PDA

View Full Version : Paladins and Pirates (Alignment Issues on the High Seas)



Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 09:56 PM
A friend of mine and I recently have gotten into an argument about whether or not it's a code violation for a paladin to engage in piracy or privateer activities, especially if the raids are against other pirates and the agents of a tyrannical, devil-worshiping government.

The context is the upcoming Pathfinder adventure path, Skulls and Shackles, which begins with the player characters being press-ganged and then mutinying, after which they become Free Captains of the Shackles.

I argue that a paladin would be out of place in such an adventure path, as paladins are supposed to be Lawful Good and piracy, at least in my view, is definitely a Chaotic act. He argues that since most of the enemies such a character would have are either lawbreakers themselves or are evil (agents of Cheliax's government), that a paladin could maintain a Lawful Good alignment while striving to lead a sort of revolution against Cheliax at large.

I'd like the Playground's input on this issue. While I am a fan of paladins, I can't help but think that such a character would be very out-of-place in a campaign where you're supposed to engage in acts of theft, murder and smuggling in order to get ahead and keep your freedom. Even if a paladin could maintain his own moral integrity, he'd be constantly surrounded by others who think he's a stodgy jerk at best and a cop at worst.

Can one be a paladin and also be a pirate? Or is the pirate by definition (the definition here being a person who engages in maritime outlawry) one of the many antitheses of a paladin?

Knaight
2011-08-18, 10:03 PM
Its his character, and his concept, Paladin just happens to be the class. Allow it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 10:07 PM
1. Skulls and Shackles is not out yet, nor will it be out for quite a while, as they've only just started selling the Jade Regent Adventure Path.

2. This isn't about any particular character, but a theoretical debate about whether a paladin may engage in piracy without breaking his code or alignment.

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 10:10 PM
By that reasoning a Paladin couldn't go to war -- that's pretty chaotic too.

Lawful doesn't mean you have to blindly follow the Law of Every Land. Lawful Good certainly doesn't mean you have to follow the law when it is immoral or the government when it is evil. It is perfectly acceptable to fight it, and many evil countries in games do not provide reasonable ways to fight within the system.

Also, remember "lawful" can mean that they have their own code that they follow. It is the case that an extremely Lawful character could pay little attention to the laws of the land, as long as he vigorously followed his own rules. A chaotic person, on the other hand, would do what felt "right" to them at the time, with no particular code.

Lastly, a Paladin's Code of Conduct does not strongly stress Lawful behavior, it strongly stresses GOOD behavior. They lose their status if they do evil...as for law...

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.

Emphasis on LEGITIMATE authority. The evil empire is lacking that from a Paladin's perspective, and it need not be respected. I believe it is perfectly possible to be an honorable privateer. You hit military targets or targets which strongly aid the evil regime. You do not kill or harm innocents. You keep your word. You help ships that are in distress, and even go after other privateers who do evil. Pretty simple.

Beyond that, the Paladin needs to make sure he has no evil associates on his ship and he's good.

Knaight
2011-08-18, 10:11 PM
2. This isn't about any particular character, but a theoretical debate about whether a paladin may engage in piracy without breaking his code or alignment.

Alright, fine. Given the precedent in D&D that good characters can be heavily martial provided the proper targets, and that the targets are brigands and enemy soldiers, the Good aspect seems to be entirely under control. Lawful and Chaotic are both better measures of methodology and the specifics of how one does things than what one does, and the maintenance of an orderly ship and as a military commander with self discipline within a planned structure, Lawful is achievable.

Besides, Alignment is vague, terrible, and in general nigh useless.

flumphy
2011-08-18, 10:14 PM
Privateering, yes. Flat-out piracy, no.

NecroRebel
2011-08-18, 10:18 PM
Paladins don't fall for committing Chaotic acts, only Evil acts.

Being a pirate, even engaging in piracy, isn't necessarily Evil. Privateering isn't necessarily Evil, either. As long as the paladin doesn't go out of their way to hurt, oppress, or kill others, they aren't acting Evil, and piracy and privateering involves mostly just seeking resources on the high seas. In fact, a privateer could very well ply that trade without ever hurting anyone (except perhaps by leaving them without food or water).

In the context of an adventure path involving murder, of course, that's problematic, but theft and smuggling aren't actually Chaotic acts. Law is defined by "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability," which a pirate who a) honored arrangements, b) obeyed their superiors, and c) always strove to do what they claimed they would do would be Lawful, yet still could do pirate-y things. In fact, consider the stereotypical Mafia; they'd probably be a Lawful Evil organization, but engage in theft, smuggling, and murder routinely.



While I do agree that being LG would be problematic for a pirate, since it would have to involve always doing their best to make sure victims would survive any attacks, it isn't impossible.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-18, 10:23 PM
If it sounds CG, let him play CG. Use the code of conduct for paladin of freedom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny). I, however, think it would be LG.

And Privateering is just a fancy word for piracy that only targets certain people.

flumphy
2011-08-18, 10:28 PM
And Privateering is just a fancy word for piracy that only targets certain people.

Yes, but for a LG paladin, I think being government sanctioned is an important distinction.

I agree that having them play a paladin of freedom is a good solution, though.

Knaight
2011-08-18, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=flumphy;11671919]Yes, but for a LG paladin, I think being government sanctioned is an important distinction.

Hardly. Lawfulness is explicitly stated to be a measure of inner discipline, possession of personal codes, so on and so forth.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 10:31 PM
Privateering isn't exactly the best way to describe it here. The characters, if the little blurbs about the upcoming books are to be believed, are not hired by any other government to exclusively sink Chelaxian ships. Instead, they overthrow their tyrannical captain and decide to make a name for themselves among the Shackles, a chain of islands that's basically like Tortuga in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. There IS no lawful authority there, only tacit agreements among the most badass pirates there. The only thing that can unite them (and indeed this is what the PCs are forced to do later in the adventure path) is Cheliax making a sincere effort to wipe them out. You're not doing it for a monetary reward from Sargava or something, but rather to preserve the pirate way of life.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-08-18, 10:37 PM
I always thought paladins should be allowed a lot more leeway then they are. But, honestly, I'm not seeing it.

Piracy is difficult for someone to do while remaining lawful good. For one, lying and cheating is pretty much your job. You'll be stealing: this requires you take what does not belong to you from others. This is difficult.

I'm a firm believer that a paladin isn't allowed to seek out and just kill evil for its own sake. Dragon terrorizes town? Awesome, go for it. Dragon sits around in dungeon for years? Killing it and taking its stuff isn't noble at all.

Being a paladin would definitely mean hurting the innocent. Evil government or not, unless they limited themselves entirely to stealing government things, they'd hurt the people under that government. Steal a food supply? People starve. It doesn't matter if the flag is evil; you're stealing from the people and that's not very paladin-like.

BUT! I want to hear your friend's view. I never thought batman could be represented as a paladin, but these days I think it's one of the better ways to do it. So I'm ready to have my eyes opened, really.

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 10:38 PM
Well, a Paladin couldn't be a common criminal, so I don't see that working here. Frankly, it would be hard to be any good alignment, I'd think.

I mean sure, good guys can steal, lie, and cheat in the right circumstances (heck, even a Paladin can). However, hijacking boats and stealing as a way of living? That doesn't jive with being good. Neutral or evil, really.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-08-18, 10:40 PM
Well, a Paladin couldn't be a common criminal, so I don't see that working here. Frankly, it would be hard to be any good alignment, I'd think.

I mean sure, good guys can steal, lie, and cheat in the right circumstances (heck, even a Paladin can). However, hijacking boats and stealing as a way of living? That doesn't jive with being good. Neutral or evil, really.

Well, for what it's worth, Robin Hood is the classic example.

Coidzor
2011-08-18, 10:42 PM
A friend of mine and I recently have gotten into an argument about whether or not it's a code violation for a paladin to engage in piracy or privateer activities, especially if the raids are against other pirates and the agents of a tyrannical, devil-worshiping government.

Well, it's not piracy if you're pirate hunting, for one.

And for the other, if you're a duly-appointed representative of the crown, engaging one's crown's enemies rather than attacking and robbing merchants, how is this an issue at all?

Sure, it's waylaying them while they're on the high seas, but then, that's kind of part of life if one is an agent of an enemy nation that one is at war with on land too.


I argue that a paladin would be out of place in such an adventure path, as paladins are supposed to be Lawful Good and piracy, at least in my view, is definitely a Chaotic act.

On the contrary, a Paladin goes where he is needed and does Right where he's led. If the seas are lawless and violent, then stopping those who make them so is his Duty, especially if he finds himself drawn there by the Hand of Fate by getting placed aboard a ship and gaining control of it from its previous and nefarious controllers.


I'd like the Playground's input on this issue. While I am a fan of paladins, I can't help but think that such a character would be very out-of-place in a campaign where you're supposed to engage in acts of theft, murder and smuggling in order to get ahead and keep your freedom.

Why? They took the ship from the slavers and the only way someone can take their freedom away is by killing them. A true man never dies, even when he's killed!

It's the Paladin's duty to kick reason to the curb and go beyond the impossible to do what's right and be a man! His is the lance that will pierce the heavens, the seas, and all who would do evil upon them!


Even if a paladin could maintain his own moral integrity, he'd be constantly surrounded by others who think he's a stodgy jerk at best and a cop at worst.

That's the rest of the group's deal. & highly contingent upon the personalities they decide to go with. Personally, if I found out that one of the group was going to be a Kaminadin, then I'd totally be game to seeing where that was going to go.

For bonus points, get him to take devoted performer & go into Crusader with song of the white raven... <_< >_>

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 10:43 PM
Well, for what it's worth, Robin Hood is the classic example.

Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Fighting an oppressive regime as a criminal is perfectly fine for good characters. Fighting for the right to engage in criminal activities (stealing, killing, etc) because that's your "way of life" is not.

Edit: While at first it seemed like the PCs could be involved in a fight against an evil government because it was evil, now he seems to be saying the fact the government is evil is just happenstance. If the government was good then the PCs would be doing the same thing.

Knaight
2011-08-18, 10:46 PM
Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Except for the PCs being hunting pirates. Which means what they are doing is closer to active maritime policing, given that the setting hasn't actually established a proper organization to do that.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-18, 10:49 PM
Robin Hood didn't steal for stealing's sake. He was part of the resistance against an oppressive government. That's not the campaign the OP is describing, where the players are involved in trying to be pirate leaders and defend the "right" to steal and pillage. Naturally, they have to go and defend that "right" against the cops who come to try and stop it.

Fighting an oppressive regime as a criminal is perfectly fine for good characters. Fighting for the right to engage in criminal activities (stealing, killing, etc) because that's your "way of life" is not.

What? I think they're pirates because it's a tactical way of fighting their enemies. And I think we should stop calling them pirates. They're pirate hunters and freedom fighters (don't go on about freedom being chaotic, it's not, because lawful goods aren't the dictator type. Unless you want to go on about democracies being chaotic).

Kittenwolf
2011-08-18, 10:50 PM
Consider this everyone: If this was a land based campaign where the Paladin and his friends were captured by slavers, broke free and are now ranging across the land killing bands of slavers and looters while trying to destroy an oppressive government, would we even be having this conversation?

I think as long as the Paladin acts accordingly in other ways (eg trying to return spoils to rightful owners, accepting surrender, offering quarter, rescuing prisoners and confirming that their current target *is* a pirate ship etc, there isn't really any reason I can think of that he couldn't participate.

Now, the moment he starts attacking the ships of bastardly but not evil merchants or similar, he falls hard, but if he's only targeting pirates?

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 10:52 PM
Except for the PCs being hunting pirates. Which means what they are doing is closer to active maritime policing, given that the setting hasn't actually established a proper organization to do that.

Fighting other pirates so you can figure out which pirate is in charge isn't maritime policing. It's basically gang warfare.


What? I think they're pirates because it's a tactical way of fighting their enemies. And I think we should stop calling them pirates. They're pirate hunters and freedom fighters (don't go on about freedom being chaotic, it's not, because lawful goods aren't the dictator type. Unless you want to go on about democracies being chaotic).

Again:

"The only thing that can unite them (and indeed this is what the PCs are forced to do later in the adventure path) is Cheliax making a sincere effort to wipe them out. You're not doing it for a monetary reward from Sargava or something, but rather to preserve the pirate way of life."

If that's the case, then I don't see "good" being an option. They also didn't become pirates to fight their enemies. They were pirates who want to keep on being pirates.


Consider this everyone: If this was a land based campaign where the Paladin and his friends were captured by slavers, broke free and are now ranging across the land killing bands of slavers and looters while trying to destroy an oppressive government, would we even be having this conversation?

It sounded like it might be that way at first. Now the OP has said it is like they are brigands who overthrew the head of their little group. Now they fight with other brigands for control of the area as well as the government who wants them to stop being brigands.


I suppose a Paladin could still work as someone who infiltrated the organization in order to take it out, and now is trying to stop both the indiscriminate piracy AND the evil government. That might require some modifying of the campaign line from the GM and probably also having the other players in on it (ideally).

Kittenwolf
2011-08-18, 10:57 PM
It sounded like it might be that way at first. Now the OP has said it is like they are brigands who overthrew the head of their little group. Now they fight with other brigands for control of the area as well as the government who wants them to stop being brigands.

Aha.


Instead, they overthrow their tyrannical captain and decide to make a name for themselves among the Shackles, a chain of islands that's basically like Tortuga in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies

Well, this kind of negates the possibility of him being a Paladin in the first place. If they were part of a group of pirates and mutinied, well, he was a Pirate, he can't be a Paladin.
On the other hand, if he saw the error of his ways, overthrew the captain, found a shrine somewhere and prayed to become a Paladin (or whatever fluff you wish to use) and is now trying to steer the crew down the "Right" path, that could work ;)

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-18, 10:58 PM
Fine, just use the Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct. Now stop arguing and go read One Piece.

Edit: to clarify. Monkey D. Luffy is unambiguously chaotic good. Try arguing he isn't.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 11:13 PM
Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed at worst, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga. They turn to piracy to survive, which is honestly what historical pirates did. They didn't plunder gold and riches. They plundered food and ammunition. They didn't kidnap fair maidens or dashing heroes. They kidnapped carpenters and doctors. The PCs turn to piracy because that's how you survive in the Shackles. Do it well enough and you don't just survive, but thrive. The reason they fight against Cheliax is because everyone hates Cheliax. Technically every pirate in the Shackles IS a privateer because the nation of Sargava pays them to keep Cheliax's navy from sailing south to reconquer them.

In any case, the PCs aren't necessarily committing piracy because they think it's fun. They're doing it because in the Shackles that's how things work, and they can't go home because the only way to get there would be through Cheliax, where they'd be in even greater danger.

Coidzor
2011-08-18, 11:29 PM
Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga.

Pfft. Technicalities. And if you wanna be technical, they become mutineers.

Which is pretty much meaningless when one's a Paladin who has been pressganged by the Nation of Eville.

Hell, a proper Paladin would probably spark the damn mutiny in the first place by showing his fellow pressgangees that it was possible by tearing down the bonds of oppression & speaking straight from his hot-blooded heart.

And if the Evil nation is so hard-pressed for willing servants that it has to press-gang Paladins for its crews, how loyal are they going to be? Set fire to the hearts of the people, kick reason to the curb and take that navy & turn it back upon its masters!

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 11:31 PM
Fine, just use the Paladin of Freedom's code of conduct. Now stop arguing and go read One Piece.

Edit: to clarify. Monkey D. Luffy is unambiguously chaotic good. Try arguing he isn't.

From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-18, 11:36 PM
From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.

They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 11:38 PM
From what I saw, he doesn't actually engage in piracy. Calling yourself a pirate doesn't make you one.
I was about to mention this myself. From what I've seen of One Piece (haven't watched the whole show, but I enjoy it), Luffy doesn't fit the definition of a pirate I laid out in the OP, a person who commits crimes on the sea. Luffy's on a quest. He spends most of his time fighting actual pirates. The only reason the Navy seems to get involved is because Luffy says "I'm a pirate," and that's good enough for the Navy to want to attack him. Skulls and Shackles, from what little information there is, does involve searching for buried treasure and beating up other pirates to prove your right to rule as such, but you're still more like Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa than you are Monkey D. Luffy.

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 11:39 PM
Okay, bit more clarification. They're not brigands to start with. They wake up in the hold of the ship to find that they've been press-ganged by the Chelish navy. They become brigands when they rebel against the conditions on the ship and overthrow the captain. They become pirates because the only ports they can get to are either Chelish, where they'd be executed on the spot at best or jailed and tortured for a few weeks and THEN executed at worst, or ports in the Shackles, which as I've said are basically Tortuga. They turn to piracy to survive, which is honestly what historical pirates did. They didn't plunder gold and riches. They plundered food and ammunition. They didn't kidnap fair maidens or dashing heroes. They kidnapped carpenters and doctors. The PCs turn to piracy because that's how you survive in the Shackles.

That's BS and it's BS for historical pirates too. It isn't like there weren't other options besides piracy for either. There are other places to go and frankly you can survive just fine by fishing and even make a profit.

It's also PATHETIC rather than heroic. Personally I wouldn't let my PC get caught dead in that sort of plotline. I could see myself being a Paladin who started the insurrection. He got labeled a "brigand" for fighting against slavery, and now helps lead a group against the evil regime. Targets are picked for military significance, innocents saved indiscriminately, etc, etc.


Do it well enough and you don't just survive, but thrive. The reason they fight against Cheliax is because everyone hates Cheliax. Technically every pirate in the Shackles IS a privateer because the nation of Sargava pays them to keep Cheliax's navy from sailing south to reconquer them.

In any case, the PCs aren't necessarily committing piracy because they think it's fun. They're doing it because in the Shackles that's how things work, and they can't go home because the only way to get there would be through Cheliax, where they'd be in even greater danger.

Again though, if they didn't want to be pirates there are a hundred other things they could do instead besides going towards Cheliax (which isn't an option). Heck, they could still go to Cheliax and be resistance on land.

Given this, I think it is possible to be good, so long as there is no DM railroading. If you can be good, you can be a paladin.


They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.

Fighting other pirates is kind of the opposite of piracy. Rescuing friends who deserve rescue is not piracy. Stopping evil acts is not piracy. He's really not a pirate at all. Again, he just claims he is a pirate.

Naturally he must, since being an actual pirate would involve capturing ships, ransoming people, taking their valuables, killing innocents, etc, etc. Well, with very, very careful work you can avoid the killing of innocents, I think.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-18, 11:44 PM
I was about to mention this myself. From what I've seen of One Piece (haven't watched the whole show, but I enjoy it), Luffy doesn't fit the definition of a pirate I laid out in the OP, a person who commits crimes on the sea. Luffy's on a quest. He spends most of his time fighting actual pirates. The only reason the Navy seems to get involved is because Luffy says "I'm a pirate," and that's good enough for the Navy to want to attack him. Skulls and Shackles, from what little information there is, does involve searching for buried treasure and beating up other pirates to prove your right to rule as such, but you're still more like Jack Sparrow or Hector Barbossa than you are Monkey D. Luffy.
Ahem.

They've attacked plenty of other pirates. Arlong, Jango, Buggy, Crocodile. They also stormed the Gates of Justice to rescue Robin, and attacked the Marines to try and save Ace.



That's BS and it's BS for historical pirates too. It isn't like there weren't other options besides piracy for either. There are other places to go and frankly you can survive just fine by fishing and even make a profit.

It's also PATHETIC rather than heroic. Personally I wouldn't let my PC get caught dead in that sort of plotline. I could see myself being a Paladin who started the insurrection. He got labeled a "brigand" for fighting against slavery, and now helps lead a group against the evil regime. Targets are picked for military significance, innocents saved indiscriminately, etc, etc.



Again though, if they didn't want to be pirates there are a hundred other things they could do instead besides going towards Cheliax (which isn't an option). Heck, they could still go to Cheliax and be resistance on land.

Given this, I think it is possible to be good, so long as there is no DM railroading. If you can be good, you can be a paladin.

So, uh, you're completely ignoring what he said, and say that if they call themselves pirates (even though the One Piece guys are strangely exempt from this), they have to fit the definition of historical pirates.

Drachasor
2011-08-18, 11:46 PM
So, uh, you're completely ignoring what he said, and say that if they call themselves pirates (even though the One Piece guys are strangely exempt from this), they have to fit the definition of historical pirates.

No I'm not. He is saying the players are engaging in the same activities. I am saying there's no reason that needs to be the case.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-18, 11:55 PM
So, uh, you're completely ignoring what he said, and say that if they call themselves pirates (even though the One Piece guys are strangely exempt from this), they have to fit the definition of historical pirates.
Reason being he posted that while I was typing my post. :smallsigh:

Also, I did some more reading, and it turns out that I was wrong:

The PCs aren't press-ganged by the Chelish navy, but rather by a particularly cruel pirate. Then when they get the chance to mutiny they're shipwrecked on a deserted island, which allows them to dispose of their cruel masters and take a ship for their own.

Following this, they find a map tattooed on a guy's back that leads to a buried treasure.

Once they find this treasure they are considered equals by the other Free Captains, and thus have permission to participate in an annual race called the Free Captains' Regatta. Provided the PCs win, they get their own island to rule and a seat on the Pirate Council.

After this, they go to their island and they have to clear it of the monsters that already inhabit it, while protecting the Pirate Council who are meeting there as a sort of house-warming celebration.

Next, they're blindsided by a sudden betrayal by one of their own, and they have to face off against an old rival before learning that the traitor is leading the Chelish navy to them (the reason the Shackles can fend off Cheliax is because they know how to navigate the permanent hurricane nearby, the Eye of Abendego. This traitor pirate is lending his expertise to the Chelish, and selling out all of the Shackles).

The final adventure takes them into the Eye to battle the Chelish navy and drive them off.

So, yeah, they're not Chelish rebels, but rather people who grew up among the pirates of the Shackles and that's just their way of life.

Coidzor
2011-08-18, 11:57 PM
Ahem.

What? It's not piracy. It's defying the government & assaulting its personnel and a whole slew of other crimes, but it's not actual piracy.

So, the only reason they're pirates is because that's the term in that universe for people outside of the law if they're not mountain bandits. Well, that and that they call themselves such.


The PCs aren't press-ganged by the Chelish navy, but rather by a particularly cruel pirate. Then when they get the chance to mutiny they're shipwrecked on a deserted island, which allows them to dispose of their cruel masters and take a ship for their own.

Nothing inherently antithetical to what a Paladin would do so far.


Following this, they find a map tattooed on a guy's back that leads to a buried treasure.

Once they find this treasure they are considered equals by the other Free Captains, and thus have permission to participate in an annual race called the Free Captains' Regatta. Provided the PCs win, they get their own island to rule and a seat on the Pirate Council.

Or this, really.


After this, they go to their island and they have to clear it of the monsters that already inhabit it, while protecting the Pirate Council who are meeting there as a sort of house-warming celebration.

Easily justifiable as working to create a safe and stable place, provided the Pirate Council is not pants-on-head evil.


Next, they're blindsided by a sudden betrayal by one of their own, and they have to face off against an old rival before learning that the traitor is leading the Chelish navy to them (the reason the Shackles can fend off Cheliax is because they know how to navigate the permanent hurricane nearby, the Eye of Abendego. This traitor pirate is lending his expertise to the Chelish, and selling out all of the Shackles).

The final adventure takes them into the Eye to battle the Chelish navy and drive them off.

Well, that mostly just sounds like fun. And everyone knows only Mikodins are against fun.


So, yeah, they're not Chelish rebels, but rather people who grew up among the pirates of the Shackles and that's just their way of life.

Well, hell. Paladins come from just about everywhere. If they're actually growing up in the islands, it just makes him that much more exceptional. A bit more of an outsider than usually thought of for Paladins, perhaps, but I can see something there provided that the DM and writers weren't pulling anything and everything out of their ass to specifically disallow it.

big teej
2011-08-19, 12:10 AM
Can one be a paladin and also be a pirate? Or is the pirate by definition (the definition here being a person who engages in maritime outlawry) one of the many antitheses of a paladin?

a privateer is a just a pirate that's on your side.

a pirate, is an honorless dog, who holds to know authority but that of gold.

a paladin cannot be a pirate, nor a privateer.

a fleet-captain of some sort, perfectly fine.

Drachasor
2011-08-19, 12:10 AM
Yeah, they sound as piraty as Monkey D. Luffy. Kind of lame.

Personally I liked the slave revolt and privateers working to overthrow the evil government storyline that was in my head a lot more.

Anyhow, no reason why a Paladin can't work.


a privateer is a just a pirate that's on your side.

a pirate, is an honorless dog, who holds to know authority but that of gold.

a paladin cannot be a pirate, nor a privateer.

a fleet-captain of some sort, perfectly fine.

"Privateer" implies there can be some higher purpose. There's no reason a Paladin can't be a privateer. A paladin could not be a pirate whose only out for himself (and perhaps his crew).

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-19, 12:19 AM
And my friend has said that he wants to prestige class into a Shadowbane Inquisitor. I don't know how to respond to that. It abates the issue of falling, but the Shackles really aren't the environment where that kind of fanaticism is engendered. That sounds more like someone on the Chelish side.

AMFV
2011-08-19, 01:28 AM
a privateer is a just a pirate that's on your side.

a pirate, is an honorless dog, who holds to know authority but that of gold.

a paladin cannot be a pirate, nor a privateer.

a fleet-captain of some sort, perfectly fine.

A letter of marquis is pretty much legal right to act against the enemies of the state. It would definitely be on different moral grounds than piracy. Essentially you are still making bundles of gold, but the gold you are taking is being taken from the enemies of your government, making it an act of war and attrition rather than a simply selfish act. Just because privateering lines your pockets with gold doesn't necessarily make it unlawful or even non-good.

Also a privateer by definition does hold to the authority of his government, in fact his entire ability to conduct his raids and seizures comes from his government. If he begins to raid his own ships or those of his government he becomes a pirate. This is a clear legal boundary.

Now, it is entirely possible that a Paladin could have an issue with either or both. But while piracy is grounds for falling (as it is selfish, chaotic, and is therefore a violation of every principle of Paladinhood). Privateering is clearly not, it is still legal, and is possibly good (if your motives are haranguing the enemies of your nation rather than lining your pockets with gold) and is therefore tolerable under the paladin's code (in the same sense that stealing items from the dead is). So while some paladins might have a moral objection, privateering is not a black or white code violation.

Reluctance
2011-08-19, 01:51 AM
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

I really wonder how you'll get around all that as a pirate paladin. Doubly so if you wind up taking a leadership role.

Megaduck
2011-08-19, 02:19 AM
I really wonder how you'll get around all that as a pirate paladin. Doubly so if you wind up taking a leadership role.

As a DM I would generally allow this rule to be bent if the players could say there was a reasonable and legitimate hope of redeeming the evil doer.

So, the players could not associate with Count Evil McDoomdoom but they could take the conscript from his Evil army and try to show him the error of his ways.

So in this case, if the Paladin takes on Pirates as crew members but honestly believes she can change them by force of example then it's fine.


To the OP. I would ask your player why he wants to play a Paladin. It sounds like your group doesn't want to play the scenario laid out in front of you. In that case it's better to sit down and chat it out with them rather then trying to railroad something they don't want to play.

hamishspence
2011-08-19, 03:02 AM
As a DM I would generally allow this rule to be bent if the players could say there was a reasonable and legitimate hope of redeeming the evil doer.

So, the players could not associate with Count Evil McDoomdoom but they could take the conscript from his Evil army and try to show him the error of his ways.

So in this case, if the Paladin takes on Pirates as crew members but honestly believes she can change them by force of example then it's fine.

Dragon Magazine's paladin handbook article does say that this is an option- and an exception to not associating with Evil.

So does the 3.0 book Defenders of the Faith.

charcoalninja
2011-08-19, 09:49 AM
The fun of playing a paladin is a large part the code. Of taking the party down the path of being as good as possible. Of calling out the asshats on their asshatishness and smacking them straight.

You should definitely allow it, and let the players sort out how the paladin will deal with his code. That's half the fun. If the player sticks to his guns by the end of the campaign you'll have a stretch of pirate ilse no more, and instead probably have a nation of virtue, and a lot of happy PCs.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-19, 10:12 AM
To the OP. I would ask your player why he wants to play a Paladin. It sounds like your group doesn't want to play the scenario laid out in front of you. In that case it's better to sit down and chat it out with them rather then trying to railroad something they don't want to play.
Again, Skull and Shackles isn't out yet. This is purely theoretical. There's nothing to railroad yet, just what little knowledge of the adventure path I have and my knowledge of the setting. I have no idea why he'd want to play a paladin. He was suggesting I play one because he thought it sounded like a good idea.

Coidzor
2011-08-19, 12:04 PM
While not the standard idea from what's been expressed of the module so far, it does sound like a rip-roaring good time for subverting the module, or just using it as a jumping off point for kicking reason to the curb and going beyond the impossible.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-19, 12:43 PM
What? It's not piracy. It's defying the government & assaulting its personnel and a whole slew of other crimes, but it's not actual piracy.

So, the only reason they're pirates is because that's the term in that universe for people outside of the law if they're not mountain bandits. Well, that and that they call themselves such.

They sail around, attack evil pirates, defy the government, and look for the one piece.

The characters in this game, by the sound of it, sail around, defy the government, attack pirates(?), and look for a piece of buried treasure that'll get them a position in the pirate council.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-19, 10:16 PM
While not the standard idea from what's been expressed of the module so far, it does sound like a rip-roaring good time for subverting the module, or just using it as a jumping off point for kicking reason to the curb and going beyond the impossible.
I've never watched this show, so the reference is lost on me.

I'm convinced that it's possible, though difficult, to be a Lawful Good pirate. But here's the question: how piratical can a paladin get before violating part of the Code?


Respect legitimate authority.

This is likely the most problematic clause of the code. Technically, the Chelish government has no authority in the Shackles, so it's okay to deal with their agents if they were making trouble. But as for authority in the Shackles, the closest things are the Free Captains, and the Pirates' Council that rules them. There's no official codified law, only a vague "Pirates' Code" that's definitely "more guidelines than actual rules." The current leader of the Pirates' Council, Kerdak Bonefist, isn't an evil man (he's Chaotic Neutral), but he is something of a gun nut (his greatest treasure is his Alkenstar-made pistol, and he's obsessed with learning everything he can about firearms). In theory, a paladin doesn't need to respect any of the Free Captains, since if he gets enough treasure and conquers anyone who takes a crack at him, he IS the authority.


Act with honor (no lying, cheating, or poison)

This is easier to uphold, as it's just a matter of not stooping to dirty tricks. The problem is that these are what pirates live to do. The most common pirate tactic is to fly a friendly flag or look like they're in distress to lure unsuspecting merchant ships towards them, and then run up the Jolly Roger when they're too close to flee. Plus, a piratical paladin would be surrounded by liars and cheaters by default.


Help those in need

This part's relatively easy. There are a lot of needy people in the Shackles. They can play Robin Hood to these people, or give them a place on their own ships so they aren't abused by meaner captains.


Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

This is another problematic one, since virtually everyone you know is punishable by the code, since they're pirates. Does the paladin fall for needing to associate with these people on a regular basis and not getting medieval on their posteriors. I'd imagine a paladin in the Shackles to be kind of twitchy, just waiting for an excuse to smite the nearest poor bastard who does something evil.

Coidzor
2011-08-19, 10:30 PM
Respect legitimate authority.

Sounds like there are no legitimate authorities to worry about. :smallwink:

Well, maybe individual captains aboard their ships, depending.


Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

This is another problematic one, since virtually everyone you know is punishable by the code, since they're pirates. Does the paladin fall for needing to associate with these people on a regular basis and not getting medieval on their posteriors.

Not enough data to judge the particular situation here fully.


I'd imagine a paladin in the Shackles to be kind of twitchy, just waiting for an excuse to smite the nearest poor bastard who does something evil.

This probably says more about your conceptualization of paladins than anything else.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-19, 10:43 PM
This probably says more about your conceptualization of paladins than anything else.
I mean, imagine if you knew all your neighbors were hardened criminals, and you have a religious obligation to turn them all in to the police in the next city over.

Crow
2011-08-19, 10:45 PM
Privateering with a legit letter of marque, yes. Piracy, no.

Drachasor
2011-08-19, 10:53 PM
I mean, imagine if you knew all your neighbors were hardened criminals, and you have a religious obligation to turn them all in to the police in the next city over.

Well, first, there are no trustworthy cops in this scenario. The police the next city over are evil scumbags. On the other hand, you could reform those people or just bring them to justice yourself -- either is ok for a paladin.

Of course, the "pirates" in this scenario seem to largely be criminals in name only.

Kalirren
2011-08-20, 12:20 AM
Practically speaking, the Paladin is genre-misplaced in a pirate adventure. If you're playing a pirate adventure you have to consider how the paladin concept changes.

I think there are four elements to the quintessential paladin: nobility, piety, valor, and warrior code. Nobility went out the window because of the adventure backstory. Piety can still exist. Valor comes with levels. And pirates have their own honor. Not lying, cheating, stealing, sure. Acting with honor, sure. Never breaking parley, sure. Pillaging towns? The situation doesn't often come up, and even a sack can be closely managed to avoid the worst tendencies. And even the sexual stuff doesn't have to be about rape, either. China's most famous and successful pirate, Zheng Yishao, even forced her (yes, her) crewmembers to marry any woman they wanted to claim. And she only allowed them one, too.

Lastly, seeing as how the Paladin's code, narratively speaking, practically reduces to "unambiguously being the good guy," there's no real reason to say that the pirate can't be a paladin.

Lord_Gareth
2011-08-20, 12:50 AM
I always end up having to say this, and I really still don't understand why: D&D and Pathfinder Paladins are Gods-Optional, no religion required, ever.

Except in FR, but really, FR just fails on all levels it's possible to fail on, so it doesn't count.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-20, 01:23 AM
It was more to illustrate the character of the setting. The deities traditionally worshiped in the Shackles are either paragons of freedom (Cayden Cailean or Calistria) or scary forces that must be placated (Besmara, Gozreh or Pharasma). This isn't the kind of environment that produces Lawful Good people, much less paladins.

Lord_Gareth
2011-08-20, 01:43 AM
It was more to illustrate the character of the setting. The deities traditionally worshiped in the Shackles are either paragons of freedom (Cayden Cailean or Calistria) or scary forces that must be placated (Besmara, Gozreh or Pharasma). This isn't the kind of environment that produces Lawful Good people, much less paladins.

Well, if we're running with the idea that Good/Law/Evil/Chaos are personified forces that affect the cosmos, there's no reason that someone with the potential couldn't have been chosen or called to the paladin fix of your choosing. In fact, it might even make for an interesting character - a character whose Lawful Good alignment makes them a maverick attempting to tear down tradition, rather than an enforcer of dusty old rites and rituals.

Megaduck
2011-08-20, 05:38 AM
Respect legitimate authority.

This is likely the most problematic clause of the code. Technically, the Chelish government has no authority in the Shackles, so it's okay to deal with their agents if they were making trouble. But as for authority in the Shackles, the closest things are the Free Captains, and the Pirates' Council that rules them. There's no official codified law, only a vague "Pirates' Code" that's definitely "more guidelines than actual rules." The current leader of the Pirates' Council, Kerdak Bonefist, isn't an evil man (he's Chaotic Neutral), but he is something of a gun nut (his greatest treasure is his Alkenstar-made pistol, and he's obsessed with learning everything he can about firearms). In theory, a paladin doesn't need to respect any of the Free Captains, since if he gets enough treasure and conquers anyone who takes a crack at him, he IS the authority.




I will point out that D&D is mostly a game about attacking people in their homes, stabbing them in the face, and taking their stuff.

Most of the games in my experience take place in wilderness with only about six or seven people around. (Not counting the people-about-to-be-stabbed-in-the-face.)

So the idea that a Paladin might not have a legitimate authority to follow doesn't bother me. In that case, the Paladin can start making their own legitimate authority.

I can imaging this quest could turn into the Paladin attempting to create a Lawful Good society on the Parties Island.

hamishspence
2011-08-20, 05:40 AM
Original dungeon crawling D&D may have started out that way, but arguably the game has evolved since then.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-20, 06:54 AM
Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

This is another problematic one, since virtually everyone you know is punishable by the code, since they're pirates. Does the paladin fall for needing to associate with these people on a regular basis and not getting medieval on their posteriors. I'd imagine a paladin in the Shackles to be kind of twitchy, just waiting for an excuse to smite the nearest poor bastard who does something evil.

They have their own island. The only people the paladin associates with on a regular basis are the other party members and those who work for them. If those are evil, then you have the classic "paladin in an evil party" problem.

I'd say this whole situation is tricky but doable. What is required is a good/non-jerk-neutral party (standard for playing with paladins), a DM who won't railroad them into doing things they don't want, and an atmosphere that is more idealistic than cynical (once again, standard paladin fare) to make sure that a non-too-piratey group of pirates won't starve.

hamishspence
2011-08-20, 07:11 AM
I'd say this whole situation is tricky but doable. What is required is a good/non-jerk-neutral party (standard for playing with paladins), a DM who won't railroad them into doing things they don't want, and an atmosphere that is more idealistic than cynical (once again, standard paladin fare) to make sure that a non-too-piratey group of pirates won't starve.

Basically- like ordinary paladin adventuring- only instead of monsters preying on the innocent, you have pirates preying on the innocent, and the paladin has a ship for a "mount" so to speak.

Bobbis
2011-08-20, 07:23 AM
Black Part, a civilized man, eventually forced his crew (the same crew who captured him months earlier) to agree to a strict 11-point code of conduct, including articles like no gambling for money, no women on board, lights go out at 8 p.m., keep your **** clean and "If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code

Just for reference.

Cespenar
2011-08-20, 07:25 AM
Have the paladin slowly unite all the pirates under an organization/pact that will only sack/loot/etc. the evil empire's ships and cities.

stainboy
2011-08-20, 08:22 AM
Paladins are allowed to kill people and take their stuff. Piracy is doing that on a ship. There's nothing in the Code about ships.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-20, 08:36 AM
Yeah, except no. Attacking someone just because you want their stuff is evil. Attacking someone with "they ping on my evildar!" as the only justification is also evil.

hamishspence
2011-08-20, 08:58 AM
Hence "those who prey on the innocent".

That is pretty much the primary benchmark for "who to actively oppose".

"Those who commit evil acts" might be more of a secondary benchmark. And the paladin might not feel justified in using violence against evildoers if those evildoers never harm the innocent.

A Neutral (or even mildly Evil) undead-maker, fiend-summoner, or vigilante might be this kind of person.

stainboy
2011-08-20, 11:06 AM
Yeah, except no. Attacking someone just because you want their stuff is evil. Attacking someone with "they ping on my evildar!" as the only justification is also evil.

Ok, you're a paladin. There are a bunch of orcs in a cave. They are robbing and killing merchants coming into town and the mayor wants you to kill them. You're allowed to do that, because it's D&D and if you're not allowed to do that you fail the most basic test for being a protagonist. And if one of them has a magic sword, you're allowed to take it, because again you're a D&D protagonist.

In other words, it's OK for a paladin to kill people and take their stuff. We call that adventuring. Are paladins not allowed to go on aquatic adventures? Do they have a moral problem with boats?

hamishspence
2011-08-20, 11:13 AM
=In other words, it's OK for a paladin to kill people and take their stuff. We call that adventuring.

It comes with a "in response" principle though- if you've got a pirate raiding towns, and the way to stop them is to go after them, the paladin can do it.

But attacking a ship and taking its stuff, without this kind of before-the-fact justification, isn't on.

Coidzor
2011-08-20, 01:10 PM
In other words, it's OK for a paladin to kill people and take their stuff. We call that adventuring. Are paladins not allowed to go on aquatic adventures? Do they have a moral problem with boats?

Maybe the sticks up their butts have some kind of weird harmonics that go on if they get near ships?

Tengu_temp
2011-08-20, 02:16 PM
Ok, you're a paladin. There are a bunch of orcs in a cave. They are robbing and killing merchants coming into town and the mayor wants you to kill them. You're allowed to do that, because it's D&D and if you're not allowed to do that you fail the most basic test for being a protagonist. And if one of them has a magic sword, you're allowed to take it, because again you're a D&D protagonist.

In other words, it's OK for a paladin to kill people and take their stuff. We call that adventuring. Are paladins not allowed to go on aquatic adventures? Do they have a moral problem with boats?

By this logic, it's okay for paladins to raid peaceful towns, because it's also killing people and taking their stuff. Hunting other pirates is acceptable LG behaviour, no different than keeping highways free from brigands, but it's hardly what normal pirates do.

Drachasor
2011-08-20, 02:35 PM
It comes with a "in response" principle though- if you've got a pirate raiding towns, and the way to stop them is to go after them, the paladin can do it.

But attacking a ship and taking its stuff, without this kind of before-the-fact justification, isn't on.

A Privateer Paladin is very clearly allowed to attack military ships belonging to the Evil Empire. He should also be able to attack ships carrying supplies for the Evil Empire's Military or to be used in their Evil Agenda. This does get a bit murky if their are innocents placed on those ships. However, as a DM I wouldn't tie the hands of a paladin acting here as long as they tried their best to minimize/prevent deaths and their actions would believably prevent even more death and suffering.

He can't go attacking random ships for loot though. Heck, good characters in general can't do that.

stainboy
2011-08-20, 04:43 PM
By this logic, it's okay for paladins to raid peaceful towns, because it's also killing people and taking their stuff. Hunting other pirates is acceptable LG behaviour, no different than keeping highways free from brigands, but it's hardly what normal pirates do.

Nah, of course not. Saying it's OK for paladins to kill people and take their stuff doesn't mean any action that could be described as killing people and taking their stuff is OK. It just means that the basics of being a privateer (willingness to kill people and take their stuff) are all gravy.

My point is that piracy isn't any different than land-based killing and looting and paladin PCs do those things all the time. It's OK as long as the victims were evil, or something.

Worlok
2011-08-20, 05:26 PM
Shadowbane Inquisitor was mentioned. That's CA. Same as Dread Pirate. The "honorable" brand of which is explicitly noted as often targeting other pirates. They still can't be Lawful, iirc, but very definitely uphold a code. The very pirate code, namely. So if our hypothetical paladin were to integrate both codes or have one also fill in for the other in some way, I don't see any problems with him or her going pirate or privateer, all smiting evil with a boating hook and ramming eldritch horrors from the Lower Planes head-on with a galleon, his crew of rough-and-tumble seadogs singing in one voice as unholy flames engulf the waves and the smoke and roars of belching cannons blot out the sun, setting the stage for an epic battle for justice, liberty, and the free exchange of goods... in the name of Good. Actually, I'd love to see that done sometime.

Other than the DP, maybe take some reference to characters associated with piracy in general. PotC and One Piece have been touched on, but most of what Patrick O'Brien, for example, wrote can serve as a guideline, too: Lucky Jack Aubrey can paladin it up for real if he has to, and the whole piracy-by-any-other-name-business is a big part of the stories, unless I misremember. :smallsmile:

Apart from that and without reference to rules, good-not-dumb paladins who go for uncommon stratagems to help fight the good fight are often and easily among the most winsome characters to grace this hobby, in my opinion. So really, if our piradin keeps his pirate goodness in line with his paladin goodness, or perhaps bases one around/supplements one with the other, he should be allowed to ride that out right to the end. I figure. :smallamused:

YPU
2011-08-21, 02:44 PM
Something slightly besides but not removed from the discussion are these two questions I often ask myself with this sort of questions:

1 Does it limit game-play in a way the DM or any player find displeasing?

2 Does it ad to or subtract from the story and the game?

generally that gives me all I need to know.

Coidzor
2011-08-21, 02:52 PM
1 Does it limit game-play in a way the DM or any player find displeasing?

Obviously it changes gameplay in a way the DM finds displeasing, he started this thread to get support for his position.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-21, 07:40 PM
Essentially he wants to play a heroic "Robin Hood" type pirate who's looking to get to the top so he can set the rules for the Shackles and make it a better place.

I'd have no problem with this if he wanted to play some kind of Chaotic Good character. Those are the kind of people the Shackles produces often. But he doesn't. He wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae (goddess of the sun, redemption, honesty and healing). Even if Sarenrae IS one of the most tolerant deities out there, I'm sure she'd have stern words for one of her worshipers who turned to a life of pillaging.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-21, 08:22 PM
Won't he only attack ships belonging to the evil empire and other, more bloodthirsty pirates? That's acceptable LG behaviour. Also, he should really consider being a paladin of freedom.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-21, 09:10 PM
I assume that, but I don't have the books for Skull and Shackles yet since they haven't been released to the public yet.

AMFV
2011-08-21, 11:44 PM
One solution I've not seen anybody mention is have one of the party members be the Paladin's friend, or somebody he's sworn to protect or some such. I mean just because he doesn't agree with their choice doesn't invalidate oaths or friendship.

Drachasor
2011-08-22, 12:36 AM
I assume that, but I don't have the books for Skull and Shackles yet since they haven't been released to the public yet.

I'd say his idea is pretty AWESOME. If necessary you should adjust things a bit to accommodate it. To me it seems perfectly reasonable given the Evil Empire and Evil Pirates that he should always be able to attack acceptable targets. Well, and he'll have to defend innocent targets from other pirates as well, but that's the good stuff. That's honestly the only problem.

I mean, if they are already trying to get in control, then fighting to get on the top to make things better fits perfectly. Islanders should be able to fish and work on other resources to become a vibrant community/nation with good trade. It might take a lot of work, but that's why it is part of an entire campaign. It also gives a ton of adventure hooks since they'd have to help create and reform settlements, work against the evil empire, form a navy for the island out of pirate and other forces, etc, etc.

And once he does all that, he's just started! Now there's the evil empire to go after, providing even more adventures and depth. This guy is basically helping you provide an awesome guiding force for the entire campaign. All you need to do is see if the other players are on board.

deuxhero
2011-08-22, 03:51 AM
Unless you want to go on about democracies being chaotic).

Which it is going by "follows code"=lawful.

Yeah "privateer" is possible (or de-facto one), pirate is flat out.

Conners
2011-08-22, 04:26 AM
@The Thread: And this is why the Alignment System is [Censored] stupid...

Honestly, they don't talk about the Paladin Creed, "Thou shalt only loot evil dudes, thou shalt not loot anyone else." Instead they give some vague direction... So, it's really totally open to interpretation and setting.... so I'd suggest no rules lawyering on this point (I've seen Paladins do some pretty dishonourable garbage, and get off Scott-free, to my annoyance).

hamishspence
2011-08-22, 06:36 AM
Yeah "privateer" is possible (or de-facto one), pirate is flat out.

What about when there is no legitimate authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal to the paladin?

In which case, his robbing of the ships that service the Evil Empire (or of other pirate ships) might end up as piracy rather than privateering.

"Vigilantism on the High Seas" so to speak.

Megaduck
2011-08-22, 02:39 PM
Essentially he wants to play a heroic "Robin Hood" type pirate who's looking to get to the top so he can set the rules for the Shackles and make it a better place.

I'd have no problem with this if he wanted to play some kind of Chaotic Good character. Those are the kind of people the Shackles produces often. But he doesn't. He wants to play a paladin of Sarenrae (goddess of the sun, redemption, honesty and healing). Even if Sarenrae IS one of the most tolerant deities out there, I'm sure she'd have stern words for one of her worshipers who turned to a life of pillaging.

Redemption...

This could work.

The Shackles are being oppressed by the evil pirates, abandoned by the evil Empire. Now a hero has risen who is determined to bring peace and stability to the bloody islands. She will offer the evil does a chance to mend their ways otherwise she will smite them down with the power of the sun!

The redemption angle could be a good reason why the Paladins crew is made up of (Former) pirates. She's giving them a chance to atone for their former villainy. The Paladin's flag could be the sun rising over an island, showing that she is bringing the light of her god.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-08-22, 03:53 PM
Popping in really late to say that a Paladin who actually committed piracy would likely fall, as that's just robbing people.

A privateer, however, is an official government employee, effectively an irregular in the navy. Assuming that the "enemy" nation or group of pirates that the character has a Letter of Marque to attack is, overall, evil, this is no different than a Paladin serving in the army, which I don't think anyone would bat an eye at as it's a common enough plot device in many campaigns. Particularly if he takes pains and his crew takes pains to take noncombatant merchants prisoner instead of just slaughtering them, assuming they're even supposed to attack the enemy merchant marine in the first place.

And of course as a third option, there's your usual fictional pirate, who's Some Guy fighting the Evil Empire and/or hunting lost and unclaimed treasure, who happens to have a ship. No robbery or pillaging involved, no problem for a Paladin (although your stereotypical Paladin would be an unusually polished and straightforward anti-imperial rebel.)

hamishspence
2011-08-22, 03:59 PM
And of course as a third option, there's your usual fictional pirate, who's Some Guy fighting the Evil Empire, who happens to have a ship. No robbery or pillaging involved, no problem for a Paladin (although your stereotypical Paladin would be an unusually polished and straightforward anti-imperial rebel.)

This would fit- with the Evil Empire labelling attacks on their ships as piracy.