is fairly problematic:

• You must respect the choices others make for their own lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t act that way.
• You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions. You must never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

A liberator in Cheliax meets a slave merchant (with slaves) on the road. Slavery is legal in Cheliax, so this merchant is not a criminal, no more than a rug merchant with a wagon full of rugs.

How does he deal with this?

This is the same conflict a Lawful Good Paladin has as well when dealing with a corrupt government offical, abusive guard, or tyranical king. Typically by making a choice to serve a particular tenant over another and hope that you did the right thing in the end. Living by an ideology full of hard choices unfortunately.

If this is attempting to boil this down into mechanical terms, that is ultimately going to come down to a player and his GM to determine what is a bridge too far. It's unlikely there will ever be 'perfectly ironclad rules on a philosophy'.


Aye something like your free to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone elses freedom.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, "Liberators don't last long in Cheliax" shouldn't be any more of an issue than "Shining Oath Paladins don't last long in Geb" (or "Hellknights don't last long in Galt".) Sure, a LE fascist state is a target rich environment for a CG exemplar, but your life expectancy would be similar to that of a crusader in the Worldwound.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

A liberator in Cheliax meets a slave merchant (with slaves) on the road. Slavery is legal in Cheliax, so this merchant is not a criminal, no more than a rug merchant with a wagon full of rugs.

How does he deal with this?

Assuming he thinks the slaves are in immediate trouble? He does whatever is necessary to free the slaves, up to and including killing the merchant. We'll get to why that's okay in a minute.

Assuming the slaves aren't immediately in danger? He works to free them subtly. Say, waiting until the merchant is asleep and then stealing them away.

DM_Blake wrote:
He must demand and fight for the freedom of the slaves. Check. But doing so fails to respect the life choices of the slaver. He cannot force the slaver to stop being a slaver and definitely cannot threaten the slaver.

He absolutely can do those things to protect the immediate safety and well being of innocents (ie: the slaves). That's part of the second tenet, which takes priority over the third.

And doing things that don't involve the slaver making a choice (which include anything from drugging them unconscious, to stealing the slaves while they sleep, to killing the slaver outright), don't encounter the third tenet at all, which means they're fine as long as they aren't Evil acts (and killing a slaver to free slaves is not Evil).

DM_Blake wrote:
Simply attacking is not an option. One, that's illegal. While CG liberators might not care about the law very much, they might not want to instantly become a wanted outlaw and fugitive, either.

This is a purely practical consideration, not part of the Paladin Code. Paladins are supposed to prioritize their Code over such things.

DM_Blake wrote:
Two, there is literally no way to draw a weapon, stride forward, and swing it at the slaver that is non-threatening* which means he cannot attack without violating the final condition of his first tenet.

This is not correct.

Pulling a weapon and immediately hitting someone with it is not a threat. It's an assault. The two are very different. Additionally, Liberators are not prohibited from threatening people. They are prohibited from doing so in order to change that person's behavior.

A Liberator can tell someone 'I'm going to kill you.' flat out, and may do so as often and easily as any other Paladin. They just can't say 'I'm going to kill you unless you do X'.

DM_Blake wrote:

Can't stop the slaver, can't NOT free the slaves, and cannot attack anybody.

Whatever he does is Anathema.

Nope! This is categorically incorrect because of the hierarchy.

DM_Blake wrote:
*A few months ago I had a man in my kitchen yelling at me and my wife while holding one of my steak knives. He was holding it like a weapon, but not pointing or brandishing it at us. Eventually, he did exactly that and threatened to kill me with that knife. But, long before he got to that point, I already felt (rightly so) threatened by the very fact that he was holding it like a weapon. Having experienced that, I would never say that a drawn/held weapon can be non-threatening in any confrontation of any kind.

Holding a weapon on somebody is absolutely threatening. The Liberator could in no way pull out a weapon while talking to the slaver as a 'negotiating tactic'.

But, as noted above, simply making an attack usually isn't a 'threat' in the standard sense, and Liberators can make threats anyway.

Exo-Guardians

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people are mistaking freedom with a lack of accountability, people are free to make their choices as far as the Paladin is concerned, but once they have made their choices they also have to accept the consequence of them. Simply put, you cannot have freedom without accountability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
I think people are mistaking freedom with a lack of accountability, people are free to make their choices as far as the Paladin is concerned, but once they have made their choices they also have to accept the consequence of them. Simply put, you cannot have freedom without accountability.

you certainly can! you just need to be rich and/or well-connected.


AndIMustMask wrote:
MER-c wrote:
I think people are mistaking freedom with a lack of accountability, people are free to make their choices as far as the Paladin is concerned, but once they have made their choices they also have to accept the consequence of them. Simply put, you cannot have freedom without accountability.
you certainly can! you just need to be rich and/or well-connected.

right up until the money's all gone... or until jack sparrow wont help ya ....


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or the peasant get tired and break out the guillotines


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This really isn't a problem.

As stated, the Paladin code has a hierarchy. Of course the Paladin has every right to stop the slaver and free his slaves, threatening him, and killing him if need be, because the protection of Innocents is more important than not telling others how to live their lives.

However, even WITHOUT the hierarchy, this is a non-issue, due to one simple thing.

"You must respect the choices others make with their own lives.

A slaver is controlling other people's lives, harming them and enforcing his will on them. A Liberator can absolutely stop this even without the earlier tennant.

All the Liberator's code means is that you can't stop someone from living their own life the way they wan't, even if it is destructive to themselves or extremely stupid.

For example, say a shapeshifting fae had gotten a local farmer to fall in love with her by turning into the most beautiful maiden he had ever seen. The Liberator knows that the fae is using him, and that the beautiful form is just an illusion, but if the farmer still wants to go? *Shrug*, it's his choice I guess.

"But the fae is just using you?"

"That's fine. She'll still take care of me."

"Her actual form is hideous!"

"I don't care. It's not like mortal women don't hide their blemishes. She's just better at it."

"You're body will eventually die in her realm because it's not designed to live there!"

"I'd rather live a few years in happiness than 100 years miserable."

See, the Liberator would have to let him go. It's his choice and it harms no one.

The ACTUAL problem is what happens when people we would consider incapable of making their own decisions tries to do something that could harm themselves. 5 year old Timmy has snuck out of his house because he's gonna go slay the Dragon! The Liberator meets him a mile out from town. Can the Liberator actually stop him if he can't convince him to go back? Or does he just have to let the kids know try and go with him to try and keep him safe?

Most people would consider a child unable to make his own life choices, especially ones that put themselves in great danger. But does a Liberator just have to grit his teeth and go along with it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:

The ACTUAL problem is what happens when people we would consider incapable of making their own decisions tries to do something that could harm themselves. 5 year old Timmy has snuck out of his house because he's gonna go slay the Dragon! The Liberator meets him a mile out from town. Can the Liberator actually stop him if he can't convince him to go back? Or does he just have to let the kids know try and go with him to try and keep him safe?

Most people...

Well you said it already. Certain people such as children, those below the generally accepted age of adulthood in the setting, people suffering from mental illness or disability and people under the influence can't make such decisions, because they cannot understand the ramifications of their actions. Stopping them and returning them home is generally the go to decision.

Protecting someone from harm can also mean preventing them from throwing themselves into harms way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like there are a ton of ways a good person could use to save bold young Timmy that do not result to demands, force, or threats of violence. Like kids are pretty distractable so why not take him on a safe adventure, or offer him sweets instead, or give him a swordfighting lesson sufficiently vigorous that he'd prefer to go home and sleep, or teach him about the dangers of the spooky woods. If the GM is playing this child as "someone with a deathwish" they are just trying to get you (a longstanding tradition of paladins) at which point you ask someone else in the party to hogtie the kid

But if your first inclination at dealing with a reckless 5-year old is "threats and demands backed with threats" I'm not sure you are RPing "good".


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There really isn't an issue with the Liberator code.

Full Code Text: wrote:


1. You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting an evil spell, and you must never perform acts anathema to your deity.

2. You must not use actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent 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 potential to attempt to protect an innocent.

3. You must respect the choices others make for their own lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t act that way.

4. You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions. You must never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

What if some fool wants to go challenge and kill a dragon but clearly isn't capable of doing so? If the threat of harm is imminent (ie "The dragon is attacking town and 6-year old Timmy wants to fight it") then Tenet 2 says you must stop them from doing so. If the threat is not imminent but almost guaranteed (ie "The dragon is nesting in the mountains a day away and 6-year old Timmy wants to go fight it") the same Tenet applies. The only case where you'd need to respect their choice is if you aren't positive they will come to harm or that you can reasonably prevent them from making the decision that would cause them harm (ie "The dragon is nesting in the mountains a day away and the local militia, which is fairly well-trained and aware of the potential danger, wants to take a shot at slaying it but will back off if things get rough").

Come across a slaver in a country where slavery is legal? Tenet 3 only applies to choices made for a person's own life and Tenet 4 explicitly states that you must not accept slavery. Looks like you'll be working to free the slaves, whether that means fighting the slaver openly or subverting them in other ways.

Serial killer is about to murder someone in the streets? Tenet 2 says that so long as you have a reasonable chance of stopping them without getting yourself killed then you should do so.

The tenet hierarchy prevents pretty much all of the corner cases presented by conflicting tenets. Mechanically, Tenet 3 just prevents stuff like the use of Intimidate to Coerce or the use of Enchantment spells. Any GM who interprets it as forbidding you from forcing criminals to stop committing crimes isn't applying the tenet hierarchy properly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:

There really isn't an issue with the Liberator code.

Full Code Text: wrote:


1. You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or the casting an evil spell, and you must never perform acts anathema to your deity.

2. You must not use actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent 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 potential to attempt to protect an innocent.

3. You must respect the choices others make for their own lives and can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t act that way.

4. You must demand and fight for the freedom of others to make their own decisions. You must never engage in or countenance slavery or tyranny.

What if some fool wants to go challenge and kill a dragon but clearly isn't capable of doing so? If the threat of harm is imminent (ie "The dragon is attacking town and 6-year old Timmy wants to fight it") then Tenet 2 says you must stop them from doing so. If the threat is not imminent but almost guaranteed (ie "The dragon is nesting in the mountains a day away and 6-year old Timmy wants to go fight it") the same Tenet applies. The only case where you'd need to respect their choice is if you aren't positive they will come to harm or that you can reasonably prevent them from making the decision that would cause them harm (ie "The dragon is nesting in the mountains a day away and the local militia, which is fairly well-trained and aware of the potential danger, wants to take a shot at slaying it but will back off if things get rough").

Come across a slaver in a country where slavery is legal? Tenet 3 only applies to choices made for a person's own life and Tenet 4 explicitly states that you must not accept slavery. Looks like you'll be working to free the slaves, whether that means fighting the slaver openly or subverting them in other ways.

Serial killer is about to murder someone in the streets? Tenet 2 says that so long as you have a reasonable chance of stopping them without getting yourself killed then you should do so.

The tenet hierarchy prevents pretty much all of the corner cases presented by conflicting tenets. Mechanically, Tenet 3 just prevents stuff like the use of Intimidate to Coerce or the use of Enchantment spells. Any GM who interprets it as forbidding you from forcing criminals to stop committing crimes isn't applying the tenet hierarchy properly.

I don't even think you'd actually be prevented from using Intimidate to Coerce or Enchantment spells, as long as you're using them to further one of the higher tenets: to prevent someone from harming an innocent, for example.

The idea that you can kill someone to stop them, but aren't allowed to threaten them is nonsense. You just wouldn't be able to coerce them in a lesser cause - just like you couldn't attack them.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
The tenet hierarchy prevents pretty much all of the corner cases presented by conflicting tenets. Mechanically, Tenet 3 just prevents stuff like the use of Intimidate to Coerce or the use of Enchantment spells. Any GM who interprets it as forbidding you from forcing criminals to stop committing crimes isn't applying the tenet hierarchy properly.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but this one actually depends on the crime in question, and the legal system you're dealing with. I'm pretty sure a Liberator can't prevent drug use, engaging in prostitution that isn't also slavery, and similar 'crimes' that directly harm nobody.

Of course, I'm also pretty sure a Liberator would argue that such things, being a matter of personal choice, should not be illegal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm even inclined to allow intimidate for coercion if the player RPs it correctly. "Describing in great and unpleasant detail the unfortunate likely consequences of a person's current course of actions" seems like a valid use of intimidate that respects other people's choices.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but this one actually depends on the crime in question, and the legal system you're dealing with. I'm pretty sure a Liberator can't prevent drug use, engaging in prostitution that isn't also slavery, and similar 'crimes' that directly harm nobody.

Of course, I'm also pretty sure a Liberator would argue that such things, being a matter of personal choice, should not be illegal.

I'm inclined to say a Liberator falls for caring what is or isn't legal, or about details about a specific legal system. Nothing could be further from "Chaotic Good" than letting the vagaries of the state stand in the way of "what is right."

Exo-Guardians

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladin of Serranrae.
"Would you like some Tea and a long talk, or a fireball? Your choice."


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Glad to see there are some reasonable people here when it comes to interpreting the paladin codes.

Always shake my head when people interpret the code like it's lines in a computer program and start looking for the parse errors. That's just another side of the "force the paladin to fall" mentality.

As far as the whole thing where Liberators are pretty doomed if they live in a country with slaves?

Well yes, obviously.

If you are a divinely empowered paragon of freedom and benevolence, and you look around and you see people being enslaved, and you don't devote yourself to doing everything in your power to save them, you are not a paragon of freedom and benevolence.

This doesn't mean a Liberator in Cheliax has to suicide themselves against the first slaver they meet because again, the Code is not a computer program. And the Liberator knows that a living champion can free a lot more people than a dead one.

But if you are a Liberator and you live in Cheliax, yeah, the vast majority of your time is probably devoted to finding ways to undermine slavery. Just like if you are a Paladin and you live in Cheliax, the vast majority of your time is probably devoted to finding ways to undermine the grip of deviltry on the nation.

Seems obvious to me.


(i'll note for posterity that i'm not in the "paladins are meant for falling" camp, i've just been subject to too many of those personally and wish for there to be as little room as possible for such draconian interpretations to exist.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That's fair. My personal stance is that no version of the rules can account for a horrible GM (and make no mistake, a GM who does that to you is a horrible GM).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
The tenet hierarchy prevents pretty much all of the corner cases presented by conflicting tenets. Mechanically, Tenet 3 just prevents stuff like the use of Intimidate to Coerce or the use of Enchantment spells. Any GM who interprets it as forbidding you from forcing criminals to stop committing crimes isn't applying the tenet hierarchy properly.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but this one actually depends on the crime in question, and the legal system you're dealing with. I'm pretty sure a Liberator can't prevent drug use, engaging in prostitution that isn't also slavery, and similar 'crimes' that directly harm nobody.

Of course, I'm also pretty sure a Liberator would argue that such things, being a matter of personal choice, should not be illegal.

That last bit is what I was thinking - "victimless crimes" are something a CG person likely wouldn't agree with anyway, including stuff like prostitution, certain recreational drug uses, and breaking curfew.

However, I personally read Tenet 2 as allowing the Liberator to prevent someone from taking an action that would cause them immediate harm even if they chose to take that action themselves. Whether they can stop someone from doing something that harms themselves in the future, however, is probably going to fall under Tenet 3 since there is no longer an immediate threat. YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why evil tyrants are more afraid of a CN rogue or ranger than a squad of paladins...

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
That last bit is what I was thinking - "victimless crimes" are something a CG person likely wouldn't agree with anyway, including stuff like prostitution, certain recreational drug uses, and breaking curfew.

That's fair. I'm really just striving for clarity.

LuniasM wrote:
However, I personally read Tenet 2 as allowing the Liberator to prevent someone from taking an action that would cause them immediate harm even if they chose to take that action themselves. Whether they can stop someone from doing something that harms themselves in the future, however, is probably going to fall under Tenet 3 since there is no longer an immediate threat. YMMV.

I agree they can prevent immediate harm (keeping someone from taking tainted drugs, or getting a lethal STD, or getting eaten by the abominations that come out after curfew, to continue with the examples), but I don't think merely consuming drugs of most sorts or having recreational sex would usually fall under Tenet #2.

Igor Horvat wrote:
This is why evil tyrants are more afraid of a CN rogue or ranger than a squad of paladins...

Not in my experience they aren't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
This is why evil tyrants are more afraid of a CN rogue or ranger than a squad of paladins...
Not in my experience they aren't.

Depends on whether the evil tyrant is liable to be undone by the heroic deeds of some plucky band of underdogs, or if some sort of organizational work is needed.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Liberator paladins are problematic, and also, Channel Life is one of the strongest feats ever for paladins and paladin-multiclassers All Messageboards