Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 5909815" data-attributes="member: 29746">I think it's high time somebody played Devil's Advocate here. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /> I prefer the generic code in the PF Core Rulebook, myself. The reason? A specific Code can only exist in a specific cultural context. A large world which has Paladins from many different cultures can't assume a single context like that. I'll give examples based on the tenets of the specific Code in the OP:Already I have a break. A world with a pantheon of deities can have Paladins serving a female deity (so it would be Her Church), or even not serving any specific deity but rather several at once (so My Gods And Their Churches).Paladins in a region ruled by Evil, such as Cheliax, would be rebels by their very existence, would they not? Or perhaps they serve "liege lords" other than the "legitimate government," but my point stands. They won't always be serving the rulers of the land- in many cases they'll actually be fighting against them. The story and dramatic potential of the class is greatly reduced if you discount this possibility. That's not acceptable to me.Here I note an underlying theme of this Code, which is evident in many places: it's gender-biased. As it stands, it works only in a Patriarchy. A society which is egalitarian towards men and women, or a Matriarchy, would not assume "widows" here. An egalitarian society would say "widows or widowers," and a Matriarchy would say just "widowers."And here we again see the gender bias at work. An egalitarian society probably wouldn't mention "honor" in this sense at all, and a Matriarchy would say "to respect the honor of men."There are valid tactical reasons on a battlefield to do both of these things, and it is not dishonorable to do so. It's true that this part of the Code works for middle-ages Europe, but I would never include this in a Paladin's Code for a world of my own. It's too easy to take tactical advantage of somebody who behaves like this; they won't long survive.Fine for you. Some people like the notion of Paladins of Philosophy, however. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And why can't a Paladin worship a NG deity? The requirement that the alignments match exactly makes no sense to me. The only way I could see this being necessary is if there's one specific deity who is "God/ess of Paladins," and Paladins never serve anybody else.Also, it's worth noting that the phrase "fear God" is specific to Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions; religions in a fantasy world would not require the faithful to be afraid of the deity involved. In fact, you yourself mentioned Ehlonna; I find it difficult to see Her demanding that Her faithful fear Her. I think She'd far prefer to be loved. Of course, She's not one of the deities you allow Paladins to follow, so moot point there, but the point still stands- not every LG deity will actually want to be feared. Quite the reverse is true.Even if they're suffering at the hands of the local authorities, right? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> This is precisely why the "liege lord" provision cannot be a part of the primary Paladin's Code. The "defend the weak" provision is far more important.See, you yourself are discounting the "obey the liege lord" provision here! Better to just discard it completely.This gives you a bit of an out on the liege lord front, but again, it's a conflict inherent to the Code itself. There should be no conflicts; Lawful Good would despise having contradictions in a Code of Conduct. Contradictions invite multiple legitimate interpretations, which in turn invites Chaos.I said it before, but it bears repeating: this only applies to a Patriarchal society. A Matriarchy would reverse this, because men are assumed to be weaker and need defending, and an egalitarian society wouldn't assume any need to defend either gender at all. This cannot be part of a global Paladin's Code. The Code of a local, Patriarchal nation and society, sure. But global, including nonhuman races? Hells no.Sure, it's a bit lawyerly to dissect the Code thus, but I felt it necessary to do so. There are reasons the designers made the Code of Conduct in the Core Rulebook generic, and they are valid reasons.</blockquote>

Verification