Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Paladin hate.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 1,121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait now paladins aren't allowed to attack succubi or mind-flayers until they actually catch the evil demons doing evil demon things? This must be how the Weeping Angels were born - they've evolved specifically so that their acts are always committed while no paladin can see them.

Sitri wrote:
I don't know that I would refer a pope and an emperor, especially at the time we are discussing, so casually, nor the level of condemnation they meted out.

Wait so all I need to do to make a paladin change alignments and fall is have a king get mad at them? Man this GMing thing is easy

Star Voter 2013

Roberta Yang wrote:


Wait so all I need to do to make a paladin change alignments and fall is have a king get mad at them? Man this GMing thing is easy

Yes exactly what I said >.>


My short hand version for telling the difference between Lawful and Chaotic is that Lawful Characters are concerned about the process to arrived at an outcome; whereas Chaotic Characters are more the Ends justify the Means.

In this sense one could argue a Lawful bent for Martin Luther because his whole problem with the church was how they went about to achieve an end.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Wait now paladins aren't allowed to attack succubi or mind-flayers until they actually catch the evil demons doing evil demon things? This must be how the Weeping Angels were born - they've evolved specifically so that their acts are always committed while no paladin can see them.

There's a thin line with these things. Succubi are evil in a way that's pretty intrinsic to their being. Their entire purpose for existing is to destroy everything they touch. Mind-flayers kill to eat, I think.

Something like a were-whatever can, I believe, actually maintain control of themselves with a Will save and even if they PING as evil it could just mean they're your garden variety douchenugget rather than a man eating monster.

Also, were you playing Team Fortress 2 earlier in some 24/7 Dustbowl server? I saw someone named Roberta Yang there.


Forlarren wrote:
I have always felt the kill it if it pings evil is a GM problem. They way we always played it is detect evil is asking your deity's opinion. Pinging evil is your god directly telling you that, yes the person you are detecting is better off dead. If your don't want that well as the GM now is the time to speak up (as the paladins God) or forever hold your peace.

Just because your house ruling on Detect Evil works that way doesn't mean that's the way it actually works for the rest of us. Speaking of holding your peace.

Silver Crusade

I see a lot of metagaming going on here as well. You don't walk around automatically knowing what a demon or a devil is. Now if you've passed your knowledge check then fair enough but I believe a good bit of metagaming does go on.


Sitri wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


I would disagree. Martin Luther sided with the nobility. He sided against Rome, but he wasn't in favor of getting power to the lower classes. He believed in a strongly centralized economy and took a strong stance against the peasant revolts.

He was excommunicated by the pope and judged an outlaw by the emperor. I see what you are getting at, but I think it takes some major mental gymnastics to fit him into the definition of Lawful and not too much work to fit any revolutionary (even those much lessor than Luther) into the Chaotic or at least Neutral group.

A lawful character could side against one lawful code in favor of another.


shallowsoul" wrote:
I see a lot of metagaming going on here as well. You don't walk around automatically knowing what a demon or a devil is. Now if you've passed your knowledge check then fair enough but I believe a good bit of metagaming does go on.

But presumably you at least know that evil outsiders (and evil clerics) have stronger auras of evil than other evil things. Even if you can't identify the exact type of evil outsider, the strength of its aura should tell you that it is either an evil outsider or an evil cleric. And it is a writhing tentacle abomination.

Rynjin wrote:
Also, were you playing Team Fortress 2 earlier in some 24/7 Dustbowl server? I saw someone named Roberta Yang there.

That was me, I only recently started playing and I am terrible. >.>

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Roberta Yang wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Also, were you playing Team Fortress 2 earlier in some 24/7 Dustbowl server? I saw someone named Roberta Yang there.
That was me, I only recently started playing and I am terrible. >.>

Just started? Wait until you start heariPOOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM


Roberta Yang wrote:
That was me, I only recently started playing and I am terrible. >.>

Heh. It gets better. It's actually pretty easy to "beat the average" in TF2 nowadays if you play enough.

Though the only reason I staved off massive amounts of suckage is because Demoman on Dustbowl is pretty much easy mode, even for someone who hasn't played in like 4 months. That and the fact that I actually played competitive for a year.

Some friends of mine have a server if you need a sort of permanent community. Shameless plug.

Anyway, back to butting heads about Paladin alignments. Grrrrrrrr.

Mikaze wrote:
Just started? Wait until you start heariPOOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS POOTIS GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM GOTTAM

Oh. Yeah. That. Rammite (he's Evelon's player if anyone's been following my "Chronicles of Sun Xiao" write-ups) likes to micspam and so do some others. Generally tasteful though but a fair warning if you don't like music on the voice chat every now and then.

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

RENDITIONS OF EVERY PIECE OF MUSIC IN HUMAN HISTORY COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF "BONK" EVERY DAY


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm BLU Bonkedy boinkadie!


shallowsoul wrote:
I see a lot of metagaming going on here as well. You don't walk around automatically knowing what a demon or a devil is. Now if you've passed your knowledge check then fair enough but I believe a good bit of metagaming does go on.

Horns: check

Flaming whip: check
red, scaly skin: check
fire comes out of its mouth: check
huge sword: check
detects as evil: check
Is over 20 feet tall: check
Coming to kill me: check

If a creature like that is coming in, it doesn't matter whether or not I know it is a demon/devil. Clearly anyone attacked by a Balor will realize that this thing epitomizes evil and should be smited. I mean, come on, player characters usually have wisdom scores over 1.

Plus, if the demon/devil is attacking, then self-defense is a must. I would even argue that if a Paladin were attacked by a good creature, they could get away with killing it in self-defense (although incapacitating it would be better form).

Metagaming is going to the other side of the graph paper, or rattling off the energy resistances of slaad. Metagaming is knowing every monster in the bestiary by heart. Having a GM describe a demon to you, and then smiting it, is not metagaming.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
uriel222 wrote:
Paladins are tied to the alignment system, and some people DESPISE the alignment system. In fact, the mere existence of Paladins is one of the main reasons you can't simply excise alignment from the game entirely.

O RLY?


LazarX wrote:
The problem with Paladins is that it's the only class with a built in self-destruct button. (Rangers had that button too in first edition until the "good alignment" requirement was removed.)

This is the preception but it's really not true: Rangers, Druids, Clerics, and Inquisitors all have the same built in self destruct button. The problem stems from people (typically GM's) being more strict with Paladins than any other class.

Silver Crusade

Delthyn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I see a lot of metagaming going on here as well. You don't walk around automatically knowing what a demon or a devil is. Now if you've passed your knowledge check then fair enough but I believe a good bit of metagaming does go on.

Horns: check

Flaming whip: check
red, scaly skin: check
fire comes out of its mouth: check
huge sword: check
detects as evil: check
Is over 20 feet tall: check
Coming to kill me: check

If a creature like that is coming in, it doesn't matter whether or not I know it is a demon/devil. Clearly anyone attacked by a Balor will realize that this thing epitomizes evil and should be smited. I mean, come on, player characters usually have wisdom scores over 1.

Plus, if the demon/devil is attacking, then self-defense is a must. I would even argue that if a Paladin were attacked by a good creature, they could get away with killing it in self-defense (although incapacitating it would be better form).

Metagaming is going to the other side of the graph paper, or rattling off the energy resistances of slaad. Metagaming is knowing every monster in the bestiary by heart. Having a GM describe a demon to you, and then smiting it, is not metagaming.

Doesn't matter. There is a reason we have knowledge skills and Paladins aren't afforded the luxury of always kicking ass first and asking questions later. You are focusing too much on the mechanical aspect.

You have to put yourself in their shoes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Putting myself in their shoes, I'm pretty sure I know what I'd do if I were a holy champion with the power and duty to smite evil and happened upon an enormous tentacled evil fire-breathing thing that radiates an overwhelming aura of evil.

Specifically, I'd ask it to start being an archon instead. Anyone who says otherwise isn't a real roleplayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Doesn't matter. There is a reason we have knowledge skills and Paladins aren't afforded the luxury of always kicking ass first and asking questions later. You are focusing too much on the mechanical aspect.

You have to put yourself in their shoes.

*Sees dog*

*rolls DC 10 knowledge (nature) check*

*rolls a 2*

*Is unsure what that creature is*

Shall I go over it again? Angry monster trying to kill you, detects as evil, and is currently burning you with fire. There is no reason to NOT kill it. It would be illogical to not defend yourself.

Treating the knowledge skills as being the only way to know anything goes over the top. It would be like using the diplomacy skill as written. Or not doing any roleplaying, but instead using diplomacy/bluff/intimidate to do all the interaction. Just rolling, no talking.

Do people abuse their memorization of the Bestiary? Yes. Should a Paladin not attack a demon trying to kill said Paladin? No. Not even if he fails his knowledge check.


The demon doesn't even need to be attacking the paladin. Unless you somehow stumble upon a 1HD demon or something, its aura alone will be strong enough to let you know that it's some sort of evil outsider and therefore needs to die.

Remember that it takes something as strong as a Tarrasque to match the evil aura of a mere 11HD demon or devil.

Silver Crusade

Delthyn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Doesn't matter. There is a reason we have knowledge skills and Paladins aren't afforded the luxury of always kicking ass first and asking questions later. You are focusing too much on the mechanical aspect.

You have to put yourself in their shoes.

*Sees dog*

*rolls DC 10 knowledge (nature) check*

*rolls a 2*

*Is unsure what that creature is*

Shall I go over it again? Angry monster trying to kill you, detects as evil, and is currently burning you with fire. There is no reason to NOT kill it. It would be illogical to not defend yourself.

Treating the knowledge skills as being the only way to know anything goes over the top. It would be like using the diplomacy skill as written. Or not doing any roleplaying, but instead using diplomacy/bluff/intimidate to do all the interaction. Just rolling, no talking.

Do people abuse their memorization of the Bestiary? Yes. Should a Paladin not attack a demon trying to kill said Paladin? No. Not even if he fails his knowledge check.

Nobody is talking about if it is attacking you, that's something completely different.


True. Seeing as a Paladin's mission is to stop those that harm innocents. Demons exist (according to the Bestiary) to corrupt mortals. Daemons exist to devour mortals. Etc.

So since fiend = evil, and evil = smiting, paladin + fiend = smiting.

I'm going to call it the "First Law of Paladinish Areodynamics."

@Shallowsoul: Put yourself in the shoes of a crusader of good, who is being attacked by a fiend. Are you going to stand there and make knowledge checks? Or are you going to smite it? Personally, I would be too busy battling the foul creature to care whether it is a demon or a devil.


shallowsoul wrote:


Nobody is talking about if it is attacking you, that's something completely different.

If a demon sees a paladin, what is the first obvious response? One is a servant of the holy gods of Celestia, the other is a servant of the dread lords of the pit. It isn't going to end in happy smiles. One of them will die.

Now let us assume that they parley. The question still remains, what does it matter if you don't know whether or not it is a demon, daemon, devil, or demodand? It is essentially a DC 0 knowledge check to determine that the winged, flaming, scary, monstrous, fire-breathing, chaotic evil creature in front of you is a fiend.

To most paladins, that is all they need to know.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if you see the demon attack people, does that give you the right to kill them? It might be a rare Lawful Good demon who still has a misleading evil aura due to the [evil] subtype and who is only attacking people because it has fallen victim to a Dominate effect. The only correct thing for a paladin to do is subdue it nonlethally, restrain it, and study it while attempting to break any enchantments that might be affecting its behavior. And even if it turns out to actually be evil, you could take care of it nonlethally by giving it a Helm of Opposite Alignment, right?

Sure, it sounds like a lot of work, but paladins have to be held to a higher standard, and you can't just go around killing sentient beings without proof that there is no other option. Nobody said the path of good and honor was always easy. If you're a rollplayer who can't take that kind of responsibility, maybe you should play a different class so you can act like the murderhobo you are.

Marathon Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your character rounds a corner and sees a 10-foot tall muscle-bound monstrosity pulling a man limb from limb while a screaming woman and child cower nearby.

You bellow your paladin warcry and charge, delivering a righteous blow to the enormous ugly feral creature. It then turns around, drops what is left of the man and pulls your face apart with an assortment of creative applications of its teeth and claws.

Congratulations, you just met my Neutral Alchemist who was saving a woman from being raped and killed!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:

Even if you see the demon attack people, does that give you the right to kill them? It might be a rare Lawful Good demon who still has a misleading evil aura due to the [evil] subtype and who is only attacking people because it has fallen victim to a Dominate effect. The only correct thing for a paladin to do is subdue it nonlethally, restrain it, and study it while attempting to break any enchantments that might be affecting its behavior. And even if it turns out to actually be evil, you could take care of it nonlethally by giving it a Helm of Opposite Alignment, right?

Sure, it sounds like a lot of work, but paladins have to be held to a higher standard, and you can't just go around killing sentient beings without proof that there is no other option. Nobody said the path of good and honor was always easy. If you're a rollplayer who can't take that kind of responsibility, maybe you should play a different class so you can act like the murderhobo you are.

But you're acting as judge, jury and executioner! What about the trial? No jury of its peers? And you're removing its free will with the helm! No, you need to use diplomacy and convince it that putting on the help is to its best interest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

Your character rounds a corner and sees a 10-foot tall muscle-bound monstrosity pulling a man limb from limb while a screaming woman and child cower nearby.

You bellow your paladin warcry and charge, delivering a righteous blow to the enormous ugly feral creature. It then turns around, drops what is left of the man and pulls your face apart with an assortment of creative applications of its teeth and claws.

Congratulations, you just met my Neutral Alchemist who was saving a woman from being raped and killed!

If only the paladin class detect evil had some sort of build-in mechanism detect evil that could be used detect evil to resolve detect evil misunderstandings detect evil such as that detect evil detect evil detect evil


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or alternatively, you can use DM fiat to help you make decisions. The following may be a handy reference for any Paladin:

"Ok, DM, I glance upwards to the heavens, and pray mentally, "O (insert deity here), is this creature deserving of a smiting?"...
So DM, what does my god say?"

Boom. Done. Now the DM should/must tell you. You have now avoided any problems arising. The key is that you are the executioner, but make the deity/DM the jury and judge. Solves 99% of all problems with being a paladin, and has stopped falls from grace 84% of the time.

Remember that you are a favored servitor of an extremely powerful entity, who certainly would prefer to be consulted than to lose a Paladin. Particularly since Paladins are chosen only rarely according to the PH/CRB.

If your DM refuses to answer, then later after you fall from grace, you can plead the following:

"O (insert deity here), I prayed to you and pleaded for your wisdom, but it cameth not. I beseeched thee and had no reply. So I dideth scan with detect evil and acted as my conscience dictated, attempting to do the right thing."

Or in other words, stick the crime on the jury/judge. You're just the executioner, just doing your job to the best of your ability. It's not your fault if the jury screws up and the judge is absent.

Silver Crusade

Asked to write an incident report re: The Unfortunate Events In The Orphanage, the paladin wrote:

As I was proceding in a westerly direction down the Street Of A Thousand Nits, I came upon the orphanage of Tasha's Uncontrollably Hideous Sister. An IC 37 male (Knowledge [police procedure] DC 10, IC 37=Balor) appeared to be holding the arm of a young humanoid and chewing in a nonchalant manner.

Mindful of my holy duty, and having just attended the latest sensitivity workshop entitled: Paladins In The Community And How To Avoid Falling, I immediately started to look for witnesses!

Not having a warrant to detect evil, I canvassed the IC 37 male to ascertain the sequence of events. The reply was that it weren't 'im what done the blag, it were some ovver geezer, innit!

At this point one of the surviving orphans threw a rock at the IC 37 male, and in accordance with proceedure, I smote the assaulting orphan with extreme prejudice, whereupon the IC 37 male proceeded to laugh its cock off.

Marathon Voter 2014

Roberta Yang wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

Your character rounds a corner and sees a 10-foot tall muscle-bound monstrosity pulling a man limb from limb while a screaming woman and child cower nearby.

You bellow your paladin warcry and charge, delivering a righteous blow to the enormous ugly feral creature. It then turns around, drops what is left of the man and pulls your face apart with an assortment of creative applications of its teeth and claws.

Congratulations, you just met my Neutral Alchemist who was saving a woman from being raped and killed!

If only the paladin class detect evil had some sort of build-in mechanism detect evil that could be used detect evil to resolve detect evil misunderstandings detect evil such as that detect evil detect evil detect evil

Carte Blanche blanket justification mechanism makes everything okay!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

....


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:


Your character rounds a corner and sees a 10-foot tall muscle-bound monstrosity pulling a man limb from limb while a screaming woman and child cower nearby.

You bellow your paladin warcry and charge, delivering a righteous blow to the enormous ugly feral creature. It then turns around, drops what is left of the man and pulls your face apart with an assortment of creative applications of its teeth and claws.

Congratulations, you just met my Neutral Alchemist who was saving a woman from being raped and killed!

Nice quandary question. Umm, let's try this on for a roleplayed approach to the scene:

My paladin rounds a corner to see a 10-foot tall muscle-bound monstrosity pulling a man limb from limb, while a screaming woman and child cower nearby.

"Halt, beast, or suffer the wrath of Iomedae!" I cry, drawing my sword and summoning the might of my god as I prepare to smite this evil monster, my sword cleaving the air as it slices towards the target of my holy vengeance.

Does it:

a) turn and rip into me, justifying my assault.

b) scream at me that it was saving the woman and demand that I heal it because I made a bad judgement call?

Silver Crusade

Demons are rampaging machines of violence, devils are not. Devils use cunning and manipulation to being down their prey so they don't always start attacking people or start attacking the Paladin. Also, I love how people start jumping to conclusions when none have even been made. I think a few of you might actually learn something and use up less forum save if you actually took the time to read the posts. Nobody is talking about attacking because we don't need to, it should be pretty obvious what you would do in that situation, at least I hope it is.


So if a devil is using cunning manipulation to bring about the downfall of civilization then how do I make sure it's not secretly a Lawful Good devil using cunning manipulation to gradually increase the standard of living? Do I need to wait for civilization to fall before I can attack or

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To add to Lamontius' example... his character had been in a bar fight a bit ago and used a wand of infernal healing...

I'd written in another thread (about Risen fiends) that if there is no possibility for redemption, they're not complex monsters, they're Terminators.

For me, part of a Paladin is Mercy. To use the Alchemist above, yes, the Paladin is likely going to smite first and detect evil second. The brute is shredding what appears to be a normal man. Assuming that the alchemist isn't legally appointed to shred the man, the Paladin's not being unlawful. (He's defending a man from being killed) If he smacks the Alchemist with a smite, and it doesn't go off, then he knows something is wrong. If the brute surrenders or fights defensively, he has the Class Skills to tell if he's sincere. (If he doesn't have ranks, then it's the consequences of his actions)

To use a popular fiction alternative... Look at Michael and Sanjay in the Dresden Files. They had a Blackened Denarian surrender, and turn over his coin. They let him go. Because mercy should be offered. Harry's not so nice...

If redemption is part of the god's creed, then they should be offered the chance to use it. Michael and Sanjay knew he would look for another coin, but there was the chance he would change his ways. In Pathfinder, a good sense motive check would allow even the most merciful paladin of Saranae to say "You didn't surrender in good faith, you will face justice for your crimes" and not fall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Demons are rampaging machines of violence, devils are not. Devils use cunning and manipulation to being down their prey so they don't always start attacking people or start attacking the Paladin. Also, I love how people start jumping to conclusions when none have even been made. I think a few of you might actually learn something and use up less forum save if you actually took the time to read the posts. Nobody is talking about attacking because we don't need to, it should be pretty obvious what you would do in that situation, at least I hope it is.

You never previously defined which fiend you were discussing. Plus, I constantly see all sorts of games, modules, and Adventure Paths were the room description says "the devil attacks." So your argument holds no grounds in reality.

If we never conclude, or make assumptions, nothing would ever get done. We are not telepathic. Stop retroactively clarifying things. However, the above paragraph should deal with the devil/demon issue. Also, most of us do read the posts, but again, text-based communication is poor. Particularly when people don't clarify details. And with paladins, the "devil is in the details."

In your last sentence you allude to a situation without defining the situation. I cannot discuss that which is not defined without assuming details.

In the end, despite the fluff in the Bestiary, devils are used to attack just as demons are. And demons may be used to parley just as devils can be used to parley. Ever heard of succubi? To the Paladin though, if the fiend attacks, so will the paladin. If the fiend wishes to parley, then it becomes a very nebulous and situational situation.

Silver Crusade

Delthyn wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Demons are rampaging machines of violence, devils are not. Devils use cunning and manipulation to being down their prey so they don't always start attacking people or start attacking the Paladin. Also, I love how people start jumping to conclusions when none have even been made. I think a few of you might actually learn something and use up less forum save if you actually took the time to read the posts. Nobody is talking about attacking because we don't need to, it should be pretty obvious what you would do in that situation, at least I hope it is.

You never previously defined which fiend you were discussing. Plus, I constantly see all sorts of games, modules, and Adventure Paths were the room description says "the devil attacks." So your argument holds no grounds in reality.

If we never conclude, or make assumptions, nothing would ever get done. We are not telepathic. Stop retroactively clarifying things. However, the above paragraph should deal with the devil/demon issue. Also, most of us do read the posts, but again, text-based communication is poor. Particularly when people don't clarify details. And with paladins, the "devil is in the details."

In your last sentence you allude to a situation without defining the situation. I cannot discuss that which is not defined without assuming details.

In the end, despite the fluff in the Bestiary, devils are used to attack just as demons are. And demons may be used to parley just as devils can be used to parley. Ever heard of succubi? To the Paladin though, if the fiend attacks, so will the paladin. If the fiend wishes to parley, then it becomes a very nebulous and situational situation.

When you've been playing D&D for a long enough time, you will know that my argument holds more water than the seven seas. If you are basing all your logic on AP's then you are in a sad little boat my friend.

Edit: There is more to Pathfinder than just kill, take loot, rinse and repeat.

Marathon Voter 2014

Matthew Morris wrote:

To add to Lamontius' example... his character had been in a bar fight a bit ago and used a wand of infernal healing...

I'd written in another thread (about Risen fiends) that if there is no possibility for redemption, they're not complex monsters, they're Terminators.

For me, part of a Paladin is Mercy. To use the Alchemist above, yes, the Paladin is likely going to smite first and detect evil second. The brute is shredding what appears to be a normal man. Assuming that the alchemist isn't legally appointed to shred the man, the Paladin's not being unlawful. (He's defending a man from being killed) If he smacks the Alchemist with a smite, and it doesn't go off, then he knows something is wrong. If the brute surrenders or fights defensively, he has the Class Skills to tell if he's sincere. (If he doesn't have ranks, then it's the consequences of his actions)

To use a popular fiction alternative... Look at Michael and Sanjay in the Dresden Files. They had a Blackened Denarian surrender, and turn over his coin. They let him go. Because mercy should be offered. Harry's not so nice...

If redemption is part of the god's creed, then they should be offered the chance to use it. Michael and Sanjay knew he would look for another coin, but there was the chance he would change his ways. In Pathfinder, a good sense motive check would allow even the most merciful paladin of Saranae to say "You didn't surrender in good faith, you will face justice for your crimes" and not fall.

I feel like we are playing beach volleyball together and I just set you up for a spike and then we do that rad over-under hi-low five from Top Gun while our sunglasses never fall off.

Pass me the cocoa butter!

♪ ♪ ♪ Playinnnnn'
Playinnnnnn with tha boyyyyyzzzzz♪ ♪ ♪

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:
So if a devil is using cunning manipulation to bring about the downfall of civilization then how do I make sure it's not secretly a Lawful Good devil using cunning manipulation to gradually increase the standard of living? Do I need to wait for civilization to fall before I can attack or

That's why Paladins are equipped with other things besides a sword and you with a brain.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
When you've been playing D&D for a long enough time, you will know that my argument holds more water than the seven seas. If you are basing all your logic on AP's then you are in a sad little boat my friend.

The smug is strong with this one, yeeesssss.


When I put the devil on trial do I need to summon a bunch of other devils to form the jury of its peers?

Also remind me why smiting devils is bad again?

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Roberta Yang wrote:
Also remind me why smiting devils is bad again?

No one is saying that as a general case. People are saying exceptions exist.

Seeing other play styles exclusively through the lens of caricature is bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But "exceptions exist" is being used as an argument for "whenever you encounter a devil, you must first conduct long-term monitoring of its actions to make sure it isn't actually a unique Good devil, otherwise you are a failure as a paladin".

Dark Archive

You know full-well that's not what anyone is saying.

There's a very marked difference between "don't immediately charge and smite the devil the instant you see it," and "spend ten whole sessions trying to discern if that devil has done something evil."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


When you've been playing D&D for a long enough time, you will know that my argument holds more water than the seven seas. If you are basing all your logic on AP's then you are in a sad little boat my friend.

Edit: There is more to Pathfinder than just kill, take loot, rinse and repeat.

Whoah there buddy. I've been trying to be nice and argue with my brain, not with my emotions. Please try to do the same. Insulting people accomplishes nothing. If you don't have anything productive to say, please leave.

Now then, I have played for several years, have played a ton of AD&D modules, several adventure paths from Paizo and dungeon magazine, have DMed multiple times, created my own adventures, played other adventures created by other DM's, etc.

In that vast range of material I have found, I have seen demons and devils used as an attack piece about equally. There is a reason why barbazu have glaives and are referred to as grunts. Lemures are too stupid to communicate with. Bone Devils obviously don't have that stinger for diplomatic reasons. Pit Fiends do not need that much power if they are intended as a talking piece. Devils, Demons, Daemons, etc. all are attack AND talking pieces.

Since you seem to hold yourself as a paragon of roleplaying, I would assume that you have conversed with succubi instead of smiting them? Particularly since they usually don't attack? There you go. Demon that doesn't attack you on sight.

The bottom line is that most DM's will not introduce EVERY fiend for the purpose of negotiation. More often than not it will be for fighting purposes. Particularly since 99% of adventures involving demons/devils cast them as the foe. Pre-made OR DM made.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Actually, as I read it Roberta,

It's more of a mindset that you should make sure you know what you're smiting. 99 times out of 100, you're going to be fine, smite first and ask questions later. Just don't complain that 100th time.

In my risen outsider example, if the paladin had killed the devil right off, he'd not have fallen. If the Paladin had killed the devil when he showed up at the school, he'd not have fallen. She's still an evil outsider. (Now if she specifically showed up with a flag of truce, and said she was there to talk and not fight or corrupt, then it might be a chaotic act to attack anyway, but not evil.

.01% of my devils in my hypothetical would still end up Lawful Evil outsiders. But by being the merciful one, the Paladin adds to the forces of good, instead of just subtracting the forces of evil.

Now on the other side, the GM should make sure not every demon or devil or daemon is looking for redemption. Just like some people are perfectly comfortable being evil (Charles Manson, for example.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:

You know full-well that's not what anyone is saying.

There's a very marked difference between "don't immediately charge and smite the devil the instant you see it," and "spend ten whole sessions trying to discern if that devil has done something evil."

If the DM says "the demon/devil looks at you and opens its mouth to speak," my Paladin characters always wait and listen. Information could be obtained, vital secrets could be uncovered, and since the creature isn't currently threatening, it is a potential to parley.

Most DMs say "the demon sees you, raises its claws, and attacks." And I've played in several gaming groups with a variety of people of varying ages. So this isn't an anomaly. Plus...devils are listed as evil, and are presented as a monster. In fact, devils/demons epitomize evil. So I fail to see why certain people are defending them. (Not talking about you Seranov.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:
"don't immediately charge and smite the devil the instant you see it,"

Why not? It's a devil.

Hell, what sort of setting do your paladins live in where they aren't trained that devils are bad and need to be smited?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well obviously you shouldn't hold back if it's coming to eat your face. But if it's going to try and eat you, you can bet it's okay to smite it.

Roberta Yang wrote:
Seranov wrote:
"don't immediately charge and smite the devil the instant you see it,"

Why not? It's a devil.

Hell, what sort of setting do your paladins live in where they aren't trained that devils are bad and need to be smited?

The same setting where being a murderhobo is heavily looked down upon.

I'm actually making a new character for the game I was playing my Half-orc Redeemer in because the party is just full-blown KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF. A Paladin doesn't belong in a situation like that, and for that reason, I'm having him return to his Church, rather than go against his morals and proper Paladin-ly duties.

Instead I'm making a TN Oracle of Battle who doesn't give a f$&+, and it should go much better. But playing a Paladin is certainly not, and should not be!, as easy or one-dimensional as PING EVIL, SMITE.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, good, a parley. Maybe we can negotiate and work out some terms of understanding and agreement? As a champion of good there's nothing I'd love to do more than literally making a deal with a devil.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Seranov wrote:
"don't immediately charge and smite the devil the instant you see it,"

Why not? It's a devil.

Hell, what sort of setting do your paladins live in where they aren't trained that devils are bad and need to be smited?

One where devils are crafty and killing them will often result in more harm than good.

151 to 200 of 1,121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.