So something discovered by my friends and I while making characters with the new 1.6 rules. Deity Anathema has been added to the highest tenet of Good. As such, Pally's of Erastil and Torag can actually never lie at all again. Even to protect innocents. I know it was something the designers sad would be potential but it seems to be a place where Paladins and Redeemers will be forced to hold a more honest stance, at least when it comes to these 2 gods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, it sounds like one should probably place the deity's anathema in between the Tenets of Good and the Champion's Cause. That would make a bit more sense and it would go with the naming of the paragraph "Deity and Cause".
PS. Tenets of Evil when?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.
All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, Pathfinder 2.0 has officially outlawed using ‘Pally’ for Paladin once and for all.
Sorcy, Rangy, Wizzy, Barby, etc. are also not allowed (just in case anyone is, for some inexplicable reason, thinking of using any of those)
*narrows eyes*
*writes Barby 1 on character sheet*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
erm... Hadn't noticed them being that great at stabbing things, especially compared to say the fighter, or a zeal domain cleric. However I am fine with some paladins being unable to lie, look up Kantian ethics for what you can do when a direct lie is off the table (for instance, when asked where someone is say 'I saw them going that way' which was true... Yesterday, today they are upstairs in the house you are guarding)With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
The base Paladin, with no class feats, is roughly tied for third place in damage (with Barbarian at 1st, Fighter at a close 2nd, and Ranger being roughly equal in 3rd). The Righteous Ally: Blade Paladin can use Blade of Justice starting at Level 6 (which currently is as good as an attack at -10, but also triggers Weakness: Good) and can take Radiant Blade Spirit at Level 10 for a bonus Flaming or Holy rune. Paladins of Iomedae can take the Zeal Domain for Weapon Surge if desired, and unlike other classes they have plenty of class feats that grant bonus spell points so they can afford to use it more often if desired. Not to mention the new 1.6 feat Smite Evil at Level 12, which is essentially a superior version of Power Attack (+2 damage dice, triggers Divine Smite, bypasses physical resistances, and only counts as 1 attack for MAP). Even with just their pre-1.6 options, the PF2 Paladin has never been bad at dealing damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason I dislike tying "deity" to the core of the Paladin class. Deity-specific anathema should be last on the priority list, not first.
I mean, if a Paladin has to choose between "defy Iomedae" and "do the right thing" they should pick the last one and feel good about it 100% of the time.
|
What is the problem with "not allowed to lie"? In pf1 I have a paladin with the deception domain (Sacred Servant Archetype) and the legalistic curse (oracle dip) - circumventing truth with different truth and timed silence.
I think the code of the deity should come first, then all other codes.
But the most important thing is, and they should implement this strictly, as a Paladin you are not responsible for the actions of your team and as a (paladin) player you should not stop other players of playing what they like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with some paladins being unable to lie, look up Kantian ethics for what you can do when a direct lie is off the table (for instance, when asked where someone is say 'I saw them going that way' which was true... Yesterday, today they are upstairs in the house you are guarding)
Pshaw.
This Kantian balderdash might hold up in a court of law, but it can and should fail you when you're standing in front of your all-knowing deity and having to explain why you deliberately deceived that guy.
Deities usually care about intent, not about your ability to justify misdeeds by using loopholes.
Sure, this is table variance, but if a player at my table is bound to a code that precludes lying but is then perpetrating a deception by prevaricating, I'm going to ask that player if they truly want to break their code or if they'd like to choose a different answer that is in accordance with the INTENT of the code.
Maybe I'd allow an exception for a deity whose domain is Lawyers, but otherwise follow the intent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "getting around an inability to lie by making statements which are technically true but otherwise misleading" is a fun character to play, but pretty contrary to the intent of the Paladin in the overwhelming majority of the cases. It's a better gimmick for an oracle, honestly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being able to lie does not equate with being forced to tell the truth at all times. Sometimes, the best response is silence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
then they have to actively assist evil by telling it free intel.I am fine with some paladins being unable to lie, look up Kantian ethics for what you can do when a direct lie is off the table (for instance, when asked where someone is say 'I saw them going that way' which was true... Yesterday, today they are upstairs in the house you are guarding)Pshaw.
This Kantian balderdash might hold up in a court of law, but it can and should fail you when you're standing in front of your all-knowing deity and having to explain why you deliberately deceived that guy.
Deities usually care about intent, not about your ability to justify misdeeds by using loopholes.
Sure, this is table variance, but if a player at my table is bound to a code that precludes lying but is then perpetrating a deception by prevaricating, I'm going to ask that player if they truly want to break their code or if they'd like to choose a different answer that is in accordance with the INTENT of the code.
Maybe I'd allow an exception for a deity whose domain is Lawyers, but otherwise follow the intent.
Or they say (very truthfully) "You're not getting that information from me you foul evil-doer!" And that's that.
No Lawful-Stupid paladins need apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
|
|
With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
Well he wasn’t a Paladin so :3
Well he wasn’t a Paladin so :3With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
That is true, and he was proud of it.
He would call paladins code a "Manual how to lose a war as fast as possible"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well he wasn’t a Paladin so :3With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
That is true, and he was proud of it.
He would call paladins code a "Manual how to lose a war as fast as possible"
So he's a class guide writer.
So he's a class guide writer.Well he wasn’t a Paladin so :3With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
That is true, and he was proud of it.
He would call paladins code a "Manual how to lose a war as fast as possible"
Far from it. If he were in Golarion he would only care what your class can do and that you listen to his orders without question in time of war.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Far from it. If he were in Golarion he would only care what your class can do and that you listen to his orders without question in time of war.So he's a class guide writer.Well he wasn’t a Paladin so :3With this update the one that is most likely to protect the innocents will be most useless at doing so.All Paladins are out to protect innocents and are qood at stabbing evil things in the face so I'm not really seeing an issue, or how not being able to lie makes them "useless".
Paladins couldn't lie at all previously.
Sun Tzu reads paladins code and laughs hysterically :D
That is true, and he was proud of it.
He would call paladins code a "Manual how to lose a war as fast as possible"
So a class guide writer.
then they have to actively assist evil by telling it free intel.I am fine with some paladins being unable to lie, look up Kantian ethics for what you can do when a direct lie is off the table (for instance, when asked where someone is say 'I saw them going that way' which was true... Yesterday, today they are upstairs in the house you are guarding)Pshaw.
This Kantian balderdash might hold up in a court of law, but it can and should fail you when you're standing in front of your all-knowing deity and having to explain why you deliberately deceived that guy.
Deities usually care about intent, not about your ability to justify misdeeds by using loopholes.
Sure, this is table variance, but if a player at my table is bound to a code that precludes lying but is then perpetrating a deception by prevaricating, I'm going to ask that player if they truly want to break their code or if they'd like to choose a different answer that is in accordance with the INTENT of the code.
Maybe I'd allow an exception for a deity whose domain is Lawyers, but otherwise follow the intent.
Exactly. Which is why Paladins should not be prohibited from lying in that context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Which is why Paladins should not be prohibited from lying in that context.then they have to actively assist evil by telling it free intel.I am fine with some paladins being unable to lie, look up Kantian ethics for what you can do when a direct lie is off the table (for instance, when asked where someone is say 'I saw them going that way' which was true... Yesterday, today they are upstairs in the house you are guarding)Pshaw.
This Kantian balderdash might hold up in a court of law, but it can and should fail you when you're standing in front of your all-knowing deity and having to explain why you deliberately deceived that guy.
Deities usually care about intent, not about your ability to justify misdeeds by using loopholes.
Sure, this is table variance, but if a player at my table is bound to a code that precludes lying but is then perpetrating a deception by prevaricating, I'm going to ask that player if they truly want to break their code or if they'd like to choose a different answer that is in accordance with the INTENT of the code.
Maybe I'd allow an exception for a deity whose domain is Lawyers, but otherwise follow the intent.
Again, being forbidden from lying is not the same as being required to tell the truth whenever someone asks you a question. Paladins of Torag and Erastin cannot lie but they are not compelled to respond to every question asked of them. If someone asks you something and you don't want to answer, then don't! It's literally that easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it's odd that "don't lie" is given the same priority as "protect innocent life" for some Paladins.
However, I do think it makes for interesting flavor that choice of deity can meaningfully change a Paladin's top-level priorities.
And I definitely agree that "can't lie" doesn't mean "must truthfully answer every question you are asked". "I refuse to answer" is a truthful and to my mind very Paladin-y statement. Sure, you might face punishment for refusing to answer in some circumstances. But facing punishment or greater challenge because you chose to do the right thing is very Paladin.
Unless I'm missing something, your deity's anathema isn't placed above the tenants of good. In fact, the example given is "Shelyn’s paladins never
attack first except to protect an innocent," which makes it sound as though lying to protect and innocent would be fine for Torag and Saranrae as well.
"Never attack first except to protect an innocent" is the anathema in question, I believe.
Or rather, it would be, if Shelyn's anathema said anything at all about attacking first, which they do not. >.>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Never attack first except to protect an innocent" is the anathema in question, I believe.
Or rather, it would be, if Shelyn's anathema said anything at all about attacking first, which they do not. >.>
You are correct. It was mentioned in the Paladin code in both the original rules and the 1.6 update, and it was listed as Anathema in the "Eminent Domains" blog. It seems like that probably got removed before printing, probably because people in the blog thread questioned if it punished you for winning initiative. but they didn't catch that it made the paladin code example no longer apt.
Still, I'd say the intent is clear. The "protect innocents" code seems to win out.
EDIT: No, wait, the new code does list "perform acts anathema to your duty" in the highest tenet. I don't actually have a problem with that-- the gods may be good, but that doesn't make them reasonable by our standards. If Saranrae or whoever values the truth over the protection of innocents, that's their prerogative as gods.
However, if this is the case, they REALLY need to change that Shelyn example.