[PFS] *sigh* Paladins?


Advice

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:


#8: Slave Pits of Absalom

That one can be very problematic. How did your character deal with the very legal practice of slavery?

#5–07: Port Godless - Yes, Port Godless was no problem for a paladin.

So you didn't cast any spells, didn't use any divine abilities, the whole adventure?

Slave Pits: We were rescuing a slave who had been taken unlawfully. No conflict.

Port Godless: I relied on my combat abilities and advocated for greater religious tolerance during the NPC interactions.


EvilPaladin wrote:
I think it has to do with the high amounts of slightly-less-than-legal and less-than-good activity the Pathfinder Society indulges in quite often...

Primarily this. Many people find it difficult to reconcile success conditions in many scenarios with being a paladin.

Secondly, if you sit down at a table with a paladin, many people seem to assume you will be playing Lawful Stupid and holding them to your morals making it hard for them to succeed. So there is a bit of a stigma to overcome if you want to play one.

Thirdly, I almost never see anyone play a Lawful anything in PFS unless they absolutely had to in order to get the deity/domain they wanted.

Fourth, I think many people are finding the inquisitor does a better job of filling the role of what it seems like the paladin should do. The only people I see play paladins are doing so because the want X & Y abilities. Most don't really seem to enjoy role playing the paladin, they just put up with it to get the abilities they wanted.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You mean someone elses legal property?
Illegally sold property?

IIRC it was legally sold. They had receipts and everything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Remember that being lawful doesn' mean you have to be blindly obedient to whatever the local legal structure is.

While this is true in general, it is NOT true for a paladin (less that blindly part). Part of the paladins code is to respect legitimate authority: thats different than authority you agree with. While a paladin can (and should) favor good over law should they conflict, most paladins seem to completely ignore it "just this one time" so often their aligment should shoot past chaotic.

Quote:
It means you have to abide by your own code

Hell. To. the. NO.

The entire point of lawful is having an external structure that you follow. If your own code is "i do what I think is right" you're chaotic good.

Quote:
of discipline and respect local laws to the degree they do not conflict with your own.

How is that different from what chaotic good people do? Chaotic good andorans do not run around enslaving people just because the law said that they can't. The law says no slavery, they say no slavery, no conflict.

Quote:
There are lots of Andoran Paladins who do not see slavery as legally valid and are perfectly entitled to do something about it...as long as it doesn't involve full-on anarchy and stuff. But most Andorans consider slavers something rather lower then dirt, too.

And if their solution is to kick down the door and shoot the slaver (the most pathfindery or andoran option, triple points for using both together) you're degenerating into chaos.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
IIRC it was legally sold.

Mission Brief:
A one-eyed Andoren, a grit junky named Fredrik, is known for selling or helping to sell nobility into foreign markets that desire house slaves. Being enormously illegal, this trade makes Fredrik a fair bit of coin that Salhar’s agents assure me all go straight into the pockets of the Second Chance, a grit den dockside in Puddles.
Sovereign Court

Eh. The "lawful" thing gets complicated if multiple jurisdictions are involved. Especially if other legal systems seem unjust.

What's more unLawful: breaking the law or committing injustice?

The Lost Heir:

We'd caught the people who kidnapped the girl we were supposed to save. It turns out they were told she was an eloped noble from elsewhere, and someone had hired them to bring her back. They had treated her well, apart from the kidnapping.

Under Andoran law, they'd all hang for "enslaving" her though. With no possibility of mitigating circumstances, such as that they were willing to cooperate to bring their employer, the actual bad guy, to justice.

I was playing a paladin, and we discussed whether we should let them go (after extracting a fine). We concluded that in this case Andoran law was unjustly harsh, and that we weren't Andorans. So we let them escape. Everyone (including GM) agreed that this was acceptable for a paladin of Sarenrae.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Remember that being lawful doesn' mean you have to be blindly obedient to whatever the local legal structure is. It means you have to abide by your own code of discipline and respect local laws to the degree they do not conflict with your own.

There are lots of Andoran Paladins who do not see slavery as legally valid and are perfectly entitled to do something about it...as long as it doesn't involve full-on anarchy and stuff. But most Andorans consider slavers something rather lower then dirt, too.

==Aelryinth

It's been my experience with the conduct of the average Andoran that they are a more problematic faction for Paladins than Cheliax! I've never seen a more murderous bunch of characters from any other faction. Back in the days of faction missions, it was a running joke that standard equipment for an Andoran includes a waterproof bag to bring heads back.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

It's been my experience with the conduct of the average Andoran that they are a more problematic faction for Paladins than Cheliax! I've never seen a more murderous bunch of characters from any other faction. Back in the days of faction missions, it was a running joke that standard equipment for an Andoran includes a waterproof bag to bring heads back.

Joke? That was advice. And oft needed.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
It means you have to abide by your own code

Hell. To. the. NO.

The entire point of lawful is having an external structure that you follow. If your own code is "i do what I think is right" you're chaotic good.

However, the code IS influenced by the deity the Paladin Worships.

A paladin of Arshea will respond differently to a situation than a paladin of Torag or a paladin of Abadar

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Remember that being lawful doesn' mean you have to be blindly obedient to whatever the local legal structure is.

While this is true in general, it is NOT true for a paladin (less that blindly part). Part of the paladins code is to respect legitimate authority: thats different than authority you agree with. While a paladin can (and should) favor good over law should they conflict, most paladins seem to completely ignore it "just this one time" so often their aligment should shoot past chaotic.

Quote:
It means you have to abide by your own code

Hell. To. the. NO.

The entire point of lawful is having an external structure that you follow. If your own code is "i do what I think is right" you're chaotic good.

Quote:
of discipline and respect local laws to the degree they do not conflict with your own.

How is that different from what chaotic good people do? Chaotic good andorans do not run around enslaving people just because the law said that they can't. The law says no slavery, they say no slavery, no conflict.

Quote:
There are lots of Andoran Paladins who do not see slavery as legally valid and are perfectly entitled to do something about it...as long as it doesn't involve full-on anarchy and stuff. But most Andorans consider slavers something rather lower then dirt, too.

And if their solution is to kick down the door and shoot the slaver (the most pathfindery or andoran option, triple points for using both together) you're degenerating into chaos.

You're trying to find a conflict where there is not one.

A paladin's 'code' is always a variation on the paladin's code, period. It's influenced by where he grew up, personal emphasis, and his god.

It's still His Code, and he likely shares a lot of it with lots of other paladins. Your disagreement seems to me a willful interpretation that I was attempting to state that a paladin could make up any code he wanted, which is Chaotic behavior.

Secondly, 'legitimate government' is a very dicey word for a paladin. A government that endorses slavery can be seen as only borderline legitimate to any paladin that believes in the freedeom and equality of man, and he's no more obligated to obey laws that interfere with his code then he is to obey other laws that endorse and support Evil behavior. Indeed, 'legitimizing' a government like that is tactcitly giving support to Evil. While it may not spark revolution, the paladin is not obligated to be Lawful Stupid and do whatever the government says. Lawful Stupid is NOT an obligation of the paladin!

Killing slavers is not chaotic, killing slavers is removing evil from society and doing Good work. Leading a revolution against the government is Chaotic.

Methinks you believe paladins should be Lawful Stupid, and it's coloring your views.

Saying Good people who believe in fighting for their beliefs can't fight for them is not very convincing.

==Aelryinth


Leading a revolution against a lawful but evil government could be seen as Chaotic, but what if you organised a fair and representative opposition with the eventual aim of peaceful transfer of power and/or minimally violent revolution? You could have committees and everything. Those LG gods do love organisation.

Seriously though, there's got to be a way for Paladins to oppose organised and moderately legitimate Evils. Just because the Evil Necromancer King is bloodline heir to the previous ruler doesn't mean Paladins should like him, or even tolerate him.

Law and Chaos have a degree of intent about them. If you overthrow the despotic ruler with the intent of placing a provisional council of good and worthy people in charge, that's pretty lawfully intentioned. Overthrowing the despotic ruler because you think he's a jerk and don't really have a solid plan for what to do afterward is chaotic.


Any time someone suggests that paladins must obey any local authority as "legitimate," I ask if it would be okay to invade Hell and topple Asmodeus.

If they say no, they're too far gone to reason with and everyone can see it. And if they say yes, the point is made.

Sovereign Court

Some historical revolutionaries have gone to great length to write down WHY they considered their revolt legitimate, if not mandatory. Such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Act of Abjuration in which the Netherlands asserted that because he violated the laws he'd sworn to uphold, the King of Spain had effectively given up his right to the throne.

I think that's a very Lawful turn of mind at work there among the revolutionaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


You're trying to find a conflict where there is not one.

And you're trying to bolster your point by insulting me. Unless you have a mind reading machine, knock it off.

Quote:
A paladin's 'code' is always a variation on the paladin's code, period. It's influenced by where he grew up, personal emphasis, and his god.

No, its not. A paladin cannot simply say that lying and using poison are not ok. They can use it to inform their decision making about conflicting elements of their code (a saranite paladin might err towards mercy and redemption and a paladin of ragathiel is going to lean heavily towards harsh justice)

Quote:
Your disagreement seems to me a willful interpretation that I was attempting to state that a paladin could make up any code he wanted, which is Chaotic behavior.

I can't find any functional difference between that and what you said above.

Quote:
Secondly, 'legitimate government' is a very dicey word for a paladin. A government that endorses slavery can be seen as only borderline legitimate to any paladin that believes in the freedeom and equality of man, and he's no more obligated to obey laws that interfere with his code then he is to obey other laws that endorse and support Evil behavior. Indeed, 'legitimizing' a government like that is tactcitly giving support to Evil.

Can you explain ANY difference between this and a chaotic good character that is not being chaotic stupid?

Quote:
While it may not spark revolution, the paladin is not obligated to be Lawful Stupid and do whatever the government says. Lawful Stupid is NOT an obligation of the paladin!

And I am not advocating lawful stupid. I am advocating lawful damned- inconvenient-for-an-adventurer approach in the wrong situations.

A paladin cannot go full on John Brown. That is completely working outside the system. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean that they DON"T fight evil, slavery, or injustice- it means they need a way to fight it that is slightly more subtle than giving 4 feet of tempered steel an in depth tour of someone's internal organs.

Lobby the government. Buy the slaves yourself. Move to andor and start a refugee and retraining center for escaped slaves. Write the best selling novel "Uncle Slips Cabin" exposing the horrors of slavery. Your choices are not being lawful or doing nothing It just often involves doing things that aren't particularly exciting and outside the scope of the normal game.

Quote:
Killing slavers is not chaotic, killing slavers is removing evil from society and doing Good work.

Are you a Kantian or something? You act as though these sentences are mutually exclusive. They're not. Something can be both chaotic AND good.

Quote:
Leading a revolution against the government is Chaotic.

Where Slavery is legal and a culturally accepted practice killing the slavers is chaotic.

Lawful characters respect authority. The authorities have said don't kill the slavers.

Lawful characters honor tradition. The tradition in cheliax is one of slave ownership.

Law implies obedience to authority. The authorities said don't kill the slavers.

Quote:
Methinks you believe paladins should be Lawful Stupid, and it's coloring your views.

You're wrong. Don't go into the mind reading game you're horrible at it.

Quote:
Saying Good people who believe in fighting for their beliefs can't fight for them is not very convincing.

Never said you can't fight, but HOW you fight for them matters to the lawful folks.


Ascalaphus wrote:

Some historical revolutionaries have gone to great length to write down WHY they considered their revolt legitimate, if not mandatory. Such as the Declaration of Independence, or the Act of Abjuration in which the Netherlands asserted that because he violated the laws he'd sworn to uphold, the King of Spain had effectively given up his right to the throne.

I think that's a very Lawful turn of mind at work there among the revolutionaries.

This I would be ok with. But I have never seen it. I would be thrilled with, but have never heard of any paladin trying to reason through a lawful organized opposition to the legitimate evil government.

What I've seen is:

  • He pings on the evil-o-meter. Doesn't matter that he is the sherrif, I smite evil.
  • This country allows slavery, they are bad, so it doesn't matter if I break laws.
  • I'm not going to steal anything. But I'm going to go over there and look at the statue for awhile, don't tell me if you steal anything.
  • I'm not going to steal anything. But when someone tries to stop my allies that are stealing, I will kill all of them.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


You're trying to find a conflict where there is not one.

And you're trying to bolster your point by insulting me. Unless you have a mind reading machine, knock it off.

Quote:
A paladin's 'code' is always a variation on the paladin's code, period. It's influenced by where he grew up, personal emphasis, and his god.

No, its not. A paladin cannot simply say that lying and using poison are not ok. They can use it to inform their decision making about conflicting elements of their code (a saranite paladin might err towards mercy and redemption and a paladin of ragathiel is going to lean heavily towards harsh justice)

Quote:
Your disagreement seems to me a willful interpretation that I was attempting to state that a paladin could make up any code he wanted, which is Chaotic behavior.

I can't find any functional difference between that and what you said above.

Quote:
Secondly, 'legitimate government' is a very dicey word for a paladin. A government that endorses slavery can be seen as only borderline legitimate to any paladin that believes in the freedeom and equality of man, and he's no more obligated to obey laws that interfere with his code then he is to obey other laws that endorse and support Evil behavior. Indeed, 'legitimizing' a government like that is tactcitly giving support to Evil.

Can you explain ANY difference between this and a chaotic good character that is not being chaotic stupid?

Quote:
While it may not spark revolution, the paladin is not obligated to be Lawful Stupid and do whatever the government says. Lawful Stupid is NOT an obligation of the paladin!

And I am not advocating lawful stupid. I am advocating lawful damned- inconvenient-for-an-adventurer approach in the wrong situations.

A paladin cannot go full on John Brown. That is completely working outside the system. That does not in any way, shape, or form mean that they DON"T fight evil, slavery, or injustice- it means they need a way to fight...

Ah, and now you justify an attempt to get around insults with direct insults! Fitting, I see.

The paladin is not an administrator, he is not a bureaucracy. Furthermore, his paladin code may place a great deal of emphasis on the right of people to choose their own path in life, and forced slavery, by birth or imposition, is a vile evil that must be expunged.

In the name of his paladin's code, he can and will be compelled to act against them, The laws which support and justify them are on their face void and null, and the government which supports them is also in the wrong.

Does this mean the paladin leads a rebellion against the government? kills the watchman and the clerks and the tax collectors?

No, it means he takes action against those to which his code deems that he must. He does not try to tear the entire government down with fire and sword...unless, of course, the government itself resorts to fire and sword, in which case justice, not law, demands he take greater action.

You are attempting to enshrine 'slavery' into 'law' and so place it beyond the paladin's mores. You could do the same with 'lawful sacrifice to Asmodeus', 'freedom from laws of the common man' for nobles, 'the right of kings' to do whatever they want, 'rulership by wealth' and any of a number of different forms, that enshrine their own evils in law as a corrupted attempt to give them legitimacy.

The paladin looks beyond all that to his greater code, and deems what is wrong to be Wrong, to be corruption hiding behind words and decree, and may take action against them.

Being Lawful is not about blindly obeying laws, any laws, greater society or not. It is up to the paladin to decide which, if any, of the laws he deems legitimate and will respect, and which are cancers in the heart of society that must be expunged...sometimes with words, and sometimes with steel.

Slavery, as an evil against society that profits a few locals at the expense of many outsiders, is insidious and difficult to expunge, backed by the weight of greed and the power of tyranny over others, and oft times the best way to start dealing with such an organization is to shatter it, and then methodically pick up the pieces.

May that be breaking laws? Sure, laws the paladin doesn't consider legitimate. Does that mean breaking ALL the laws? By no means.

Trying to equate breaking corrupt laws with chaotic behavior is a trap and highly unfair to the paladin's code, which sits above such things in determining his behavior.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


This I would be ok with. But I have never seen it. I would be thrilled with, but have never heard of any paladin trying to reason through a lawful organized opposition to the legitimate evil government.

The correct opinion of the paladin would be along the lines of 'lawful opposition to the evil folk currently holding the reins of power.' The non-legitimate nature of the government would not be in question.

Which is admittedly very weighty thinking for a game which is generally about killing bad guys and taking their stuff, to be sure. Trying to make an evil unassailable by making it part of the government is one of those "mess over the paladin" things DM's like to do.

Remember a paladin is a paladin. He 'may' have an official standing with society, but basically he's someone who has been empowered as an agent of law and good to get things done, specifically in a violent manner. He's not under obligation to be merciful, to use non-lethal combat, to drag people to jail, obey the orders of evil officials, or any of that grey morality that pervades our world. His job is to obey the strictures of his code in pursuit of highest morality, and if that involves dealing death in violent combat, he is equipped to do so, and he WILL do so.

If that means sending a government licensed slaver to Hell after due consideration, that's what he's going to do. He might be nice and pay for the burial, and if he's truly a hero he'll free the unjustly enslaved and see them to a proper land and home.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


This I would be ok with. But I have never seen it. I would be thrilled with, but have never heard of any paladin trying to reason through a lawful organized opposition to the legitimate evil government.

The correct opinion of the paladin would be along the lines of 'lawful opposition to the evil folk currently holding the reins of power.' The non-legitimate nature of the government would not be in question.

Which is admittedly very weighty thinking for a game which is generally about killing bad guys and taking their stuff, to be sure. Trying to make an evil unassailable by making it part of the government is one of those "mess over the paladin" things DM's like to do.

Remember a paladin is a paladin. He 'may' have an official standing with society, but basically he's someone who has been empowered as an agent of law and good to get things done, specifically in a violent manner. He's not under obligation to be merciful, to use non-lethal combat, to drag people to jail, obey the orders of evil officials, or any of that grey morality that pervades our world. His job is to obey the strictures of his code in pursuit of highest morality, and if that involves dealing death in violent combat, he is equipped to do so, and he WILL do so.

If that means sending a government licensed slaver to Hell after due consideration, that's what he's going to do. He might be nice and pay for the burial, and if he's truly a hero he'll free the unjustly enslaved and see them to a proper land and home.

==Aelryinth

I will 90% agree with what you say.

Some people will take your views and reasoning to say the ends justify any means. So I can do anything as long as it comes out generally better in the end. (I have actually seen a person justify selling an entire village into slavery so that they didn't blow their cover. All in the name of the greater good.) That I disagree with. I can not quite tell from what you wrote if you are in that group or not.

Again:
If the paladin reasoned out opposing the government and eliminating the corrupt official because there isn't a realistic way to legally remove him from office, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

But what I normally see is the player using 5th grade reasoning to justify the sophistry of behaving as a stereotypical 'murderhobo.' I still don't usually call the player on it unless he goes way too far out on that limb, but it does bug me and sometimes they do go right out to the end of the limb.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Ah, and now you justify an attempt to get around insults with direct insults!

Where?

Quote:
In the name of his paladin's code, he can and will be compelled to act against them, The laws which support and justify them are on their face void and null, and the government which supports them is also in the wrong.

Welcome to chaotic good. And fall town. You're not even TRYING to give an argument to differentiate your "paladin" from chaotic good.

Quote:
No, it means he takes action against those to which his code deems that he must. He does not try to tear the entire government down with fire and sword...unless, of course, the government itself resorts to fire and sword, in which case justice, not law, demands he take greater action.

Of COURSE the government is going to resort to the sword. The paladin is breaking the law. They're going to call him a criminal, a terrorist, and a traitor and then and arrest him and execute him.

Quote:
You are attempting to enshrine 'slavery' into 'law' and so place it beyond the paladin's mores. You could do the same with 'lawful sacrifice to Asmodeus', 'freedom from laws of the common man' for nobles, 'the right of kings' to do whatever they want, 'rulership by wealth' and any of a number of different forms, that enshrine their own evils in law as a corrupted attempt to give them legitimacy.

YES. That is in fact the entire MO of lawful evil. And it WORKS. There are paladins working for the lawful evil chelaxian government as hellknights. There are no paladins working for the chaotic evil orc tribes of belkzen.

Quote:
The paladin looks beyond all that to his greater code, and deems what is wrong to be Wrong, to be corruption hiding behind words and decree, and may take action against them.

Not remotely different from chaotic good.

Quote:
Being Lawful is not about blindly obeying laws, any laws, greater society or not.

Obeying laws does not have to be blind. A smart paladin KNOWS what they're doing. They believe that the rules and structures that are in place are too important to be burned out along with the evil they do. Just as a paladin would not burn down an orphanage to kill the succubus hiding in it, they won't leave the entire country in chaos and anarchy in order to get rid of slavery- which is exactly what WOULD happen if everyone was free to start killing their owners. Yes, slavery is bad but Galt is worse.

Quote:
It is up to the paladin to decide which, if any, of the laws he deems legitimate and will respect, and which are cancers in the heart of society that must be expunged...sometimes with words, and sometimes with steel.

How is that remotely different from chaotic good?

Quote:
Slavery, as an evil against society that profits a few locals at the expense of many outsiders, is insidious and difficult to expunge, backed by the weight of greed and the power of tyranny over others, and oft times the best way to start dealing with such an organization is to shatter it, and then methodically pick up the pieces.

Chaotic good. Government like this are what make Chaotic good have legitimate points in its favor, as well as making it the official alignment of adventuring parties everywhere.

Quote:
May that be breaking laws? Sure, laws the paladin doesn't consider legitimate. Does that mean breaking ALL the laws? By no means.

Well, as long as he's leaving the tags on mattresses I suppose little things like murder, theft, and insurrection

Quote:
Trying to equate breaking corrupt laws with chaotic behavior is a trap and highly unfair to the paladin's code, which sits above such things in determining his behavior.

That's neutral good.

Lawful good is not the best good. Lawful good is not merely good plus. Lawful good is not always doing the right thing. It is not "extra good". Lawful good is not objectively the best good.

Lawful Good is the philosophy that believes that the path to the most good is people acting together with a single purpose under the direction of a centralized authority. Taking the easy way, shortcuts, and small picture to get immediate results sounds good, but it always leads to bigger problems down the road.

If that sounds like a direct contradiction when dealing with organized evil, it is and that's the point. The internal contradictions and restrictions are a large part of what makes a paladin dramatic to play and not just a fighter with good saves. Their code is SUPPOSED to be a burden to overcome, not a bit of flavor you can wave away with "I don't consider you legitimate and I'm the only authority that matters"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't consider the paladin code a burden to overcome. I think it's an important tool to keep you doing the right thing and to keep you from doing the wrong thing.

Is it chaotic to oppose an illegitimate government? I wouldn't say so. According to a paladin's creed, any government that condones or supports certain evil practices [such as slavery] might automatically lose legitimacy. And then opposing the oppressing, tyrannical authority is not just acceptable but mandatory.

Also, notice that the paladin's code of conduct class feature makes you fall for evil acts, not chaotic acts. Your alignment must be lawful, but that doesn't mean all your actions must be lawful. Your alignment must be good, an addition you must not do evil.

That doesn't mean a LG revolutionary paladin is the same as a CG revolutionary [something]. The CG guy never cared much for government to begin with; to his mind, being good is your own responsibility, not something that a lawmaker makes you do. The paladin however sees that government, theoretically a tool for the common good, is broken and needs to be reformed or replaced. The CG guy would be okay with abolishing the government altogether, the paladin is concerned with installing a better regime.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't consider the paladin code a burden to overcome. I think it's an important tool to keep you doing the right thing and to keep you from doing the wrong thing.

Right and wrong are a matter of good and evil. There's nothing inherently good or evil about a good chunk of the code that's spelled out.

not lying
not cheating
not using poison
respect legitimate authority

Quote:
Is it chaotic to oppose an illegitimate government? I wouldn't say so. According to a paladin's creed, any government that condones or supports certain evil practices [such as slavery] might automatically lose legitimacy.

Citation?

Quote:
And then opposing the oppressing, tyrannical authority is not just acceptable but mandatory.

Ok, AGAIN....

Yes, you oppose evil.

HOW you oppose it matters. A paladin cannot poison a fortresses water cistern to make an invasion easier, even if he can scale the walls, sword in hand, a prayer on his lips, hacking people left and right. Its not that there's anything morally worse about poisoning someone than ramming 4 feet of steel through them, its that poisoning them isn't as honorable.

Quote:
Also, notice that the paladin's code of conduct class feature makes you fall for evil acts, not chaotic acts. Your alignment must be lawful, but that doesn't mean all your actions must be lawful. Your alignment must be good, an addition you must not do evil.

Correct. But if it becomes a habit your alignment is going to shift over to NG, and its hello fighter without bonus feats.

This is the advantage to pfs: your little acts of unlawfulness can't become a persistent pattern to shift your alignment.

The disadvantage is that its hard to tell how any particular DM Is going to interpret the paladin.

Quote:
That doesn't mean a LG revolutionary paladin is the same as a CG revolutionary [something]. The CG guy never cared much for government to begin with; to his mind, being good is your own responsibility, not something that a lawmaker makes you do. The paladin however sees that government, theoretically a tool for the common good, is broken and needs to be reformed or replaced. The CG guy would be okay with abolishing the government altogether, the paladin is concerned with installing a better regime.

But the way you folks are reading it they do the exact same thing. If your convictions don't lead to different actions then they're not really convictions.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:


I will 90% agree with what you say.

Some people will take your views and reasoning to say the ends justify any means. So I can do anything as long as it comes out generally better in the end. (I have actually seen a person justify selling an entire village into slavery so that they didn't blow their cover. All in the name of the greater good.) That I disagree with. I can not quite tell from what you wrote if you are in that group or not....

'For the Greater Good' is a LN/LE trap quote. Selling people into slavery is evil on its merits, doing it not to blow your cover doesn't make it less evil. Of course, if you do that for the purpose of conning the slavers out of their gold, and then ambushing the slaver train, killing them and taking the slaves, that's what we call sophisticated tactical planning!

The paladin is Heroic Lawful Good. Not Stupid Good or Lawful Stupid. He's going to be a hero, and if the law is wrong, he will sidestep the law. IF the law is RIGHT, agrees with his code, and gets in the way...that's where the Chaotics go right ahead anyways, and the paladin looks for another way. Maybe serving as a distraction for the Chaotics, who knows? maybe open confrontation and forcing an issue.

An example I like to use from my home campaign is the Champions of Valus. As LG has its paladins, CG has its Champions...who are less holy knights then good-hearted freebooters and gloryhounds. They'll blow into town, invite the local priests and paladins of the God of Justice out for drinks, and get them roaring drunk. The faithful of Harse let slip all the people who are getting away with doing dirt and preying on the locals and are protected by the system and the church can't do anything about it without breaking all sorts of laws and imperiling their hard-won standing in the community. The Valusar help the aggrieved and besotted Harsites home, and then over the course of the next week, all sorts of enthusiastic violent acts against these exploiters of the system take place. The law goes hounding after the criminal perpetrators of these acts and they get run out of town, while the Church of Harse shakes its head about such troublemakers as they exploit the chaos to dig up information and proof they need to dismantle the greater threat now that the Valusar have kicked down the doors and opened up the ugly mess for all to see, and the paladins have a field day.

It's considered a sacred tradition of both churches, and a major reason why Harsites are considered horrible drinkers.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BNW, you're a guy looking for an excuse to Fall the paladin. a 'burden to overcome'? WTH? It's a guideline for keeping you true to your cause! Anyone who thinks of a paladin's code as a 'burden' is definitely not into the spirit of paladin hood.

Kindly keep in mind that the paladin's code is much more forgiving of chaotic acts then evil ones, and legitimizing a government that endorses slavery can be seen by many as an Evil act.

You are also mistaking 'Lawful' for 'utter obedience to laws', despite the paladin's code being primary, and Lawful Good hardly means blind service to government. Indeed, there is no obligation for a paladin to serve in a government, even though it is highly likely. Where laws conflict with code, the laws lose, and that's just what a paladin is.

If you now want to expound upon how the paladin's code being more important then local governmental regulations is, and is Chaotic because of that, you're waaaaaay into house rule opinions by then. You're also trying to draw lines of self-interest into his actions that don't exist.

Most of us don't have problems with the code - acting like a Big Damn Hero is part of being a paladin. And corrupt laws get in the way, he'll still act like the hero his Code tells him to be.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't consider the paladin code a burden to overcome. I think it's an important tool to keep you doing the right thing and to keep you from doing the wrong thing.

Is it chaotic to oppose an illegitimate government? I wouldn't say so. According to a paladin's creed, any government that condones or supports certain evil practices [such as slavery] might automatically lose legitimacy. And then opposing the oppressing, tyrannical authority is not just acceptable but mandatory.

Also, notice that the paladin's code of conduct class feature makes you fall for evil acts, not chaotic acts. Your alignment must be lawful, but that doesn't mean all your actions must be lawful. Your alignment must be good, an addition you must not do evil.

That doesn't mean a LG revolutionary paladin is the same as a CG revolutionary [something]. The CG guy never cared much for government to begin with; to his mind, being good is your own responsibility, not something that a lawmaker makes you do. The paladin however sees that government, theoretically a tool for the common good, is broken and needs to be reformed or replaced. The CG guy would be okay with abolishing the government altogether, the paladin is concerned with installing a better regime.

I'd say the difference is that the paladin is willing to take responsibility for the fallout and repercussions of his actions, and the CG hero generally tends to ignore those, as his own interests are primary.

There'll be exceptions, of course, you can't lock everyone in.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
BNW, you're a guy looking for an excuse to Fall the paladin.

And yet despite DMing for them frequently I haven't made one do as much as an atone and moan. For the last time, rest your arguments on something in reality, not your objectively faulty mind reading powers or aspersions on my character and honesty.

Quote:
Kindly keep in mind that the paladin's code is much more forgiving of chaotic acts then evil ones, and legitimizing a government that endorses slavery can be seen by many as an Evil act.

And yet there are paladin hellknights. How is that possible? This is yet another point you're evading with insults.

Quote:
You are also mistaking 'Lawful' for 'utter obedience to laws', despite the paladin's code being primary, and Lawful Good hardly means blind service to government. Indeed, there is no obligation for a paladin to serve in a government, even though it is highly likely. Where laws conflict with code, the laws lose, and that's just what a paladin is.

Already addressed:

Correct. But if it becomes a habit your alignment is going to shift over to NG, and its hello fighter without bonus feats.

.

Quote:
You're also trying to draw lines of self-interest into his actions that don't exist.

If you had an argument you wouldn't need dross like this. Goodbye.

Liberty's Edge

Playing a paladin in PFS has led to a few inter-party conflicts, and some reduction in options for how to proceed as a party.

On the other hand, I think my devout Pharasman wizard has had more conflict with actual PFS scenario goals, than my paladin. How many times have we been asked to loot a tomb, violate a grave, etc?

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't consider the paladin code a burden to overcome. I think it's an important tool to keep you doing the right thing and to keep you from doing the wrong thing.

Right and wrong are a matter of good and evil. There's nothing inherently good or evil about a good chunk of the code that's spelled out.

not lying
not cheating
not using poison
respect legitimate authority

Most of those things are explicitly mentioned in the description of Lawful Good in the CRB;

CRB chapter 8 wrote:

Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good combines honor with compassion.

The prohibition against poison is probably based on the idea that poison is a dishonorable tactic.

My point here is that I think the Lawful part is for paladins a means to achieve the Good part. Paladins work according to a code to make sure they don't drift into evil.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Is it chaotic to oppose an illegitimate government? I wouldn't say so. According to a paladin's creed, any government that condones or supports certain evil practices [such as slavery] might automatically lose legitimacy.

Citation?

Notice the "might" part. I could've been clearer; I meant that a paladin's creed might condemn such governments.

When you're playing lawful, you must start by following the code of your own belief. If your church says that the Slaver Government is evil and therefore illegitimate, then you're being lawful by no longer abiding by the Slaver Government's laws.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
And then opposing the oppressing, tyrannical authority is not just acceptable but mandatory.

Ok, AGAIN....

Yes, you oppose evil.

HOW you oppose it matters. A paladin cannot poison a fortresses water cistern to make an invasion easier, even if he can scale the walls, sword in hand, a prayer on his lips, hacking people left and right. Its not that there's anything morally worse about poisoning someone than ramming 4 feet of steel through them, its that poisoning them isn't as honorable.

Yes. I don't disagree on this point.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
Also, notice that the paladin's code of conduct class feature makes you fall for evil acts, not chaotic acts. Your alignment must be lawful, but that doesn't mean all your actions must be lawful. Your alignment must be good, an addition you must not do evil.

Correct. But if it becomes a habit your alignment is going to shift over to NG, and its hello fighter without bonus feats.

This is the advantage to pfs: your little acts of unlawfulness can't become a persistent pattern to shift your alignment.

The disadvantage is that its hard to tell how any particular DM Is going to interpret the paladin.

True. You shouldn't make a habit of acting sneakily.

As a paladin, you should always worry if you're stepping on a slippery slope. That's part of the fun.

But the earlier idea that the paladin code is a Burden, that I disagree with. I think it's meant to PROTECT paladins from slipping down that slope. The idea is that being chaotic opens you up to the risk of corruption into evil. The code tells you not to step on the slipperty slope. And if you absolutely must do so at some point, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
That doesn't mean a LG revolutionary paladin is the same as a CG revolutionary [something]. The CG guy never cared much for government to begin with; to his mind, being good is your own responsibility, not something that a lawmaker makes you do. The paladin however sees that government, theoretically a tool for the common good, is broken and needs to be reformed or replaced. The CG guy would be okay with abolishing the government altogether, the paladin is concerned with installing a better regime.
But the way you folks are reading it they do the exact same thing. If your convictions don't lead to different actions then they're not really convictions.

I don't agree with that interpretation. The CG revolutionary is NOT doing the same thing as the LG paladin. CG Guy is trying to overthrow an evil and oppressive government so that people can be free to be good. The LG paladin is trying to remove the evil government so that a good government can be instituted to guide the people.

That's a difference in their ends. Their means of revolt will probably also be different. The CG guy is probably more willing to try unorthodox tactics than the paladin. Not only is the paladin worried about stepping on the aforesaid slippery slope, but he's probably just plain bad at Stealth and Bluff. Paladins are fairly bad at starting rebellions because they're likely to screw up covert resistance bits. Paladins are probably better at revolition through outside military intervention. A paladin's dream revolution involves a public declaration that they're coming to liberate the people, whereupon the people welcome them while they have a big battle with the evil government.

(Note that paladins aren't the only LG revolutionaries. Bolsheviks, dreaming of an ordered socialist utopia with plenty and equality for all, and strict cadre discipline, might be LG as well. They're loyal to the rules of the Comintern, while rejecting the legitimacy of bourgeois government. So they don't have any "legal" problem with class struggle. And unlike paladins, they don't feel an obligation to be honorable towards the enemy.)

A CG revolution might go very differently. Probably more of a Robin Hood kind of thing. Using deception is not a priori rejected. But they'll also be worried that their own revolutionary organization might be the seed of the new dictatorship. It'll be a lot harder to operate as a cohesive whole, because everyone wants to be thinking for himself and questioning the leadership of the movement.

SO, no, I don't think they're doing exactly the same thing. They have different convictions, different methods and different ideal end goals.


Ascalaphus wrote:


Most of those things are explicitly mentioned in the description of Lawful Good in the CRB

But that doesn't make them a matter of good and evil. Lawful good is not good plus. Lawful good is not extra good. Lawful good is not the goodest good. Lawful good is not the arbiter of right and wrong.

Quote:
The prohibition against poison is probably based on the idea that poison is a dishonorable tactic.

But not an evil one.

Quote:
My point here is that I think the Lawful part is for paladins a means to achieve the Good part. Paladins work according to a code to make sure they don't drift into evil.

Thats certainly one way to do Lawful Good.

And lets apply it to our poor chelaxian. Killing the police because you disagree with them is one hell of a slippery slope to jump down. As is evading the police, committing insurrection, and 100 other things you'd have to do to pull a john brown.

Quote:
Notice the "might" part. I could've been clearer; I meant that a paladin's creed might condemn such governments.

It also condemns stooping to their level.

Quote:
When you're playing lawful, you must start by following the code of your own belief.

No, you're following the code of some other authority, of your own choosing, not your own code. The same code that other people are following. It is NOT individualized. Can you show me ANYTHING that would indicate what you're saying is the case?

Quote:
If your church says that the Slaver Government is evil and therefore illegitimate, then you're being lawful by no longer abiding by the Slaver Government's laws.

A paladin comes with one of those. While a lawful good fighter might have a code that lets him make use of poison a paladin cannot because their code isn't entirely theirs.

Quote:
But the earlier idea that the paladin code is a Burden, that I disagree with. I think it's meant to PROTECT paladins from slipping down that slope. The idea is that being chaotic opens you up to the risk of corruption into evil. The code tells you not to step on the slipperty slope. And if you absolutely must do so at some point, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Its a limiting factor to the player. (as are many other role playing choices)

Quote:
I don't agree with that interpretation. The CG revolutionary is NOT doing the same thing as the LG paladin. CG Guy is trying to overthrow an evil and oppressive government so that people can be free to be good. The LG paladin is trying to remove the evil government so that a good government can be instituted to guide the people.

But they're both overthrowing the evil and oppressive government by the illegal means of insurrection, theft, assault, murder, mayhem, destruction of private property and offenses against nature. In fact with what you're describing the two would look identical until the actual campaign was over and we tried to write the "happily ever after". I can't see something as important as alignment being swept that easily under the rug.


Flame wars!! Its on!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Flame wars!! Its on!

I have not yet begun to flame!

wait, not like that...

Sovereign Court

@BigNorseWolf: I think we're starting to talk past each other.

When I talk about a paladin acting according to his beliefs, I don't mean strict individual beliefs. I mean according to the doctrines of his faith.

If your church preaches that the Cheliax government is an abomination, that has lost all right to make laws, and that it must be opposed - then it's Lawful to do so, because the authority you adhere to (your church) tells you to.

I hadn't heard about John Brown until today; I don't live in the US. He looks like a complicated figure, and I'm not comfortable making simple judgements about his alignment based on the very little I know.

But yes, opposing governments is very hard for paladins. They're much more at ease facing down demons, dragons and undead. Collateral damage, including the ethical problems that arise if Cheliax uses innocent people as living shields - that's a nightmare for paladins.

However, the evil government still has to go. Promoting Good is the ultimate goal, much more than Law. Law is important, because paladins believe law is the best instrument for good. But that doesn't mean that all governments are sacrosanct, no matter what they do.

---

Abour the Burden part. The fairly strict alignment, and code of paladins, does limit you. It's meant to, and I don't think it's a disadvantage. It's meant to protect you. It's like a safety rail meant to stop you from slipping off the road into a ravine.

---

About the CG vs. Paladin revolutionary. I tried to express my point as clearly as possible. The CG guy is trying to GET RID OF a regime. The paladin is trying to REPLACE or REFORM the regime. Those are not the same ends.


Or to put it more simply, If the law requires the paladin to perform an evil act, does he automatically fall?

Is it worse for the paladin to permit legal, but evil, acts to go on in his presence or to break the law to stop them?

Sovereign Court

@thejeff:

Paladins don't actually fall for breaking the law. They fall for doing evil.

In addition, they must maintain a Lawful and Good alignment, which is hard if you regularly break laws.


Ascalaphus wrote:

@thejeff:

Paladins don't actually fall for breaking the law. They fall for doing evil.

In addition, they must maintain a Lawful and Good alignment, which is hard if you regularly break laws.

So, when faced with that choice, they should break the law, correct?

But they should also just stand by and watch evil being done, as long as it's being done legally, and not break the law to stop it?

I wonder if this would change in a more Chaotic Evil society, where local law was really just the latest whim of the ruler.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

@thejeff:

Paladins don't actually fall for breaking the law. They fall for doing evil.

In addition, they must maintain a Lawful and Good alignment, which is hard if you regularly break laws.

So, when faced with that choice, they should break the law, correct?

But they should also just stand by and watch evil being done, as long as it's being done legally, and not break the law to stop it?

I wonder if this would change in a more Chaotic Evil society, where local law was really just the latest whim of the ruler.

Generally, GENERALLY, if the choice is between doing what is lawful and doing what is right, the Paladin should choose to do what is right. But that statement should also be followed with a massive list of asterisks because there is a crap ton of evil things that are legal that a paladin should not bother with.

As a side note, I just imagined a Paladin trying to smite someone for trying to commit tax evasion...


Koujow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

@thejeff:

Paladins don't actually fall for breaking the law. They fall for doing evil.

In addition, they must maintain a Lawful and Good alignment, which is hard if you regularly break laws.

So, when faced with that choice, they should break the law, correct?

But they should also just stand by and watch evil being done, as long as it's being done legally, and not break the law to stop it?

I wonder if this would change in a more Chaotic Evil society, where local law was really just the latest whim of the ruler.

Generally, GENERALLY, if the choice is between doing what is lawful and doing what is right, the Paladin should choose to do what is right. But that statement should also be followed with a massive list of asterisks because there is a crap ton of evil things that are legal that a paladin should not bother with.

As a side note, I just imagined a Paladin trying to smite someone for trying to commit tax evasion...

Well, let's just assume actually serious Evil. Rape, torture, sacrificing virgins to devils and the like.

At some point, I'd have the paladin fall for not trying to intervene, even if the acts are legal under local law. Trying to function within an evil society should be hard for a paladin, though I'd have the biggest danger be failing to act or getting killed for acting. Not shifting away from Lawful because he didn't obey evil laws.

And I'm now imagining the paladin checking all the forms for the sacrifice and saying: "Sorry ma'am. I'm afraid I can't help you. Everything here seems to be in order. Carry on gentlemen."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Probably best to go over what is expected of your paladin in the eyes of the GM before a campaign/game. That whole communication thing works wonders. And then solicit feedback.

Given that this is Society 'expect table variation.' But still I would discuss it and perhaps even mention a few basic tenets of your paladin with the party and the GM before session start.

Sovereign Court

If the teaser for the adventure looks hanky, I ask the GM if this is an adventure that works for paladins, or if I should grab a different PC instead.


I played in a game yesterday where we were sent to assassinate someone. The paladin had already pinged the guy as evil, and although he wasn't part of the plot, he knew about it. The gm was like, so your sure you guys want to assassinate him and everyone said yes. Now, I could tell the gm was going to make him faIl. I'm not sure I would've yet.

So then, the paladin tries to distract the guy so the other guy can slip him poison. Now at this point I would've made him fall, as now he's being an active participant. I don't think I would've made him fall for knowing and not stopping (I wasn't in the position luckily) but would've after the attempt.

Anyway, the poisoning attempt failed and we were spotted. We ended up fighting the guy and killing him in battle. The gm said the paladin was lucky it didn't suceed because he would've fallen if it had. Now, personally I would've still made him fall, but the gm said it was action not intent that made one fall. I wasn't going to try and argue with him and get the player to fall and we went on.

That was a very.dicey situation for a paladin to be in and just wanted to relay the story as it is relevant here. What do you all think? Should he have fallen?


Ascalaphus wrote:
If the teaser for the adventure looks hanky, I ask the GM if this is an adventure that works for paladins, or if I should grab a different PC instead.

I've played a mission like that with my paladin. The party actually dedicated someone to.keeping me distracted. But my paladin is an idiot (int 5 wis 7) so its easy to rp him that way.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
That was a very.dicey situation for a paladin to be in and just wanted to relay the story as it is relevant here. What do you all think? Should he have fallen?

I think this blog has the answer.


Well the only time a paladin should even consider breakign any of the codes is if they contradict eachother.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

SO if a paladin comes somewhere where a legitmate authority uses that authority to harm or threaten innocents. Yes, they need to make a choice. Law and good can and do conflict at times. Law is not always good and good is not always lawful. Look at hell a very lawful place.

Now as a PFS DM I do reign in murder hobos a bit in PFS. I had a paladin want to kill a group of townfolk in their sleep for renigging on a deal with them in quest for perfection part 2. I told the player that was very evil and talked him out of it.

The majority of the time a paladin MUST follow the laws of the places he goes. A paladin gets many abilities, and they pay for it by having to be a symbol of law and good as two seperate entities.

Dark Archive

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

Spoiler:
I played in a game yesterday where we were sent to assassinate someone. The paladin had already pinged the guy as evil, and although he wasn't part of the plot, he knew about it. The gm was like, so your sure you guys want to assassinate him and everyone said yes. Now, I could tell the gm was going to make him faIl. I'm not sure I would've yet.

So then, the paladin tries to distract the guy so the other guy can slip him poison. Now at this point I would've made him fall, as now he's being an active participant. I don't think I would've made him fall for knowing and not stopping (I wasn't in the position luckily) but would've after the attempt.

Anyway, the poisoning attempt failed and we were spotted. We ended up fighting the guy and killing him in battle. The gm said the paladin was lucky it didn't suceed because he would've fallen if it had. Now, personally I would've still made him fall, but the gm said it was action not intent that made one fall. I wasn't going to try and argue with him and get the player to fall and we went on.

That was a very.dicey situation for a paladin to be in and just wanted to relay the story as it is relevant here. What do you all think? Should he have fallen?

Shrank for space, but all of this. Really? I know killing bad guys is generally what we do, no matter what our class or alignment, etc. But straight up murdering a guy? Maybe I am just too not murder hobo-y enough, but I have a problem with that.

I mean, the Pathfinders are suppose to be a group of Indian Jones type archaeologist, aren't they? When did Indy get sent in to murder Nazi officers. It happens during his adventures, but it isn't Indy's first priority.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
That was a very.dicey situation for a paladin to be in and just wanted to relay the story as it is relevant here. What do you all think? Should he have fallen?
I think this blog has the answer.

This is pretty interesting here, though I don't agree with everything:

1: Did you warn him?
Uh, there is a headband specifically for this purpose. If the player is making a somewhat questionable decision he should be able to ask the GM though, and usually the gm should shoot him in the right direction (under most circumstances, I'm sure there are weird corner cases where this isn't true.)

2: Was there an obviously better alternative?
Good Point!

3: Was his act unlawful?
Now this is where I differ from some others. I have always considered lawful characters to have a code, not to necessarily follow the laws. Thats where many people here have a falling out, as many people expressly believe lawful is following the laws. I do feel the game has moved more that way in later editions, but in 2nd ed it seemed pretty clear cut that Lawful meant a code of conduct and chaotic meant you have no code. The other extreme (lawful follows every law and chaotic people break every law) never made as much sense to me and seemed dumb. I do like the either or component that he talks about in this though. I will be incorporating that into my future games, though I'm not sure its feasible for PFS...or well maybe it is, ask the player each game what type of paladin he is....hmmm.

4: Was his act "un-good"?
Is assassinating a bad guy un-good? hmmmm.

5: Was his act against his God?
I can agree to this, and this is where I think some other posters are wrong. I think the alternate paladin code in faiths tend to overwrite the base paladin code. For instance, half of Torags creeds completely contract the base paladin code. Other deities are much more harsh with their codes, and very very restrictive. I play a Stonelord Paladin of Torag, and always expect table variation, but I bring my print up of Torag Paladins from faiths and show it to the GM, and ask them what they think. If they say I may follow Torags code, excellent. If they say I must follow the paladins code, thats great too. If they say I must follow both, well it just doesn't work unless we pick and choose, so obviously the gods add onto (and overwrite where applicable) the base paladin code.

Koujow wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Shrank for space, but all of this. Really? I know killing bad guys is generally what we do, no matter what our class or alignment, etc. But straight up murdering a guy? Maybe I am just too not murder hobo-y enough, but I have a problem with that.

I mean, the Pathfinders are suppose to be a group of Indian Jones type archaeologist, aren't they? When did Indy get sent in to murder Nazi officers. It happens during his adventures, but it isn't Indy's first priority.

Ya, I was playing my Asmodeus Worshiping Wizard, so I didn't really care, but its what the party got quested to do, so we were gonna do it in the most murder hobo way we could. To be fair, I think there was a workaround, but my character would be more complacent taking the easy route so never brought it up...it wasn't me who was going to fall.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / [PFS] *sigh* Paladins? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.