Paladin Sword of Beserking


Advice

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Cursed Items wrote:
Removing Cursed Items: While some cursed items can be simply discarded, others force a compulsion upon the user to keep the item, no matter the costs. Others reappear even if discarded or are impossible to throw away. These items can only be discarded after the character or item is targeted by a remove curse or similar magic. The DC of the caster level check to undo the curse is equal to 10 + the item's caster level. If the spell is successful, the item can be discarded on the following round, but the curse reasserts itself if the item is used again.

I'd say you can simply get rid of it, once there is no longer a living thing within 30 feet of you. Other specific cursed items are very clear if it required a remove curse to get rid of it.


MrCharisma wrote:
hjs102 wrote:
I will probably rule that the beserk effect is not intended to allow nonlethal, and he will need to attack for lethal (we do not do strict RAW if there is a solid case for reasonable intents).

I'd let them do non-lethal if they come up with it, but I wouldn't suggest it to them. (Or you could let them deal non-lethal only if they pass a save or something?)

Think of it as the Paladin trying his hardest not to kill people despite the curse.

Fair enough. I'll bite. Say, Will DC = 10 + 1/2 item caster level + ability modifier to do non-lethal instead of lethal? However, even with success I'd make the paladin atone for beating his comrades to unconsciousness without being provoked to defend himself against his stalwart companions. That should make him want to get rid of that sword.


After they are unconcious the sword will force him to continue attacking unti there are no -living- beings within 30', so he will pummel them to death if not interrupted. Nonlethal converts to lethal after KO.


hjs102 wrote:
It says "willingly commits an evil act, OR violates the code of conduct" so I assume if there is a stipulation about not attacking the helpless (which is in the case of my player's code) he will fall. However the atonement will count it as unintentional.

Actually it doesn't say that at all. The exact quote is:

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

Lose abilities if you willingly commit an evil act. The second paragraph goes on to say:

"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."

That means if you willingly commit an evil act you lose paladin abilities and you have to follow a code. There is no consequence listed for not following the code, so it's as much an RP thing as a cleric having to follow the tenets of their faith (that no one seems to care about. A cleric of Abadar loots an entire castle no one bats an eye, a Paladin gets mind controlled to step on a bug HE MUST FALL!. Making a paladin fall for an action they had no control over falls under GM asshattery


Jodokai wrote:
hjs102 wrote:
It says "willingly commits an evil act, OR violates the code of conduct" so I assume if there is a stipulation about not attacking the helpless (which is in the case of my player's code) he will fall. However the atonement will count it as unintentional.

Actually it doesn't say that at all. The exact quote is:

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

Lose abilities if you willingly commit an evil act. The second paragraph goes on to say:

"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."

That means if you willingly commit an evil act you lose paladin abilities and you have to follow a code. There is no consequence listed for not following the code, so it's as much an RP thing as a cleric having to follow the tenets of their faith (that no one seems to care about. A cleric of Abadar loots an entire castle no one bats an eye, a Paladin gets mind controlled to step on a bug HE MUST FALL!. Making a paladin fall for an action they had no control over falls under GM asshattery

honestly if a gm makes the paladin fall for something he has no control over then they should have just disallowed paladin all together.


Nezzarine Shadowmantle wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
hjs102 wrote:
I will probably rule that the beserk effect is not intended to allow nonlethal, and he will need to attack for lethal (we do not do strict RAW if there is a solid case for reasonable intents).

I'd let them do non-lethal if they come up with it, but I wouldn't suggest it to them. (Or you could let them deal non-lethal only if they pass a save or something?)

Think of it as the Paladin trying his hardest not to kill people despite the curse.
Fair enough. I'll bite. Say, Will DC = 10 + 1/2 item caster level + ability modifier to do non-lethal instead of lethal? However, even with success I'd make the paladin atone for beating his comrades to unconsciousness without being provoked to defend himself against his stalwart companions. That should make him want to get rid of that sword.

I wouldn't MAKE them atone (they may want to anyway), but if they ever pick that sword up again it's on them.

For the record I'm VERY against making a paladin fall out of the blue. If their powers come from a god, that god should give them clues that they're unhappy long before they just cut them off for good.

Actually if you DO want to make them atone, you could make some of their less important powers start acting unreliably?

I dunno, just spit-balling ...


For those pushing the "must be willingly committing the act" point, bear in mind that Pathfinder assumes a pretty magical world and based on the encounter being described I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the paladin in question has never encountered harmful magic. Furthermore, unless the paladin is incredibly naive, I would have to believe they are aware there may be enchanted items that have ... less than desirable effects when used.

Putting that together, knowing the impact that magic can have when used or having been affected by it, I would argue that the paladin knowingly put themselves and their station as a paladin at risk by using untested magical items without making sure they wouldn't break their oaths.

Now, that said, if the paladin and the rest of the party made reasonable efforts to investigate and ensure the sword was safe and did not successfully turn up the curse, then at that point the infraction would be less serious.


Quintessentially Me wrote:

For those pushing the "must be willingly committing the act" point, bear in mind that Pathfinder assumes a pretty magical world and based on the encounter being described I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the paladin in question has never encountered harmful magic. Furthermore, unless the paladin is incredibly naive, I would have to believe they are aware there may be enchanted items that have ... less than desirable effects when used.

Putting that together, knowing the impact that magic can have when used or having been affected by it, I would argue that the paladin knowingly put themselves and their station as a paladin at risk by using untested magical items without making sure they wouldn't break their oaths.

Now, that said, if the paladin and the rest of the party made reasonable efforts to investigate and ensure the sword was safe and did not successfully turn up the curse, then at that point the infraction would be less serious.

on the other hand they could be completely new to dungions and dragons and have little idea of whats going on


Lady-J wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:

For those pushing the "must be willingly committing the act" point, bear in mind that Pathfinder assumes a pretty magical world and based on the encounter being described I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where the paladin in question has never encountered harmful magic. Furthermore, unless the paladin is incredibly naive, I would have to believe they are aware there may be enchanted items that have ... less than desirable effects when used.

Putting that together, knowing the impact that magic can have when used or having been affected by it, I would argue that the paladin knowingly put themselves and their station as a paladin at risk by using untested magical items without making sure they wouldn't break their oaths.

Now, that said, if the paladin and the rest of the party made reasonable efforts to investigate and ensure the sword was safe and did not successfully turn up the curse, then at that point the infraction would be less serious.

on the other hand they could be completely new to dungions and dragons and have little idea of whats going on

I'd let it slide if they use an untested one. Cursed items are an exception, not the norm, and usually my players check their items to see what they do, not to see if they're cursed. Unless I've been telegraphing that there is probably something wrong, they get a free pass for it. However, the Paladin had better be praying for anyone unintentionally injured/killed by their berserk rage. If they use it again with full knowledge of the consequences, everything from there on out is on them. Kudos to them if they avoid doing evil with it.


My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
STUFF
MORE STUFF
I'd let it slide if they use an untested one. Cursed items are an exception, not the norm, and usually my players check their items to see what they do, not to see if they're cursed. Unless I've been telegraphing that there is probably something wrong, they get a free pass for it. However, the Paladin had better be praying for anyone unintentionally injured/killed by their berserk rage. If they use it again with full knowledge of the consequences, everything from there on out is on them. Kudos to them if they avoid doing evil with it.

Yeah I agree, not everyone goes around assuming the world is out to get them (Hell, Paladins are immune to fear & often have WIS as their dump stat, so they're the LEAST likely to be cautious).

Having said that, once they've used it (and seen it's destructive power) I'd give them a pretty clear message that they shouldn't use it again. If they do keep using it (and killing innocents) they can't use the "not willing" argument ... fallen paladin is now fair game.


MrCharisma wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Quintessentially Me wrote:
STUFF
MORE STUFF
I'd let it slide if they use an untested one. Cursed items are an exception, not the norm, and usually my players check their items to see what they do, not to see if they're cursed. Unless I've been telegraphing that there is probably something wrong, they get a free pass for it. However, the Paladin had better be praying for anyone unintentionally injured/killed by their berserk rage. If they use it again with full knowledge of the consequences, everything from there on out is on them. Kudos to them if they avoid doing evil with it.

Yeah I agree, not everyone goes around assuming the world is out to get them (Hell, Paladins are immune to fear & often have WIS as their dump stat, so they're the LEAST likely to be cautious).

Having said that, once they've used it (and seen it's destructive power) I'd give them a pretty clear message that they shouldn't use it again. If they do keep using it (and killing innocents) they can't use the "not willing" argument ... fallen paladin is now fair game.

that is assuming said paladin is a lawful good/neutral good paladin


Lady-J wrote:
that is assuming said paladin is a lawful good/neutral good paladin

The grand majority of paladins are. Even the Gray Paladin falls if they voluntarily commit an evil act (even if Lawful Neutral!), so they too are not able to safely wield the Blade of Killing All Your Friends.


Saethori wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
that is assuming said paladin is a lawful good/neutral good paladin
The grand majority of paladins are. Even the Gray Paladin falls if they voluntarily commit an evil act (even if Lawful Neutral!), so they too are not able to safely wield the Blade of Killing All Your Friends.

that still leaves chaotic good, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil paladins.


So, ex-paladins? Your defense to a paladin that can't fall is one that already has?

...well, I suppose they can't fall twice...


A Chaotic Good paladin is just as guilty of reckless actions that lead to innocent deaths as a Neutral Good or Lawful Good character. They're actually more likely to fall that way—as opposed to a Lawful Good paladin, who's more likely to fall due to overly strict adherence to code.

Of course, there are no non-LG paladins in Pathfinder, and that's just how I like it. ;D


Saethori wrote:

So, ex-paladins? Your defense to a paladin that can't fall is one that already has?

...well, I suppose they can't fall twice...

there are ways arround the paladin alignment restrictions and code of conduct achetypes are one example of this. if your dm isn't a stickler for alignment restrictions. at my table paladins just have to be the alignment of the god they worship wana play a chaotic evil paladin go for it, wana play a lawful good anti paladin also go for it but you better have plenty of uses of remove desiese. paladins/antipaladins gain their power from either the god they worship/serve or from their own power of will(oath style paladins)


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

A Chaotic Good paladin is just as guilty of reckless actions that lead to innocent deaths as a Neutral Good or Lawful Good character. They're actually more likely to fall that way—as opposed to a Lawful Good paladin, who's more likely to fall due to overly strict adherence to code.

Of course, there are no non-LG paladins in Pathfinder, and that's just how I like it. ;D

actually the chaotic good paladins code only states they need to fight against tyranny it says nothing about not doing evil stuff


Really? Okay, then. If they aren't banned from doing evil shit, they can do whatever they like. Of course, none of this is Pathfinder.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Really? Okay, then. If they aren't banned from doing evil s@#*, they can do whatever they like. Of course, none of this is Pathfinder.

It sounds like homebrewfinder.

Not that I'm entirely opposed to LN, NG, and CG Paladins, but it seems like a pretty awful move as a LG guy to give everyone your cold and your filth fever.


It seems very weird that the Chaotic Good paladin gets to be less Good than the Lawful Good one. Ethics aren't in any way linked to morals—a Chaotic Neutral character is just as neutral as a Lawful Neutral character. But it's someone else's system, so who am I to judge?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Really? Okay, then. If they aren't banned from doing evil s%+&, they can do whatever they like. Of course, none of this is Pathfinder.

The problem is that you want your definition of "evil #%^*" to apply to every paladin in every situation. You (and you being most of the people on these boards) also only want to apply these rules to Paladins when clerics, druids, rangers warpriests and any other divine caster with the possible exception of oracles, all have codes they have to live by too.

If a lawful good paladin comes across a goblin starving to death in a cage does that paladin have to help that goblin? Most people would say yes or he falls (there was a huge thread on it some months back), but read the code again. He's required to help unless that help will be used for chaotic or evil purposes. A goblin will do evil or chaotic things, so a paladin who leaves that goblin in the cage to die a horrible death by starvation is following his code.

But people don't like to hear that. They've been piling all these extra rules on top of the paladin for so long that they've convinced themselves those are the rules.


there are more than a few of the oathbound archetypes were following the code of conduct would allow the paladin to be a lawful evil paladin like killing everything of one type of creature no matter what its alignment or what its done.


Yeah, people disagree about what to do about the goblin in a cage. Kinda how tabletop RPGs work: No two games run exactly alike. And no, I don't apply these rules to clerics/etc. Paladins have a specific rule about evil acts, which even good-aligned clerics lack save in implication. Please don't tell me what I think.

I am not starting a f*@@ing "do you save the goblin baby" argument here, either. Suffice to say it's been discussed already, and I have opinions and readings on it that conflict sharply with yours. You are reading it in a very, very narrow way, then confusing "disagreeing with you" for "not understanding the rules". It's pretty damn patronizing.


Jodokai wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Really? Okay, then. If they aren't banned from doing evil s%+&, they can do whatever they like. Of course, none of this is Pathfinder.

The problem is that you want your definition of "evil #%^*" to apply to every paladin in every situation. You (and you being most of the people on these boards) also only want to apply these rules to Paladins when clerics, druids, rangers warpriests and any other divine caster with the possible exception of oracles, all have codes they have to live by too.

If a lawful good paladin comes across a goblin starving to death in a cage does that paladin have to help that goblin? Most people would say yes or he falls (there was a huge thread on it some months back), but read the code again. He's required to help unless that help will be used for chaotic or evil purposes. A goblin will do evil or chaotic things, so a paladin who leaves that goblin in the cage to die a horrible death by starvation is following his code.

But people don't like to hear that. They've been piling all these extra rules on top of the paladin for so long that they've convinced themselves those are the rules.

I'd say under a more Gygax-ish code, you would be compelled to offer lenience, unless you were entirely sure the goblin would commit crimes and do evil and chaotic things. If you were sure they would start being evil, you would be obligated to mercy-kill them so they do not suffer. Letting them starve would be against your code in any case, unless killing them immediately jeopardized a more important good, such as saving a town of innocents from a dragon. LG paladins would be expected to reconcile law and good whenever possible, and choose good whenever choosing both was impossible.

As for the argument at hand, Kobold Cleaver is saying that Lady-J's CG paladins have no restrictions on doing evil because they are houseruled. CG paladins don't exist in regular Paizo-written Pathfinder (so they must be houseruled), and the limitations on houseruled classes are what you want them to be, so CG paladins have only as many limits as Lady-J applies to them. Since Lady-J says they are not restricted from doing evil, they are not restricted from doing evil. And because it is houseruled, it is not official Paizo Pathfinder.


My Self wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Really? Okay, then. If they aren't banned from doing evil s%+&, they can do whatever they like. Of course, none of this is Pathfinder.

The problem is that you want your definition of "evil #%^*" to apply to every paladin in every situation. You (and you being most of the people on these boards) also only want to apply these rules to Paladins when clerics, druids, rangers warpriests and any other divine caster with the possible exception of oracles, all have codes they have to live by too.

If a lawful good paladin comes across a goblin starving to death in a cage does that paladin have to help that goblin? Most people would say yes or he falls (there was a huge thread on it some months back), but read the code again. He's required to help unless that help will be used for chaotic or evil purposes. A goblin will do evil or chaotic things, so a paladin who leaves that goblin in the cage to die a horrible death by starvation is following his code.

But people don't like to hear that. They've been piling all these extra rules on top of the paladin for so long that they've convinced themselves those are the rules.

I'd say under a more Gygax-ish code, you would be compelled to offer lenience, unless you were entirely sure the goblin would commit crimes and do evil and chaotic things. If you were sure they would start being evil, you would be obligated to mercy-kill them so they do not suffer. Letting them starve would be against your code in any case, unless killing them immediately jeopardized a more important good, such as saving a town of innocents from a dragon. LG paladins would be expected to reconcile law and good whenever possible, and choose good whenever choosing both was impossible.

As for the argument at hand, Kobold Cleaver is saying that Lady-J's CG paladins have no restrictions on doing evil because they are houseruled. CG paladins don't exist in regular Paizo-written Pathfinder (so they must be houseruled), and the limitations...

they are not house ruled they are an actual tangable and called paladin of freedom it is 3rd party tho


3rd party is still not official Paizo. Perhaps not exactly houseruled, but definitely not official Paizo Pathfinder.

Also, you misread the code; There is a provision against evil acts.

Paladin of Freedom wrote:
A paladin of freedom who fails to uphold these tenets, or who causes, by actions or inaction, sentient creatures to lose their liberty or freedom, or who willfully commits evil acts, loses access to all supernatural and spell-like class features, as well as the spell casting ability. Further, she may not gain further levels as a paladin (of freedom, or otherwise). She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she properly atones for her violations as determined by the GM.


Jodokai wrote:


If a lawful good paladin comes across a goblin starving to death in a cage does that paladin have to help that goblin? Most people would say yes or he falls (there was a huge thread on it some months back), but read the code again. He's required to help unless that help will be used for chaotic or evil purposes. A goblin will do evil or chaotic things, so a paladin who leaves that goblin in the cage to die a horrible death by starvation is following his code.

A Paladin who follows the code shows mercy, sometimes even to the undeserving. In this case, mercy is a quick clean death.

Scarab Sages

Eh, just have your god be Torag. His code doesn't allow taking of prisoners unless they are for extracting information from. So, killing all your enemies is fine. Just make sure your allies are 30 ft + from you after your first swing.


Lorewalker wrote:
Eh, just have your god be Torag. His code doesn't allow taking of prisoners unless they are for extracting information from. So, killing all your enemies is fine. Just make sure your allies are 30 ft + from you after your first swing.

There are a lot of bad Paladin players out there. Many of them are abusers of the Torag code. (and I wager, for every one of those bad players is a worse DM.) Torag's no mercy policy only applies to the enemies that attack your homeland. Otherwise standard Paladin codes apply.


dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil


Lady-J wrote:
dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil

Maybe in your games, but I as a DM keep in mind that the Oathbound Paladins DO NOT get any break from the Paladin code. Paladins that put themselves in a position where the Oath they take, may violate the code, have what we call ... A Problem. A Paladin who neglects his duty to protect the innocent, in order to chase down another Demon because of his oath against them, is going to be in real trouble if those innocents come to harm because of the decision he made.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil
Maybe in your games, but I as a DM keep in mind that the Oathbound Paladins DO NOT get any break from the Paladin code. Paladins that put themselves in a position where the Oath they take, may violate the code, have what we call ... A Problem. A Paladin who neglects his duty to protect the innocent, in order to chase down another Demon because of his oath against them, is going to be in real trouble if those innocents come to harm because of the decision he made.

oath against undead paladin who comes across an entire town of peaceful lawful good undead still has to slaughter them all and thus it is an evil act still doesn't fall because of his oath against undead


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil
Maybe in your games, but I as a DM keep in mind that the Oathbound Paladins DO NOT get any break from the Paladin code. Paladins that put themselves in a position where the Oath they take, may violate the code, have what we call ... A Problem. A Paladin who neglects his duty to protect the innocent, in order to chase down another Demon because of his oath against them, is going to be in real trouble if those innocents come to harm because of the decision he made.

Seconded.

Also, note that:

Oathbound Code of Conduct wrote:
The oathbound paladin must abide by the listed tenets of her oath in addition to the specifics of her god’s code of conduct. In some cases, a deity’s or paladin order’s code may conflict with the oath’s tenets; in most cases, these conflicts mean the oath is unsuitable for a paladin of that deity or order (such as the Oath against the Wyrm with respect to a good dragon deity or a dragon-riding order of paladins) and cannot be selected by the paladin.

Your deity will have a code of conduct. All Pathfinder paladin codes are meant to be lawful good, although the specifics differ. At worst, they could be interpreted as lawful neutral, but in general, they are meant to be lawful good.


My Self wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil
Maybe in your games, but I as a DM keep in mind that the Oathbound Paladins DO NOT get any break from the Paladin code. Paladins that put themselves in a position where the Oath they take, may violate the code, have what we call ... A Problem. A Paladin who neglects his duty to protect the innocent, in order to chase down another Demon because of his oath against them, is going to be in real trouble if those innocents come to harm because of the decision he made.

Seconded.

Also, note that:

Oathbound Code of Conduct wrote:
The oathbound paladin must abide by the listed tenets of her oath in addition to the specifics of her god’s code of conduct. In some cases, a deity’s or paladin order’s code may conflict with the oath’s tenets; in most cases, these conflicts mean the oath is unsuitable for a paladin of that deity or order (such as the Oath against the Wyrm with respect to a good dragon deity or a dragon-riding order of paladins) and cannot be selected by the paladin.
Your deity will have a code of conduct. All Pathfinder paladin codes are meant to be lawful good, although the specifics differ. At worst, they could be interpreted as lawful neutral, but in general, they are meant to be lawful good.

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want


Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dang gess i did a well still doesnt change the fact that some paladins can do evil and not fall as most of the oathbound paladins are borderline evil if not completely evil
Maybe in your games, but I as a DM keep in mind that the Oathbound Paladins DO NOT get any break from the Paladin code. Paladins that put themselves in a position where the Oath they take, may violate the code, have what we call ... A Problem. A Paladin who neglects his duty to protect the innocent, in order to chase down another Demon because of his oath against them, is going to be in real trouble if those innocents come to harm because of the decision he made.

Seconded.

Also, note that:

Oathbound Code of Conduct wrote:
The oathbound paladin must abide by the listed tenets of her oath in addition to the specifics of her god’s code of conduct. In some cases, a deity’s or paladin order’s code may conflict with the oath’s tenets; in most cases, these conflicts mean the oath is unsuitable for a paladin of that deity or order (such as the Oath against the Wyrm with respect to a good dragon deity or a dragon-riding order of paladins) and cannot be selected by the paladin.
Your deity will have a code of conduct. All Pathfinder paladin codes are meant to be lawful good, although the specifics differ. At worst, they could be interpreted as lawful neutral, but in general, they are meant to be lawful good.
by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.


My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.

oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god

Scarab Sages

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Eh, just have your god be Torag. His code doesn't allow taking of prisoners unless they are for extracting information from. So, killing all your enemies is fine. Just make sure your allies are 30 ft + from you after your first swing.
There are a lot of bad Paladin players out there. Many of them are abusers of the Torag code. (and I wager, for every one of those bad players is a worse DM.) Torag's no mercy policy only applies to the enemies that attack your homeland. Otherwise standard Paladin codes apply.

You are over-simplifying and maybe have missed the point here.

For one, it isn't for people who attack your homeland. You've translated the words into something that it doesn't say. It is for people who attack your "people". That is whoever your people are. It of course matters for who you choose as your "people". But you certainly don't default to the original paladin code. As your individual god's code replaces it.

You do still follow "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)."
Which means that killing your people's enemies is not an act of evil... as all Paladins of Torag would become ex-Paladins otherwise. No overt acts of evil are allowed. It means you don't kill someone just because they picked your pocket. You are still lawful good, after all. But it does mean if they are your people's enemies... you offer them no mercy.

Following the code is not an abuse. It does mean recognizing the difference between an enemy of your people... and someone who has committed a negative act but isn't worthy of a death sentence. But attacking the defender of your people is as attacking your people. Someone takes a weapon against you... they are an enemy.

For a paladin of Torag, the difference between enemies and everyone else is an important distinction... and I understand how someone can miss the point here. You just have to trust that either others will do their research... or that they will be willing to learn better if they don't quite understand the concept.

So my advice still stands.

Edit:
Being a paladin means having many extra complications... being a paladin of Torag actually adds to that instead of subtracting.

Silver Crusade

Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god

No, no they can not.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.

yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it

Silver Crusade

Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.
yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it

Said book is flat out wrong, putting it in there was a mistake, and the developers and designers have said as such since day 1.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.
yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it
Said book is flat out wrong, putting it in there was a mistake, and the developers and designers have said as such since day 1.

they still made the content and they will have to live with that alignment locking is the real mistake being locked into lawful good in most of the cases is simply dumb and only 3.5 and pathfinder do it every were else the paladin can do whatever the heck they want and in some cases have even more power so that alone puts to rest any of those "its for balance reasons" arguments

Silver Crusade

Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.
yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it
Said book is flat out wrong, putting it in there was a mistake, and the developers and designers have said as such since day 1.
they still made the content and they will have to live with that alignment locking is the real mistake being locked into lawful good in most of the cases is simply dumb and only 3.5 and pathfinder do it every were else the paladin can do whatever the heck they want and in some cases have even more power so that alone puts to rest any of those "its for balance reasons" arguments

No, no they don't.

And examples of Paladins outside of pathfinder not having alignments and/or being "stronger" are flat out pointles since we're, ya'know, talking about Pathfinder.


Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.
yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it
Said book is flat out wrong, putting it in there was a mistake, and the developers and designers have said as such since day 1.
they still made the content and they will have to live with that alignment locking is the real mistake being locked into lawful good in most of the cases is simply dumb and only 3.5 and pathfinder do it every were else the paladin can do whatever the heck they want and in some cases have even more power so that alone puts to rest any of those "its for balance reasons" arguments

No, no they don't.

And examples of Paladins outside of pathfinder not having alignments and/or being "stronger" are flat out pointles since we're, ya'know, talking about Pathfinder.

Additionally, that is a topic better discussed on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew board, not the Advice board.

Silver Crusade

My Self wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
My Self wrote:
Lady-J wrote:

by raw paladins dont actually need a deity altho they should and they should also be able to worship what ever deity they want

It's heavily implied that as an Oathbound paladin, you need to have a deity. Maybe not a regular paladin, but definitely an Oathbound one.
oathbound paladins can have a deity but they dont necessarily have to that said paladins can also worship asmodeus who is a lawful evil god
No, no they can not.
yes they can and there's even a piazo published book that proves it
Said book is flat out wrong, putting it in there was a mistake, and the developers and designers have said as such since day 1.
they still made the content and they will have to live with that alignment locking is the real mistake being locked into lawful good in most of the cases is simply dumb and only 3.5 and pathfinder do it every were else the paladin can do whatever the heck they want and in some cases have even more power so that alone puts to rest any of those "its for balance reasons" arguments

No, no they don't.

And examples of Paladins outside of pathfinder not having alignments and/or being "stronger" are flat out pointles since we're, ya'know, talking about Pathfinder.

Additionally, that is a topic better discussed on the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew board, not the Advice board.

Also this.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin Sword of Beserking All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice