The Artaxerxes wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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...
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.
I've bolded where I get my thought-process on them.
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.
Again, bolded for where my thought process for them comes into play.
Although it is a rare occurrence, paladins do sometimes stray from the path of righteousness. Most of these wayward holy warriors seek out redemption and forgiveness for their misdeeds, regaining their powers through piety, charity, and powerful magic. Yet there are others, the dark and disturbed few, who turn actively to evil, courting the dark powers they once railed against in order to take vengeance on their former brothers. It’s said that those who climb the farthest have the farthest to fall, and antipaladins are living proof of this fact, their pride and hatred blinding them to the glory of their forsaken patrons.
Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves. They make pacts with fiends, take the lives of the innocent, and put nothing ahead of their personal power and wealth. Champions of evil, they often lead armies of evil creatures and work with other villains to bring ruin to the holy and tyranny to the weak. Not surprisingly, paladins stop at nothing to put an end to such nefarious antiheroes.
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.
Silent Saturn wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Renitent Rover wrote:
Actually the goblin babies stuff is in Champions of Purity, but you are right that it's allowed.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
+1 for KC.
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.
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.
Paladin Code from PRD Broken Down:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
..... 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'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:
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.
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.
The Lawful Stupid Paladin wrote:
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.
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.
Haha! I almost spit my tea all over my screen reading this.
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.
Lord Snow wrote:
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)."
When you "double the range" it doubles the number that are allowed to threat.
20 adds 1 = 19-20 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.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
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.
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.