König Drosselbart's page

Or you could just be a scumbag and pay the pope or go off and murder a few folks who believed in a different religion and you were considered honorable again.

Well, I am sorry that I have to say it this directly, but I am afraid that you won't get it any other way: That sentence sufficiently proves that you are absolutely ignorant about history, have no desire to learn about history and refuse to acknowledge how warped your view of history is. In other words: A strong opinion, but no clue whatsoever.

Since trying to illuminate the topic at hand with a historical anecdote went this poorly, we should probably stay in the fictional world of Golarion in this thread.

@Kileanna: This sounds like a happy little accident. If the fall of a paladin furthers a story in a meaningful way, then it was handled correctly.

Honor was a set of rules used to oppress anyone who wasn't noble, especially peasants and women. And actions that need to be taken to "restore honor" tended to be extreme, to say the least; suicide or a deathmatch on the "field of honor" or just straight up killing a person...

No, it wasn't.

The chivalric code was not actually set in stone, it was not a codex like a law, it was a somewhat "floating" concept, comparable to how the meaning of "gentlemanly conduct" is not set in stone.

But it did consist of virtues that a knight was encouraged to obtain. Those virtues usually included:
Humility / Modesty
Dignity
Kindness
Courtly / Polite Conduct
Bravery
Self-Restraint / Discipline
Clemency / Generosity
Courtly Love
Loyalty
Steadfastness

Thus, it was actually meant as a guideline for a knight to become a better person and in extension a better ruler, if he happened to possess some territorial power.

And your part about "restoring honour" is complete nonsense. There was no ritual suicide or ritual killing amongst knights to "restore honour" - medieval Europe wasn't Japan.
There were no set rules how to "lose honour" and how to "regain honour". If a knight violated laws, or betrayed his liege lord, he was punished by him and if he sinned, it was up to the knight to go to confession or not and up to the priest to set a penance.

Who knows, she might still be CE, but at worst it's "only" an "I'm a racist opportunist" CE, not "I'm card-carrying evil and eat babies" CE.

I'd say "opportunist" pretty much sums up CN in one word. Or at the least one prominent facet of CN.

Well, I'll recount a historical event to shed some light on the topic of honour:

When Friedrich II von Babenberg, "the Battlesome", Duke of Austria died 1246 in battle, without having sired an heir, Ottokar II Přemysl, Crown Prince (and later King) of Bohemia took over Austria (some chronicles say he invaded and some that he was called by the Austrian nobility). The next three decades Ottokar expanded his sphere of influence and set his eyes on becoming the Holy Roman Emperor. The Prince-electors however were suspicious of the amount of power he had accumulated and voted for Count Rudolf von Habsburg, demanding from Ottokar to cede his acquired territories to the newly crowned king. He refused repeatedly however and both conflicting parties went to war.

Long story short, they met on the battlefield, the Battle on the Marchfeld, and in this battle both parties forwent using infantry and only the cavalry was involved. But since the heavy cavalry of Ottokar (6500, 12000 total cavalry) outnumbered the heavy cavalry of Rudolf (4500, 9000 total cavalry), the latter prepared an ambush - sixty knights, hidden in the surrounding vinyards, should intervene at the height of the battle, attacking from the side, aiming to kill Ottokar, but nobody wanted to lead the ambush, because it was considered dishonourable. Only after being repeatedly urged, one knight finally agreed to do it, but he apologized to his brothers-in-arms in advance for doing so.

Both armies clashed, 60-year old Rudolf was almost killed when his horse was slain and things were looking bad for his army, but after three hours of battle, Ottokars knights were exhausted while Rudolf had relied on his light cavalry and kept the majority of his heavy cavalry out of sight in the rear which was still rested when they got involved. At the same time he gave the signal for the hidden knights to attack and they split the right flank as they headed towards Ottokar who gave order to mobilise the reserve - but a part of the reserve moved to encircle the ambushing knights which made it seem to Ottokar's army like the reserve was fleeing. Rudolf's army, having forseen this, took up the cry "They are fleeing!" to further instill confusion and panic in their enemies and the ambush proved successful in killing Ottokar. These two events crushed the morale of Ottokars army and led to a rout.

In case you didn't read the wall of text, I'll repeat the important part: Despite it being the best strategy, no knight in the Battle on the Marchfeld in the 13. century was willing to lead the ambush and only after being repeatedly urged did one of them agree to do it, but he apologised in advance to his fellow knights for it.

The paladin is modeled after a romanticized vision of medieval knights and thus honourable means honourable from the point of view of a medieval knight. People back then weren't idiots of course, they knew about strategy and military tactics, but underhanded tactics like ambushes were considered dishonourable.

Keep in mind that battling and fighting back then was very different from today. It was up close and personal business. Being attacked meant that you had a chance at defending yourself sword versus sword and it was honourable conduct to give an opponent exactly that chance - as long as said opponent was honourable himself and thus was worthy of honour. A murdering brigand, who had no honour himself, wasn't, for example.
Using poison takes the same line: Attacking someone with something that he has no chance at defending himself, instead of besting him due to superior skill. On top of that, said someone will likely die an agonizing death, eliminating the possibility of letting him live. (And don't claim that Fortitude-saves count as 'defending'.)

Thus, using poison willingly and knowingly is without doubt a dishonourable act. If a paladin would fall because of it depends on the circumstances, but certainly, if he uses it like an assassin and certainly, if it is especially vile poison. You are playing Ned Stark and not Jaqen H'ghar.
And no, he shouldn't even rely on sleep-inducing drugs - you are playing Superman, not Batman.

On the case of ambushes: He may plan and take part in them, if the circumstances can justify it, but it should absolutely not be his first and favourite choice of action, especially not if his opponents are considered to be honourable. You are playing Eomer and not Faramir.

Black Markets had a Chaotic Neutral drow back in 2015.

Are you sure that it was in Black Markets? I checked and couldn't find one.

It is not prejudice, it is not racist, or wrong, it's simply a matter of taste. I, for example, ignore many of the revised Pathfinder lore like good drow [...] because of my taste.

Of course it is not racist and of course you can't be prejudiced about a fantasy race. Accusing someone of that would be utterly absurd. But you can be biased against players that play that fantasy race.

Nothing wrong with having different tastes, as long as people acknowledge that it is only their taste and that including those things in your story doesn't automatically make the story bad from an objective point of view. But whenever that topic crops up, so do the people that say: "Just don't play a drow, you'll be a copy of Drizzt anyway."
(Yes, I am aware that you personally didn't write that, but some people do.)

I, for example, do ignore some things of Pathfinder too, no matter if it is revised or original content and I also strongly dislike some concepts, like mixing fantasy and science fiction (yes, I am looking at you, Android players ;) ), or including anything from Lovecraft's horror stories, but showing up in a thread that asks for advice on how to best run "Strange Aeons" and then writing "Just don't do it, it'll be a copy of Call of Chtulu anyway." would be, at best, rude.

@Yakman, @Cyrad: Ah, I see now what caused the misunderstanding between us. You think that since the drow are given such a blanket description, that the path of Drizzt is literally the only way to go for a good drow.

But here is where I disagree: It is by far the only way, these stories can be as different as the stories of humans, the imagination is the only limit. Since it is a fantasy realm, whenever you read something like "all drow are evil spider-worshippers", it means "all commonly known drow, until a writer changes it", but nothing stops you from saying "in a pocket of the underdark, there is a heretical cult that idolizes Nocticula as a deity of passion and artists, omitting the nastier parts". You don't need an official writer from Paizo to do it for you and it doesn't go against lore, not today and not five years ago. Just because back then Paizo had only provided stats for evil drow didn't have to mean that there were no non-evil ones.
Or "during a raid in the underdark, a group of paladins slay some drow and find a baby. Not having the heart and stomach to kill it, they take it with them to raise it." Yes, these backstories can be considered clichés in their own right, but they are vastly different from Drizzt. But even if your backstory is "he rebelled against his house, deity and society to flee to the surface" it doesn't automatically mean that it is a Drizzt clone - two characters can have smiliar backgrounds without being clones of each other, since they can have their own personality, goals, motivations and a different future. Otherwise most siblings would be clones of each other.

On the first page are a few story concepts that are quite good and vastly different than the story of Drizzt. Of those I especially like:

Magical mishap

If you’re playing a caster perhaps you master, who is a teleportation expert, used you for an experiment. The experiment went sideways and now you are on the surface. You have no way home and there is little chance your mistress is spending any effort to find a lowly apprentice.

We already did lol

That’s why I’m surprised this thread is still ongoing. People are debating what authority or power Orcus has over one of his (now former) Clerics.

Well, people here certainly love to discuss and argue. (But that is not meant as a negative thing, I do like it too.)

Assuming the cavalier is from fantasy-France, it would probably be pronounced like this:

Alain
German(de ?)

I don't know if, or how the 'de' at the end of his surname would affect the pronounciation, though. But I assume that you just have to attach an unstressed, soft 'd', omitting the 'e'.

König Drosselbart wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

That's actually not true. There are distinct differences between cliches, stereotypes, and archetypes. Just because they have overlap doesn't mean they have "superficial" differences. The major difference with cliche is directly relevant to the conversation. Cliches largely have to do with the level of creativity and novelty of a concept.

The concept of "lone rebel turns against the evil and injustice of his people" is a cliché that is about as old as literature itself. Drizzt is a stereotypical "loner outcast with a dark and troubled past" and the archetype of the "good drow".

See? These three terms have slightly different meaning, but can be used almost interchangeably.

As I said, the stereotype of the "lone rebel against injustice" is a very old literary motive. There is not much uniqueness to Drizzt on a fundamental conceptual level. Figuratively speaking every second book and movie that has an evil race/faction in it features a deserter that turns away from said evil race/faction.

And formerly unique ideas becoming mainstream in literature is not necessarily a bad thing. Before Tolkien wrote his books, elves were akin to fairies - little pranksters with butterfly wings, but I don't think anybody is complaining that his vision of elves entered the mainstream and has lost its uniqueness.

Again, you're arguing semantics and committing a fallacy of equivocation while failing to recognize or comprehend the difference between archetypes, cliches, and stereotypes. The issue lies with collective perception and novelty of non-evil drow characters, which have frequently become seen as uncreative and overused to the point of undermining that made them appealing concepts in the first place. Calling other character concepts cliche fails to further your argument that drow aren't cliche.

What I was trying to tell you this whole time is: What someone regards as a cliché is highly subjective. The literary topos of "lone rebel who struggles against fate" (in this case the fate would be "being born into an evil and unjust society") is as old als literary history. If you want to view a literary topos that is as generic as this one as a cliché, then all topoi are by extension clichés, no matter if it is the "knight in shining armour who sets out to rescue the fair maiden", or the "cursed hero who only brings death and suffering to those close to him", or any other topos. And by implying each topos to be a cliché, each and every story and character is going to be full of clichés, because you can't avoid having topoi in a story.

All I am saying is that it is irrational that many people lash out at the stereotype of the 'good drow', instantly assuming that the character will be a cliché that is styled after the archetypical good drow, Drizzt, while other stereotypes, like 'the knight in shining armour' are commonly accepted, with considerably less people automatically assuming such a character to be a cliché that is styled after one of the archetypes, like Roland, Siegfried, or Sir Galahad.

Yes, a good Drow might be a cliché at first sight - for most people that is. But in my opinion that "fault" lies by the people for their narrow-mindedness. If you let your prejudices interfere while meeting a character/player than that is... pretty sad actually.

Sure, if s/he comes along as a "Hey I have this awesome character who is a dual-wielding drow fighter/ranger, and totally not evil!" then yes, that is an obvious rip-off and not very creative as a concept.

But if it is an actually interesting, detailed and clever character idea, then just dismissing it as a "Drizzt-rip-off" because of your own prejudices is just pretty bad style.

Drizzt is not the only one that is in the trope of 'a good member of an evil group'. How many 'good vampires' are out there? 'Good werewolves'? 'Good zombies'? My point is that the specific good Drow trope is viewed as a cliche' because our stereotyping, categorizing minds tend to shut down the idea that such tropes can be unique only because they often aren't.

So why not encourage creativity out of excitement of the possibility of uniqueness instead of just being resigned that it can't be unique? What kind of group player do you want to be? A "Yes, but"/"Yes, however" or a "No that's dumb"/"No that's overused"?

Thank you, you two said it better than me.

@LeMoineNoir: Thanks for providing the section that deals with the redemption of drow.

@Ryan Freire: There are a number of reasons why a drow that has survived for a bit would try to escape the society or try to subtely reform his corner of influence. Not necessarily out of the kindness of his heart, but because inspiring loyalty in your underlings and being loved/respected by your equals is a lot more beneficial to both your personal health and to the stability of your power base than having to fear constant betrayal. Thus it is more likely than not that some undiscovered pockets of non-evil drow communities exist somewhere. Nowhere near the majority, but it should be a lot more than only a handful of individuals.
And since the Adventurer's Guide has come out it is official that a handful of drow are being actively redeemed by the elves to the best of their ability.

But I agree with you that "true love redeemed him" is not a particulary creative backstory and on its own not a very compelling reason why a drow has turned away from the evil ways of their kin.

And they absolutely should not be chosen simply because they are a strong race, but in that case the problem lies primarily with the player, not the chosen race.

That's actually not true. There are distinct differences between cliches, stereotypes, and archetypes. Just because they have overlap doesn't mean they have "superficial" differences. The major difference with cliche is directly relevant to the conversation. Cliches largely have to do with the level of creativity and novelty of a concept.

The concept of "lone rebel turns against the evil and injustice of his people" is a cliché that is about as old as literature itself. Drizzt is a stereotypical "loner outcast with a dark and troubled past" and the archetype of the "good drow".

See? These three terms have slightly different meaning, but can be used almost interchangeably.

As I said, the stereotype of the "lone rebel against injustice" is a very old literary motive. There is not much uniqueness to Drizzt on a fundamental conceptual level. Figuratively speaking every second book and movie that has an evil race/faction in it features a deserter that turns away from said evil race/faction.

And formerly unique ideas becoming mainstream in literature is not necessarily a bad thing. Before Tolkien wrote his books, elves were akin to fairies - little pranksters with butterfly wings, but I don't think anybody is complaining that his vision of elves entered the mainstream and has lost its uniqueness.

my dad is a fallen space paladin, and i was raised on an abandoned planet, secretly watched over by a hidden space paladin this whole time. when tragedy befalls my adoptive family, i learn the fantastic destiny which is in front of me, and take to space with a motley crew to fight the evil space overlords and my evil space dad.

i am not luke skywalker.
------
so... your story is... you don't like evil! and take to the surface world to do good!

that's Drizzt.

Your comparison is flawed - in the first part you set up a very specific backstory akin to Luke Skywalker and in the second part you just write a generic "you are a drow and not evil - you want to play Drizzt". And that is exactly the problem with the expectations of many people. If your comparisons were actually equal, they would be along the lines of:

"I am the son of a fallen paladin." - "You are a copy of Luke Skywalker."
"I have been terribly wronged and am seeking revenge." - "You are a copy of the Count of Monte Christo."
"I have formed a bond of blood brotherhood with a wild elf." - "You are a copy of Old Shatterhand."
"I have made a deal with a devil." - "You are a copy of Faust."
"I have escaped from an evil society and are working on my redemption." - "You are a copy of Drizzt."

Yes, a player that wants to play a good drow that wields two daggers and has a tiger companion sounds like he wants to play a Drizzt clone, but just generically announcing that you'd like to play a good drow provides on its own not enough reason to assume it is going to be such a clone.

TOZ wrote:

Ah, religion. The original rules lawyer playground.

See what happens when the devs don't get back to you in a long time?

Oh, but He did get back to us, just not in the form of something like an FAQ-thread. :)

But I suggest that we steer this thread here away from religious questions, lest it is totally derailed.

Let's put it this way: Not evey honourless act is automatically evil, but any evil act is by definition automatically honourless. A paladin can't commit an evil act without commiting an honourless act at the same time - therefore, the part in the rules where it says "he has to commit evil willfully" has to extend to honourless acts, no matter how it is worded in the rulebook, otherwise you have a paradox at your hands.

König Drosselbart wrote:

So, according some people's interpretation of the rules, a mind-controlled paladin who deceives an evil rival of the villain under whose spell he fell would lose his powers immediatly, but a mind-controlled paladin who murders every inhabitant of the local orphanage wouldn't.

A good deity is not going to empower you while you use said power to kill orphans.

I agree with you, but strictly going by the rules, the deity wouldn't care, as long as the paladin is mind-controlled.

König Drosselbart wrote:

We are leaving paladin territory here and entering Christian theology, but you can't commit a sin accidentally. It is only a sin if you commit it knowingly and willingly and thus you don't need to ask forgiveness if not both conditions are met.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

In the Epistle to the Romans by the Apostle Paul.

There even is an official favoured class bonus for drow paladins in pathfinder. (Yes, real paladins, not antipaladins.)

They were changed at that level by proximity to Rovagug, so yes, as far as that goes, they are born evil as, essentially, proto demons.

Yet alu-fiends, the literal children of literal demons are explicitly described as not being inherently evil, neither are tieflings, the literal descendents of literal demons.

So, there appear to be two ways to become a drow: Firstly by elves that spontaneously transform into drow, because they are especially vile and are at the same time somehow tainted by Rovagug and and secondly by being born to already transformed elves. Being born shouldn't make them automatically evil, if they retain their free will - a notion that the Adventure's Guide seems to share, because it appears to be stated there that drow are not born evil either, like alu-finds and tieflings.

Maybe they are somewhat predisposed to evil and their society definitely pushes them towards evil, but they are certainly not inherently evil and not born evil.

I'm not saying one cannot make a drow character. I'm pointing out there are obstacles to doing so. If someone makes a non-evil drow character, they need to make the character interesting and have solid justification for it. Otherwise, most players and GMs will roll their eyes and think the character is boring and uncreative.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, with the addition that every character should have a sound backstory, not just a drow.

The differences between clichés, stereotypes and archetypes are very superficial, there are only slight nuances between these three.
Playing a clone of Drizzt is no better or worse than playing a clone of Gimil, Legolas, D'Artagnan, or Old Shatterhand. Falling back to the cliché of "defector of an evil, corupted and debauched society" is not better or worse than the cliché of "poor orphaned outsider who is struggling to find his place in society", or "valiant knight that ventures forth to save the fair maiden he is in love with".

But the widespread automatical assumption that every drow PC is going to be a Drizzt clone is just irrational. (Yes, I know that you didn't state that, this is just a general assessment.)

@Isabelle Lee: Could you please cite that section of the Adventurer's Guide?

Yet Tolkien himself wasn't happy with the implication that the orcs in his story were always born evil without free will and explicitly didn't exclude the possibility of redemption, even though he didn't expand on that subject.

And staying in Golarion, alu-fiends, the literal childs of literal demons are explicitly described as not being inherently evil. So this should apply ten times as much to a race that is not blood-related to demons and "only" worships them.
And of course we have tieflings, who too are direct descendents of demons and who are also explicitly described as not being inherently evil.

I don't concur with the notion that a good campaign world has to have intrinsically evil mortal races. Quite the contrary. Villains that are evil because they can't help it are no more interesting than animals that kill because they are hungry. (And if drow really are devoid of free will, then they shouldn't have an alignment, similiar to animals.) Interesting villains are those that have a rational motive and the capacity to realize the difference between good and evil.

It depends on your view on why the paladin loses his powers. It doesn't make sense that his deity takes them away in such a case, but it could make sense that the overwhelming guilt and shame would lead to a crisis of faith and that the paladin loses his powers this way. But certainly not over something as small as using a weapon that, unbeknownst to the paladin, had been poisoned.

And before you consider to argue about semantics, keep in mind that regarding evil acts there is no ambiguity in the rules. Evil acts have to be commited willfully. So, according some people's interpretation of the rules, a mind-controlled paladin who deceives an evil rival of the villain under whose spell he fell would lose his powers immediatly, but a mind-controlled paladin who murders every inhabitant of the local orphanage wouldn't.

If you accidentally commit a sin, do you not need to ask forgiveness for it? Of course you do.

We are leaving paladin territory here and entering Christian theology, but you can't commit a sin accidentally. It is only a sin if you commit it knowingly and willingly and thus you don't need to ask forgiveness if not both conditions are met.

Its not that far fetched to imagine 99.99999% of the people who actually survive to adulthood in those conditions sit somewhere close to the societal mean.

That sounds pretty close to "always chaotic evil" to me. And the notion that a society that is 99,99999% evil in a way the drow are depicted would even survive for a decade is far fetched indeed. (If you reread my statement that you quoted, you'll notice that I didn't say that only "being born evil" bothers me. A race that is supposed to be socialized as always chaotic evil and every member that survives wants it to stay that way is just as ludicrous.)

Yes, good drow should be rare, but not 0,00001% rare. Logically there should be small communities of good drow, akin to the tribe of Sarenrae-worshipping orcs.

If that is your interpretation, then fine. I see no point in arguing the fine points of semantics, if the underlying principle is something that is as loosely defined and as murky as the paladin code. While I am still not in the least convinced of your interpretation, even if I were, I'd see no point in slavishly abiding the letter of the rules on such a grey area as the paladin code and I'd still be in favour of interpreting it in a way that doesn't go against common sense. Because it doesn't make a lick of sense that honourless acts that are performed unwillingly would lead to the fall of the paladin, while evil acts wouldn't.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

König Drosselbart wrote:

True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.

That's probably what the absolution/atonement spell is for, to prove to your deity that you're not liable to do it again so you can trust me with the good stuff again.

Still, I'd prefer to recontextualize this to be an occult ritual sort of thing rather than a spell, with the accompanying backlash being the equivalent of your "say n hail marys".

Mind control is not something you can really say whether it's liable to happen again. I see atonement as showing the deity that what compelled the evil is gone and reestablishing the link that gives them their power.

If the deity is aware of the evil (or honourless) acts that were commited while the paladin was being mind-controlled, she will be aware of it when the paladin shakes it off. And if he is being mind-controlled again, the deity can easily suppress his powers again. - But if the deity really cares that much and keeps such a close watch, I wonder why she doesn't just break her paladin out of the mind-control in the first place. (As a note aside, a paladin's powers are geared towards only harming evil creatures anyway. Thus, most powers couldn't be used to do evil with, one way or the other.)

"What's that, my sworn champion? My powers I vested you with weren't enough to bolster your will against mind-control? I won't stand idly by and watch as my powers are being misused and I don't care one bit that you are now the meat puppet of a villain. Sucks to be you, I guess."

"What's that, my sworn champion? You finally managed to break free of the mind-control, are now facing the villain that subjugated you with magical means and want to bring him to justice (or escape to fight another day) and you need your powers back for that? I don't think so. Try to fight (or escape) on your own and I don't care one bit that you'll likely die without your powers, you should have thought about that, before you fell under mind-control. Sucks to be you, I guess."

Now that I think about it, that really is something that only Asmodeus would do.

All paladins are granted powers by Asmodeus. For only that god could devise a code to cause those dedicated to doing good to defeat themselves in the act of doing good.

And starting a discussion about a paladin's code and alignment is both a chaotic and evil act that leads a paladin to lose his powers immediately, no matter if he did it willingly, or while being mind-controlled. ;)

If you want to interpret it that way, then it is alright, if your players, or your DM agree with you. There is no right or wrong way, because it is a very grey area and the rules are murky on that subject - the only right way is to find a ruling that your table agrees with, in particular the DM and the paladin player.

In my personal opinion, common sense says that the paladin has to commit the act that leads to his fall willingly, consciously and aware of its evilness and honourlessness, unless you interpret it in a way that his guilt and shame after a heinous act he commited while being mind controlled leads to a crisis of faith - this can become a good story arch, if it isn't handled like this: "You manage to overcome the mind control and lose your powers immediately." - "I go to the nearest cleric, heave a bag of coins onto the table and wait until he has casted 'Atonement'." - "You instantly regain your powers."
A paladin shouldn't lose his powers willy-nilly, getting them back just by putting some coins into the Atone-O-Mat. It should be a significant event that ultimately is resolved in a meaningful way, not a tool for the DM to shout "Gotcha!" at the paladin player, just because he botched a single dice roll.

König Drosselbart wrote:

And I strongly dislike the notion of an always chaotic evil race that is always chaotic evil, down to the very last member.

People always have to fall back to that strawman in these discussions because wanting to limit the exceptions to the rule in a campaign is a lot harder to argue against than this thing no one claims.

I beg your pardon, how exactly is this a strawman argument? You have argued that the drow are depicted as being always chaotic evil, as do most of the people who are vehemently opposed to playing a drow and I responded to that.

I suggest that you refrain from making unsubstantiated claims of strawman arguments and keep the discussion constructive.

I mean there's literally nothing stopping you from troping up another "from an evil race/family/group but twue wuv changed me" character. Its just not innovative new or interesting in any way and always seems like a rp justification to play a higher powered race.

I haven't said that the proposed backstory at the start of this thread is in any way innovative, I was just commenting on the bite reflex that grips some people whenever they hear, or read the sentence: "I want to play a good drow". No, neither have I played one, nor do I plan on playing one, but the aforementioned bite reflex is just irrational, especially if it is limited to drow. And I strongly dislike the notion of an always chaotic evil race that is always chaotic evil, down to the very last member. (And I am not talking about demons and undead in general, since they are no born race, they are more or less evil incarnate - but if even amongst them there are some individuals that are not evil, then this is all the more reason that there are a few good drow somewhere, presumably forming small communities).

Maybe, just maybe even I myself would secretly roll my eyes, if I heard that sentence, but not because I think that specifically playing drow would be such a hideous act, but because I prefer more "normal" races in general (core races plus maybe aasimar, tiefling and changeling). I would equally roll my eyes if someone would play a kitsune, or a grippli, or a tengu, or an orc, or a kobold, or some other freak-show race. Half-drow on the other hand should be okay and not be handled any differently than half-orcs.

König Drosselbart wrote:

@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.

which in this case they are wrong. You can tell by the way they separated them with a comma and the word "or"

... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct ...

The comma and the "or" are grammatical necessities. The "willfully" can carry over to the second part of the sentence.

But, and I am repeating myself, there are no hard rules how to handle that. You have to work that out with your players, if you are the DM, or with the DM, if you are a player.

I have to admit that the German version of the rulebook apparently did omit the "willfully" completely. Take that as you will, but there still are no hard rules about it.

@Cyrad: I understand that written communication lacks the means of face-to-face communication, but I can assure you that I wasn't being hostile.

Let's put it this way: The existence of drow isn't even common knowledge, for most people a drow would just be a strange looking elf. Yes, there are APs and settings where they'd have no place and you need to talk to your group and your DM about it in any case, but even at worst it is not worse than playing an orc and the "Carrion Crown Player's Guide" even lists playing an orc as a possibility - with all due caution of course. But all this contempt for drow PCs really just seems irrational. Having to put more thought into the backstory is hardly a bad thing.

Heck, playing an orc would be even worse, because many, if not most people wouldn't recognize a drow for what he is, but most, if not all people would recognize an orc for what he is. That brings us the the question of half-orcs. Playing half-orcs and tieflings should be even more disruptive than playing a half-drow. Do you really think that the common people recognize a half-orc as a half-orc? I'd figure that many could and would mistake them for an orc, or a tiefling for a demon, while a half-drow (or a pure-blooded drow for that matter) would just seem like a strange looking elf to them.

Pointing towards the good orc and the redeemed succubus (and the occasional neutral undead) just serves to show that in every evil race there are exceptions and to show that the notion that there can be no good drow at all is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I do agree with you that this doesn't automatically mean that they'd make good PC races, but generally speaking the occasional good drow is not as game-breaking as many people make it out to be. Certainly not more so than a good orc and arguably not a lot more than tieflings, half-orcs, skinwalkers and dhampirs.
Heck, with all those kitsune, skinwalkers, grippli, tengu, catfolk, dhampirs, ratfolk and the phletora of other exotic races, many an adventuring group is such a freak-show that a drow would be the most normal of them.

Clichés can be bad, but they can just as well be tools to create a good story with. Pretty much every adventurer group is a walking cliché anyway and if you want to avoid each and every cliché there is, you'd be sitting in front of a blank character sheet. Thus I fail to see how the good drow/orc/[other generic evil race] is worse than, for example, the grumpy, hard-drinking, swearing dwarven fighter with a fondness for good ale and a dislike for "pointy-eared pansies".
At best an unusual race brings a lot of interesting story and roleplay potential to the table.

In addition, playing a half-orc or a tiefling against type is not a cliche.

So, playing a tiefling or half-orc against type is not cliché, but playing a drow against type is? Doesn't sound logical to me.

@Ryan Freire: And yet Paizo has officially mentioned a good orc, so there is that.
The notion that a race of roughly human intellect and mental capabilities would be always chaotic evil, without exception, streches believability more than the occasional individual and the occasional hidden community that is good.

Half-orcs and tieflings may potentially have been raised by someone who instills a sense of right and wrong into them, but that doesn't mean that strangers they meet are going to assume that automatically. They see someone that looks like an orc (in the case of half-orcs), or someone that looks like a demon (in the case of tieflings) - if it were true that a good drow would get shot full of arrows in any settlement before he had a chance to say a word, half-orcs and tieflings would meet the same fate.
Or we assume that good and/or law-abiding citizens generally won't kill someone preventatively.

@Mattew Downie: Fine, if you want to nitpick: Yes, it doesn't specify which punishment will be delivered, but in the context of the wording, it strongly implies that the punishment mentioned before only applies to the violation mentioned before and won't apply to the violations mentioned later.

Besides, what is considered to be honourable and what is not obviously varies from deity to deity. Let's not forget these particular parts in the various codes of conduct:

Iomedae: "I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."
Sarenrae: "I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."
Erastil: "When danger threatens, I am not a fool."
Torag: "I will do what is necessary to serve my people, including misleading others if need be."

@Cyrad: Did you read the description of the "Lantern Lighters"? Apparently not.

Lantern lighters were originally entrusted with secretly eliminating the drow and quarantining any knowledge of their existence, but in the new Lantern Bearer era, the lantern lighters have refocused their efforts on helping to rescue those imprisoned by the drow, or even to help individual drow who seek to escape the cruelties of their society for a chance at redemption on the surface. Of course, escape from drow society is only the beginning of a drow’s long and fraught path to redemption, and even the kindest or most repentant drow are likely to face prejudice from most of those who recognize her origins. In addition to their rescue efforts, lantern lighters often serve as sponsors for escapees and work to create pockets of civilization where redeemed drow can live in relative peace and safety by encouraging surface dwellers to cast aside the lurking shadows of prejudice and fear.

So, explain to me how this is "going against established lore", if it comes from those that established the lore in the first place. I mean, Paizo introduced a good orc and a redeemed succubus too - so why shouldn't there be good drow around? And what are those "cynical reasons" you are talking about?

Clichés are not necessarily a bad thing. It is cliché to play a wise old wizard too, or an aloof elven archer, or a grumpy dwarven fighter, but while these clichés are expected and encouraged, playing a good drow is reviled. Seems hypocritical to me.

It doesn't take any more work and cooperation than playing a half-orc, or a tiefling.

Speaking of half-orcs, how do you feel about half-drow?

@slade: Simple syntactic rules.

"You will lose your driver's licence if you are caught driving drunk. Additionally you have to heed the speed limits and red lights."

That means that you only lose your driver's licence if you are driving drunk.

Deities would, very logically, stop granting you their favor while you commit evil acts.

True, but in this case the paladin should get his powers back, once he snaps out of the mind control.

@Rogar Stonebow: The question everybody here gets hung up on is whether "willfully" extends to the paladin code or not.

There even has been an official archetype published recently that confirms the existence, or at least the possible existence of non-evil Drow communities.

Lantern Lighter

That aside, there even is at least one official case of an orc that settled down to live a peaceful life with his human wife, not only non-evil, but a valiant paragon of good. A freaking orc from a race and society that is as chaotic and as evil as the drow can be good, but a drow can't?

And if that wasn't enough, Pathfinder has even got a redeemed demon. Indeed, that one was only because of direct divine intervention, but it is still baffling how a literal embodiment of evil can become good, but a drow somehow can't? (Since nothing hints at who the succubus in question was in her mortal life, funnily enough she could have been a drow.)

And do you remember Ragathiel?

Yes, the first drow were somehow created by the evil taint of Rovagug and elves can somehow still turn into drow, if they are especially vile and certain conditions are met, but the present drow have all been born like any other mortal race in Golarion and thus it makes no sense that they should be always chaotic evil without exception.
Do you groan whenever somebody wants to play a good Tiefling too? It is not all that much different from playing a Half-Drow, or Drow.

I don't know much about Drizzt, but I don't understand why some people think that every good (or non-evil) drow would be a copy of him. Archetypical characters exist for every race:
You want to play a dwarven fighter? Hello Gimli.
You want to play an elven archer? Hello Legolas.
A wizend old wizard? Hello Gandalf.
A hobbit thief? Hello Bilbo.
Ad nauseam.

Maybe the 'must not perform an evil act' rule is judged by the gods of Good, who will understand that it wasn't really your fault that you killed and ate all those children (or whatever), because somebody else made you do it.

But the 'paladin code' is judged by the gods of Law, and they don't care about mercy or fairness, only the precise wording. "You took an oath never to use poison. You accidentally used poison. Accidental usage is still usage. The oath made no special exceptions for unwilling use of poison. Therefore, you are in violation of your oath and your powers are forfeit."

Well, if in your fantasy world, all the good deities and all the lawful deities conduct meetings in which they pass judgement, then so be it, as long as you aren't my GM. But I do think that this is more than a little far fetched and it is much more reasonable that each deity jugdes only their paladins. Or how would lawful good deities decide in your communal interplanar court room? Do they develop split personalities and both exonerate and condemn the paladin? Can you imagine Sarenrae, or Iomedae letting Asmodeus judge their paladins? Or Shelyn letting Zon-Khuton judge her paladins?

A paladin... who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features

As I wrote before: The rulebook contradicts itself in this question, because it also says:

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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

And according to this section it doesn't matter one bit if a paladin breaks his code, as long as he doesn't willingly commit an evil act.

@Xenocrat:

According to your interpretation of the text of "Absolution" a paladin would even fall if he committed an evil act unwillingly, which directly contradicts both sections of the rulebook that deal with a paladins fall from grace.

But this ties right into Paizo's inconsistency, then you simply have three different takes on that matter instead of two. I am inclined to favour core rules instead of later additions in form of obscure spells, but as I said before: If you don't like it, change it for your game. All is well if your fellow players agree with it. I just don't understand your need to shove your interpretation down the throat of others.

Well, one section says one thing and the other something completely different. To me that looks like it is up to the players and the GM to work something out. The wording isn't completely clear on this, but taking common sense into account, I still say that the Paladin has to do the action that leads to his fall willingly, no matter what it is.

And let's be glad that Paizo writes fantasy stories and not legal code.

The Paladin codes of the deities are later additions, I referred to the code of conduct and the rulebook that explicitly says:

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

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Thus, according to the rules, a Paladin is only ever going to fall, if he willingly commits an evil act. It doesn't even matter if he breaks his code, as long as it isn't an explicitly evil act that he commits willingly.

But, sure, if you don't care about the rules and want to play it your way and your players (or your GM) are all on the same page, then go for it. There is no wrong way to play this game, as long as all parties involved agree on the course you take.

Honestly, this is the worst sort of whining. "I'm given all these incredible bonuses and immunities against having anyone force me to do something, but if they somehow succeed I temporarily lose some of my powers until I get someone to cast a spell that helps me get over my PTSD and guilt? UNFAIR!!!"

Honestly, the only one who is whining here is you. Sure, a Paladin should be more aware of his actions than others, but whenever a thread like this crops up, many arguments inevitably gain the foul taste of: "I want to let my paladin players fall at every opportunity, to punish them for daring to choose that 'ridiculously overpowered munchkin-'class."

Yes, the design of the starknife doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is one of the worst weapons in Pathfinder in regards to realistic, practical and believable design, maybe even the worst.
But since it seems to be protected by virtue of being a "creator's favourite", it is going to stay that way.

"Stag's Leap" doesn't let you jump as a free action. Activating it is a free action and you can just jump farther. This was answered in a FAQ-thread a while back.

Nothing in the wording of "Upending Strike" does hint at eliminating the AoO when using the trip, which dials down its usefulness quite a bit - but you could counter the AoO you'll recieve with "Vengeance Strike", if you still have your swift action left.

"Hateful Attack" is not like "Lunge". "Lunge" increases your reach, while "Hateful Attack" increases the threat range = critical threat range. If you have a weapon that threatens at 18-20 and you use this trick, it threatens at 15-20 instead. The only question is, if you can declare its use after the attack roll has been made. I'd say yes, but the wording isn't clear.

The same with "Tangling Attack". Going by the wording it isn't clear, if you have to declare it before you make the roll, or after.

And now we've got "Cunning", which further invalidates "Human Spirit".

Saying that you don't fall if you perform an evil act while you are no longer in control of yourself, but you do fall if you violate your paladin code while you are no longer in control of yourself doesn't make any sense.

Performing an evil act automatically violates the paladin code at the same time. Therefore, committing an evil act while being mind controlled automatically makes the paladin violate his code of conduct. Thus, the part "...willfully commits an evil act..." has to extend to "...violates the code of conduct..." to make any sense.