Alternate solutions are a good idea. It sounds like he tried to give you hints on the first one but I certainly couldn't figure out what he was getting at (unless the door is better because light is stereotypically good?)
Ask your GM how he intended you to solve these and let him know what clues or hints you would have wanted in order to figure it out.
I find the fact that it keeps getting called an alignment restriction very telling.
Well, yes, alignment restrictions restrict your alignment to a particular choice (LG, any lawful, part neutral, any non-lawful, within one step of deity).
1) It's also being rewarded for playing a difficult concept, which is the paladin class.
LG paladin supporters keep telling me it's not a difficult concept unles you're a horrible person who doesn't understand what heroism means.
There are also plenty of concepts which are difficult to play. It's generally more difficult to play any evil PC in a nonevil party, or any PC who decieves their party members, than it is to play a paladin, because of the difficulty in RPing accurately without causing conflict. Should these be rewarded?
2-3)As you have just pointed out, the paladin is the only class where you get rewarded for playing LG with stuff other characters don't get. Sucks to be LG, eh?
And if you feel LG needs these rewards (I don't) the solution is to give non-class specific rewards to LG characters.
4) And feats are an elective choice unconstrained by class.
So you want all LG characters of all classes to be rewarded, but you don't want these rewards to be unconstrained by class? Are you recommending making a more powerful LG-specific version of every individual class?
The paladin is mechanical benefits rewarding the fluff of the class.
And mechanics should not be used to balance/reward fluff.
If you elect to be a paladin, you automatically elect to be LG. Unlike any other class, you don't get to keep the benefits if you leave that one alignment.
Monks, barbarians, druids, and clerics all have similar restrictions with a little more room on the alignment board to work with. Certain multiclasses (druid/monk, monk-druid-bbn/cleric depending on deity alignment) also restrict you to one specific alignment.
Good feats aren't part of a character class. Nor are most of them constrained to LG (even in Book of Exalted Deeds, it was Any Good).
They tend to be linked to specific behaviors rather than alignments (ex: not lying, not dealing lethal damage, not owning a particular amount of property) which is better because it doesn't cause arguments about when exactly someone stops being lawful or exactly what constitutes an evil act and doesn't assume that a character with one lawful trait (discipline) must be lawful.
And your Chaotic Good characters are fairly extremist examples.
And a LG character who never lies under any circumstance is an extremist example. The current paladin is extreme. I'm demonstrating that it can be just as extreme if CG.
I'd also like to note that a person refusing to doff his hat to a cross could very well be lawful alignment and adhering to his own moral code in opposing an unjust law. In A Man for All Seasons, the protagonist is clearly LG, and willing to die rather then place his king over his faith. That's not a CG 'only me' attitude.
CG is not an "only me" attitude, that's CN or even CE, and a person who follows their own moral compass as opposed to society's, assuming that compass is benevolent, is CG per the CRB.
And CG aren't neccessarily opposed to governments. They like roads. They like cities. Armies come in very useful. The idea of personal honor and obligation to family and clan is tied up in the soul of CG quite heavily, as exemplified by many elves who would not think of shirking their responsibilities they undertake willingly, but might well be loathe to have such forced upon them...unless it led to greater glory, of course! As long as governments are run on personal respect between individuals, and not on the law being the top, CG doesn't have a problem with governments.
1) Then the CG must obsessively oppose bureaucracy. Similar overall effect. EDIT: In fact, they must oppose any governments or institutions that impose more restrictions on individual rights than absolutely necessary or that put the law/government on top.
2) If chaotics can be honourable and can feel a sense of obligation why is it unreasonable to have an honourable and dedicated CG paladin?
Some CG characters will comply, some won't. These women were kicked out of a mall for refusing to remove hats at the request of a security guard. According to these sources a teen was sentenced to death in France in 1766 for failing to remove his hat in front of a crucifix (along with other insults to the faith). And there are two separate spots in the bible where a total of four men faced the death penalty for refusing to bow to the king on religious grounds. A CG paladin is the kind of person who will face the death penalty for refusing to bow / remove hats on religious grounds. And the fact that you cold face the death penalty means it's not an easy restriction to follow (like "don't use poison" usually is).
Note that a LG character can also be threatened into breaking his word or the law - but a paladin shouldn't respond to these threats whether LG or CG.
And certainly enough, if he believes the king is a worthy king, hereditary or not, he will bow his head...but it will be based on his own judge of character.
Maybe, but personally I think it would be appropriate to show respect in other ways. For example, calling the king by a descriptive, complementary title ("the Wise") rather than "Your Highness" or toasting to him when he passes rather than remove a hat - this demonstrates specific individual approval rather than simple conformity and is thus a more powerful gesture.
But c'mon, not being able to 'act' lawfully?
You're suffering from the common misconception that not acting lawfully means always doing the exact opposite of whatever the law requires. This is clearly ridiculous because it would require a chaotic character to constantly murder, and thus CG would not exist.
Paying a wealthy man an honest price for his goods is impossible, because you could just take it?
The chaotic person respects individuals and is not required to steal from them, same as they're not required to murder them. However chaotics likely refuse to pay taxes even if they are otherwise generous with their money (because they don't like governments) and may prefer trading in commodities rather than currency (which is supported by a government).
Being unable to uphold your given word, or a contract you entered into willingly and freely, is impossible?
Like I said above, I believe the appropriate response to this is not giving your word due to the belief that this implies it's correct to hold people to their word. If the chaotic never makes promises he isn't beholden to either keep or break them.
Dealing with honest authorities over dishonest theives is not right?
From a CG perspective, not if we're talking about LN authorities vs CN thieves. The authorities are part of a system that serves to oppress the people and their honesty means very little in light of that fact. Good-evil concerns may still be relevant, though.
General note: chaotic characters are not required to always be 100% chaotic, and in fact a character who was wouldn't be human any more than a 100% lawful character would be. Even paladins are permitted to perform chaotic acts as long as these acts are not evil, don't fall into the short list of absolutely excluded acts (including lying), and aren't significant enough to shift alignment. CG paladin gets the same treatment - occasional lawful acts with a short list of absolute exclusions. No bowing is a good absolute exclusion as is using compulsions or forcing others into binding agreements, but there's certainly room for these "absolute exclusions" to be customized depending on personal philosophy.
As an example of proper chaotic behavior, a CN PC in a game I played refused to use any titles (he gave everyone nicknames), constantly insulted knights, and strove to demonstrate his own superiority, especially to anyone who attempted to tell him what to do or implied they had authority over him. He actually liked my LG inquisitor (a knight), but still repeatedly made fun of him on principle. The character was simply incapable of obeying.
Alignment isn't supposed to be a straightjacket for a character, why should alignment restrictions be used to straightjacket an entire class? It's not about getting more power, it's about getting more concepts.
My next character is a LG barbarian. Could have done it NG but I felt like I wanted the character to be an ardent supporter of honour, duty, and tradition and a non-lawful alignment would crimp my style.
You, you're trying to play someone with lawful RAGE, not a barbarian. You just want the buff...the absolute last reason to accomodate you.
But why should I want to play a LG barbarian when I can play a paladin? That's supposed to be my reward for playing LG, right?
Exactly. You're being rewarded for playing a Paladin. That's your election.
But you're not rewarded for playing a LG character. The majority of LG characters (non-paladin) do not get a reward. At least, they didn't until Champions of Purity introduced feats that required the character to respect good-aligned codes. And a feat is a more accessible elective for the LG character than class levels.
And people will point out with excellent arguments that the paladin is a fighter, but better.
It's not better if you're playing a feat-heavy build or if you're in a campaign that has a lot of neutral-aligned enemies and few undead, outsiders, and dragons.
And on the last balance note, if the lawful alignment is more restrictive than the chaotic one and deserves rewards, why is the lawful monk generally considered underpowered compared to the unrestricted fighter?
Channel Smite and Guided hand can be useful for being very dangerous in melee while still being a good caster.
I could see some very good things happening with a Bad Touch cleric of Irori with these feats. And since the OP is starting at level 3 he can easily get both feats to start.
If you want only minimum healing you could build a dwarven cleric with the dwarf archetype (forgemaster?). They don't get channel energy so it's one thing less to worry about when it comes to healing.
I don't know, I'd worry that you'd be pressured to spend more of your spell slots on healing if you couldn't channel.
Which is my point. The paladin might be intended as a reward class, it might even have been an effective reward back when a paladin was basically "fighter but better." But in the current game there are much better ways to reward heroism, including non-class-specific mechanical rewards. So you can't justify the alignment restriction as a "reward." It seems to me that the real reason for it is nostalgia and territoriality - feeling the need to protect the paladin from those heretical, powergaming CG players.
Well, a quick Google tells me the abominations thing was from Rise of the Runelords, which I haven't read.
I've seen a ton of takes on dragon hybrids (some discussed here, including an opinion from James Jacobs). I'm not inclined to consider any of that binding. Interesting to get perspectives and maybe useful if you're running a strict Golarion setting but you're the GM, it's ultimately your world, and none of the suggestions I've seen for dragon interbreeding will negatively affect your game.
Even if we assume that true metallic and chromatic dragons can't interbreed, you really could go either way on the hybrid half-dragons. Though I still think it's easier to randomly pick one energy type if they're not the same (like the red/silver) and let the rest of the details be cosmetic (multicoloured scales!).
Agreed. Either Align Weapon should work on natural attacks and unarmed strikes, or there should be an alternate spell that affects natural attacks and unarmed strikes. They should be able to do one or the other without breaking copyright law.
Though I guess technically it's a monk buff if only monks can use Align Weapon on UAS?
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Next. Do you want no healing or minimum healing? You could worshi a neutral deity and choose to channel negative energy. That might be fun.
No you can't. The character has to be good-aligned and all good-aligned clerics channel positive energy, even if the deity is neutral. The only clerics that get to choose are neutral clerics of neutral deities.
Do you have any more specific role you hope to fill? I'm assuming since you don't want to heal you'd like to stay away from the support caster role in general, but that still leaves you the melee damage build, the archer cleric, and the offensive caster "bad touch cleric." And for all of these I'd recommend starting with a look at this guide, description of types here.
So does your group need tanking, ranged support, or battle control?
What if you only like to play full casters, or just don't feel like playing a paladin this time? No reward for being heroic for you. Sure, it may be designed as a "reward class" but classes are bad rewards because they aren't available to all characters who deserve them. It's like giving every kid on the honour roll a free prom dress - about half the school gets little to no use of it and the reward means nothing to them. Hence (blatant) RP benefits or equal-opportunity feats are better rewards than the paladin class.
Also, your understanding of Chaos is in error. The CRB clearly states that a character who has neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel is neutral on that axis. A CG character who consistently performs an equal amount of chaotic and lawful actions - who has no clear preference between these actions - becomes NG.
The chaotic character isn't indifferent towards law, they actively think law is bad or wrong-headed and that cooperating with it is undesirable - they have a compulsion to rebel. They can sometimes work with law or perform lawful actions for some benefit, but it does not sit right with their sense of morality. A CG character feels as uncomfortable collaborating with the police as a LG character would feel collaborating with a thieves' guild. It's something they might do if they need to but they actively dislike it and avoid it wherever possible.
If we introduce a CG paladin as an analogue to the LG paladin, the CG paladin's compulsion to rebel must be stronger than that of the general CG character by just as much as the LG paladin's compulsion to obey is stronger than the general LG character. If the LG paladin can't "pretend to be chaotic" by breaking his word (like most LG characters could if pressed), the CG paladin can't "pretend to be lawful" by bowing before the king. In the CG paladin's eyes affirming the superiority of a holder of hereditary office is wrong and something he will not do because it's a paladin's job, even more than the ordinary good-aligned person, to do what's right.
I understand the ruling that half dragons are typically unable to mate with other non half dragons, but the above scenario was not really covered. Is it safe to assume that for purposes of mating, the two half dragons do not count as silver or white, and fall under a more generic classification?
Where is that ruling? That's totally at odds with the flavour text on the draconic bloodline: "At some point in your family's history, a dragon interbred with your bloodline, and now its ancient power flows through your veins" which requires a half-dragon to have interbred with a humanoid creating a more dilute draconic heritage. There's just no quarter-dragon template, meaning that quarter-dragons either have that bloodline (or eldritch heritage of that bloodline) or else the draconic heritage is only cosmetic.
Would their childs characteristics be randomly decided by one of the parents?
That would be the best way to handle it for simplicity's sake - all it really determines is the type of energy they are immune to and their breath weapon. And in fact for a silver/white crossbreed those are identical. And of course appearance can reflect the mixed heritage.
@Gauss - thanks for the rules on teleportation, I was thinking of that line but wasn't sure it applied to all conjuration and not just (summoning).
Thanks, that's helpful for that specific situation.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Willing targets absolutely do not forfeit their saves automatically. Unconscious targets are always considered willing, yet they still always get a save. You get a save unless you intentionally suppress it.
"Willing only" effects generally do not allow a save because it's assumed the (willing!) target is not resisting - Teleport and Sequester only allow saves to attended or magical objects. So an unconscious creature (willing) does not get a save or any chance to resist Teleport. You knock someone unconscious and you can teleport them anywhere you like as long as it's a solid surface.
I find it interesting that unconsciousness:
1) Does not prevent you from resisting (making saves vs) harmful effects
2) Makes you totally incapable of resisting specific effects designated "willing only" (and presumably those designated "harmless") whether or not they would be harmful to you.
The idea is that there are some categories of magic that you instinctively accept and some that you instinctively reject in situations where you can't consciously recognize the magic acting on you.
So what does this say about situations where you think you know consciously what's going on but you're wrong?
We know that you recognize a hostile spell consciously if you succeed at your saving throw. If trickery can never deny you a save vs a hostile effect (the potion of poison), even a mental one, it implies that you can recognize this sense even as the spell is being cast on you and thus automatically have the opportunity to resist, say, a Dominate Person being passed off as CLW. But willing-harmless spells should slip under that radar - if you accept them by default when unconscious and also consciously want the spell to take effect (even if you're misinformed about what the spell does) where, logically, does the resistance come from?
David knott 242 wrote:
Some non-harmless spells have mixed effects -- see "Enlarge Person" for such an example.
I wasn't aware of that and it adds an interesting wrinkle in the above system - based on the lack of the (harmless) tag, Enlarge Person would feel as hostile as Dominate Person or Baleful Polymorph. If we extrapolate outside of RAW a clever caster could tell a target familiar with this oddity that the spell they are casting is Enlarge Person and the target should not resist the spell even though it feels hostile. This would allow a character to cheat the system with zero grounding in RAW and 100% grounding in common sense.
Another weird result of making this distinction solely based on presence of the willing/harmless tags is that an unconscious dhampir does not get a save against a Cure spell cast on him/her while unconscious but is required to save vs a restorative Inflict spell (no harmless tag). I don't think this is the intent.
Actually, I don't think that "don't resist" being the default for (harmless) spells is supported by RAW since it never actually says that an unconscious character can't make saves against (harmless) effects - this is only called out for "willing only" effects. So really unconsciousness only results in a default level of resistance for those effects - for everything else you can pick and choose what you save against as normal.
Seems like a part of the system designed solely for balance and ease of use, not internal consistency or story reasons...
If they're titles, then keep them titles and separate them from the class. Call the ranger class "hunters" or the paladin class "champions" and then let members of any class who follow a strict LG code of conduct take on the title of "paladin" (and characters who fight evil in the wilderness can join the "rangers").
Give these paladins (and rangers) some clear, unfalsifiable way to identify themselves. A halo or whatever. Then give them fluff benefits to go with the fluff restrictions. NPCs trust them from the start, or are more willing to do them small favours. The blacksmith takes the time to add the paladin's crest on their shield. The groom adds some extra oats and apples to the mount's saddlebags. The local lord grants them an audience immediately rather than making them wait several days. And make these benefits available to all characters to take on the paladin's code regardless of class - the "paladin" wizard gets the same consideration as the "paladin" champion due to abiding by the same sterling standard of behavior. And if they violate their code they lose their halo, lose these social benefits, and possibly suffer additional shame from those who know they have fallen from grace.
Or if you really, really want mechanical benefits for your fluff then make those feats like the ones in the Book of Exalted Deeds (or the new ones in Champions of Purity) and make them available to all characters who choose to "handicap" themselves with behavioral requirements.
But the current state of affairs is a bad move all around. Even ignoring "flavor should not balance mechanics" (SKR's opinion!), a base class can't serve as a reward to LG characters because there are tons of LG characters of other classes. All it does is portion off a specific mechanical concept (Cha-based divine warrior with weak casting) as LG territory in order to preserve a legacy from a game that also required these extra-heroic characters to be human (because no other races can be that heroic or dedicated?) and where half-orcs couldn't be raised from the dead because they didn't have souls.
There are better ways to encourage heroic characters and better ways to implement specific concepts like the classic paladin or the Ranger-as-Aragorn.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
That's what the spell is for, though note you need Make Whole if it's magic armour that was totally destroyed (instead of just broken).
2) Can you give some examples of the supernatural abilities you have in mind? If it is stuff like a profane gift, then no, you cannot trick someone into accepting a profane gift disguised as a cure light wounds (or whatever).
I was thinking about Profane Gift, though I was planning on disguising it as a variation on Fox's Cunning due to the effect (I figured this would still take on heck of a bluff but that it might not be immediately obvious).
Think it would work with an unconscious target (since unconsciousness definitely counts as willing for spells)?
Otherwise it's too easy to charm an enemy, convince them to teleport, and teleport them 200 ft up in the air. Hello 20d6 fall damage.
I didn't think you could teleport into mid-air - I'd always assumed it had the same limitation as summoning spells and required you to teleport onto a solid surface, though now that I look it up I can't find that stated.
It does make charm a bit more dangerous, but you can already talk a charmed person into doing dangerous things, especially if they're not aware of the danger. For example, asking them to open a door that you believe is trapped, or to "hold this" (the trigger object for trap the soul).
Two questions expanding on what it means to be a "willing target" for spells restricted to willing targets.
Magic Rules wrote:
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
1) Is a target still considered willing if it is deceived as to the nature of the spell?
1a) If you tell a creature you're teleporting it to city A, can you teleport it to city B because it's willing to be teleported?
1b) If a creature thinks it's being teleported, can you Sequester it?
This FAQ which says that you still get a save against a harmful potion even if you think it's harmless seems to suggest that the same issue would prevent using deception to make a target willing, but it's not quite the same scenario and I'd like opinions.
2) Do these rules about what counts as willing extend to Supernatural abilities that require willing targets?
I know the issue of other alignment restrictions wasn't directed at me, but my problem is that they're based on narrow, stereotyped interpretations of the classes. The monk's lawful restriction is based solely on the idea that monks are very disciplined, but this one trait should not define a character's alignment. The barbarian's nonlawful restriction is based on the idea that Rage involves a loss of control. The druid's "some neutral" restriction is based on the idea of "balance" but extremists exist in non-neutral alignments (Judge Dredd is an example of an extremist LN). TN detachment doesn't work either since historical druids were members of a priestly caste that served their community by ensuring the land provided what they needed - very Erastil.
Why is the paladin LG? Because it's the attempt to force a player to play a truly classic heroic mold character, complete with all the do's and don'ts that come with it.
So now it's a good idea to force players to play particular concepts?
To compensate for the fact, you're given special powers so you're really good at your job, and someone without the same restrictions doesn't walk all over you.
What about games in which good behavior is rewarded rather than penalized? In that case the restrictions aren't a liability at all.
So all those people currently playing and enjoying nongood rangers are really just playing ranger wannabes? I get that a lot of classes, and particularly paladins, have strong associations for many players due to the fantasy inspirations and previous editions, but we're not playing LotR d20 or even AD&D anymore.
I would also like to point out that one of the things that the originial Paladin labored under was his tithing and wealth restrictions. To wit, he had to give away 10% of all his earnings to charity (usually his church), could not have more wealth then he could carry, and was limited to ten permanent magic items!
I actually like this, because tithing represents a mechanical penalty to balance the mechanical advantages the 2E paladin had over the fighter. However, the same does not apply to the current paladin's code.
It additionally does not hurt the CG paladin to lie, cheat and steal for a good cause. These are simply generic actions that are not allowed to LG paladins. The CG paladin is also perfectly free to tell the truth when it suits him, keep his word, and give generously to charity...all Lawful behaviors, but also good, and certainly not against his code.
1) Giving to charity is good but not lawful.2) There are chaotic behaviors that a LG paladin can perform without breaking his code, like opposing tyrants or embracing change. CG does not have to be more permissive than LG.
Paladins have a code of conduct they cannot deviate from. A character who does not break a code of conduct even if it seems to his best judgment that it's a really good idea to make an exception in a rare case is lawful.
CG paladin can make exceptions if he thinks it's a good idea. He just falls. Same deal as the LG paladin who decides to make an exception. Unless the GM decides that the paladin was actually right to make the exception, which sometimes happens with the LG paladin and it hasn't broken the class yet.
The thing about Lawful vs Chaotic is Lawful takes the ethical bits out of Good and codifies them, then adheres.
Sure, but codification doesn't always improve things. Zero Tolerance policies and Three-Strikes laws are supposed to prevent authorities from being lax in enforcing the law and to keep repeat offenders from continuing to commit crimes, respectively, but in practice they prevent authorities from considering mitigating factors in a crime and perversely encourage people to commit worse crimes since "you might as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb."
A LG person will obviously attempt to change a law that doesn't actually serve the good, but that's a slow process. That's why people opposed slavery in two ways: trying to end it legally/lawfully, and helping current slaves to escape or rebel (the chaotic option).
Did you check out Shuna? She has purpose.
I once tried playing an absurdly and selfless good character I could and he turned into a NG druid. Unhindered by law/chaos, cared about nature, didn't really get into the whole society thing, but spent his whole first gaming session giving charity to a town and fellow players. The result was... Being told I wasn't being good enough, because I was willing to kill an evil creature, and therefore I was Pure Neutral, or worse chaotic Neutral. Sometimes you just can't be good enough. Meanwhile, the LG paladin who refused to kill anyone ever got a lot of love... Alignment arguments can really end up weird. They can be subjective, and you aren't always with like minded individuals on the subject.
That sounds kinda like my NG druid and the CG paladin, except no one gave either of us alignment grief and were were buds.
Taason the Black wrote:
One person I gamed with gave the rest of the group permission to kill his character because she was sabotaging the group's mission. He was a big fan of RPing your character accurately and didn't really care what the outcome for his character was.
We managed to avoid killing his PC, but it was a dicey thing.
Which ones do you have a problem with and why? I wouldn't throw all those on the same CG paladin at once - for starters, it really is hard mode compared to the standard LG. But to address the argument that CG paladins are a powergaming attempt to get paladin powers without restrictions, CG-aligned restrictions are needed to replace the lawful items "respect legitimate authority, don't cheat, lie, or use poison" in the LG code. I think most of those are decent options - "give them liberty or death" and "no promises" are a little extreme but well within the grounds of what I can see a CG paladin taking on.
Ideally the "any Good" paladin would have a core code including protect the innocent, punish evil, no evil actions and then would be instructed to pick 1-3 additional codes, some lawful (respect authority) or chaotic (no compulsions or binding contracts) or neutral (stuff like poverty, chastity, or peace). The "philosophies" in Champions of Purity are a good starting point since they offer several viewpoints typical of each good alignment with behavior typical of that viewpoint.
And for a good fictional example of a CG paladin, try Shuna from Elfquest. She disobeys her father (an agent of the law) to free an innocent prisoner, starts a revolution against the tyrant, and instinctively puts herself in danger to save an ally. She's a classic CG freedom fighter and also clearly not a fighter or cavalier since she has no martial training - instead she runs off of faith and courage and acts as an inspiration to the people providing them with the will to change their circumstances.
And Mr. Sin, that was a hugely silly and untrue example. It was very Lawful Stupid. You're assuming the paladin can't use the law against someone abusing the law.
And you're assuming there's a law they can use against the villain. There might not be - at least, not one that can be used in time to save the day. LE villains are very good at setting up layers of red tape for a LG hero to wade through, it's classier than trying to slow them down with disposable minions.
Why is chastity so important for a paladin again?
Oh yeah, those Judeo-christian values being imported into a totally inappropriate context.
If you feel the CG paladin still needs some fluff restricitions, here is a list of choices:
If you think being unable to forge documents is inconvenient for the LG paladin, wait until the CG paladin refuses to bow to the king. This is why the CG paladin is "hard mode" in my next campaign.
"But Weirdo, Chaotic people can do all those things!" Yes, and LG people can lie, cheat, steal, forge documents, etc. They generally don't like to (just like a chaotic doesn't generally like bowing to the king) but most will if the alternatives are worse. LG paladins have extra requirements characteristic of but beyond their alignment - so would the CG variety.
I really hate this kind of heavy-handed railroading of character concept in a DM. Lawful Evil can be the most honest and trustworthy character in a party and still be roleplaying the alignment properly. By forcing you to lie to your party, he is making party in-fighting much more likely when they find out you are a Cleric of Asmodeus. Just because you selected the Trickery domain is no justification for being a pathological liar with your adventuring party.
I agree. It's unfair of your GM to demand that you play your character like this - he can suggest it, but coercion is lame.
If you must, the easiest thing to do is pretend to be a cleric of a different, probably LN, deity. There is relatively little mechanical difference between two clerics after the positive/negative energy choice. You'd just need to watch your use of domain spells and powers.
And now they're not OP and attribute minimums don't exist period. So why is the alignment restriction still good for anything other than nostalgia? Do you see anyone arguing that because AD&D paladins were human-only, the class lost something when you could be an elven or dwarven or (gasp!) half-orc paladin?
Buy that definition, the neutral spread (LN, TN, CN) is self-centered. The good alignments are still all other-centered: the whole point of Good is to put others before yourself.
Mikaze, I really think you should take a look at Lawful alignments. By nature, they first look at how their actions will affect everyone else. That's not necessarily good or evil, because that can be taken many ways. It just means that their focus isn't on themselves at nearly all times, as it would be for Chaotics. It's on society as a whole, the big enchilada. "Yeah, I could break this law, but why is the law there? Oh, it's to prevent (blank), and I agree that makes sense. I shouldn't break this law."
No, that's a Neutral (L/C) type. The Lawful person reflexively obeys the law unless there's an obvious reason not to (eg the law says to kill all members of race X). It's not just a willingness to obey, remember, it's a compulsion to do so.
Meanwhile, a Chaotic type wouldn't even consider the law in the first place. They'd just think about what they figure is the right thing to do in their eyes, and do it.
But if they are CG "the right thing" is always what is best for the other individuals involved. Having a personal conscience is not the same thing as thinking of yourself first, it just means you're thinking with your moral apparatus rather than borrowing a pre-made moral system.
And CG thinks that by forcing everyone to make that sacrifice rather than let everyone decide for themselves whether stability is worth individuality, LG is deluding itself into thinking it's compassionate, willfully ignoring what the people need while claiming to represent "the big picture" and "the greater good."
LG and CG do not agree on the best way to be good, and that is totally normal because they're on opposite ends of one of the two alignment spectra. But giving an argument for LG superiority from the POV of LG does not prove that LG is actually superior - I can just as easily condemn LG from the CG viewpoint.
And to go back to LG Paladins not always fitting in:
In the last 5 years I've played in 3 campaigns in which the premise was some variation on "you are fighting an evil government without the support of any lawful authority." These campaigns by nature require the PCs to conceal their activities. And they are not unheroic games - I don't think any of them featured any evil acts. But because we had to lie at least once every other session, and regularly oppose lawful authority, these campaigns would be very hostile to a RAW LG paladin. 3 campaigns in which the very premise, not the presence of antiheroic party members, makes a classic paladin difficult or impossible to play. No other core class has that problem. And if paladins were "any good" the class would be equally heroic, but would not have that problem.
And another opinion on the LG/CG deal:
From a LG perspective, CG is just plain irresponsible, but not outright evil. It's the truth, CG never stops to think about how their choices affect society at large. They just do what they think is right at the time. Makes for a self centered streak in their personality, and a lack of real solid judgment, imho.
From a CG perspective, LG is just authoritarian, but not outright evil. It's the truth, LG never stops to think about how their rules stifle individuality. They just follow their codes and assume that's what's right all the time. Makes for a self-righteous bent in their personality, and a lack of real compassion.
Evil is self-centered.
A CG person doesn't care how their choices affect society because they don't think society is important - states and corporations do not have value to a Chaotic. A CG person does highly value other people as individuals and tries to help them and not harm them. That's what doing what they think is right means.
The difference between LG and CG is not in level of judgment, but the type of errors in judgment that they are likely to make. A CG person might cause suffering by encouraging someone to follow their heart rather than their social duty. A LG person might cause suffering by encouraging individuals to sacrifice their individual desires in favour of doing their duty.
If roll is super high yet there is nothing to hide... "You believe he is lying to you" because at that point if the PC is so suspicious that he is questioning everything the NPC says he is going to find something to create doubt in his own mind.
That's a horrible way to do it, since it penalizes a high modifier and/or good rolls. It's better to give false positives when someone rolls low - say, check result below 10, or a nat 1 (so there's always a chance of a false positive).
PC: You sound like an honest bloke but my job's on the line so I'm just going to check their serial numbers. Oh look, these are the droids I was looking for. I'm sure you bought them in good faith, but I have to confiscate these.
Cheap tests should always be performed, especially when costs for failure are high.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's certainly what the rule about guards and other casual observers taking 10 on perception checks implies.
That's not exclusive to Lawful Good. When the level 1 party stumbled into a nest of ghouls, my NG druid delayed to make sure that everyone else got out first. She later had an argument with the CG paladin over who was going to play the prisoner in an infiltration mission (think Chewie in the start of Return of the Jedi). My friend had a CG Ronin who died next to my LG Inquisitor trying to protect an orc infant from a powerful genocidal NPC - we both knew it was suicidal.
Lose the LG alignment, then you lose what makes a Paladin. Remember, most superheroes in comic books are LG. Have you noticed? Everybody from Green Lantern to Superman to Thor to....
I would describe Thor as CG. Maybe NG. He strikes me as barbarian-ish. He's a Norse god, after all. In the recent movies, Iron Man is also very CG - the Avengers made a point about how even though he hasn't got the sense of discipline, honour, or respect for authority that Captain America does, he is just as willing to risk his life to save others, which makes him a big damn hero.
LG has many more constraints than the rather flexible CG.
False. In the description of alignment in the CRB, it says "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel." This implies that Chaotic characters have a compulsion to rebel that is equal and opposite to a Lawful character's compulsion to obey. In my next campaign, CG paladins/champions actually have a harder time than their LG counterparts because the CG champions are driven to challenge the primarily LN government. It's not unusual for them to be executed for their commitment.
In my next campaign paladins/champions pick a championed alignment with its associated opposed alignment and replace "good" and "evil" in the class description with the championed and opposed alignments, respectively. Normally I like heroic "any good" paladins but the setting of this campaign called for exactly the type of LN paladin you described. It also leads to the interesting situation of having LG paladins who are champions of good and LG paladins who are champions of law, with different opinions on how to act in a Law vs Good dilemma.
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
I'd love to see paladins re-written with domains or portfolios that granted certain powers rather than a fix smite evil/good.
Also something I'd like to see.
Is that what this is?
And this is a thread entitled "Paladin Alignments - more than just LG?" Did you really expect that this debate wouldn't show up in this thread?
Sits right up there with the playstyles of moral convenience that try palm off 'good necromancers' etc. Why can't I play a non-Evil assassin?
Got no problem with either. Necromancy is a tool and can be used for good or evil, and if a good character can kill things why can't they be an assassin - the kind of character who can efficiently kill only the target, without causing collateral damage of random henchmen?
Usually different rules are applied for NPCs using social skills on the PCs than the reverse. This is because it can interfere with a player's control over their character. For example, a person with a +10 diplomacy check has a 50/50 chance of convincing a Cha 10 stranger (indifferent attitude) to give them lengthy or complicated (but not dangerous) aid. That's not a hard modifier for a 5th level character to achieve. If you hit +20 that's an automatic success. Would it be fun for the players if a 5th level bard could walk up to their characters, roll a die, and force them to spend a day setting up his stage? Probably not. Definitely not if it happened frequently. It's like Dominating the PC for a day - bad enough to be charmed or dominated in battle, but at least there are magical defenses against that. There's no good defense against a Diplomacy check.
Bluff and Sense Motive adds a little more distance. It's "you believe X" instead of "you do Y." But in some cases it's not much distance. If a paladin believes that an innocent is in danger they are required to attempt to help that innocent. If the average injured adventurer is handed a potion of poison and is told it's a potion of CLW, they will drink it. While you can put ranks in Sense Motive to protect yourself, doing so can be difficult for classes with only 2-4 skill points per level - especially the fighter who doesn't get it as a class skill and probably doesn't have a great Wis. I think it's better to limit a Sense Motive to "you sense/do not sense deceit" when used by PCs rather than risk social skills turning PCs into puppets. Sense Motive is still useful because you've got a better chance of getting a good "reading" through your PC's lie detector.
That said, I usually assume that my character believes someone unless my GM tells me I think they're lying or unless the PC is biased against a specific individual. For example, if they've been conned before by a particular individual they might assume that anything that person says is a lie no matter how convincing it sounds, leading to the opposite error.
Have you had a problem with Sense Motive in your game?
Spells will tell you the general kind of object they can create.
For example, Fabricate turns raw materials (like iron) into finished materials (like a sword).
Minor Creation makes objects of nonliving vegetable matter, up to 1 cubic ft / caster level. It could make thinks like a bucket, a ladder, cotton or linen clothing, or a quarterstaff. It couldn't make a sword, since that's a metal object.
Major Creation can make minerals and metals, including jewelry or adamantine weapons (though these don't last long).
You aren't going to get a full list because that would be very long, but you can look through the mundane objects in your rulebook and see what items fall into each category.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all:
Keep in mind that as a Paladin you have to be one step within your patron deity's alignment along the good/evil/lawful/chaotic axis. That doesn't mean that you must strictly be LG or even GOOD at all. As a GM, I allow my players to play Dark Paladins (any of an evil alignment).
The point seems to be that since Abadar can have paladins, and clerics of Abadar can be LN or LE, you can have a LN or LE paladin of Abadar. This is not RAW since the list of deities with paladins is based on the LG alignment, not the other way around, but might make sense if you expanded paladin alignments.
Personally I think it depends on how closely a paladin is tied to his god. If a paladin is a champion of a deity, he should match his deity's alignment, because paladins are characterized by total commitment. If a paladin is a champion of an alignment, he may follow a deity with a different alignment, possibly even a partly opposed alignment, depending on how closely a member of a religion is expected to hold to that religion's alignment. PF tends to treat them as champions of alignment. They aren't required to have a deity, get their powers from Law and Good, and these powers are based on alignment (ie Smite Evil).
There's nothing RAW that says that paladins have to be within one step of their deity's alignment, but it's a common house rule due to the restriction on cleric and the fact that it's difficult to follow a deity whose alignment is opposed to yours on either axis, as James Jacobs explains here. Of course, right after that SKR says he wouldn't mind a LG paladin of Asmodeus, so it's clearly a matter of taste. For that matter, so is the issue of cleric alignments. The Eberron setting has distant gods and hypocritical clergy who don't have to have an alignment close to that of their god.
One actual instance I can remember involved a fight with some undead and a young dragon, who apparently had a big lump of gold lodged deep in its stomach. That, the dragon's hide, some dragonbile, and some stuff from the skeletons, was supposed to be our treasure. When the dragon died, it careened over a cliff-side. We could see it was dead and even our Ranger didn't want to repel down to carve up its hide and then climb back up with it. So we left it, and finished rescuing some druid's cousin or something. The reward for that guy's return was pretty weak (it was more of a social/plot developing reward) and a few sessions later I think the guy playing the wizard brought up that we had been in some nasty scraps but didn't seem to be getting any real rewards to upgrade ourselves. The DM mentioned the dragon and even pointed it out in his notes from that session that the treasure had been there. He said he didn't feel obliged to hand wave the party a different treasure when the last one was lost due to laziness. It didn't end up mattering as two of the players ended up leaving the area not too long after that, so the campaign basically dissolved.
It's easy enough to penalize laziness without totally denying treasure - just make the replacement treasure less cool. For example, now you can't make dragonhide armour for the druid because it's not available unless you kill the dragon yourself.
This is the guy who instantly reads everything worthwhile about a person. The slightest fault in grooming, he notices. Every minor social error, he notices. Everytime someone makes a little white lie, he notices. And, of course, while he's in tune enough not to mention it, YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL. Everyone feels scrutinized, studied and questioned around him. Major creepness.
That's a neat idea.
You could play this a couple ways depending on Int, trained skills, and other abilities. For example, if the Int is also fairly high an annoying know-it-all would definitely make sense. If the Int is middling it's harder to justify an obnoxious genius because most of those character types (House, some versions of Holmes) tend to have a combination of high Wis and Int. And the above description of making everyone feel scrutinized makes more sense if the character is actually trained in Sense Motive and/or Perception.
Stubbornness might also be a trait - due to his/her strength of will this character refuses to compromise in situations where that might be socially expected - especially if he/she knows the other party is being foolish.
Tell us a bit more about the character and we might be able to give more useful suggestions.
Actually, in my upcoming campaign it's more common to get sorcerous powers from exposure to a source of magical energy than from ancestry. Usually this occurs at birth or when the person is young and still developing, but adults can be affected as well. For example, children born at a particular sacred volcano frequently become sorcerers with the Elemental (Fire) bloodline - or oracles with the Burned curse. Walking through a Fairy Circle on Midsummer's Eve might give you the Fey or Sylvan bloodline.
I'd treat it as if the fog is effectively real shadow-stuff since the save doesn't negate the vision penalty, but the "shadowy shapes" within which cause the haunting can be disbelieved, and are automatically disbelieved by the caster.
I assume the problem arises from the fact that the mist cannot be saved against and thus the spell author neglected to specify that part but not all the effect should be treated as disbelief.
In a world where skeletons and statues can be animate and hostile I would expect an adventurer to keep that possibility in mind. Likewise the existence of shapechangers, polymorph magic, and mind-control has to affect peoples' awareness of the possibility of spies and infiltrators.
It's like a modern person wondering if a person is an undercover cop. It's not being genre savvy, it's knowing how your world works.
I agree. Whether you're attached to LG paladins or want to see other alignments, most people I've talked with agree that a paladin is not just a cleric with more melee and less casting.
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
On a side note, I think Paladins should only be Paladins, variants NEED to have different names to differentiate them. They can be refered to as paladin variants, but never called a NG Paladin or CN paladin, creates way too much confusion. Paladins are LG, other variants have their own names, whatever they might be.
In my upcoming game I'm strongly considering calling the class "Champion" and making Paladins the official in-world title for the LG variant, which is the most culturally significant (the LG god of valour and the sun loves his paladins).
Darth Grall wrote:
Sounds like you're using it fairly - a realistic tactic from an NPC familiar with the PCs, and with the intent to quickly restore the destroyed items.
I feel like a house-rule on the ability of Make Whole to restore destroyed items might make Sunder more acceptable for GMs and players both...
Darth Grall wrote:
And the only thing bonus they get to their CMD is their dodge & Deflection yes?
Most of these other types are less common, but for example if an Inquisitor is using a Judgment to gain a sacred/profane bonus to AC, that bonus also applies to CMD.
The race will normally move at 20ft, like gnomes or halflings.
Jumper: They get a -4 penalty to jump for slow (20ft) speed, but suffer no penalty at all for not having a running start (which normally doubles the DCs for jump checks).
Vestigal Wings: If they gain the ability to Fly, for example using the Fly spell or Boots of Flying, they get a +4 bonus on Fly checks to make maneuvers. This does not interact with any of the other abilities.
Gliding Wings: Exactly as it's described in Race Builder, with no special interactions with either of the above.
They could have all three movement traits and still be a standard race - the limit on traits per category is 3 and all these traits are standard traits. It's plenty feasible and not OP, they just get a few nice mobility options, but less defensive or offensive abilities since this takes 4-7 RP.
Home game? I'd just let him pick adaptations from whatever creature type he likes. He doesn't get them often enough that he'd get more variety this way than by being limited to (nonexistent) favoured enemy selection. Far as I can tell the restriction to select adaptations from your favoured enemy is mostly to enforce the flavour of knowing what you hunt, though it could also make a ranger choose between picking a useful favoured enemy and a less useful favoured enemy that has better associated adaptations.
Note that your Guide Terrain Bond ability would have to be altered due to lack of favoured terrain - I'd use the precedent "The ranger can use the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features whenever he is using adaptations." and make Terrain Bond apply when he's using adaptations.
It's a bit odd, but could work. Wouldn't trust this interpretation for PFS, though.
Because one of the key differences between ranged weapons and melee weapons is that a ranged weapon doesn't have any penalties for switching targets - you can split a full-attack between two creatures 30ft apart no problem. A melee attack can't normally do that. Removing that advantage from ranged weapons makes it seem like the ranged/melee distinction is supposed to be cosmetic for Spiritual Weapon.
So it is not a great option to attack foes engaged in melee, pick your targets,
In my experience, it usually only takes 1-2 rounds to run out of targets that aren't in melee, so I'd be biting the -4 penalty to hit most of the time.
even though being a missile weapon usually has disadvantages situations might come up where it is actually advantageous,
While missile weapons might have advantages normally given their range and their ability to make full attacks, they have no situational advantage over melee weapons in this spell since the ranged weapon advantages are explicitly removed by the spell - they don't get more full attacks, have the same range, and melee weapons can't be retaliated against either.
anyway I did not say it wasn't inferior I simply said I do not see a problem with it,it is still a good 2nd level spell and inequality is built into the spell.
Different crit range = little inequalityRanged weapon penalties = big, deal-breaking inequality
If I were getting a ranged Spiritual Weapon I wouldn't prepare or learn the spell unless I was pretty certain I'd be running into a ton of incorporeals at low levels - a situation in which an easy way to do full damage would beat the -4 penalty to hit.
I think DrDeth was complaining about never being surprised as a player, not about being unable to surprise players as a GM.