ub3r_n3rd's page

Way to not answer the question.

Well the d20pfsrd link for Samsarans is word for word from the Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide on page 198. So I don't know what you want. I answered your very vague question with an answer of where to go to find out more information on that race per RAW. Now if you are more specific the your questions here we can help you out quite a bit more.

I believe that Samsarans are based in the older D&D race of Devas.
Link
Link
Link

As for the second part, I answered that as well with my opinion being that you would be better off going synthesist for melee and not for blasting, but if you have your heart set on a blaster I strongly suggest you check out a couple of classes that are great at it being the wizard and/or sorcerer. Reason being that summoners don't get a lot of the spells needed for blasting that the other two get. They can easily be specialized and there are tons of threads on here on how to make really good blasters.

Again, if you want MORE information, you need to provide more information on your part and ask for specifics.

Have you even looked them up on the PFSRD? Reason I ask is that it seems your questions are answered there with their background, or you can do a simple Google search and find out more about them that way (including all the threads on here dealing with them).

Now as far as class goes, you aren't going to be amazing at both magical and melee with a synthesist. They are really great melee and if that is what you want to be good at then go that direction, if you want a "blaster" again there are a lot of threads on here for blasters which are usually wizards, sorcerers, or wiz/sorc multi-classed.

I'm just responding to the OP's question so I haven't read all of the thread. I apologize if it's redundant.

Anyhow, I think the problem with evil games sometimes is that either the players and/or GM don't know how to keep the party from in-fighting in the first place. There are a lot of people who think that playing evil PC's gives them carte blanche in initiating PVP and it does to a point. The fact of the matter is that in order to accomplish the end-goal of reaching level 20 and finishing out a campaign is that characters need to work together, so it's up to the players to be mature and find ways to stop their PC's from becoming psychopathic killers just to kill (and if they want to be that way, then keep it to NPC's).

A party of CE PC's can play together as there are many societies (the Drow for one) that are CE and flourish. Sure there are killings amongst them but there are also codes (honor among thieves anyone?) that they follow where having more of their people around is better for each individual and increases their own chances for survival. The most powerful rule and the weaker gnash their teeth, plot, scheme, and wait for an opening.

So it's up to the GM to give the party something to work towards and a reason to not try to kill each other off right away. It's up to the players to keep their impulses in check (at least until their PC's get what they want). I usually have a higher power (guild-master/king/warlord/god) directing the PC's and telling them that they need to work together to accomplish X and that if they fight amongst themselves and kill each other then there will be hell to pay for the killer(s).

In my games: PC on PC violence should be a simmer coming to a boil, the first insult shouldn't mean a fight, but rather a grudge and scheming to get back at the other PC. This should happen for a while until there is a major blow-up and then the other evil PC's can sit back, enjoy an ale, and watch as the two tear each other apart.

Okay, a bit of a long post here so I apologize to those who hate reading long posts.

Gotta love how I start the thread asking about how or if allowing different alignments of paladins in a home-brew game would cause an unbalance or break the game in any way. Most, if not all, of the posters have agreed that it wouldn't, but that didn't stop the thread from going full-blown paladin alignment debating. Makes me laugh.

I've read almost all of the posts so far and there are good arguments on both sides on whether a paladin should even be called a paladin if he's anything other than LG. To me, as I've explained, they are holy warriors and a holy warrior of any god could be a paladin as long as they strictly adhere to that god's tenets/codes/dogma. I really don't think it would be hard to play with, play as, or run a game for any other kind of paladin as long as they followed those.

Sure Cayden Cailean could have a LG paladin, but to me that kind of paladin wouldn't be the essence of who the god is and what his true teachings and beliefs are. This is a god of freedom, travel, and drink. Most people play their paladins as pretty stuffy guys who wouldn't touch a drink and would walk into Cheliax keeping their mouths shut because they are following the laws of the land.

The CG paladin would be actively trying to incite a rebellion by any means necessary to overthrow this evil government and free the poor slaves. He'd know he couldn't enter the city and keep his mouth shut and would probably end up getting killed so he'd probably use agents, spies, and other means which would go with the "greater good" philosophy that the LG counterpart wouldn't because it would be "against the law."

So basically, the reason I ask is that I think that the alignment restriction doesn't necessarily restrict the PC, but rather the players and their views of how to play a paladin. People get all caught up in the lawful part of what a paladin is and sometimes forget that they are the epitome of good as well. Some can play the LG paladin as walking on the edge of that lawful part and keep to the good part really well, but then get called out by other people on forums and in their groups for "not playing their alignment as it should be played."

TL;DR: Removing the restriction would open it up for people to play some absolutely awesome characters who are a bit different than your run of the mill paladin, I could see so many possibilities for story hooks, plots, and role-playing opportunities that it's just plain ridiculous.

My DM loves critical failures. He considers it a way to humble and challenge the player, but I feel like the way we're currently doing it, its more annoying than humbling.

Any attack roll that appears as a natural 1 is considered a critical failure, and then you roll on a critical fail chart and get debilitated in some way.
I have no problem with failing critically, I can understand what he means when he says even the best fighter will lose a grip on his sword once in a while. The problem I have is the frequency, and he claims I want to play on "casual mode".

I suggested the possibility of confirming critical failures, much like critical hits are confirmed, but he insists that gives the players too big an advantage because they'll be critting more than they're failing.

So then I suggested a percentage die roll when a natural one occurs, with a 50% chance of it being a critical fail, but he won't buy that either.

I just feel like having a group of adventurers fighting a group of enemies and failing miserably several times in an encounter but still managing to win doesn't add a sense of challenge. It just makes the game a little bit too silly.

Anyway, I'd like suggestions as to what to do in this situation if anyone has experience with something like this. Is there some middle ground I haven't thought of that could resolve this issue?

We play with Critical Hits and Failures and both have to be confirmed. The thing you need to do is keep open communication with your GM.

If he plays that way and you don't like it then it's up to you and the group to decide on how to handle it. I'd approach him simply and not accuse him of anything or he'll get defensive. Just tell him how it makes the game less fun for you and ask about changing it to a rule everyone can live with, compromise is key. If he doesn't like it or gets hostile then it may be time to change tables and find another GM or GM a game yourself.

Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).

The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.

To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!

I hate modern game design in general.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I personally don't hate them all. I love quite a few of them. I enjoy having choices whether they be base classes, new classes, new archetypes, new prestige classes or new races.

I disagree that it's a power leap. The most powerful characters in the game are long thought to be the higher level clerics and wizards. These are the base classes.

Sorry you feel so bitter, but there isn't anything that says YOU have to play any of the new stuff or allow them in a game you run. I don't see any reason to get bitter over things that you actually have control over.

It's not a ploy, it's a business model based on supply and demand. People demand new and innovative classes/races/adventures and Paizo has a great team in place where they supply that demand. If people didn't want this stuff then Paizo wouldn't be producing it.

Of course you have a right to your own opinion, but I don't think that many people agree with you just based on the amount of material out there that Paizo puts out and keeps putting out for those of us who do like choices and the new shiny stuff.

Now that's off MY chest.

Yep, I own it and all the add-ons as well. It's amazing. I can't recommend it highly enough!

I wouldn't ever ban the Paladin from my table, they are too different from Clerics to do something like that. They are a unique class all to their own, I just don't care for the alignment system dictating everything for a paladin. I'd rather their codes be based more off of their deity codes/tenets/dogma rather than "this is LG and how it's always supposed to be played."

I prefer the good side of the paladin as opposed to the lawful side being the driving factor in what they do. I've always played mine as "the greater good" type and if I have to break a law or two I do it. I don't want to be dinged and become fallen for doing something like that and I know a lot of other players feel the same way when presented with some of the moral dilemmas that are often the start of paladin alignment threads on these boards.

There's currently a huge debate going on that's like 700 posts which originally got me thinking about this and posting about the additional alignments for Paladins to free them from that kind of thinking/restrictions.

Wow, this is frickin awesome, I've been looking for something like this for a while now. Thank you so much for doing this!

I'd say go check out Ravingdork's Crazy Character Emporium for some great ideas.

For me, I always start out with a personality that I like or model it after <insert name> of superhero, historical figure, literary figure, or movie character. For example, I have a barbarian that is based off of Lennie Small from "Of Mice and Men" he's a big brute who loves little fuzzy animals.

I also have a wizard kind of based off of Terry Goodkind's "Zedd" character, this skinny old wizard who eats a lot, etc.

I still think it'd make that powerful ability even more so, you'd see builds reflect it as well where people would try to work around the rules, find loopholes just to give more smites/day because it is so awesome, which is just another whole new can of worms. If you don't mind that kind of min/max in your games it's your table and you can do what you want.

It just seems most of us agree it's meant to smite evil for good paladins and smite good for anti-paladins. I also feel it's not only about the power of the paladin, it's about them being divine warriors opposed to the "other" side of the spectrum. Having it be able to smite neutral just opens it up for paladins to be able to break their codes even easier and institutes more grey areas for them to navigate.

I agree with LH, I think that it'd make a powerful ability even more powerful. Think of what a Paladin does though, he's a force against evil and that's why his god has bestowed upon him that ability. He is a holy warrior meant to combat evil wherever it is and destroy it.

The opposite is true for AP's where they smite good.

I think it takes away from it being special and basically makes it like a Power Attack without any kind of negatives (i.e. the negative to attack rolls).

On a side note, I think Paladins should only be Paladins, variants NEED to have different names to differentiate them. They can be referred 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.

I can see your point of view, mine differs obviously. I believe that if I house-rule that Paladins/Anti-Paladins aren't restricted by alignment other than the Neutral (LN, CN, & TN ones) they could strictly adhere to codes as prescribed by the deity that they follow, of course they'd be different than the standard LG Paladin or CE Anti-Paladin, but that's adding more flavor to my game world I think.

Paladin, at least to me, means Holy Warrior or Unholy Warrior in the case of an AP.

Can a regular fighter be of these alignments and follow similar codes?

Sure, but he hasn't actually devoted his life to his deity and basically formed a pact with them to uphold their codes/tenets/dogma. This is where they'd really differ and if that Paladin or Holy Warrior turned against his deity he'd become a normal warrior without any boons from his god.

Great discussion so far, I'm enjoying reading everyone's opinions on how they'd do things and the links to what others have tried or considered doing.

leo1925 wrote:

It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.

This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.

It's in Champions of Purity.

Firstly, @Tacticslion - You are my hero, I've read those long posts of yours and completely agree with everything you said. I was the one who pointed out that the newer stuff replaces or adds to the older stuff that Paizo publishes (i.e. errata and books like faiths of purity). Anyhow, great stuff you've been posting.

Now onto my turn to show Marthkus the error of his ways...

Ilja wrote:

I don't think this is ANYTHING like the Wyvern thread. I think there is a MILESWIDE gap between arguing that a paladin shouldn't be able to destroy always evil undead creatures and fiends, and that a paladin shouldn't kill neutral creatures in their sleep in the middle of nowhere.

And yet killing evil creatures in their sleep is OK. Being both lawful and good.

By that logic, people on this very thread have said it's OK to kill "evil" babies.

Let me post this question to you Marthkus:

If you aren't supposed to kill that undead ghoul, what would an Undead Scourge Paladin do? Would he fall for killing this unarmed undead creature "dishonorably"?

According to your interpretation, he'd fall it seems. But if you look at the archetype, he'd fall by not killing these undead abominations because he has dedicated his life to wiping them out, how could he let it live?

Open your eyes man, I've said it before multiple multiple times and I say it again: THERE IS NO ONE WAY TO PLAY A PALADIN, just because YOU think so, does not make it so. Each and every paladin has different codes based on his religion, archetype, race, personality, experiences, and where he's from.

Edit: I thought of some other stuff to say... go figure :P

By Marthkus' definition of a paladin - I figure I'd only be able to follow: Andoletta, Angradd, Apsu, Erastil, Folgrit, Grundinnar, Iomedae, Ragathiel, and Torag as these are the ONLY Lawful Good gods.

Also, I wouldn't be able to play any of the archetypes as they have different beliefs about what to do with certain creatures (i.e. undead scourge). I wouldn't be able to follow any of the good gods who aren't lawful (i.e. Sarenrae), because their teachings aren't all about the law, even though they are good. Basically there is ONLY ONE TRUE WAY to play a paladin. Am I missing something?

As an aside, LG Torag (as the Paladin in the OP's question states) is unmerciful against his enemies. I'm sorry that Marthkus hasn't had an opportunity to expand his knowledge and keeps it limited to the old core stuff.

Great stuff phantom1592, sounds like you have quite the group there and I could definitely see where both your Paladin and the LG Sorcerer can come from. A person could easily play a paladin either way too.

I've always felt that alignments were guidelines rather than straight-jackets. You want to follow them as close as possible, but one slip-up won't do you in unless it's a HUGE slip-up done on purpose.

Apparently you are right that people were starved for this kind of thread as we are already 15 pages in! Good fun, great discussion so far even if it has been derailed from the original question posed by the OP.

Yeah, I play my paladins as "holy warriors" of their gods. I've never played them otherwise and my group does the same, so for this thought experiment lets go with that as the standard rather than a paladin who gains his divine powers from his ideals.

As an aside, I wouldn't stop someone from playing a self-divine paladin if they could come up with a good back-story and some good codes of conduct and strictly adhere to them, I just like being able to take the deity codes from the Faiths of Purity in particular and be able to say to the players that they can read up on their deities and hit the road running.

I seem to recall 3.5 having alternate classes for LE, CE, and CG that were basically paladins with tweaks. My GM often reminisces about "paladins of freedom" that were apparently a thing back when Elves were canonically a CG culture and had their own CG deity.

If I were re-writing Pathfinder, I'd change the paladin's alignment from LG to "any non-neutral" and adjust Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and the paladin's code to compensate.

I do have a hard time imagining a neutral paladin though, even on one axis. What differentiates a paladin from a cleric or a LG cavalier, IMO, is true devotion in every thought and deed. Paladins get their power not so much from a deity, but from dedication so true it grants the paladin divine power as strong as any religion. I just can't see a character with an N on his alignment line putting himself so entirely into his ideals.

I can see that playing a NG Paladin or NE Anti-Paladin as being probably the hardest choices, but I would really research each of the deities that they could play and put together some strict codes/tenets for each that they should be striving to adhere to, just like a normal LG paladin or CE anti-paladin. As long as they follow their deity's codes they should be fine, but if they continually stray from them they'd risk falling and losing their god-granted powers.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Could your table abide having this kind of guy in the group who was a holy warrior?

Yes, I recently played in a campaign with a CG paladin and she was a great character.

Some people don't like the idea, though, you'll want to talk to your group.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Would this somehow unbalance the game or break it?

Nope. The alignment restriction exists for flavour, not for balance.

Glad to hear your CG Paladin was a great character. I hope that when I run my next game and allow them that I'll get someone to play the alternative type such as that.

My group is pretty open to a lot of house-rules so I don't think this will be a problem for them as long as I tell them up front that it's an option and I have a small handout for how the paladin codes will work based off of each deity.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.

You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.

It just boggles my mind that you just don't get it no matter how many of us show you valid examples and great well thought out arguments.

Not all paladins are the same and there is no one way to play them. I know I keep repeating it, but you seem to just straight up ignore it.

Open your eyes man, realize what you are saying is exactly what KC just said to you, the way you play that kind of LG paladin is actually more LN and seeing everything as so black and white in a world like Golarion so full of grey areas, it really puts you and your players at a distinct disadvantage.

If you were/are a GM I'd say with that kind of stance you are doing your players a disservice and if you play with that kind of attitude you are cheating yourself out of some fantastic role playing opportunities.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.

EldonG wrote:

Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.

What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.

Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?

And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.

The reason "respect legitimate authority" is in there is for the lawful side of the alignment. You seem to be forgetting that there are two parts to this. There is lawful and good. A paladin will follow the laws of legitimate authorities, but he'll still follow his god's teachings while doing so. Paladins aren't perfect, they are fallible and they have to make decisions based on what the greater good is. They don't strictly adhere to all laws, especially if they go against what the paladin believes in.

An example is that a paladin may be forced to go to Cheliax where slavery is legal and out in the open, to the paladin this may be evil, but he has to respect the legitimate authority of their government and bite his tongue/sit on his hands. He can't fight the whole nation by himself to stop slavery no matter how much it burns. He will fight when and how he can to help innocents and to fight against evil, but he isn't stupid.

On the other hand if a paladin sees some innocent woman being beaten and shackled up by slavers, he will stop those slavers even if he is within Cheliax's borders. He knows that it's against their laws, but he'd feel obliged to rescue an innocent or else he'd violate this part of his code and allow an innocent to be harmed.

Now the way that the troll is putting it, he's playing a Paladin as the rule of law above all else. He's more along the lines of LN and he'd just ignore the slaves in both cases and abide by the rule of the land even if he finds it distasteful. You can play your paladin in that way if you want to, but that's toeing the line along the neutral side rather than the good side. See the difference?

No matter how much sarcasm, RAW, or truth we send at the troll, he just won't get it. Still funny though and this thread is still making my day fly by at work while I sit here and chuckle at his absurdity.

Marthkus wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Keep in mind, Ilja, the reason people see killing the morlocks as okay is because morlocks are much worse than goblins. They're basically a step up from fiends. They aren't humanoids, they're creatures of the Darklands. In Golarion, they are born evil. Period.

So paladins can just stab baby creatures from evil races all day long and never worry about falling.

Not only would that be racist and evil, but it breaks his code. Fall

Again dude, read the rules. Clearly allowed in Faiths of Purity when discussing morale quandries and goblin babies.

Actually the goblin babies stuff is in Champions of Purity, but you are right that it's allowed.

This thread is literally making me LOL at work. It's just hard to believe anyone could believe the way that Marthkus does and not think they are just trolling to mess with everyone else. At least I hope he's really trolling and doesn't really believe the drivel that he's been spouting...

Okay, so let's play a paladin in your game for a moment.

He looks at this ghoul. He thinks of the children it plans to devour or infect. He thinks of his friends, who don't know how to fight these things.

He has no choice. He forsakes his vows and kills, in cold blood, this poor, sweet, innocent ghoul. Sarenrae looks down, shocked at this murder most foul. She quickly severs all ties with the disgraced murderer.

The paladin apparently broke his code. He just did it because he put the lives of innocents over the wish to give what is literally the foulest type of creature in the multiverse a fair fight.

Frankly, Marthkus?

Your paladins suck.

Hear hear!

+1 for KC.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

I take back what I said earlier, your sense of ethics is not just stunted, it is wholly nonexistent. You put the L waaaaaay over G, and make the paladin a construct with less self-determination than ED-209.

1,000,000% THIS!!!!!

I'm just sitting here shaking my head at this point Marthkus. I can't say anything more about it other than what I've shown to you previously and what most of these other guys are pointing out to you.

There is NO one way to play a paladin and if you say there is I call total BS on you. You can however play your paladin however you want and adjudicate how one is to be played at your table however you want, but by coming to the boards you open yourself up to most of us pointing out that you are wrong by claiming that this particular paladin in question per the OP should be fallen for doing his duties and following his deity's code. Just because you think you are right doesn't mean that you are my friend.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Have you ever heard of errata or splat books? You do know that anything written after the original is supposed to supersede (in most cases) the old and add in more stuff right?

I really suggest you go read the new stuff before coming in and preaching your holier than thou rhetoric using the older RAW. That's not the way to debate or convince people who have read the other books and seemingly have more knowledge than you. Just sayin'.

Oh? And they have special rules that alter the paladin's code? Is that in the deity description on how their code changes if paladins worship them?

Ugh, can't help myself... One last time. Go read Faiths of Purity, starting on page 26. Within you will find SPECIFIC CODES TO SPECIFIC DEITIES specifically for Paladins. Read it and then come back and talk to us please. Until you do, I'm done trying to argue with you.

So in the a world where every paladin player has that book you would be right. In home games many do not have that book and in PFS you can't use those rules unless you own the book.

That book is not even on the PRD

Even in a world where you only use the core books I'm still correct. Sorry you don't have the new stuff available, but it doesn't make it irrelevant.

See how that's done? Even without the Faiths of Purity I've shown that you aren't breaking the code by killing these things. Faiths of Purity clarifies more of the codes and gives paladins more to go off of.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Have you ever heard of errata or splat books? You do know that anything written after the original is supposed to supersede (in most cases) the old and add in more stuff right?

I really suggest you go read the new stuff before coming in and preaching your holier than thou rhetoric using the older RAW. That's not the way to debate or convince people who have read the other books and seemingly have more knowledge than you. Just sayin'.

Oh? And they have special rules that alter the paladin's code? Is that in the deity description on how their code changes if paladins worship them?

Ugh, can't help myself... One last time. Go read Faiths of Purity, starting on page 26. Within you will find SPECIFIC CODES TO SPECIFIC DEITIES specifically for Paladins. Read it and then come back and talk to us please. Until you do, I'm done trying to argue with you.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.

He should take helpless creatures prisoner and turn them over to the proper authorities. Even if he give the morlock a sword. If the morlock does not try to fight the paladin, he can in no way honorably kill it.

Wow, just... wow. I think we are being trolled at this point. This poster obviously hasn't read much of the thread or any of the books that contain the subject matter appropriate for this particular paladin (a Dwarf Stonelord who follows Torag). I'm on to talking with the rest of you who can hold a good conversation about the various merits of different paladins and what they do in their adventures.

EldonG wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

EldonG wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

It can't. The paladin's powers are granted by said deity.

Even so, when you look at the rules, a paladin must follow their code or lose all class features.

Deities grant the power for following them and the code. If you can't do both you fall. Actually there is no rule stating that displeasing your deity while following the code makes you fall.

The code varies as per the deity. We've been over that.

Not in the class rule section. No where does it mention that your code can change based on your deity.

Have you ever heard of errata or splat books? You do know that anything written after the original is supposed to supersede (in most cases) the old and add in more stuff right?

I really suggest you go read the new stuff before coming in and preaching your holier than thou rhetoric using the older RAW. That's not the way to debate or convince people who have read the other books and seemingly have more knowledge than you. Just sayin'.

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

Dude, there is no "one way" to play a paladin. You have to take into account everything that makes that paladin up. Don't be close-minded about it is what I'm saying. Every single paladin would handle the situation differently.

Each deity also has different codes, go read Faiths of Purity starting on page 26. Each one has paladin codes and tenets which go into much more detail as to what each specific god/goddess is about and what they expect out of their holy warriors. Just coming in here spouting the first page of the core RAW doesn't make you right. It doesn't make the paladin a cookie-cutter class with everyone playing the exact same way. Why do you think this thread and so many others like it have gone into well over 300+ posts? I'll tell you: it's because there are variants on how paladins can and SHOULD be played. Period.

Lobolusk wrote:

This is not a paladin alignment thread. This thread is how to deal with a perceived violation of the paladin code of honor. Some back ground

My character is a chaotic neutral ninja.

We are on book 5 of serpents skull we cleaned out a fortress and in the basement we found several cells against the wall and in those cells there were bodies and a few barely breathing drows, ulfins and morlocks.
Our paladin walks in detects evil and decides that because they are evil he should send his earth elemental in to the cell to kill every one. me and the good barbarian say wait a minute let’s just let them go they aren't a threat to us. The paladin refuses and kills all of them except a drow giving this big speech about how evil is a choice and he is not going to let a potential threat live let alone waste resources arming our enemies.

Well we decided to back down so it didn't get into PVP.
I have decided my ninja will not aid the paladin in any way during combat.

In character my main problem with it is that he is acting holy than though but when it comes to being a selfish jerk who will kill prisoners. In my mind he is no better than me. I have decided to write a letter to his superiors in game and make a case for a formal complaint. Has anybody ever done this successfully?

I have had an offline conversation with the player and we resolved any personal conflict.

He is a fallen paladin. No question about it. He should lose all class features until he pays the atonement fee. I would also change his alignment to lawful stupid.

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten
...

..... umm no he isn't, not by a long shot. Especially because of what kind of paladin he is. He's a follower of Torag, he's a Dwarf Stonelord. Read up on the tenets, read up on what morlocks are, and read the rest of the thread.

I'm cool with it being a paladin of Sarenrae, though it was not...and that IS a huge difference.

As I stated, I'll be playing a paladin of Sarenrae. How am I supposed to handle this exact situation? I'm on a quest...I know what morlocks are...these have already pinged as evil. Now...by my tenets, I have to redeem the redeemable...I think it's an utter strawman to say I have to take them in and babysit them 24/7...so...knowing morlocks, how do I redeem them?

Heck, lets go one step farther...make them human. What, exactly, do I NEED to do?

I'd go with the below as answered by Scaevola77

I would say, you examine the morlock closely, ask them some questions, determine if you believe they seek redemption. If you are convinced that they do, you attempt to aid in their redemption. If you are not convinced that they seek redemption, you kill them swiftly and mercifully. Such is Sarenrae's creed. Any creature who truly seeks redemption should be given help in his quest. Any creature who remains unrepentant should be put to the sword. Now, within that you still have a lot of lee-way on how your paladin will decide if the creature is redeemable based on race, backstory, gullibility, and how far is "too far to be redeemed".

I told myself last night I was done with this thread... I guess I can't help myself when I see so much going on. A lot of good points being made and a lot of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

What's so funny about this thread is that we are still circling each other with our opinions on whether a paladin would be justified in doing what the paladin in the OP's group did.

I said it before a few pages ago and I'll say it again, it depends on the kind of paladin you are playing. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer here. There is no end-all be-all end to this debate other than to play the paladin to the best of your abilities.

You have to take into account all of the below:
1) Race of the Paladin
a) Who/what are their people's enemies if any?
b) Archetype of the Paladin - Different ones have different goals.
2) Deity of the Paladin - Different ones have different domains that they hold holy.
a) Dogma of the deity - are you a redeemer or a vanquisher of evil?
b) Codes/Tenets of the deity
3) Personal experiences of the paladin
a) Knowledge that detect evil is a tool to be used, but not the only thing to rely upon when issuing your judgement.
b) Every situation is different and sometimes sh*t happens where you are caught in the no-win/catch-22 where you have to make the best choice available.
4) Who the Player is
5) Who the GM is

I personally believe in this specific case that the Paladin in question actually adhered to the tenets of a Torag-following Dwarf Stonelord perfectly. You can agree or disagree as you see fit, but again your argument should be based in whole upon the facts of what happened in the scenario with all of the factors that determine what this particular paladin would be most likely to do.

Don't take it out of context and say "what if this was a Paladin of Sarenrae?" That doesn't cut it is all I'm saying. That makes it a straw-man as you replace one type of character with another, one with completely different goals/tenets/etc etc.

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

I'm not bashing the typical LG Paladin, but I'd like to see a variance at my table and figured that it'd allow more people to play a class that I actually really like.

I say go for it. It doesn't hurt the game to give people room to play what they want. I've played games without alignment and it doesn't break anything as far as I can tell. Its actually a lot of fun to see the different sorts of characters that come out, and it helps people feel comfortable playing a monk or paladin when they don't have some terrible looming feeling of dread over their shoulder. I let players create their own code of conduct to help them create a character they want to be, and I get a large variety of characters ranging from anti heroes to perpetually drunk dwarves to really chivalrous paladins.

Very cool. I'm going to go ahead and do it the next game I run. I'm getting rid of the paladin alignment restriction of LG and changing it to any good. I'll also do it with the AP's when I run an evil game. It'll be interesting to see if my group has any takers and what they come up with as far as character backgrounds and personalities. I like the idea of letting character also come up with their own codes of conduct, being a flexible GM is something I like to do and something that I personally respect in other people.

WHOA!

Listen, I don't know what you're trying to insimilate, you, you... fiends! The only paladin is a lawful good paladin! Anybody can worship a god or follow their tenets or what-have-you, but only someone dedicated enough to vow that they will give their life over to a distinct way of living and a very strict code and then uphold that code NO MATTER WHAT can be a paladin.

There's nothing stopping us paladins from worshiping non-lawful-good gods! You can be just as efficient a holy warrior of a Neutral Good deity, like Sarenrae, or a Lawful Neutral one, like Abadar. It's all about the message you're spreading, not how you spread it.

It's like peanut butter. It doesn't matter whether it's chunky, or creamy, or natural or organic, or what the brand name is. We all use the same knife. Metaphorically, of course, as I could never use the same knife that an evil person had touched--too likely to make me fall due to residual evil.

Point is, if you want to start messing around with it, just play a fighter/cleric, or a crusader cleric. PALADINS ARE SPECIAL, DON'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM US. People love to hate us anyway!

WATCH YOURSELVES AND STAY VIGILANT AGAINST TEMPTATION!
*Strides off grumbling about "wannabes"*

That made me chuckle. Good post.

I guess what I'm getting at here is if you look at other classes they aren't as restricted as far as alignment goes. You have the Samurai and Cavalier who join orders and have to strictly adhere to edicts (kind of like paladin codes), but they are allowed to be any alignment they want to be. You have Barbarians who can be any non-lawful, you have monks which are any lawful (except one of their archetypes), but the only two paladins in the game right now are the Anti-Paladin and the normal Paladin which are CE or LG. I'd go so far as to allow Anti-Paladins to be any EVIL alignment as long as they are following an evil deity or a neutral deity with evil tendencies as long as they follow their teachings.

Honestly I've seen people pick up a character sheet, roll up a great paladin and then look closely at what restrictions they have. They then just toss that sheet away and pick a different class because they feel to boxed in by everything that most people associate with being a LG character and specifically a paladin.

I'm not bashing the typical LG Paladin, but I'd like to see a variance at my table and figured that it'd allow more people to play a class that I actually really like.

Eldon Guyre was a paladin of Pallas Athena...he was really more NG than LG. He came from the Great Kingdom, in Greyhawk...and a lot of their laws were not particularly good. The closest he ever came to a fall was he never took a vow of chastity...and Athena is very picky about that sort of thing...and he did have one almost affair before he married...a different woman. His first love had actually been snatched from him by death, and he grieved for some time before meeting a beautiful elven woman who he eventually did marry...with Athena's direct approval.

Interestingly enough, the ghost of his first love followed him from shortly after her death...but she didn't haunt him, per se...she actually gave her approval, too. That was a heck of a campaign...so memorable that his name became my default internet nickname.

So, yeah, NG is fine for a paladin, in my book.

Very cool, sounds like an amazing campaign. I'm glad to hear that it can work for people to have a paladin who isn't straight up cookie-cutter LG. I'm always one to believe that the best and most memorable characters that I've every played or seen played at my tables have actual personalities and I don't remember the LG paladins very well, I remember the evil necromancer, I remember the CN magus, I remember the LE oracle, I remember the N druid, etc.

So in the vein of different Paladin alignments, how about a NG Paladin of Gozreh?

I could see someone like this adhering to the faith as almost druid-like. He'd love nature, plants, and animals and absolutely abhor anyone/anything that tries to corrupt any of those things.

I'm sure I could come up many other examples of paladins that follow different deities, but the result would always be the same. They must adhere to their faith's teachings/codes/tenets/dogma above all else. They won't be so conflicted with the "law" as normal paladins get in some circumstances.

@Mortuum - Cool thanks for the link. I'm reading it over now.

But what I truly need to know, and I am not sure it has been answered yet... is do they stack? ;)

Gotta love rapid fire responses!

But I agree ub3r_n3rd, Lord Snow should have gotten the point... and it was probably a critical! lol

Haha! I almost spit my tea all over my screen reading this.

thing is about will save bonus, will it even help ?

i mean the a sves fro fighter are so low, that.. it wont matter much,
even with a resistance cape, it is still low with wis 10.

Every 1 point added to WILL saves = 5% more chance of making that save, which could be life or death for a party. What happens if you needed an 11 to save vs confusion and you only had a 10? Yep, you guessed it, you just attacked your buddy standing behind you and killed him instead.

If you do that trait with Iron Will, you have a 15% higher chance of making those saves.

Give me WILL saves any day for a fighter over being able to go first. I know that I won't go first anyhow unless I roll really high against the wizard in my group, the magus in the group, or the inquisitor in the group. The thing is that as a fighter you really don't need to go first. You don't have spells you have to do before combat, you just need to get in there and hit things. Let the wizard clear out the mooks in front with a fireball as his high initiative tops the charts and then you charge in and slam your big ole sword into the neck of the BBEG.

Heh, I think Lord Snow gets the point. It looks like a bunch of us all responded within a few seconds of each other with the exact same answer.

Case in point - if I have a character wielding a rapier (threat range 18-20 right off the bet), and then want to apply the two following additions:

1) the rapier has the "keen" magical property
2) the character has the "improved critical" feat

each of these effects "doubles" the crit range. Does that mean the first makes the rapier have c range of 16-20, and then the second makes it 12-20?! what am I missing?

You can apply only one OR the other.

Keen - Notice it says, "This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)."
Improved Critical - Notice it says, "This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon."

When you "double the range" it doubles the number that are allowed to threat.

20 adds 1 = 19-20 when doubled
19-20 adds 2 = 17-20 when doubled
18-20 adds 3 = 15-20 when doubled

15-20 is the absolute MAX in range you can get and only if you have the 18-20 weapon and add Keen OR have the Imp. Critical feat.

Guys! Call a truce, will you? Facetious comments, assigning false and absurd positions to the other side, and acting patronizing are effective tools in public rhetoric: but as actual persuasive argument they fail. Both sides are emotionally invested in their opinion and willing to back up their position with text quotation: at this point there is no magical combination of humorous or sarcastic words that will cause your adversary to say, "Oh! I was entirely mistaken and I now agree with you." Just shake your heads and be glad you're at different tables, eh?

Totally agree with you, the posts have just been running around in circles for the last 4 or 5 pages. No one is going to change their minds based on anything the other side has to say.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.

And that has what to do with the argument?

A few people mentioned Smite Evil in their posts about paladins and this particular paladin (stonelord) doesn't have that ability. A bit off topic, but whatever.

Hah, me too. I just think it'd open it up for much more fun at the table if the prototypical paladin was a thing of the past and a newer generation of holy warriors was allowed to follow the gods/goddesses. It'd probably make a lot of table run a lot smoother too.

Stonelords don't have Smite evil btw everypony. They get another ability instead, but they do have detect evil.

Good catch, you are 100% right about that, they get Stone Strike.