Paladin hate.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

801 to 850 of 1,121 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Ashiel wrote:
Buri wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.
No, you're not. You just have to punish others who threaten innocents. So, they kill the prisoners and that pretty much gives you license to go Billy Badass on them. Plus, them merely taking prisoners can similarly be used to do the same.
PF Paladin Code wrote:
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
Those hostages are in need. Either you help them, or enjoy being an NPC class. Now hop to it, Buri.

So, you help. Help is never a guarantee of results. Just look at any junkie who gets an intervention but still relapses or even ODs. Help is also subjective. You can intend to help by merely presenting yourself to parley and if they still get their throats cut by you merely showing up because their captor has something against paladins, your faith, your hair color, etc. that means you fall? Hardly.


K177Y C47 wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.

3.5 Paladin wrote:
appropriate.

For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission

I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...

Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?

A Paladin cannot lie. A Lie of Ommision is still technically a lie.

So the book says that, does it? Where?


Ashiel wrote:

Here, I'll make this easy for you.

LYING.

Not saying anything is not a lie of ommission. "A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.....Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission."

Note that word "statement"- no statement, no lie.

No "important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception" when you simply say nothing or refuse to answer.


DrDeth wrote:
Why is protecting innocents "selfish"?

Starting a fight and putting your party in danger because you refuse to compromise your code so you don't lose your powers.

Quote:
And he can let the party Bard lie, so why say anything?

Because a Paladin's code requires bards? :P

Quote:
No where does it say there's such a thing as a "lie of omission" which is a highly debated philosophical concept.

Welcome to Paladin codes man. If Paizo didn't remove the grossly clause, then we wouldn't be having this argument.

I actually love Paladins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

A lot of problems would be solved if Paizo left in a single sentence from the 3.5 Paladin code.

3.5 Paladin wrote:
appropriate.

For example, if a Paladin commits a lie of omission

I am not sure how one adjudicates a "lie of omission" in game terms...

Can you give an example which would cause a Paladin to fall?

A Paladin finds some innocent refugees in a cave that the party was exploring. Later, he encounters some soldiers of a rival seeking said refugees and they ask him if he has seen any.

He can now...
Not say anything about the refugees while knowing they are there, which is a lie of omission. Or he can say "I haven't seen anyone like that," which is also a lie. Or he could do something really awesome and say, "I wish I'd seen refugees. The only thing I've had the misfortune of crossing today was a nest of ankhegs in a nearby cave; and let me tell you sir, running in this armor is not an easy task!"

The paladin could, however, tell the soldiers that he isn't going to answer. He isn't lying. He really has no intention of telling them. He hasn't hidden the fact that he knows where the refugees are, and he hasn't given the soldiers false information. He has merely revealed that he knows where the refugees are, and has no intention of sharing that information. As no deception has taken place, and the soldiers have not been persuaded to act upon false or incomplete information, there not even been a lie by omission. As you also said: The paladin does not recognize the legitimacy of the soldiers' authority. He is under no compunction to answer them at all.

A paladin can't lie, but refusing to reveal information is not necessarily the same as lying.

"I refuse to dignify that question with an answer."

"If iI did know where they were, I would not tell you."
'I do now answer to you, I answer only to my liege and my god. As you are neither of these, I will not answer."'


DrDeth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

Huh?

Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.

Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.

Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.

Which is more party friendly again?

Why is he killing anyone? He can do good if it serves his ends: you protect him or make him wealthy by congtributing to his success.

Remember he is LE not CE.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

It is really funny that antipaladins are better team players than paladins. They have abilities that combo with allies more readily, don't get bent out of shape because someone else isn't following their ideals, and would happily save puppies and kittens if it meant getting what he/she wanted. Hell, they could do it just because they wanted the self indulgence of doing so.

Almost every act of heroism can be de-goodified by simply removing the altruism aspect of it. An antipaladin could go around doing tons of acts of daring do, as long as it was for selfish motivations.

Party: "Why did you save this town?"
Anti: "Now they owe me,"
Party: "What about that baby that the kobolds were going to sacrifice?"
Anti: "I reminded them that their god is weak,"
Party: "Why did you use a potion of infernal healing on that maiden's injured horse? That was awfully nice of you,"
Anti: "Because she was hot, and I piss potions of infernal healing,"
Party: "Damn Alicia, don't you ever do anything nice for anyone?"
Anti: "Of course I do. I just bought myself this new sapphire studded skirt and this strawberry icecream topped waffle,"

I would however say that at some point, Alicia better come up with a whoopass deed of consummate evil to make up for the good she left behind. Because despite her intentions, she did leave those areas better off for her presence, and that's a big no for the Anti-Paladin.

She has no risk of becoming even Neutral aligned. She regularly, as an adventurer, hurts, oppresses, and kills things purely for her own self interests and whims. She does evil on a constant basis. Every time she cuts down an enemy with her sword and laughs about it, she's comitting heinous and atrocious acts of evil.

They're just heinous and atrocious acts of evil that happen to be damn useful to an adventuring party most of the time.

It's irrelevant if she's laughing with glee or torturing hobgoblins with sadistic abandon. If she and her party of hobos leave Garden Valley a better place overall then how they found it, because of their acts, she is in serious code violation. Because it's the big picture that matters.


Ashiel wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

BBEG "I need that artifact of ultimate evil, you know where it is now tell me!"

Paladin
"Not a snowballs chance of that!"

According to lie of omission paladin falls....anyone buying this?

The Paladin won't fall in this case because that's not quite a lie of omission, but don't expect to get a positive response. You might very well be putting your friends in danger. If the BBEG also happened to make it a threat like, "Tell me where the artifact of ultimate evil is, or my minions will kill the prisoners", well you're pretty much screwed then.

and the paladin is suposed to believe that this evil man would release the prisoners unharmed if he told?

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
...all for his own selfish ideals. That's my point.

This seems to be part of the misunderstanding. The paladin in the example is not refusing to give information for his own selfish ideas. Selfish implies self interest. In what way is refusing to place helpless people at risk selfish?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
It's irrelevant if she's laughing with glee or torturing hobgoblins with sadistic abandon. If she and her party of hobos leave Garden Valley a better place overall then how they found it, because of their acts, she is in serious code violation. Because it's the big picture that matters.

Actually, it is irrelevant. The entire antipaladin "code":

Antipaladin Code of Conduct wrote:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.

Literally nothing in there has anything to do with leaving places better than they found them. The entire code effectively says "Do these evil things and not these good things, unless you don't feel like it, whatever."

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Why is protecting innocents "selfish"?
Starting a fight and putting your party in danger because you refuse to compromise your code so you don't lose your powers.

I don't think that a proper paladin is refusing to give up the location of helpless people because it allows him to keep his powers. He would be doing so because it is the right thing to do.

So once again, how is the paladin in the example situation being selfish? I think turning in helpless people to keep himself out of a fight would actually be a selfish act; not keeping them safe for their own good.


James Jacobs said it best:
"Wow.

Feinting is hardly the same as lying. It's also a perfectly acceptable combat move. Being a paladin shouldn't bar you from being an effective combatant. A GM who told me that I lost my paladinhood because I tried to feint in combat would get from me a big belly laugh, and then I'd feint anyway, assuming the GM was just goofing around. And then if the GM were serious, I'd probably start looking for reasons to leave the game, because a GM that does that isn't there to run a game, but to make his players not have fun."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Why does the paladin not want to tell the soldiers where the refugee is? If it is because the soldiers are evil, he can just kill them.

1) The soldiers aren't necessarily evil. They might just be Neutral or even Good aligned soldiers who are tasked with recovering the refugees.

2) There may be more soldiers than the Paladin. While being a Paladin does mean you're really tanky and hard to kill, it neither makes you invincible, nor does it make your allies invincible either.
3) Your obstinate actions have at best just provided good evidence that the refugees are somewhere nearby and increase the likelihood of them searching the area more thoroughly.

Good job. :P

1) But why are the soldiers after the refugees? And this example was if the soldiers are Evil. If they are not it changes things.

2) If a paladin is faced with a more powerful enemy he can try to escape, fight while his friends escape, or they can all go down fighting. This is, I presume, after the entire party tried to avoid the soldiers but were captured anyway.

3) You are assuming that not answering will convince them that the refugees are near. But the fact is a paladin wouldn't help them regardless of whether he saw the refugees or not. So basically you are saying that it is the paladins fault that the soldiers assume there are refugees nearby even though there is no evidence of that one way or the other.

Let's assume the paladin hasn't seen the refugees.

Soldier: "Tell me where the refugees are!"

Paladin: Hmmm... There might be refugees nearby. "Why do you want these refugees?"

Soldier: "He has seen them and refuses to tell us! They must be nearby!"

Paladin: What an idiot!

Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
If they are neutral but working for evil, he can still kill them. Although he should probably try to convince them they are doing evil and should stop before he does so.

I love how the only option you can come up with is either start murdering people or put others in danger. This pretty much demonstrates why the code fails as written and why Paladins have such a bad rep all over the place in the same post! Congratulations Twig. You've won this thread for everyone. :D

Again this assumption was that they were working for an Evil master. The correct paladin response is, "Stop working for Evil or I will be forced to stop you!" He doesn't have to kill them, but he can if he has too. That is all I was saying.

As for putting his friends in danger. If they aren't willing to put themselves in danger to help innocent people, what are they doing hanging around with a paladin? I thought they were adventurers. Isn't that what they do? The Good ones anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it odd in these situations that the Paladin's party is never able to help the Paladin? Instead they are only there to be disadvantaged by the Paladin's actions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's irrelevant if she's laughing with glee or torturing hobgoblins with sadistic abandon. If she and her party of hobos leave Garden Valley a better place overall then how they found it, because of their acts, she is in serious code violation. Because it's the big picture that matters.

Actually, it is irrelevant. The entire antipaladin "code":

Antipaladin Code of Conduct wrote:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Literally nothing in there has anything to do with leaving places better than they found them. The entire code effectively says "Do these evil things and not these good things, unless you don't feel like it, whatever."

Here's the problem. lets' get to those last three words "with his goals". The goal of an Anti-Paladin IS to in every way possible bring ruin to the places he visits and leave despair behind his back. That's what makes someone an anti-Paladin as opposed to the average Evil Fighter. If you don't produce that result you are in violation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anti-Paladin is always in violation.
Don't follow your code? You fall.
Follow your code? You're not Chaotic, you fall.
It's a dumb class. The only thing more cliched than a cliche is doing the exact opposite of a cliche.
"He stands for good? Then I will sit for evil!"


Ashiel wrote:
PF Paladin Code wrote:
help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends),
Those hostages are in need. Either you help them, or enjoy being an NPC class. Now hop to it, Buri.

Furthermore had the paladin already come across said refuges, he should have already asked/helped them with their needs. Having met their needs he continues on and meets the troops who are after them.

Try to not go in circles...


Starbuck_II wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

Huh?

Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.

Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.

Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.

Which is more party friendly again?

Why is he killing anyone? He can do good if it serves his ends: you protect him or make him wealthy by congtributing to his success.

Remember he is LE not CE.

No. Antipaladins in Pathfinder are CE, not LE.

PRD wrote:

Alignment: Chaotic evil.

. . .

Code of Conduct: An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment

. . .

Ex-Antipaladins

A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil,


K177Y C47 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

Huh?

Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.

Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.

Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.

Which is more party friendly again?

Try more:

Paladin=Don't be murderhobos, Don't commit sneak attacks (as in ambushes), do not lie, always follow the law (even when said law is what is holding the party back due to corruption), when people surrender you have to take them prisoner (even if you know they are "surrendering" so that they can save their hides and abuse corruption to get out again, like a mob boss), ect. ect. ect.

Anti-Paldin= Do whatever you have to for the greater evil

Here lets look at this:

Paladin Code wrote:

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 innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.

Anti-Paladin Code wrote:

Code of Conduct

An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except
...

you have a very strict no fun allowed view of paladins

hell my favorite Paladin that I played in Pathfinder was a Paladin/Hellknight of the Order of the Godclaw


Starbuck_II wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
LazarX wrote:


But as a result the Anti-Paladin winds up being more party friendly than the Paladin.

Huh?

Party with Paladin= Don't be evil murderhoboes.

Which no mature adult wants to do anyway, except maybe as a change of pace.

Antipaladin: Wake up dead as he has sacrificed you in your sleep.

Which is more party friendly again?

Why is he killing anyone? He can do good if it serves his ends: you protect him or make him wealthy by congtributing to his success.

Remember he is LE not CE.

Anti-paladins must be CE


How to be party friendly anti-paladin.

Your goal is to kill things and you have a preference for killing ever bigger things in more elaborate situations. Luckily most AP perfectly support your life style choice.

Why are you travelling with adventuring heroes because it is easier to survive combat and kill ever more interesting things with the help of a party and constantly replacing a party is just too much effort.

Why is it chaotic because you have no real plan or end game you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Why is it evil you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Ok you might help save the world now and then but any way if everyone was dead who would you kill.


Wind Chime wrote:

How to be party friendly anti-paladin.

Your goal is to kill things and you have a preference for killing ever bigger things in more elaborate situations. Luckily most AP perfectly support your life style choice.

Why are you travelling with adventuring heroes because it is easier to survive combat and kill ever more interesting things with the help of a party and constantly replacing a party is just too much effort.

Why is it chaotic because you have no real plan or end game you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Why is it evil you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Ok you might help save the world now and then but any way if everyone was dead who would you kill.

I'm not buying it.

You are with your companions killing interesting demons bent on unleashing a demon hoard. It's great and all, but there are all those people your "friends" won't allow you to kill.

That snotty merchant guard? Can't kill him.

That insufferable family of farmers? Can't kill them.

That bar wench that refused your advances? Can't kill her.

But, unleashing a demon hoard? That kills lots of people and you can join in the fun! Maybe even kill some angels or something!

If you end up stopping the demon invasion and save countless lives. I'm sorry, you are not an Anti-paladin. You're just a jerk warrior. Welcome to the NPC class! :-)


Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

How to be party friendly anti-paladin.

Your goal is to kill things and you have a preference for killing ever bigger things in more elaborate situations. Luckily most AP perfectly support your life style choice.

Why are you travelling with adventuring heroes because it is easier to survive combat and kill ever more interesting things with the help of a party and constantly replacing a party is just too much effort.

Why is it chaotic because you have no real plan or end game you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Why is it evil you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Ok you might help save the world now and then but any way if everyone was dead who would you kill.

I'm not buying it.

You are with your companions killing interesting demons bent on unleashing a demon hoard. It's great and all, but there are all those people your "friends" won't allow you to kill.

That snotty merchant guard? Can't kill him.

That insufferable family of farmers? Can't kill them.

That bar wench that refused your advances? Can't kill her.

But, unleashing a demon hoard? That kills lots of people and you can join in the fun! Maybe even kill some angels or something!

If you end up stopping the demon invasion and save countless lives. I'm sorry, you are not an Anti-paladin. You're just a jerk warrior. Welcome to the NPC class! :-)

The thing about Paladins is they are open minded altruists so to be the opposite of a Paladin you need to be a narrow minded self-serving git. That Narrow Mindedness is you biggest defense against failing because whilst a paladin might care about the consequences of his action you don't. So if killing a bunch of nobles causes a civil war you don't care you just had fun killing them and if killing a bunch of nobles ends a civil war well who cares you had fun killing them. Leave consequences and long turn designs to the devils you are a chaotic evil murder hobo and proud of it.


Wind Chime wrote:


The thing about Paladins is they are open minded altruists so to be the opposite of a Paladin you need to be a narrow minded self-serving git. That Narrow Mindedness is you biggest defense against failing because whilst a paladin might care about the consequences of his action you don't. So if killing a bunch of nobles causes a civil war you don't care you just had fun killing them and if killing a bunch of nobles ends a civil war well who cares you had fun killing them. Leave consequences and long turn designs to the devils you are a chaotic evil murder hobo and proud of it.

I would be okay with an Anti-paladin accidentally stopping a war by randomly killing some noble. That is fine. But knowingly stopping a demonic invasion is a bit too far.

Unless the Anti-paladin is traveling with a bunch of other Evil SOBs he will eventually run across someone that he would like to kill that his companions would not approve of. Not killing that person would require a bit of self control that would be more in line with being a paladin. Not killing one person probably wouldn't be a big deal, but after a while it starts to be a pattern. You are now an Anti-paladin that is disciplined enough not to kill Good people because you friends don't like it. That is not an Anti-paladin. That is a mean-spirited but disciplined fighter.


Aratrok wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's irrelevant if she's laughing with glee or torturing hobgoblins with sadistic abandon. If she and her party of hobos leave Garden Valley a better place overall then how they found it, because of their acts, she is in serious code violation. Because it's the big picture that matters.

Actually, it is irrelevant. The entire antipaladin "code":

Antipaladin Code of Conduct wrote:
An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.
Literally nothing in there has anything to do with leaving places better than they found them. The entire code effectively says "Do these evil things and not these good things, unless you don't feel like it, whatever."

Anti-paladin code requires that they place their own needs above all others.

If an anti-paladin wants to break his code for his own needs that code explicitally allows for those violations.

A CE paladin can literally do whatever they want and as long as they are doing it for themselves and maintain alignment.

basically the bolded part from this poster is the entirety of the code.


Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:


The thing about Paladins is they are open minded altruists so to be the opposite of a Paladin you need to be a narrow minded self-serving git. That Narrow Mindedness is you biggest defense against failing because whilst a paladin might care about the consequences of his action you don't. So if killing a bunch of nobles causes a civil war you don't care you just had fun killing them and if killing a bunch of nobles ends a civil war well who cares you had fun killing them. Leave consequences and long turn designs to the devils you are a chaotic evil murder hobo and proud of it.

I would be okay with an Anti-paladin accidentally stopping a war by randomly killing some noble. That is fine. But knowingly stopping a demonic invasion is a bit too far.

Unless the Anti-paladin is traveling with a bunch of other Evil SOBs he will eventually run across someone that he would like to kill that his companions would not approve of. Not killing that person would require a bit of self control that would be more in line with being a paladin. Not killing one person probably wouldn't be a big deal, but after a while it starts to be a pattern. You are now an Anti-paladin that is disciplined enough not to kill Good people because you friends don't like it. That is not an Anti-paladin. That is a mean-spirited but disciplined fighter.

If the anti-paladin doesn't kill people because that goes against his goals then his code FORCES him not to kill those people. Anti-paladins cannot put their morality above their own welfare.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:


The thing about Paladins is they are open minded altruists so to be the opposite of a Paladin you need to be a narrow minded self-serving git. That Narrow Mindedness is you biggest defense against failing because whilst a paladin might care about the consequences of his action you don't. So if killing a bunch of nobles causes a civil war you don't care you just had fun killing them and if killing a bunch of nobles ends a civil war well who cares you had fun killing them. Leave consequences and long turn designs to the devils you are a chaotic evil murder hobo and proud of it.

I would be okay with an Anti-paladin accidentally stopping a war by randomly killing some noble. That is fine. But knowingly stopping a demonic invasion is a bit too far.

Unless the Anti-paladin is traveling with a bunch of other Evil SOBs he will eventually run across someone that he would like to kill that his companions would not approve of. Not killing that person would require a bit of self control that would be more in line with being a paladin. Not killing one person probably wouldn't be a big deal, but after a while it starts to be a pattern. You are now an Anti-paladin that is disciplined enough not to kill Good people because you friends don't like it. That is not an Anti-paladin. That is a mean-spirited but disciplined fighter.

If the anti-paladin doesn't kill people because that goes against his goals then his code FORCES him not to kill those people. Anti-paladins cannot put their morality above their own welfare.

Interesting. My Anti-paladin has a personal goal of saving as many people as possible from unnecessary pain and suffering! Everyone else being happy makes me happy so I am being selfish! I am an Anti-paladin! Yea! :-)

Oh! And my greatest wish is to sacrifice myself to save a true innocent! And you can't stop me! Grrrr! I'm Evil!


Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

How to be party friendly anti-paladin.

Your goal is to kill things and you have a preference for killing ever bigger things in more elaborate situations. Luckily most AP perfectly support your life style choice.

Why are you travelling with adventuring heroes because it is easier to survive combat and kill ever more interesting things with the help of a party and constantly replacing a party is just too much effort.

Why is it chaotic because you have no real plan or end game you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Why is it evil you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Ok you might help save the world now and then but any way if everyone was dead who would you kill.

I'm not buying it.

You are with your companions killing interesting demons bent on unleashing a demon hoard. It's great and all, but there are all those people your "friends" won't allow you to kill.

That snotty merchant guard? Can't kill him.

That insufferable family of farmers? Can't kill them.

That bar wench that refused your advances? Can't kill her.

But, unleashing a demon hoard? That kills lots of people and you can join in the fun! Maybe even kill some angels or something!

If you end up stopping the demon invasion and save countless lives. I'm sorry, you are not an Anti-paladin. You're just a jerk warrior. Welcome to the NPC class! :-)

1) The enemy of my enemy is my ally. I.e., You serve a demon lord... but your demon lord is not to fond of THIS OTHER demon lord. So you work to stop Demon Lord B. Funny thing about evil. Evil tends to work against itself as much as it works against good...

2) Sometimes you need to practice restraint to further your grander plans. Unless you are saying that teh Demon Princes (who I might add are the very embodiment of CE) are completely incapable of plotting and planning (which is very untrue...)


Lord Twig wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:


The thing about Paladins is they are open minded altruists so to be the opposite of a Paladin you need to be a narrow minded self-serving git. That Narrow Mindedness is you biggest defense against failing because whilst a paladin might care about the consequences of his action you don't. So if killing a bunch of nobles causes a civil war you don't care you just had fun killing them and if killing a bunch of nobles ends a civil war well who cares you had fun killing them. Leave consequences and long turn designs to the devils you are a chaotic evil murder hobo and proud of it.

I would be okay with an Anti-paladin accidentally stopping a war by randomly killing some noble. That is fine. But knowingly stopping a demonic invasion is a bit too far.

Unless the Anti-paladin is traveling with a bunch of other Evil SOBs he will eventually run across someone that he would like to kill that his companions would not approve of. Not killing that person would require a bit of self control that would be more in line with being a paladin. Not killing one person probably wouldn't be a big deal, but after a while it starts to be a pattern. You are now an Anti-paladin that is disciplined enough not to kill Good people because you friends don't like it. That is not an Anti-paladin. That is a mean-spirited but disciplined fighter.

If the anti-paladin doesn't kill people because that goes against his goals then his code FORCES him not to kill those people. Anti-paladins cannot put their morality above their own welfare.

Interesting. My Anti-paladin has a personal goal of saving as many people as possible from unnecessary pain and suffering! Everyone else being happy makes me happy so I am being selfish! I am an Anti-paladin! Yea! :-)

Oh! And my greatest wish is to sacrifice myself to save a true innocent! And you can't stop me! Grrrr! I'm Evil!

It's called ethical Egoism.

The only thing you have to worry about is your GM changing your alignment from CE. The anti-paladin code is basically unbreakable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

How to be party friendly anti-paladin.

Your goal is to kill things and you have a preference for killing ever bigger things in more elaborate situations. Luckily most AP perfectly support your life style choice.

Why are you travelling with adventuring heroes because it is easier to survive combat and kill ever more interesting things with the help of a party and constantly replacing a party is just too much effort.

Why is it chaotic because you have no real plan or end game you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Why is it evil you are just killing things for the fun of it.

Ok you might help save the world now and then but any way if everyone was dead who would you kill.

I'm not buying it.

You are with your companions killing interesting demons bent on unleashing a demon hoard. It's great and all, but there are all those people your "friends" won't allow you to kill.

That snotty merchant guard? Can't kill him.

That insufferable family of farmers? Can't kill them.

That bar wench that refused your advances? Can't kill her.

But, unleashing a demon hoard? That kills lots of people and you can join in the fun! Maybe even kill some angels or something!

If you end up stopping the demon invasion and save countless lives. I'm sorry, you are not an Anti-paladin. You're just a jerk warrior. Welcome to the NPC class! :-)

So the idea is that an Antipaladin has to help demons invade the world because they're all evil.

I'll quote Order of the Stick for this one:

"And that makes [evil] one big happy family? Screw that."


It's not hard guys. The paladin has to do things because of their code. Logically an anti-paladins would not have to do things because of their code.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.


Ashiel wrote:
These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.

Yes and we can disagree and I have nothing but love and respect for you.


Go go go go!

Lets see if we can surpass the fighters suck thread as longest running thread!


Ashiel wrote:
These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.

You're just not looking hard enough, trust me. Doesn't mean you're wrong about paladin hate though.


KenderKin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.

Yes and we can disagree and I have nothing but love and respect for you.

Ditto. :)


Ashiel wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.

Yes and we can disagree and I have nothing but love and respect for you.

Ditto. :)

First time I told someone of instant enemy spell he start cussing about how it was "out of the spirit of things." Saying he was gonna ban it from every game he gm'd and such, lol.

Also, had someone tell me I autolost all barbarian levels for saying I was ok with hanging in a city. Turned me into a fighter so I lost hp, and got no feats for it too. :P

Its not just the paladins :P


In my opinion, these things should be based on the spirit of the alignment and not the letter. A paladin fudging the truth over innocent refugees that would otherwise be captured and killed is certainly in the spirit of lawful good. Sure, you told a white lie, but innocents were saved. As for the anti-paladin, I could see one working with a kind of special side code that involved no pvp, no provoking other players with evil acts, and generally just running the whole selfish/evil thing as a side show.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chromnos wrote:
In my opinion, these things should be based on the spirit of the alignment and not the letter. A paladin fudging the truth over innocent refugees that would otherwise be captured and killed is certainly in the spirit of lawful good. Sure, you told a white lie, but innocents were saved. As for the anti-paladin, I could see one working with a kind of special side code that involved no pvp, no provoking other players with evil acts, and generally just running the whole selfish/evil thing as a side show.

Exactly. In 3.5, you could follow the spirit of the code just fine. You only fell when you grossly violated the code. In Pathfinder, ANY violation means instant falling, and I think I've shown that it's very easy to have differing opinions on just what constitutes as a violation.

We've literally devolved into arguing of "what is a lie" (as I expected we would). Why? Because it actually matters because of the way that the rules work currently. The only sane way of dealing with the rules is to either A) ignore them, or B) convolute some sort of scenario where the Paladin and/or the party murder-hobos their way to non-falling.

Both A & B are dumb. I'm saying it, they're dumb. There's little that I can imagine that would convince me otherwise (and smaller still that I've seen presented to that end). 3.5's wasn't so dumb. 3.5's worked much better both from a mechanical, narrative, and story potential perspective.

Liberty's Edge

KenderKin wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
These arguments are the source of Paladin hate. Notice nobody is arguing over what is and is not the correct way to play a Ranger.

Yes and we can disagree and I have nothing but love and respect for you.

What?! But that means you are wrong about everything!


I have to admit the following classes recieve house-rules in my games:
Fighters
Rogues
Monks
Paladins


I actually agree that falling immediately after even the slightest infraction is pretty unplayable, but I can see the argument for never lying, even to save someone's life.

The argument is that even the slightest lie is a compromise of your values. It creates a crack, if you will, in your impregnable code of honor. Something that can later be exploited by an Evil person. It also starts you on a slippery slope. If one little lie to help someone deserving is okay, then surely it is okay to lie to help a party member. Then lying because it is convenient if it isn't harming anyone. Then lying to help yourself, for the greater good of course! Better to just not start down that path.

And if someone dies because you wouldn't lie... Is that so terrible? It is sad that they will not be able to see everyone they know and love in this world, but they will have a chance to meet them in the next. Really it is just like they moved to a far away city (a much better city) and you will see them again once you travel there. With enough money you can even talk to them to see how they are doing in their new residence! (Speak with Dead)

So a paladin refuses to lie and a bunch of innocents are murdered by some Evil SOB. Paladin hopefully brings righteous justice, kills the SOB and he goes to the bad place while the innocents live on in the afterlife without pain or fear or suffering. Win/Win! :-)

Grand Lodge

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

I have to admit the following classes recieve house-rules in my games:

Fighters
Rogues
Monks
Paladins

Mine, too, although the houserules are all to beef them up - with the exception of Paladins.

Fighters get 4+Int skills and Weapon Training is a flat bonus to all attack and damage rolls.

Rogues get a "Luck" pool that functions as the Ninja's ki-pool, based off either INT or CHA (player's choice) and get Improved Evasion for free.

Monks I used to houserule to such a degree that they would barely be recognizable as a class. Now I never see a monk that's not a Martial Artist dip or a Zen Archer so it's largely irrelevant.

Paladins must have a god. I know a lot of people will balk at that, but each god comes with a set of 5 edicts the Paladin must obey as her 'code'. In fairness, most GM's we've had (and I'd like to think myself included) didn't just look for reasons to make a Paladin fall. But I wanted my players to at least have a guideline.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:

And if someone dies because you wouldn't lie... Is that so terrible?

Yes, yes it is.

Lord Twig wrote:

So a paladin refuses to lie and a bunch of innocents are murdered by some Evil SOB. Paladin hopefully brings righteous justice, kills the SOB and he goes to the bad place while the innocents live on in the afterlife without pain or fear or suffering. Win/Win! :-)

Except for the people who are, you know, dead.

Honestly, if a person isn't even willing to lie to save a person's life I don't feel they should even be categorized as good. That's lawful neutral, sticking to your own code of honor at the expense of common good. That's a paladin caring more about some stupid oath than the lives of the innocents which kinda destroys the very intent of the oath.

I wouldn't bring a paladin down for lying in such a case, but I'd almost consider an alignment shift if he didn't. Though I'd definitely warn him as such.


Ashiel wrote:

Exactly. In 3.5, you could follow the spirit of the code just fine. You only fell when you grossly violated the code. In Pathfinder, ANY violation means instant falling, and I think I've shown that it's very easy to have differing opinions on just what constitutes as a violation.

Well, since it's pretty hard to 'accidentally" WILLINGLY commit a evil act, it's very hard for a PF paladin to fall, without a stupid player or a DM out to screw paladins.

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

That's the ONLY part that sez you fall. Then there's this part:

"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 innocents."

No where does it say you fall if you fail here.


DrDeth wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Exactly. In 3.5, you could follow the spirit of the code just fine. You only fell when you grossly violated the code. In Pathfinder, ANY violation means instant falling, and I think I've shown that it's very easy to have differing opinions on just what constitutes as a violation.

Well, since it's pretty hard to 'accidentally" WILLINGLY commit a evil act, it's very hard for a PF paladin to fall, without a stupid player or a DM out to screw paladins.

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

That's the ONLY part that sez you fall. Then there's this part:

"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 innocents."

No where does it say you fall if you fail here.

Three paragraphs down in the PRD under Ex-Paladins:

Quote:


Ex-Paladins

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 (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.

Pathfinder is stricter on the code than 3.5.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:

And if someone dies because you wouldn't lie... Is that so terrible?

Yes, yes it is.

Lord Twig wrote:

So a paladin refuses to lie and a bunch of innocents are murdered by some Evil SOB. Paladin hopefully brings righteous justice, kills the SOB and he goes to the bad place while the innocents live on in the afterlife without pain or fear or suffering. Win/Win! :-)

Except for the people who are, you know, dead.

Honestly, if a person isn't even willing to lie to save a person's life I don't feel they should even be categorized as good. That's lawful neutral, sticking to your own code of honor at the expense of common good. That's a paladin caring more about some stupid oath than the lives of the innocents which kinda destroys the very intent of the oath.

I wouldn't bring a paladin down for lying in such a case, but I'd almost consider an alignment shift if he didn't. Though I'd definitely warn him as such.

So you don't believe in an afterlife? I mean, if you did then there would be no problem. Being dead isn't bad, it is just different. Better even! A paladin would have absolute faith that the Good gods would care for the souls of the departed. (Notice I said departed? As in, they left here and went somewhere else.) It is not like they are destroyed forever and there is nothing but oblivion waiting for them after death.

Think about it, this is the same reasoning that allows suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the real world. They expect to get some pretty great stuff after they are done with their task. The big difference between the real world and Pathfinder is that the paladin is verifiably correct. The suicide bomber, not so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lord Twig wrote:

And if someone dies because you wouldn't lie... Is that so terrible?

Yes, yes it is.

Lord Twig wrote:

So a paladin refuses to lie and a bunch of innocents are murdered by some Evil SOB. Paladin hopefully brings righteous justice, kills the SOB and he goes to the bad place while the innocents live on in the afterlife without pain or fear or suffering. Win/Win! :-)

Except for the people who are, you know, dead.

Honestly, if a person isn't even willing to lie to save a person's life I don't feel they should even be categorized as good. That's lawful neutral, sticking to your own code of honor at the expense of common good. That's a paladin caring more about some stupid oath than the lives of the innocents which kinda destroys the very intent of the oath.

I wouldn't bring a paladin down for lying in such a case, but I'd almost consider an alignment shift if he didn't. Though I'd definitely warn him as such.

So you don't believe in an afterlife? I mean, if you did then there would be no problem. Being dead isn't bad, it is just different. Better even! A paladin would have absolute faith that the Good gods would care for the souls of the departed. (Notice I said departed? As in, they left here and went somewhere else.) It is not like they are destroyed forever and there is nothing but oblivion waiting for them after death.

Think about it, this is the same reasoning that allows suicide bombers to blow themselves up in the real world. They expect to get some pretty great stuff after they are done with their task. The big difference between the real world and Pathfinder is that the paladin is verifiably correct. The suicide bomber, not so much.

By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.

Or we could reject the ridiculous notion and accept that murder is bad and that we're inherently trying to keep people from dying. It's not bad for them to pass, but we're certainly going to slow the process as much as we can.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.

Or we could reject the ridiculous notion and accept that murder is bad and that we're inherently trying to keep people from dying. It's not bad for them to pass, but we're certainly going to slow the process as much as we can.

No, murdering is Evil. If you do that you don't go to the happy place. Religions specifically had to put rules in place to stop people from cheating to try to get to heaven sooner.

"Heaven sounds great! I think I'll go there now!"

"Oh! No no no. If you kill yourself you don't get to go."

"Awww! Shucks!"

Nope. No cheating. You have to live the best life you can first. And you can't seek out your own death. That's cheating! But if some Evil guy kills you, you are good to go!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twig wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


By that logic, everyone should murder their children at birth because it will send them somewhere better. Further if you do it at birth they're as innocent and pure as fresh snow. More you let them age, the less likely they are to go there.

Or we could reject the ridiculous notion and accept that murder is bad and that we're inherently trying to keep people from dying. It's not bad for them to pass, but we're certainly going to slow the process as much as we can.

No, murdering is Evil. If you do that you don't go to the happy place. Religions specifically had to put rules in place to stop people from cheating to try to get to heaven sooner.

"Heaven sounds great! I think I'll go there now!"

"Oh! No no no. If you kill yourself you don't get to go."

"Awww! Shucks!"

Nope. No cheating. You have to live the best life you can first. And you can't seek out your own death. That's cheating! But if some Evil guy kills you, you are good to go!

Why would it be an evil act if you were just helping people get to heaven sooner?

YOU'RE EVIL FOR MAKING PEOPLE'S LIVES (EXISTENCES) BETTER. TO HELL WITH YOU!

See how ridiculous that is?

Or if a paladin were truly selfless he would take the fall, murder everyone on earth so they can enjoy their eternity in exchange for one soul burning.

801 to 850 of 1,121 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards