Delthyn's page

With a Bard, an Inquisitor, and a Witch, they're golden. If the PCs seem low on healing at low levels, toss them a bone (or a wand of cure light wounds with 10 charges).
The point of the game is to have fun. Let them have fun and play what they want to play. I don't know where you got the idea of "making their characters," but its a bad idea. Nothing ruins a game faster for people than playing pre-gens. However, it is your game, and your rules.

It looks as if certain people have spilled stuff from another thread into this one.

Anyway, right off the bat, the least played classes will be the ones NOT from the core rulebook, because most people are going to default to that book first, or buy it first, or only own that and not the other sourcebooks.

Other than that, in my campaigns the most popular classes are:

-Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues. Everyone in my group seems to like melee, lots of action, and "tough" characters.

Sometimes played classes include:

-Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Wizards. They tend to avoid spellcasting in large amounts.

The unloved classes are:

Bard (Because who wants to sing monsters to death?)
Monk (Because it tends to not fit in with our games)

As for the APG classes, there's interest in Alchemists and Summoners, and of course the Gunslinger and Magus accrue some attention.

But the least played class would certainly be bard.

I believe I've effectively proved my point on this subject as well in other threads: The Fighter still doesn't have an overwhelming combat advantage over other martials. He has a +1-3 to-hit and +4-6 damage on any of the other full BaB martial classes...assuming they're not using their main class features (Smite, Rage, Favored Enemy) at which point any of these guys can match or outstrip the Fighter in to-hit and damage, and still have other major advantages over him (Saves for all of them, and of course the Barbarian can snag Pounce, among other things).

So he doesn't even have "master of combat" to[/b][/b]...

Apparently you've never seen the smile on the player's face when he goes to attack the enemy...again...with the same, good old greatsword. He doesn't care what your math says, or how more OP barbarians or paladins are. He's having fun swinging that sword. A plain, simple character with high numbers, consistent damage, and a good AC. Every level he gets a new feat, which allows him to get better "power-ups" faster than any other class.

We simply discard intimidate, diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc.

I as a GM am no great actor, and neither are my players, but we enjoy talking it out rather than simply talking and then rolling dice...or just rolling dice.

If a player with poor communication skills plays a high charisma, talkative character, I let them get away with stupider or less plausible things more often. Likewise, even if they give a great argument, but have a low charisma, the NPC acts suspiciously.

It adds more roleplaying and verisimilitude to the game, imho. Fighting requires a mechanic, but having a mechanic for discussion breaks the suspension of disbelief far too often.

[B]Fighter[B]: One who fights.

So by definition, your forte is in combat, not out of combat. Rogues are not inherently as good in combat (lower hit die, BAB, etc.), and a non-optimized mage/divine spellcaster will not be able to keep up with the fighter in straight combat prowess.
The fighter has powerful attacks, good AC, and plenty of hit points. He is dependable, straightforward, and good at what he does. Besides someone who can use a CLW wand, the warrior is the person I most want in the party, especially at low levels. In fact, at low levels, you are probably the most important player, unless the GM lets the wizard and the cleric rest for 8 hours after each fight. You are the only guy besides the rogue who can truck on all day and still be at maximum potential.

The downside of course, is that out of combat, you are far weaker. You can't heal yourself really, you're no skill monkey, and you certainly do not have the versatility of a wizard. Just pick whatever skills you think would come in handy or be useful, and max them out. Pick up a magic item or two that you can use (marvelous pigments, bag of tricks, etc.), and utilize these to provide help.

Finally, don't let the "optimization experts" tell you that you can't contribute. Because you can. Anyone can roleplay and have fun, and that is what Pathfinder is all about. Good luck with your character!

This can go one of two routes. A good GM only sacks a Paladin if they absolutely, 100% deserved it. A bad GM will sack them for committing any act that is chaotic or evil in nature. For example, seeing a demon and smiting it is always a good thing, because demons are evil. Bad GMs will make said demon LG without warning the player, thus making the Paladin fall.

Anti-Paladin's fall: Bad GM: If your Anti-Paladin ever follows the tenets of his deity, then he is being orderly, thus he must be sacked. If he doesn't follow the tenets of his deity, then he is probably doing good, hence he must be sacked. Anytime that A-Paladin follows an order, upholds ANY tradition, or spares anyone's life, he must fall.

Anti-Paladin's fall: Good GM: If the Anti-Paladin shows signs of goodness, like being peaceful to villagers, or helping them, or sparing the lives of any good creature, then he treads dangerous ground and may need to be smote by his god.

The big thing to note is that a good GM drops Anti-Paladins for committing good acts, whereas a bad GM drops Anti-Paladins for committing lawful acts. Good/Evil is the mission, law/chaos is the means and ways you go about it. Although a massive breach in your law/chaos side could be punished, the good/evil side is the most important, and the more clear-cut side. It is very obvious what is good and what is evil in 90% of situations. Dropping a Paladin for being too lawful or too chaotic is very nitpicky, unless it is a far too obvious and continual breach.

If my player can prove to me that they can play X alignment "paladin" well, I allow it. It makes little sense for only LG deities to have martial champions. Every deity should have them. With a little bit of reflavoring, almost any Paladin-type becomes entirely possible.

Note that CE, LE and CG Paladins work better than NE, NG, CN and LN Paladins because of the dual focus. TN Paladins...work...but they require a very experienced roleplayer, or else they become rather unfocused. Good/Evil defines the mission, Chaos/Law is the means that they use. For instance, a NG Paladin is devoted to good. How they go about being good is easier to determine if you stick a C or a L on it.

I use a few rules to determine Paladin abilities:

1. Good/Evil takes precedence over Chaos/Law. A CG Paladin has detect evil, not detect law, for instance. Likewise, a CE Paladin has smite good, not smite law.

2. State your deity. If the deity is NE, NG, CN or LN, I usually make them choose an alignment one step off. For instance, a paladin of Sarenrae would choose to be a LG Paladin or a CG Paladin.

3. Prove to me that you can roleplay this properly, and prove that it will not conflict with the group/campaign. No CN Paladin in a campaign where everyone else is a servant of the Axiomites, for instance.

4. Give me a code. It has to include at least 3 rules that govern your behavior and give you "things thou shalt not do," and must include rules for "falling" from grace. A CG Paladin code might look like this, for example:

"I shall free all slaves, do what is good no matter the rules that I break, and shall respect freedom and liberty above all else. I shall heal the sick, comfort the sorrowful, and bring light into the darkness. I shall never uphold slavery, nor shall I use vile implements, like torture or poison. If I ever act against freedom or good, I shall lose my power until I atone."

Paladins, like clerics, need a code/fall-condition. Otherwise, they could get away with anything and still have their deities' favor. However, in terms of power, Paladins are not OP, and the "fall from grace" is NOT a balancing tool. It is there for "roleplaying" reasons. DMs should not abuse it, nor should players violate it. Only make a Paladin fall if they absolutely, 100% deserved it.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the wall of text.

I'll just leave this here. It should prove relevant.

Well some fundamentalists might argue that it is only evil if you enjoy it but I think grappling was created for our pleasure.

From a realistic standpoint, it is an evil act. A succubus is a creature of vile and disgusting evil who exists to tempt and corrupt mortals. As such, the Paladinly thing to do would be to smite it before it can fire off a spell.

However, it is quite obvious that 4 pages of material could not be produced from that viewpoint.

And as for grappling being created for our pleasure...you've never tried to understand the grapple rules have you?

Well the paladin thread does contain relevant information to this thread in the form of the question of if the paladin can lay hands on the succubus during a grapple. My thought is that he can lay hands all over her in a grapple

Edit: Will he lose his paladin status for laying hands on a succubus and if so will he need to atone by being punished for being a naughty naughty boy.

Solution: Lay on Hands, then use Smite Evil. This gets you the best of both worlds. Certain deities may object to this, so bear that in mind.

One can only imagine the atonement process for such a breach of the Paladin code. Fortunately most Paladins come to their sense before committing any such act.

Over 150 posts detailing and debating the issue of a "succubus in a grapple."

This must be a highly contested subject that contains many unclearly worded rules and debatable clauses, not to mention being an issue that clearly needs much attention and serious discussion.

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.

Yay! Someone who understands!

Demons/devils hate good things. Paladins are servants of the good things. It is not a mutually agreeable relationship. Someone in that conversation is going to die. And since demons and devils are listed as "always X Evil" in the books, and you're probably encountering it in a cultist lair or fiendish fortress...it is a good idea to kill it.

Demons are not orcs. Orcs have the potential to be good, and are not inherently disposed toward any alignment. They are neutral at birth, and become evil and chaotic as they age, victims of their environment.

Demons, evil dragons, etc. are BORN evil according to the fluff. When demons rise from the protoplasm, as re-created souls of foul murderers and rapists...they are evil. They define evil. They epitomize evil. The chance in a million that one might, might be good is so slim that it would be downright miraculous.

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.)

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.

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.

Low magic has always interested me. I don't have the time to re-write the game system though, so a no-magic campaign goes too far. Plus I like playing wizards, clerics, etc.

In the end, I think low/no magic is more of a lark than a continual playstyle. Eventually the people who like playing spellcasters with hundreds of options and tons of magic items would get tired of saying "I hit it."

Not to mention that without magic healing...you would have to use a "healing surge" type system, or its equivalent. Non bueno.

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.

Dang. And I didn't start D&D until I was 11-12. Little did I know that I could have played it from age 6.

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.

Shallowsoul has a point. In addition, most deities are highly intelligent, and are not lawful stupid. Hence, they are very likely to warn the Paladin or show their displeasure in a small way in the case of a minor breach, and may just turn their back on a tiny breach (a white lie for instance), if doing so elevates and advances the cause of good.

Only in huge cases of alignment breach (slaying an innocent, good creature) should they smite their servants. Once a DM declares a paladin to be fallen, the next logical step is atonement. Which means quest for redemption. Which means awesome free adventure hook for a DM. Everyone wins.

As for the Book of Exalted Deeds, it was a good read, and had plenty of interesting stuff in it. Much better overall than BoVD in my opinion. 'Course, BoVD was designed for DM's rather than players. I did object to otherworldy horrors (mind flayers) being good aligned though. Seems like a breach in proper behavior if you ask me.

Unfortunately, our beloved illithids are copyrighted by WotC, and hence will never appear in a Bestiary. Not even in lawful good form. Alas, what dark days are these.

I think the alignment system is a good system in theory. In practice...it becomes a problem. Particularly since law and chaos are put on the same level as good and evil. It becomes even more difficult when you have the "individualistic morality" viewpoints clashing. So good means X to me but Y to you. It gets so bad sometimes that people start thinking that being good is a bad thing.

Granted, people who claim/profess to be good have done bad things. But that reflects on them, not on their order/alignment, or it should. In this enlightened age, we should realize that one bad person does not necessarily symbolize their entire order.

The Paladin class is a good class, just as good as any other. It can be fun to play, and fun for the entire group. The issue is that somewhere, somehow, some idiot decided that Paladins are too restrictive and it became the motto of all gamers.

If you were honestly playing a druid to the hilt, then you would have to stop your wizard from casting fireball in the forest. You would have to prevent your fellows from eating meat if you were part of a vegetarian sect. You would have to heal every injured animal, and free every mistreated horse or dog. You would have to stop people from cutting down trees, or making roads through forests. You would to break dams and stop cows from being slaughtered for food.

Does anyone play a druid like that? No. So the Paladin doesn't have to be played as an extremist either. Keep some perspective please.

Another thing is this: The Paladin is not the only class with a "code."

If a Barbarian has traditions and respects his chief, then that is lawful behavior. He loses rage powers right?

Clerics must follow the teachings of their deities. They too can fall from grace. And Clerics are of all alignments. They are directly beholden to a fickle extradimensional entity that can strip them of their power at ANY TIME.

Druids cannot wear metal armor, should destroy undead, and can't be strongly affiliated with two alignments.

A monk must be lawful, which makes him just as bad as a Paladin, since a lot of the debate is attacking the lawful, not the good, part.

Should we all play bards, fighters, rangers, rogues, sorcerers and wizards so that we are not beholden to any code? Or should we realize that the Paladin just has a bit more writing on the subject of code than the other 4 classes?

Because if you hate codes, and the GM's ability to strip you of power, then you should never, ever, play a paladin or cleric.

Just a quick reminder to some gentlemen/ladies on page 2: Some of the discussion seemed a bit...hateful...toward real-world religion. This is not to say that things like selling indulgences are morally correct, because they are not, but try to avoid attacking real-world religion.

Paladins are, in my games, pretty much sworn to destroy that which is inherently evil. Undead, evil dragons, demons, devils, daemons, etc. In extreme cases though, it is possible for a Paladin to not destroy them outright if doing so would further the cause of good in a different way. Ashes at Dawn, the 5th part of the Carrion Crown AP, features a little moral problem of that sort. If you've read/played that, you know what I am talking about. In that instance, it is better to do X so that Y does not occur.

I continue to see a lot of overblown descriptions the Paladin in this thread. Let us examine the Paladin code and see what is so bad about it.

Must be Lawful Good, loses abilities if ever he/she commits an evil act: This is obviously somewhat restrictive, but a good character shouldn't be committing evil acts anyway. Particularly if a good character is played correctly. And according to this, you can perform a chaotic act without falling, as long as said chaotic act does not make you become NG or CG. Bit of breathing room there.

Respect legitimate authority: What is so bad about that? A good king should be followed if he is truly good. And if a king is evil, and oppresses his people, he is no longer a legitimate authority. Hence, the Paladin need not respect him. In addition, respect is different from obey. More breathing room.

Act with Honor: This one is open-ended. No lying, cheating, poison, etc. Any LG, LN or LE character would act with honor though. It is part of being lawful. Poison is weak to begin with. This does make subterfuge difficult, but by no means impossible. It becomes less difficult if the DM rules that ends justify means in situations where the lie hurts nobody.

Help those in need: excellent. Something that everyone should do. Something that a lot of organized, global religions do. A good thing all around. Tithe perhaps 100 gp after every adventure to beggars, or your church, etc. Always accept quests from helpless villagers. (The DM wants you to do so anyway.)

Punish those who harm or threaten innocents: PUNISH. Not kill. Punish. Could mean kill, but doesn't have to. You are not a killing machine. In addition, it allows you to spare the lives of evil creatures that do not harm or threaten innocents.

Overall, I see nothing too constricting here. Seems like a decent enough code. Finally, you can always pray to your deity, and have the DM tell you whether or not what you are thinking of doing would be a good or evil act. Simple as that. Viva la Paladin.

Final note:

Paladins are a good class for roleplaying as well. Particularly if you behave like say, Dr. Who or another similar character from fiction, who prefers to talk first if possible, rather than just slay. Lawful simply defines order and tradition. Good is the key. A Good creature, particularly a truly good creature, will have mercy on the weak, fight in self-defense, aid the poor, treat prisoners fairly, etc.

This may not be optimal in a hack and slash campaign, but then again, issues of alignment rarely come up in hack and slash. Everyone's too busy sacking chests and slaying monsters to worry about morals and RP fluff.

In the end, I would say that the Paladin has a place firmly in D&D/PF. It is a solid class mechanically, can be fun to play, and if the group decides that they don't want it, well, that is their decision. No different than banning psionics. The Paladin does not deserve hate.

@Sitri:

What makes a CG paladin so much better than a LG paladin? What is it about LG that you despise so much? The only point that I will give you is that CG fits much better with hack-n-slash dungeon crawling and more "Pirates of the Carribean" style adventure than a standard, straightforward LG knight would. In fact, I have always thought that paladin should be a chassis for each alignment, with "re-named" or "re-fluffed" powers based upon alignment.

Now then, question time. Is every CE character a knife-wielding psychopath who appears in the world, hacks down everything in his path, burns everything, screams, rages, and then gets slain himself? Is destruction and entropy all that CE stands for? Mindless rage and devastation?

The answer is no. Extreme cases, like demons, maybe, but your standard orc tribe still values certain things, and likes certain traditions and customs to be upheld. Sounds lawful, right? Yet orcs are still CE. So can't a Paladin act different from the ethos? The answer to that is yes. He can.

Not every Paladin needs to be a knight in shining armor smiting every evil in his path. They are human/demi-human/non-humans too. The Paladin code is blown way out of proportion, as is the entire concept of LG. Just being LG does not make you a crusader, just as being CE does not make you a psychopath. Unless you are in a campaign world where alignments are taken to extreme absolutes.

As a Paladin you are obliged to fight evil, do the right thing, and not let your fellows commit evil acts, but that doesn't constrict you. And if your party consists of assassins, blackguards and vile warlocks who need to be constantly told not to slaughter prisoners...then maybe that is not a Paladin-friendly campaign.

Being a Paladin does not mean that you HAVE to be a 2-d knight.

First off, in response to a few people who have questioned my analysis on page one, the key is that particularly here in America, the concept of "public morality" has been dying. We keep our religion/beliefs to ourselves, or are supposed to if we are of X group. Y group can go right ahead and freely discuss Z in public. Anyway, the point is that there are very few people who believe in a prime moral law.

Without a right/wrong guide, it becomes personal interpretation. Are most religions right/wrong guides 100% correct? No. Are they often a fairly decent guide? Yes.

There is nothing wrong with helping the poor, giving shelter to the homeless, providing medical aid to the sick, and comforting the bereaved. Basic tenants of several religions right there.

Stick the Paladin into that, the guy who follows a prime moral law, and he has a tough road to tread. Particularly if his allies do things like slaughter prisoners or kill innocent bystanders.

The Paladin is not a bad class, and is fun to play. The issue is society has rejected the concept of a Paladin.

Second Reason for Paladin Hate

Paladins are treated very 2 dimensionally by most people. He is a "cavalier in shining armor who smites the wicked." That is how a lot of people play the class. It shows no imagination. Perhaps the wording or the ethos behind the class leads to this stupidity, but regardless, its there.

Imagine if everyone played Barbarians like a Conan character. Or everyone played Wizards like Gandalf. Or everyone played Rangers like Robin Hood. If you can replace the class name with a fictional character's name, then you've done it wrong. You are not properly role-playing the class. A lot of people who play Paladin could rename it "Sir Gallahad" and be done with it.

Which is stupid. So please. Make a 3-D Paladin next time you go to do so. Come up with 10 or so examples of possible moral conundrums that may come up. Solve them in your head. Use that as a guide. Watch more Dr. Who or what not to see how good should behave.

note
A final consideration is that good should always come before law. If doing the right thing means breaking a law, or thinking creatively, always be creative. If an evil creature seeks mercy, give it to them. Don't slaughter it down because it "deserves to pay for its crimes!" The road of pure LAW leads to many a Paladin's fall. Following good is usually safer. Particularly if you follow a LG or NG deity. You are a servant of a beneficent deity, not an inevitable.

Finally, as a Paladin, you can always ask the DM: "I offer a quick prayer to my deity, what seems to be the proper course of action?"

Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.

In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."

Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...

In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.

Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"

So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.

That "paladin" should fall faster than the speed of light.

Even if a creature is evil, slaughtering it when it offers no resistance is wholly wrong. Forcing it to stand trial for crimes (if any), or what not would be acceptable, but mercilessly slaying it was morally unacceptable.

I ensure that in my games, any character I play of good alignment will help evil creatures that I capture/stun. After interrogating a goblin in Rise of the Runelords, I gave it some bread and let it run back to its people. Had it tried to kill me, then I could have killed it in self-defense.

Paladins should respect all life, and treat it with honor. That goblin that I let run free was part of a tribe that had never before attacked the humans. I knew that a greater evil was behind this, and the goblin was just "doing its job." It may have been evil, but since it was A: a prisoner, and B: a usually non-aggressive creature, I let it run free.

What occurred in your game is double what happened in mine. The goblin tried to kill me, the wererat did not even attack the paladin.

Have Ioemedae (or whoever) drop that paladin like he's hot.

I think that you are overplaying the potential of ray of frost. A staff or rock does just as well as an ice ball.

Not to mention that this is a ray. It only targets a very small point. Not an area, a point. Which means that it could not be used to create an ice sheet in a second. It would probably take about 10-20 castings to make a 5 foot square of ice.

If the use of the cantrip seems plausible, then reward the player for doing something other than saying "I hit it! I spam it with fire!" If however, the idea seems to be out in left field (I cast ray of frost to freeze the dragon's mouth shut!), then just say no.

In any event, RoF is the least of your worries. Just wait until one of your players sees the potential in prestidigitation!