BB36's page

Steroids

Really depends on the DM. In my world Eidolons may be from a place that is antithetical to "standard lifeforms"

It was always the understanding, of my fellow players and I, that Flurry was simply a special full attack action, that could not be combined with two weapon fighting.

In this, it was not two weapon fighting, but acted like it in some ways.
In fact, it is much easier to deal with, if see them as they are, two separate things.

From the various archetypes, and AP NPCs, there is evidence that many Paizo employees saw it the same way.

Moving on, the core question is about two weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, not flurry, and there is a big difference there.

I have no problem with TWF and the Monk's normal unarmed attack, so long as the weapon is 1 handed

It requires the Feat and makes their attack -2/-2 as long as the Monk uses one of their "Monk's Weapons". It also doesn't matter if the "Primary Weapon" is the actual weapon and the Unarmed attack is the Off Handed Weapon

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BB36 wrote:

It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWF

No, it could be that, or it could be something else. The decision in Pathfinder has not been made, and in 3.X it wasn't. Indeed in 3.5 you could take TWF AND FoB and attack with two monk weapons in truly awesome display of missed attacks.

Which is more cheese than is in the States of Wisconsin, California and Oregon combined

(The awesome display of missed attacks, not your post)

It's time to realize and call the Monk's FoB, what it is: A highly styled form of TWF

As I don't think anyone really wants to explain the FoB is and how to tell if it's a combo, knife hand, etc

Here's my compromise I made with my players:

Weapon FOB__Med/Lt____Med/Med____Hvy

# Attacks_____-1________-2*_______-3*
To Hit Mod____-2________-3________-5
Damage Bonus_1/4 lvl___1/3 lvl____1/2 lvl
* Minimum 1 attack

They must split up their attacks between their two weapons evenly with any odd attacks going to whatever weapon they wish.

So the FoB for a 9th Monk's BAB and FoB are +6/+1 and +7/+7/+2/+2 if using Med/Med weapons, for FoB it'll be +4/+4 - slightly better than the standard attack bonuses but each weapon gains +3 damage but if they took TWF they'd +2/+2/-3 with the Medium/Medium Weapon Combo.

It is up to the player if that is worth the cost. It also makes staying with the Monk class better over time instead of just giving it to them

The 9th level Monk using the Med/Lt Weapon, for FoB it'll be +5/+5/+0, TWF would be +4/+4/-1, still better than TWF, but it is due to their fighting style and adds +3 Damage for the Medium Weapon and +2 Damage for the Light Weapon

As the Monks in my world are not just Eastern Style, unless the region is Eastern, and those in the area they are in are cloistered brothers of western world, I allow for different weapons to match the western world (or whatever regional type they are)

It makes the Monks' special attacks Special without really unbalancing the game, IMHO

Oh yes, the Monk must have individual proficiency in the Weapon (they can't take "Martial Weapons" and gain the ability. They can take Martial Weapons but that doesn't qualify the Monk to use that weapon in FoB) and the Weapon must be a Masterwork or better

What that does is make the Monk very specific in what weapons they can use to get the benefit

Monks can use TWF when someone explains how a normal Medium Unarmed Weapon does 1D3 but a Monk's Unarmed Attack does 1D6 at 1st level

What part of the body is used?

Is it a hand combo (a quick right-left), or a knee, a snap kick, what?

Like a few things in Pathfinder and its predecessors using multiple definitions or effects of the same word, I think this is really the whole issue.

A Monk's "Unarmed Attack" is their special form of attack that unfortunately shares the name name as basic "Unarmed Attack" all others can do. Perhaps the Monk's "Unarmed Attack" should be renamed "Unarmed Combat Style"

What? The standard "Player vs Player" isn't enough?

Ragechemist is an alchemist archetype not a short hand for barb-alc multiclass.

I know that.

Just reading the OP's original post

Well ofstatic,

Until you define what's going on in the world, I really can't help you.

My take:

Axe is NE, protects from good and Bane vs Dwarves

Paladin has no clue. He would think the Axe is something he "rescued" and it is not Evil, he has forgotten the went to destroy evil axe and vaguely remembers there was something evil he destroyed. Depending on how Wise (higher Int helps but not if his Int > Wis then he's headstrong) he is, those gaps can be used to break him of the hold or allow more saves vs the will of the Axe.

More holes in his memory means he will question the remaining memories. He'll begin to ask himself, "Just what did I destroy", "What do the dreams mean", "Does Charmin really feel better on my tush", etc, and the more he realizes it, the more likely he can break free.

The Axe is looking to slay EVERY Dwarf and won't go nuts unless it thinks it and his meat puppet can take all those who are around. It will do its best to make any carnage look like a blood feud between dwarves. After all, if you're designed to kill something, wouldn't it be prudent to know their weaknesses and how to keep them looking at each other?

Well OfStatic,

What alignment is the Axe? If it is CE, let the "Sly and Filet" begin. If it is LE, it has a purpose. If it is NE then whatever brings about the most hate, fear, death is the name of the game and if he can pin it on someone else, so much the better

The Paladin has no reason to have lost his powers if he is unaware of the crimes. If anything and he's unaware, the "nightmares" he's been having can be part of him thinking there's great evil and he has to destroy it. A great "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide"

The Paladin would accept his role in the deaths and make amends when the facts and evidence pile up. If he is still unaware, then it is highly likely that he doesn't even realize he has the Axe.

It really all depends on what the goals of the Axe are and what the Paladin knows

I have to agree with SOTS here:

Mixing rage and alchemy I believe would lead to way too many explosive situations

Why do I think far too many Barbarians who know alchemy would be like handing TnT to rednecks?

I can see/hear many a last word of the Darwinian overachievers going something like:

Hey guys, watch THIS!!!

The Paladin is not automatically an Ex-Paladin. He's being controlled, right? Was he trying to destroy the weapon or did he think he could control it when the take over occurred?

If the former, he was doing his duty and got tagged. Bummer, his guilt at what has happened is far more punishment (or should be)

If the latter, greed and hubris are the main evils he did.

OT RANT: Where's the Paladin's god? As all gods seem to measure the minutia of a Paladin's deeds, where is it to take away his powers but not help anyone else? But that's another story. Back to OT

If the Paladin is innocent or not really much more guilty of hubris, have them confront the Paladin. I'd say the fires are caused by the Paladin to spread death and discord, two of Evil's favorites in doing to "good areas"

If the Paladin is a willing servant, have the Paladin come back as you stated and take out those that "debased" his new friend and slaughtering companion

Not everybody says that Unarmed Strike is two weapons, not even all Monk's attacks need to be from 2 weapons

A Monk's Attacks could be Knees, Kicks, Elbow, Back fist, Fists, etc and they could be a single or a combo of blows

Take the 1st Level Monk who does 1d6 with "Unarmed Attack" when the "Unarmed Attack" as per Weapons does 1d3. How do they they do that? When we can agree a mechanic that satisfies 95%, then we can really get on going on how to add TWF that doesn't turn the Monk into a melee machine far outshining the fighter

Until you get to that one particular little line of text:

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

In addition to what Neo2151 stated, the Monks base unarmed attack (Medium) does 1d6

The typical "Unarmed Strike" does 1d3, sounds as though the Monk already does a Left-Right Combo, so how does one give TWF when it already appears the Monk does just that?

Any claim that "Monks know how to punch better" may be true at higher level but I can't see how a neophyte 1st level Monk knows how to hit better than a neophyte 1st level Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike as the Feat. The Monk, IMO, already hits with both hands (or one really good knee)

At a higher level, I can see how the Monk learns to hit more sensitive locations, but the 1st level Monk isn't that much better with their naked fist than a 1st level Fighter's (Improved Unarmed Attack) naked fist

This whole thing comes down to "What enhancements can I use on my Monk Character?"

Unless you want to assign damage and Bonus/Penalty to:

Forget it, I stopped at 33 different strikes and combos - there are a lot

How about the KISS principle:

To get MF or GMF, cast it on the normal attack first and then on the FoB. Therefore it makes everyone upset which is the best type of compromise. Of course, that would only be on the Monk's unarmed attacks - no weapons of any sort allowed.

Same goes to all other natural attack enhancing spells.

As for TWF, ITWF, GTWF, etc Monks using their weapons and various body parts, as it says on the left hand lower side of Page 57 under "Flurry of Blows", When doing so he may make 1 additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon(insert laundry list) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat)

By keeping it simple, a monk character uses whatever part of their body they can strike a blow with, and making them use separate enhancements for the basic and unarmed FoB, it keeps it simple

BB36 wrote:

How about this:

Let the Monk Class make attacks, using TWF but count each limb as a separate weapon doing the damage each weapon does, with whatever Feat modification given, but treat Punch, Back Fist, Elbow, Knee, Foot, Head butt, Gouge, etc as a separate Weapon. There's "Common Sense" and overkill. Trust that a Monk already is using both hands and later feet, head butt, knees, etc in their attacks as they get better.

But is an arm a weapon, or the separate hand, elbow, forearm, etc?

As the monk isn't going to get more than the attacks for TWF, I would simply call it a double weapon.

Good question Grasshopper

That is why I hold that the Attacks by a Monk are "one, some or all" of any the above

Take "Flurry of Blows", FoB. Is it as fists on a speed bag? A punch followed quickly with an elbow? A double snap kick? A double punch? What's the style?

I lave it alone and say that the Monk gets a watered down version of TWF and that is why they can get the FoB and more. How they do it is for the player to decide what the fluff is

I don't think you can have the same person Intimidating then Diplomacy but the use of the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" does work

Still, from what I posted above, a person who is not intimidated but can fake it can turn the tables on the party

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually it does work, only if the person is intimidated.

If the person is intimidated by one, they'll be happy to talk to the nice one

The real problem is when the person feigns being intimidated and pulls it off. Then they can easily give bad information at a bonus to BLUFF the PCs!

It's a world of feint, counter-feint, counter-counter-feint and so on

If the NPC fools the PCs with the intimidate, fooling with diplomacy and bluff is even easier for the NPC

That's why there's a camera or others behind the mirror to see what went on

half-elf + half-orc = human?

Half-Orc of a drunken Half-Elf + Orc at a "OMG, what did I do last night?" party

Alchemist - Barbarian

Don't expect to read terribly well but do expect to sample native vegetation left and right.....

1.) You may worship any god that has been printed in paizo material?

In a Pathfinder Sanctioned Game, yes.

In someone's home game, it is up to the DM. There may be world/social issues that stop that

2.) A cleric may follow any god so long as he has a list of domains, the cleric himself is not evil, and the god is alive correct?

See above. Personally though, a "Neutral" vis-a-vis good and evil for a cleric worshiping an Evil god is only temporary. The Cleric will be evil soon enough

3.) Are there any plans to create more faction specific prestige buy options for some of the newer groups like the shadow lodge, sczarni, or the silver crusade?

That should go in product questions

4.) Are there anyways to buy temples or build a temple, thieves guild, or other establishment based on those you receive from faction point spending in an area of your choosing like one can with some of the other options?

That is an in game ting and really up to the player's imagination and how the game is

If the game's not fun for others due to a disruptive player, be blunt:

Tell him you're there to have fun and he's making it not fun for the rest. If he complains about having his fun, tell him that he should find another group that finds what he's doing is fun as well.

It is also best to tell him he's not welcome back after the game, a day or two later than the last game, not a day or two before the next

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about this:

Let the Monk Class make attacks, using TWF but count each limb as a separate weapon doing the damage each weapon does, with whatever Feat modification given, but treat Punch, Back Fist, Elbow, Knee, Foot, Head butt, Gouge, etc as a separate Weapon. There's "Common Sense" and overkill. Trust that a Monk already is using both hands and later feet, head butt, knees, etc in their attacks as they get better.

After all, do we really want to start differentiating between Hard and Soft styles, a Tae Kwon Do vs Krav Maga vs Kung Fu vs Drunk and stupid styles of Martial Arts? How far down the rabbit hole does one want to go? And why just stop at Monk? Let's look at all the places that can use more "Common Sense" in Pathfinder or any other RP game!

Just because someone says "Common Sense", and I agree that some of the things I've read on here for monks make sense but many forget the "Common Sense" things that actually go against the Monk?

How come Monks don't run the risk of breaking bones in their hands and feet when hitting a person in Plate Armor? What about the risk of serious bleeding after punching a Glass Golem? What are the ill effects of hitting a life sucking Wraith?

Let's bring "Common Sense" into combat some more and have "Body Points" as well as "Hit Points"? Body points are the physical damage one can take while the good ol' HP are more like fighting ability/wind/fatigue points that come back quickly? When you run out of HP, the damage goes direct to Body Points where you die. Also that would make "Crits" far more entertaining as a Crit ignores (but does not reduce) HP and straight to body. That makes combat and the "criticial shot to the Head" far more realistic and conforms to "Common Sense". It also means a 1st level with a lucky Double Crit getting through the protections of a 20 level level Fighter can kill them in 1 shot

That's the problem with "Common Sense" in a free flow game. Trust me, I'd love to give the Monks the ability to do TWF, Improved TWF, etc

However due to game play, I reconcile that the Monk's attack start with a basic punch, moves with experience to the punch followed by the elbow strike, eventually punch to pressure point-elbow-backfist-knee strike-head butt-back kick then "end of attacks" as a well choreographed display of movement with one goal - hurt something

Just as with a fighter with 4 swings at 16th level with 1 blade. There aren't swing/rear back - swing/rear back - swing/rear back - swing/rear back but far more a fluid movement of blade slicing down, using the momentum to come back in a side stroke, followed by a swing low to high and finally the thrust. No "4 separate swings" but a graceful dance of the blade through the air guided by a master of the art

You want common sense, great! I like it too but before you go and unbalance the game, somethings are done for several reasons, Balance and Playability are two of the biggest ones

Whatever you do, have a few times when you have them roll, for nothing

This is especially fun if they roll for "Bluff" or "Sense Motive" on a Stable Boy, Bar Maid or even an NPC who can have a reason to lie to them.

Have them roll and you roll secretly and no matter what they roll, so, "Oh, you sense they're telling you the truth"

In some cases, have the shopkeeper seem nervous because he's being robbed. The shopkeeper is told if anyone is told his kid/wife/favorite servant/etc will die if he gives the party anything like "Help Me". The more the party presses, the more nervous the shop keeper gets. The party can inadvertently have something bad happen with out realizing it. If they leave, there are many things the party can think about; being cheated is just one of them.

Not every lie or hidden secret has to do with the party. Some people don't want them to know they're cheating on their spouse with the neighbors pretty young daughter

Sometimes the best way to hide things is have many things vie for the party's attention

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew R wrote:

So the death penalty is evil?

In my mind (and from the POV of most of the developed and enlightened world including all of Europe, the UK and Ireland, Australia, New Zealand etc and most of the USA barring a few States) yes, it is

I love how you use your terms

It seems "Enlightened" = agreeing with you - OBTW, I'm against the Death Penalty but there are things I may reconsider that position

You can differ of course, and youre entitled to that opinion, but in my game world, thats the way it is.

Well good for you. Does your game have "Lollipop Woods", do you players have to worry about "Molasses Swamp" at the foot of "The Gumdrop Mountains"? How do they take the "Rainbow Trail" to really make good time?

Of course capital punishement may be (and often is) Lawful - but its not (in my game world and in my opinion) Good.

Actually it doesn't have to be Lawful and as for "good", really depends as capturing an evil outside and killing it would be "good" and I dare say a mortal but thoroughly evil Mage

Paladins fight to create a world where savagery, execution, violence and killing are no longer needed, and where mercy, charity and compassion rule the day.

All together now! Kum-bye-ya m'Lord

They are righteous and benevolent divine warriors who take the battle to very forces that would undermine this goal, but must avoid slipping into darkness themselves in the fight.

And tricked with their pants down three ways from Sunday but any fiend with half a brain

This is why the code exists; Paladins must always strive to be better than those they fight against, should always pursue the higher moral ground, and must at all costs avoid resorting to the methods and tools of the evil they seek to vanquish.

All worth goals but fought with one hand tied behind their back and feet in concrete

I look at it very differently. From Star Trek when Spock, Kirk, Lincoln and the Vulcan hero went agains Kublia Khan, Col Green a really bad klingon, etc - Good and Evil fight the same way, use many of the same tactics but why?

Good doesn't want to fight and it took the threat of destroying Enterprise to get them to fight

Just the one willing act of evil, and the Paladin falls (till he attones).

Again; thats how it is in my game world - your interpretation may differ, and good on you - youre entitled to your own opinion.

Yes we are and you're entitled to your game. I think you have it where it is all happy at the end as that is what you want it to be

I like my games a wee bit darker, grittier and the chooses are very bad, worse, and "Holy crap, what did I do" and you really don't have a clue which one it is

Of course my Paladins when they do find Evil, it is EVIL and the smart ones watch it, the dumb ones don't lose their powers, they generally lose their lives from a big deadly case of the "Stoopids"

Andrew R wrote:

or in your world does the hero just be all my little pony and make it cry and become friends in the end?

Actually, Malifice earlier said that if the kobold were released, it would immediately have reformed and helped the party later as a proper civilized gentleman. Apparently being beaten half to death, seeing your friends killed, and then being tossed into the wilderness alone magically turns you Good in Malifice's fantasy world.

In other words, yes, that is exactly what Malifice expects to happen. And anyone who treats the game characters as running on actual logic or psychology, instead of making them inhuman cartoons, is evil for not recognizing that.

Um yeah, happens all the time, in soaps, "Luke and Laura" anyone?

BB36 wrote:

In the Write Up for Paladins, it states they are the Sword arm of the good gods, forces of justice etc, why can't they being for Justice do what the law would do and kill them even if they surrendered via force of arms?

RP is not a consideration at this part, just raw mechanics

Mechanically, if you want to be dispensing justice, you should have Knowledge: Law on your Paladin sheet. Then you can make your skill roll and determine appropriate penalty based on available evidence.

Historically, surrendering via force of arms is a mitigating circumstance. It's an agreement between two forces that if the surrendering party lays down their arms, that their lives will be spared (at a minimum). By accepting surrender, you agree to this term of surrender and are thus legally obligated to NOT kill them (so long as they remain a prisoner and do not resist or attempt to escape). Killing them at that point would be dishonorable.

OTOH if you knock someone unconscious and take them prisoner, they didn't surrender. Additionally, you are NOT obligated to accept every surrender, even though you are Good. This is again where having Knowledge: Law is useful. If an evil cultist has just slaughtered innocent children as sacrifices to his dread god, and you can point to the corpse in the room, you're not really expected to accept any surrenders.

Now, if you're not acting as field judge as a Paladin, you can haul the bad guys off to legit authority and THEY can judge them, up to and including death, and your hands are clean - they surrendered to you and you passed them off to proper authorities, your job is done.

Good points

As was pointed out earlier it really does matter what the "good" and "evil" mean and how is that dispensed.

From RAW Alingment makes it pretty clear Evil is EVIL not evil. Being mean all by itself is not Evil. Being mean as you pour more oil "onto the pole a person is desperately trying to climb not to be eaten alive by what's in the Pit" is an Evil act

But the rules I fear are not concrete and the DM MUST tell the Pally player what is expected of them. Saying a collection of words, "chivalry", "Honorable" (which in Klingon I think is the same word as Victory - jk but not by much), "Mercy" really mean with concrete examples and more

The other question is what if DM rules that the Pally is not a Judge, Jury and Executioner but has to take them to somewhere where there is an authority the Paladin thinks is legit, how far is too far? To that point, what if the Pally gets there and the kingdom/City State/etc is none to pleased with the Pally and Co dragging a problem way outside their borders into theirs?

As for Knowledge and other skills to help them determine what the laws are, at 2+Int Bonus a level, that's not a great start

BB36 wrote:

Interesting Points:

By RAW, is a Paladin allowed to be "Judge Jury and Executioner"?

If authorised by the Paladin's church (ie by the Clerics of the Deity) then yes.

If its spelled out in the Paladin's code that he can can act that way, yes.

If the Paladin is unsure then it would be his duty to bring X to the legitimate authorities unless doing so would cause a greater evil to remain at large but certainly not if its just expedient to the Paladin (player)...

If the Paladin did act as JJ&E then a decent GM would send a little warning first time around and (roleplay) instruct the Paladin (player) via the church what is expected of him the next time it occurs.

EDIT: I don't think there is anything RAW... what we have is a dozen or so sentences which are trying to define an abstract concept and turn it into an Artificial Game Construct. As GM I use a site where someone has done the hard work for me and has defined all alignments, gives examples of "honourable" and "dishonourable" in view of each alignment.

Its not perfect BUT as a player at my table you will have a clear view of how I perceive each alignment. If you chose to ignore it fine, your PC's alignment will change.

Nice answers but I'm still trying to talk to the basics

In the Write Up for Paladins, it states they are the Sword arm of the good gods, forces of justice etc, why can't they being for Justice do what the law would do and kill them even if they surrendered via force of arms?

RP is not a consideration at this part, just raw mechanics

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People justifying genocide as good. lol.

Just when I thought you couldn't sink lower you did

An Ad Hom to fire back when nobody who was a major contributor, I, bookrat, and the other major contributors to this thread on "the other side" never said genocide is okay. Seems your strategy then is to lump those who showed your excuse to be wanting as saying that is okay as to feel superior

Here's a hint: You're not

Checkmate

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BB36 wrote:

But I say that means that these people are all evil in your world as well:

Abused Children
Victims or Domestic Violence
Picked on kids at school

Your alignments make no sense.

Youve utterly missed the point.

Quote:

Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, h is evil

And to you, these people deserve to be butchered without mercy, even if they surrender, when doing so is convenient for the Paladin.

Let's complete the whole quote:

Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, having people thrown out of their dwellings knowing full well that is a death sentence not for any reason other than you can or personal gain is evil

STOP QUOTE MINING

Show everything I stated, anything less is dishonest

But speaking of dishonesty on your part again, did I say "butcher or kill quickly? Did the OP's Paladin torture the Kobold? If so how? Did I ever state that torture is acceptable? You've dug a deep hole, hit rock bottom and are now using blasting caps to go deeper

I stated that sometimes, death is an appropiate sentence to be carried out even in today's world for evil doers. I said nothing about torture

Thats not 'good'

And killing a captured evil being isn't evil either.

And the rest of your post is either wrong or covers points already rasied and answered.

Nope to both. It is not wrong and it was dismissed by you. Please learn the difference

Interesting Points:

By RAW, is a Paladin allowed to be "Judge Jury and Executioner"?

By RAW, what is a Paladin supposed to do with a creature captured via combat?

As to 21st Century Morality, while we all (er most) live in it, should those be the ideals that a Paladin strives to get to?

How does, rather how must a Paladin approach Evil:

Weaker than the evil?
Same power as the evil?
Stronger than the evil?

There are more RAW questions

BB36 wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not finding the Rules Question. Did I miss it?

Does this belong in the Advice, or General Discussion forum?

The "Rules" is that the Paladin class RAW is not suitable as is for adding 21st Century morality.

It is more of a pre-emptive rules to discuss what a Paladin does and doesn't have to do as per RAW

The games does not use 21st centuray morality however, which is quiet subjective. In Fantasy land evil and good, as an example are concrete things, and not open to interpretation. Adding flexibility to it would be outside of the rules and be more akin to houserules.

And I agree with that. There is nothing in the RAW that a Paladin is the police, arresting people and bringing them back for trial

Nothing in the RAW states that yet that is a place where Pallys fall often

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am not finding the Rules Question. Did I miss it?

Does this belong in the Advice, or General Discussion forum?

There is no rules question. It is more of an advice type post. :)

I'm hoping to do more than that.

Pre-empting the rules battles when it comes to the Pally, letting DMs know what the RAW says and discussing them.

If it were Advice, it would be my take and not so much the RAW and the way they are to be used. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but I'd like to see how the RAW might be used to form a consensus on what the RAW is and what are "bells and whistles" many DMs like to add as restrictions to the class.

Makes the class as written harder to play and weaker with respect to the other classes who really can't be messed with as deeply as the Paladin

I am not finding the Rules Question. Did I miss it?

Does this belong in the Advice, or General Discussion forum?

The "Rules" is that the Paladin class RAW is not suitable as is for adding 21st Century morality.

It is more of a pre-emptive rules to discuss what a Paladin does and doesn't have to do as per RAW

I was done with my complaints. :)

For the most part I wanted you to focus on the code which is what decides if a paladin loses powers by the rules since it seemed that trying to find concrete rules for a pally losing his powers was the intent of the opening post, which went into building(more like the advice area).

PS:This all assumes that the discussion is about making sure a paladin obeys the code, and this is not about suggestions on building a paladin.

I just had to give you grief :D

As to the building of a Paladin, I think it helps with those who want to add rules of engagement, behaviour, etc to Paladins that, as written in SRD, it just don't have the horsepower to perform

BB36 wrote:

Damn, should've had more coffee

Yes the Paladin doesn't need Wisdom nor Int really does he?

Mechanically, no.

OTOH, do you want your soldier of righteousness to be stupid and foolish? :D

No I don't, but that is not up to the player but the dice or PB

Personally I think the Paladin, if they are going to have to have deep thoughts of morality, justice, etc, should be "higher stat" characters played by those who've been playing for a while

Then again the idea, if for class balance, that doesn't work out that well.

But if one is to play a Paladin with all the little caveats and that a DM can pull their powers, they are woefully under powered and to keep wraith happy, the rules say nothing about doing many of the "21st Police Duties" and the other things that Paladins are saddled with

BB36 wrote:

What you get then is a watering down of the alignments where "evil=not nice" and "good=Dudley Do Right". The Paladin becomes a truly useless class as their greatest strengths become their most glaring weakness and a one way ticket to being a Fighter with no fighter feats nor abilities

Make evil EVIL dripping with vile hate and murderous rage. Make the lawyer evil not because he's a Republican but because he enjoys finding orphans for the evil cult to sacrifice, throwing old women out into the cold so he can watch them in glee freezing to death and really getting off on their last breath

In a grey and grey morality world, Paladins really should be no more than fighters or inquisitors on special assignment. I'd never ever try to put a Paladin class on say a Warhammer world, or a Shadowrun world. Eberron is one of those places where being a Paladin is just borderline viable for this reason.

If you're going to allow Paladins and their opposites in your world, than you can't run away from considering the place of Good and Evil, and secondarily, Law and Chaos. You certainly can not retreat behind the copout of moral relativity. Your campaign has to draw lines in the sand.

What is really also an issue is where and how do the Paladins get their powers?

Are the "gods" granting those powers? Are there 4 or 5 alignments (G, E, L, C, or G, E, L, C and TN?) and they are separate and distinct concepts which someone are able to channel powers to those of a like "mindset"? Or do the Paladins manifest it from within?

If the gods give paladins their powers, do they watch the Paladin 24/7? If they do, is the Paladin more likely to get a DI (after all if the gods are all up in the Paladin's business, wouldn't they want to save/help/assist the Pally even more) or are they only there to punish?
Even deeper is the concept of are the gods and goddesses fallible or infallible? Do their words shape the very concepts of the Alignments, are they slaves to the alignment or as with players, outside and can "fall/ascend"?

Wouldn't the depth of what a Paladin does truly be covered by their ability to think and reason? As Int and Wis are really dump stats now, wouldn't an Int 10/Wis 10 Paladin see a lot fewer choices than an Int 16/Wis 16 one? Or is the player of either supposed to meta-game themselves out of it? Isn't RP playing the character not the same way over and over again, using player knowledge instead of what's on the paper the character is?

There is so much more I don't think a lot of DMs go over.

Damn, should've had more coffee

Yes the Paladin doesn't need Wisdom nor Int really does he?

Str 15
Dex 14
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 14

So does anyone really want a Paladin who is just below Ave IQ and definitely on the Unwise side of the ledger?

I take it meta-gaming is the order of the day?

Is this a rules question? I'd say so given how many Paladins lose their powers over DM rule decisions

BB36 wrote:

The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil.

No, I go via the CRB.

Nope, whn I asked you why the Kobold was evil, you posted:

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

Which is not CRB

But I say that means that these people are all evil in yuor world as well:

Abused Children
Victims or Domestic Violence
Picked on kids at school

Your alignments make no sense.

Of course Evil doesn't ahve to be raving loonies and most psychopaths ARE NOT murderers. Ruining lives and getting off on that, having people thrown out of their dwellings knowing full well that is a death sentence not for any reason other than you can or personal gain is evil

I'm going to ask you to at least be honest and verify what I stated and how I state it as I painfully do with you

Not all evil people are psychopthic mass murderers. In fact most evil people are just complete bastards who gont give a toss about the suffering of others (and far more often than not contribute to it in some way).

Yup, what I said above but the "contribution" is not a passing thing but active participation without guilt

A child molester, a perpetrator of domestic violence, a bully who beats those weaker than him for sport, profit or pleasure, a rapist; basically anyone who is a total and utter bastard falls within 'Evil'.

All but the last part. Being a "bastard" is not enough. The reason and why they do it is important.

A guy who gets drunk and picks fights and loses more than he wins is a drunk bastard but not evil.

Doing such evil acts once does result in an alignment change. Indeed many N characters do the above actions. But repeated cases would lead to an Evil alignment change.

Bovine Scat. Once is not enough. It can be really bad, but it is not enough. Aorry to rain on your parade.

I guess then in your world one good deed can turn you good as well? I doubt it, or at least I hope the hell not

Of course should a Paladin willingly do one of the above even once, he falls.

Rape, child molestation cold blooded murder (of which a captured prisoner who you already said was evil isn't murder, sometimes justice calls for the death of the perp)

Quote:

I pointed this out before, if you bothered to read it, where his definition of how one becomes evil one only needs to be one or more of the following: Victims of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying

Only if as a result of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying they themselves become child abusers, perpetrators of domestic violence and bullies.

Many will obviously rise above it. Some will even go on to become Paladins themselves, seeking to help victims of such evil, and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Yes but "justice"? Justice where? The Paladin is far more than able to determine guilt and mete out justice.

Name someone better in the quasi-medieval/Iron Age world of Pathfinder

Without straying from the path of goodness, honor, charity and mercy.

Show me where it says that in the Pathfinder write up. The first things it says is "sword to evil"

Compare the above to the Punisher (who is clearly LE). He kills evil people without mercy, remorse or compassion - clearly he seeks to do a greater good by only killing 'bad guys', but his actions themselves are evil.

Killing "bad guys" withot mercy is not a good trait, but it is not evil in the world of Pathfinder.

It may be so in yours but yours is clearly messed up.

The first trick of playing a Paladin is to understand the ends never justify the means.

In your world, not everywhere but you do make Paladins unplayable. Oh, I have no doubt people played watered down shells of characters called Paladins, but not Paladins, Social Workers is the real name

Quote:

The DM's gods are fickle and capricious. Why the PC's goddess saw fit to remove the powers after just 1 act

Thems the rules mate. One single act of willfull evil for a Paladin (no matter how he justifies it to himself), and he falls.

But the Paladin did nothing that was evil. He meted out justice to a being you said was evil.

Thats part of...

Them's the rules but I'll tell you to your face, your interpretations leave much to be desired.

You stated you've had many players play Paladins over the years. I wonder how many times you've glossed over how many times you screw them over

Well, there's another "Paladin Thread" detailing how Paladins should be this or that and how the "other side" is wrong

I'd like to keep this on the basics of the Paladin class. How the expected roles some feel the Paladins SHOULD play are IMO, not that great of an idea when one dissects the Paladin down to the Core

Let's start with the iconic "Human Paladin"

Let's use the "Elite Stats" 15 - 14 - 13 -12 - 10 - 8

So Let's build the Paladin

Str 15 - Good
Dex 10 - Wears heavy armor
Con 12 - Fighting types can use this
Int 8 + 2 = 10 - The +2 from being Human saves him from being below average
Wis 13 - Spells
Cha 14 - Paladin's Bonuses are off of Charisma

Okay this Paladin gets 2pts + 0 Int Bonus + 1 human = 3pts/level skill points of which Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (nobility) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int) are Class Skill. As for Feats, this Human Paladin gets 2 Feats, 1st Level and being Human

The Paladin gets these class abilities at 1st level:
Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil 1/day

As we can see, Paladins aren't made for doing 2 things. They are fighters but the fight they excel at are against EVIL opponents. As for determining who is redeemable, etc, that should be left to preferably the clerics of their or allied faiths or trusted companions

Even a cursory glance shows that if a Paladin were to divide up their skill points in the 6 skills of Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge Religion, Ride, and Sense Motive at 10th level, barring the Paladin not putting their Stat Bonuses into Intelligence (most likely Str and Wis), they'd finally have 5 Ranks in each of those 6 Skills

That will mean the Paladin completely ignores Spellcraft and negatives for his armor when riding are not covered well

But turning to what a Paladin does, I like the first paragraph in the SRD:

"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."

We already know that Paladins are a rare breed. Their very first job is to pledge their sword vs evil in battle. Next, their role is pretty specific as well"

"Role: Paladins serve as beacons for their allies within the chaos of battle. While deadly opponents of evil, they can also empower goodly souls to aid in their crusades. Their magic and martial skills also make them well suited to defending others and blessing the fallen with the strength to continue fighting."

I see a lot about battle, crusade, deadly opponent, martial, defending and continue to fighting. I don't see much about coddling evil but a great deal on fighting and killing evil.

Now, I'm not saying that is the only and all it should be. Should a DM want to have a Paladin play as a Celibate, Merciful, Poverty, redeemer, etc, something like the old 3.5 BoED, great!

Caveat: GIVE THEM THE FEAT FOR FREE AND GIVE THEM THE BENEFITS OF THOSE FEATS AS WELL

That does 3 things:

1: Makes it far more clear how you expect the Paladin to be played

2: Makes it a gradual step by step "fall from Grace" - not to say, drinking heavily the night before, running his sword through the bar patrons, having his way with the bar maids and going across town and slaughtering the orphans won't get anything less than a stern warning

3: The crimes and the punishment are far more equitable. The Paladin getting frisky? Wham, bye-bye Celibacy (although that's not really what celibacy means) not Bye-Bye all Paladin powers

Any thoughts?

BB36 wrote:

Another thing, Paladins are the weapon of the gods, the clerics are the redeemers. Paladins while they should go good, are the Holy Warriors, not the day care personnel for various miscreants

A paladin.

Personally, the "Detect Evil Smite Evil" mode of play is what "waters down" good and evil into nothing more than team jerseys. Good needs to operate differently from evil if it wants to have any right to call itself good.

And would say that is a gross simplification.

I fully agree that unless you do nothing but dungeon crawls (in a post that you didn't seem to note but instead found this, took it out of the broader context it was it and ran with it) Paladins shouldn't be "Detect, Smite, Slay" machines. Though by the rules there is nothing wrong with that. It would just make for mechanical and poor RP

But in this case, it was far more about how things went down.

Regarding this particular situation though, player could have tried any number of things. GM could have used a more subtle touch.

Such as?

Not that that matters since this thread seems to have devolved into extreme camps talking past each other.

It only seems that way to you

So far what we've uncovered:

The OP has a legit beef as his DM told him the Kobold pings evil which when you read DE, means the Kobold was not just evil but something more

The OP's DM has very weak rules when it comes to what evil is and how one becomes evil. I pointed this out before, if you bothered to read it, where his definition of how one becomes evil one only needs to be one or more of the following: Victims of child abuse, domestic violence and bullying

The DM's gods are fickle and capricious. Why the PC's goddess saw fit to remove the powers after just 1 act of what many others, and we're not playing fast and loose with our definitions, would consider acceptable (Good can destroy Evil in many different ways, killing is but one option - one that is understandable given the dire nature of trying to locate a bunch of kidnapped kids and one was told the Kobolds took them) to expedient but understandable is way too harsh. A better "punishment would be a dream of repentance at best

The OP's DM has definite double standards that seems to have Good having to be perfect and make the correct decisions in the time frame where dozens have battled about it for days.

Perhaps you're the one who is not actually reading what the "other side" has posted

Elven made, Master Work and Mithril

Hey, you want to know a good way to get paladins to actually turn evil?

Show them that gods of Good are petty and capricious.

Do you think that was the whole goal here?

Why be good as if you're not perfect, you're begging to get back into their good graces

Sounds like two ex-girlfriends I had

Anyway, I don't think paladins are really supposed to going around killing everyone that's evil. I mean, if you're walking down the street and meet a lawful evil lawyer, who's a greedy dishonest bastard, but who's never actually killed anyone or broken any laws, do you get to just kill him on the spot? (Yeah, he'd have to be a level 5 evil lawyer to radiate evil, but you get the point.)

Which goes back to the real point of all of this

In a dungeon crawl where towns are stop overs to drink ale, sell the goods and find willing women (you know the finer things in life) Dungeons generally had 1 thing in them - BAD GUYS

They were always evil, hungry and they just got done eating the poor hapless farmer and his dog. No real thinking needed

But when one expands the game where PCs are to interact, not just kill the bad things and loot the treasure, far more care has to be put into the game.

If you're going to have Black and Grey morality the VERY first thing one must be determined is "Just what makes a person evil to begin with?"

The "evil lawyer", I know redundant, is pinging "EVIL" why? Uncouth, greedy, nasty, lewd, what?

If you want your evil to be banal and trite, yeah, the mean landlord is "evil"

What you get then is a watering down of the alignments where "evil=not nice" and "good=Dudley Do Right". The Paladin becomes a truly useless class as their greatest strengths become their most glaring weakness and a one way ticket to being a Fighter with no fighter feats nor abilities

Make evil EVIL dripping with vile hate and murderous rage. Make the lawyer evil not because he's a Republican but because he enjoys finding orphans for the evil cult to sacrifice, throwing old women out into the cold so he can watch them in glee freezing to death and really getting off on their last breath

That means they're EVIL and a Paladin SMITES AWAY

Another thing, Paladins are the weapon of the gods, the clerics are the redeemers. Paladins while they should go good, are the Holy Warriors, not the day care personnel for various miscreants

bookrat wrote:

Additionally, you said that the kobold detected as Evil from the Detect Evil spell. That means the kobold was either a cleric of an evil deity (with full casting capabilities)

Actually, now that I think about it, this is even more problematic.

Under pathfinder rules, you can be a neutral cleric and follow an evil deity. According to the wording of "detect evil", any cleric that worships an evil deity shows up as evil to detect evil. So if you're going around splattering everyone who shows up as detect evil, you could very well be walking around murdering neutral clerics who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Uh, is it just me or is that a stretch? What's a cleric's job if it isn't to "spread the faith"?

Worshiping, doing the rituals for, bringing active converts to and such, how one can be a non-evil follower of an evil god is hard to imagine. Being a cleric of one seems to be, er, WTF?

In any case, getting rid of a Cleric of an Evil god doesn't seem ever to be a bad idea from the POV of good. After all, where does the soul/spirit of a neutral cleric of an evil god expect to go?

One can only be willfully ignorant about the Temple rites for only so long

Caveat: I have NPCs who are DUPED into believing they follow "good gods" when the gods are actually evil. The clerics do radiate evil and the party killed a few before being ran out of town by the enraged townsfolk who wondered why these "filthy 8@$+@^D$" killed the "good clerics"

The clerics were truly doing good works (though they couldn't understand why they could just cast cures) and wanted to help everyone. The problem is when they sent some to pilgrimage, some just didn't return. After all willing sacrificial victims who are pure are so much more tastier

Not one of them changed alignment. Had there been a Paladin they wouldn't have lost their Paladinhood. However it did make for several great games trying to figure out just what was going on

In Malifice's world, Evil is defined as this to the players:

Malifice wrote:

I define 'Evil' as; A lack of empathy for other beings.

Evil includes:

* Slavery
* Murder
* Torture
* Killing of a defenceless sentient
* Rape
* Causing unecessary harm
* Genocide

And behind the curtains, the kobolds are Evil because of this:

Malifice wrote:

BB36 wrote:

you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society, with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it) and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

Definitely a double standard. Setting the paladin up for failure.

Good catch

Nice to actually see it in action but I thought he didn't think this through at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

BB36 wrote:

you did say the Kobold was evil. How did it get that way?

By being raised in a selfish and cruel society,

So evil "just rubs off"? Is it just some sort of social disease? I guess your anti-paladin just needs to hang out with other bad guys and they stay evil?

with little to no contact with the outside world (aside from big scary monsters trying to kill it, and steel clad adventurers trying to kill it, and its own tribesmen trying to kill it)

That makes it a xenophobic victim, not evil. How, what did it do to be called evil?

Being a victim is not evil

Being afraid of big bad things is not evil

Being worried what your relatives and neighbors are going to do to you is not evil

Congrats! Every abused child, battered housewife, picked on kid in school is EVIL in your world!

and as a result generally not having any empathy for other living creatures, and flocking to the most biggest baddest dude it can find, while picking on and taking advantage of anyone smaller than it (LE).

Wow, your definition of what makes evil is er, weak

Seeking protection is not evil. Taking part in actively hurting others is.

You need to work on what alignments are

BB36 wrote:

]You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?

Where is your proof of this?

This kobold hadnt ritualistically tortured anyone.

Hey, it's your game and you can say anything you want but you did say the Kobold was evil

How did it get that way?

Foul language?

Iced2k wrote:

How I felt about it is clearly documented right here.

I'll take your word for it.

Still, hammering the cold blooded execution of a helpless cowering and bound foe (who posed you no direct harm) into a Paladins code, Sarenraes dogma, and the NG alignment is a stretch.

You mean a being that is a willing participant in ritualistic torture and consumption of other sentient being, especially if they're young and tasty?

Ive told you before that I consider (as DM) the execution of a helpless foe to fall on the side of evil.

And if that really were the case, good has absolutely no chance. You want a world of the "DM's Paladin"

Where they will garner their self-righteous attitude, join hands with Asmodeus and Demorgorgon and sing loud and proud "Kum by yah!"

S*$! we've argued about it before.

And you need to rethink Paladins. Make them NPCs, wise, understanding, impotent

I was also clear in providing your code, and specifying that mercy, charity and compassion (for you) supersceded the LG Paladins reliance on honor, chivalry and justice.

Where does it say "Chivalry"? As for Mercy, he was merciful, the Kobold died quickly and at the hands of a foe that will make him worthy to stand before his god

Iced2k wrote:

Sometimes I think you are unable to read.

'Sarenrae begs to differ'

Yes, the Sarenrae of your imagination begs to differ. I concede that.

But the Sarenrae as interpreted by me and a majority of people on this thread does not.

Thats because you (and others in this thread) have a fairly twisted opinion on what consitutes 'good' (some even advocate the wanton massacre of evil sentients, including prisoners, and for no other reason than detecting as 'evil'), and a rather conflicting view (to say the least) on what consitutes 'mercy' 'compassion' and 'redemption'.

You got frustrated after trying to do the 'right thing', and you lashed out at a helpless and frightened sentient that was entirely at your mercy (Sarenraes greatest virtue).

And to be honest, I think you regretted it not long afterwards.

But thats just my subjective view.

Wow, full of yourself aren't you. Self righteous too. Your definition of good is the end all. Well in your game it is

Nobody here is suggesting wanton destruction of anything. Nice strawman. As with everything, it really depends on the circumstance

If I say, man #1 killed man #2, the first instinct is to say "Bad Man #1"

If I add "Man #2 was trying to kill kid #1", one should say, "Good Man #1, bad Man #2"

The death of an Evil Kobold (was this Kobold trying to do good or did it think that by killing the "lesser races" it and its people will become the chosen race as their religion holds?) is not the best way, but when it comes to saving a bunch of kidnapped innocents, it is certainly not bad

Your idea of the goddess and what she demands (yes a demanding, punitive and stern goddess of redemption anyone else smell oxymoron here?) is fine, but not for having Paladins

Her Paladins will almost always fall, often and get sick of her bovine scatological predictions very quickly