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
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:
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"
Until you define what's going on in the world, I really can't help you.
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?
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
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
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
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
doc the grey wrote:
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
doc the grey wrote:
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
doc the grey wrote:
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
doc the grey wrote:
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
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
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
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"
Roberta Yang wrote:
Um yeah, happens all the time, in soaps, "Luke and Laura" anyone?
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
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
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
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
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?
There are more RAW questions
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
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
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 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
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
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?
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?
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
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:
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)
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.
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
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
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:
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
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
Roberta Yang wrote:
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
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:
Nice to actually see it in action but I thought he didn't think this through at all.
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
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?
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
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