Kamelguru's page

Kamelguru wrote:

Reality simulator it is not. That much is blatantly clear. As Wraith said, an old woman can out-muscle a troll with far higher reliability than she should have.

It was mostly a notice of how people perceive strength, both as the stat and in relation to real life comparison. It started with me being irked over ** spoiler omitted **

Considering the ease and speed with which my barely trained self can swing 35lbs kettlebells around, and a good sword is supposedly balanced, that just seemed off. Like how Bruce Lee had to slow down and ease up to let the camera follow and not hurt other actors. My friend claimed that "you can't swing a sword that big", but I feel that if you are THAT strong, and THAT big, you should not have more trouble with a sword that size than a normal sized person has with a normal sized longsword or bastard sword.

This led to this topic, since I find that in retrospect, I've been grossly overestimating real life strength in comparison to PF averages.

Martell was quick, and i'm pretty sure he was using a largish greatsword, after looking at pictures it's almost as tall as he is.

And he likely does bicep curls with twice the weight of that sword. It should not be unwieldy for someone THAT strong.

Reality simulator it is not. That much is blatantly clear. As Wraith said, an old woman can out-muscle a troll with far higher reliability than she should have.

It was mostly a notice of how people perceive strength, both as the stat and in relation to real life comparison. It started with me being irked over

Considering the ease and speed with which my barely trained self can swing 35lbs kettlebells around, and a good sword is supposedly balanced, that just seemed off. Like how Bruce Lee had to slow down and ease up to let the camera follow and not hurt other actors. My friend claimed that "you can't swing a sword that big", but I feel that if you are THAT strong, and THAT big, you should not have more trouble with a sword that size than a normal sized person has with a normal sized longsword or bastard sword.

This led to this topic, since I find that in retrospect, I've been grossly overestimating real life strength in comparison to PF averages.

I've been spending the last few months doing a lot of strength training, and when I was looking at the carrying capacity for pathfinder the other day, something struck me.

People in PF are strong, or people today are weak.

The feat of pushing 100lbs (45kg) overhead is beyond most people I know. It took me a while to achieve that weight for reps (I could do a jerk and get it overhead like that, but the game assumes you can move 20 feet in 6 seconds while bearing your max load). And that is Str 10. Average.

I started with a pair of 35lbs kettlebells (70lbs total), which I was able to get overhead pretty easily. But a lot of my untrained friends would struggle with that, and I don't think any women I know, barring those that actually go to the gym regularly, would be able to do that and walk 20 feet in 6 seconds.

That is Str 7. The minimum allowed strength for a PC when using point-buy. In retrospect, I find it rather hilarious that we've been describing str 7-8 wizards as weaklings barely able to carry their staff and spellbook.

Even now, after months of working out, I find that I am at str 13, tops. I have not tried to lift 150lbs overhead out of fear of strain, so I cannot really say.

I reckon most men who do not work out are around str 6-8, and most women who do not work out are around str 4-7.

Thoughts?

I added full BAB to the monk long ago. Now, two APs later, we still find the monk to be weaker than most other full on combatants (especially paladins, who stomp on the monk even in his "forte"), but at least playable. Also gave him d10 hp.

Did the same with the rogue. Full BAB and d10.

So far, I see no real problems. The players have used this to ease up on the min/max of stats in order to overcome design weaknesses. Been a while since I saw a character with multiple negatives. Which is kinda cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMxWLuOFyZM

I find that the group composition is more relevant than individual class power. Certain combinations are better than others, and other combinations make for a terribad party.

Then, you can further empower/gimp the party by playing to their strengths and weaknesses.

A party with a couple of god-tier DPR and a witch that sleeps and messes with everything will still suck against a creature that is immune to mind-affects and have high miss chance or ridiculous damage-mitigation, like incorporeal undead and such.

My Kingmaker group is easily among the most powerful groups I have ever GM'ed for. But against a group of ghost rogues, they got their butts handed to them.

I walked out in Curse of The Crimson Throne. Encountered an enemy that had an ability that dazed me for THREE DAYS. And no, we did not have anyone who could remove that.

I basically said "Call me when my character recovers, or I die."

Kamelguru wrote:

This more or less sums up the problem with the Jade Regent game I am in. The bulk of the party is sub-optimized, while the Magus is twinked to the teeth. Seriously, he has almost TWICE as much to hit as the next best attacker, does more than twice the damage and has as good, or better, AC than the defensive-minded ninja/monk. Basically, the encounters play out like your average DBZ encounter: The magus is Goku and singlehandedly defeats the boss and the toughest guys, while we frantically run around trying our best not to die. I know the monsters have more or less x2 hp and the advanced template by default, or +2-4 levels if they are casters, compared to the actual AP, all equipped with prophetic vision so they always buff themselves just before we encounter them.

Sh*t sucks, yo.

In my current PF game, I have a dex-based Alchemist I made to be an unconventional "dodge tank" for the party. Not great hp, but high AC so he can do his job. Apparently the DM did not understand this and began griping about how high his AC was. And then all the monsters started having arbitrarily, unexplainably high to hit bonuses. I have since for the past at least 4 character levels been intentionally sandbagging my AC by not increasing it when I could have. I realized it was a fruitless effort to waste resources there, and if I continued to do so, it'd only make the lower AC party members suffer.

People don't like it when you bring up the metagame, but it really is an important consideration...

Exactly. I got Good Hope and Haste to buff the party in the big, important fights, but now it is like I HAVE TO have an extended Good Hope going at all times, and spend the first round in combat to cast Haste as a standard action and Inspire Courage as a move action. Otherwise we would not survive half the encounters. Then, the next round, I pretty much have to use Dirge of Doom to debuff the enemy, so we even the playing field. THEN I get to do something I want to do myself. Usually Mirror Image so I survive to round 3.

It is not very fun to have a damn macro for a tabletop game. Especially when I am playing a BARD.

On topic: The more attacks I have with the same type of weapon (archer or dual-wielder), the more I want Weapon Finesse. I _NEVER_ take it with a two-hander or similar build, who have fewer attacks. I always grab Furious Focus for those builds though, which scales with me. Sure, it is just the first attack, but you only have one attack for the first 5 levels, and if you ever have to move or change weapons, you are stuck with 1 attack again.

Well, there's also the metagame aspect.

If you pump your to hit or AC really high, the DM will likely modify his monsters to compensate. If you have subpar to hit or AC, the DM will often modify his monsters down a bit to make up for the unoptimized party. As long as there isn't one guy jumping out ahead trying to be as twinked out on attack modifier or whatever as possible, this will generally hold true.

This more or less sums up the problem with the Jade Regent game I am in. The bulk of the party is sub-optimized, while the Magus is twinked to the teeth. Seriously, he has almost TWICE as much to hit as the next best attacker, does more than twice the damage and has as good, or better, AC than the defensive-minded ninja/monk. Basically, the encounters play out like your average DBZ encounter: The magus is Goku and singlehandedly defeats the boss and the toughest guys, while we frantically run around trying our best not to die. I know the monsters have more or less x2 hp and the advanced template by default, or +2-4 levels if they are casters, compared to the actual AP, all equipped with prophetic vision so they always buff themselves just before we encounter them.

Sh*t sucks, yo.

Zen Archer Monk for martial types:
- Flurry with bow, or Rapid Shot bonus feat if you like armor.
- Perfect Strike with bow
- Unarmed Strike for when you are caught in the bath, or get mixed up in a bar fight
- +2 to all saves
- Lots of useful trained skills like Acrobatics and Perception.

I dipped a level of Zen Archer with my paladin back in Serpent Skull. Was to get better archery stuff, unarmed capabilities and relevant skills (samurai flavor, before samurai class). Added bonus was +2 to all saves and a bonus feat. My wisdom score was garbage, so getting Perfect Strike instead of Stunning Fist was all good.

I totally imagine a ghoul vigilante, who works in the shadows to hunt down evildoers in his quest for redemption, while still obeying his hunger so he does not frenzy and eat the innocent, and takes their money and valuables so he may one day afford a raise spell when he finds someone goodly (PCs) he can trust to kill him and bring him back.

The inquisitor idea is great, since I imagine he needs good wisdom and mental insulation to keep his wits about him, to have any hope to overcome his undead urges through the force of will alone. The one-in-a-million exception.

Kamelguru, I would argue (and have at length) that free will does not preclude an inherent alignment (good or evil), nor does an inherent alignment preclude free will.

The fact that a creature could be made out of evil, yet would choose good is possible in Golarion canon (and thus presumed possible by Pathfinder at large, although several wordings of things preclude this interpretation).

I know. But evil things turning good is a very rare exception to the rule, and if such a creature were to exist, it would very likely be outcast from its kind, and thus not a problem when the heroes come a-knocking.

And yes, it is a simplification. Self-awareness is earned at Int 3, and most evil humanoids have twice that. So they are self-aware, but they are also monsters. If we return to the Morlock: Their instinct is to devour their own kind. They require oversight so they do not eat their own siblings. This is not learned behavior. They are naturally predisposed towards traits that the game attributes as evil.

So, do they have free will in the same sense? Are they even meant to? An interesting argument, but if we are to entertain that notion, the alignment given the monsters in the bestiary becomes almost moot, as the very notion of innate alignments defies the principles of free will.

I argue for the simplification because it allows the game to stand as is. And makes the heroes (especially the paladin) that much more valid and heroic, standing against the darkness, and it dehumanizes the darkness so that we can have a jolly good time without waxing Nietzsche all night :P

Kamelguru wrote:

There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.

Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.

Kamelguru wrote:

The book gives you options to make the world more lighthearted or grim, allowing you to use the system to play both My Little Pathfinder, and grittier stuff like Game of Thrones. However, the default game assumes that evil is truly evil, and applying modern idealism to the darkest denizens of the world will simply be naive and get innocents killed.

Wow, weren't you the one that denounced Strawmen posts in the Wyverns' thread ?

You might want to ease a little on them here ;-)

Alter to "However, it is my personal conclusion that the default game assumes evil is truly evil, and applying the notion of free will to something that a rulebook says is an incarnation of pure evil is simply naive and going to get innocents killed." then.

My argument is: "If the paladin gets twice the damage output against it, then you are dealing with something that falls outside the assumption of human mindset with the capacity for good. I believe this is a design choice that is consciously made to make such villains larger than life, and disturbing enough to inspire horror."

And please note that I am saying Evil, with a capital E, and the [evil] tag in their descriptor, or evil by nature. Again, a monster without free will =/= a person that has done bad things.

Ilja wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

It isn't OK to kill evil babies, it's GOOD to kill evil babies. And the people saying it aren't just people in this thread, paizo has said it.

This sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that? I know paizo wants their baddies bad, but it sounds a bit extreme.

He got it from Paizo:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Read last sentence again: Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

The outcome depends on the level of grittiness the GM attributes to the world. Who in their right mind would raise goblins? Most people have some reason to loathe the vermin. Would the people of the town accept having goblins among them? Is their sense of safety worth less in this equation? And if the goblins grow up to follow their nature still, the paladin will carry that burden, as he has given aid that has been used for evil means.

The book gives you options to make the world more lighthearted or grim, allowing you to use the system to play both My Little Pathfinder, and grittier stuff like Game of Thrones. However, the default game assumes that evil is truly evil, and applying modern idealism to the darkest denizens of the world will simply be naive and get innocents killed.

Ilja: I disagree that the alignments are too vague. There is a host of interpretations that can be attributed in order to give quite a bit of leeway so that many concepts can work, but actions speak louder than words or thoughts. The nature of alignments is quite easy from a morality and ethical perspective imho; if you are a playable race (which all invariably have free will), your actions define you, while if you are something unnatural, you are mostly chained to a predetermined disposition.

And I believe the act of setting them in stone is probably quite intentional, in order to make sense of the supernatural elements that permeate the setting, as well as make it so that killing an evil enemy is ACTUALLY a good thing. Because the real world is bogged down enough with crappy justification and dehumanization of humans as it is.

Destroying a fiend is a good act. I cannot cite the source, but I am pretty certain I am right. And there is a huge difference between culling the creatures born evil without a say in the matter, and creatures that have a cultural disposition towards evil. I would consult the bestiary entry, see what it says about them, and decide on a case to case basis.

And regarding redemption: Only Sarenrae demands this practice. And even she is adamant that it shall be treated like the precious gift it is. You get ONE shot, and your life is in the balance. For if you do NOT repent, your sins are on the head of the paladin who did not stop your evil.

There seems to be a few amusing misinterpretations going in in this thread. And a few borderline malicious assumptions. So far, I am a racist that is full of poop.

Gotta make a mental not to tell that to my students next week. I am sure the principal will want to fire me from my job teaching refugees languages and computer skills when he realizes that I am a racist.

While I do agree there was some false imagery (on both sides) I think it's important to note that the _paladin_ did not know they where scripted to attack them, nor did it know they where conscious and willing guardians of the evil lich necromancer.

It's been a while, so I cannot be certain, but I have played this AP, and it is possible that he does not know about the lich and such, but it is very unlikely. The scripted way to find the lair is by tracking the doomed villagers to his tomb. And the lair is nestled deep in the mountains, far off the beaten path. To randomly stumble upon it requires some serious Roronoa Zoro tier getting lost.

So, while it is possible, I doubt it. Unless the GM has altered the AP, of course.

I think a lot of people have trouble leaving real world ethics at the door when they come to game. The ninja CHARACTER may not have much reason to be offended, but the ninja PLAYER on the other hand, might have a big problem with the "killing of the helpless", unable to set aside the comparison to humans, even if the monsters in question only have the fact that they are bipedal in common with us.

I did this a lot too when I was younger. A few of my friends even disregarded alignments entirely, as they found the experience of cognitive dissonance too jarring to comply with them.

Ok, let us pretend for a second that a paladin I have played gets put in the scenario where a demon desires redemption. Which I find unlikely, so the first thing I would do is stop the game, look at the GM and ask "Seriously?", then try to tell if I have pissed him off IRL so he wants to get back at me through making a trap for my character. I generally do not play with immature, manipulative children, so this would likely never come up, unless it was part of a weird AP.

Then I would see if it was feasible. Can I indulge in this without risking the lives and souls of innocents? A demon seeking redemption is less important than the life of a single innocent.

Then I would have the cleric in the party cast Atonement on him, and if he afterwards detected as evil, I would smite him, as that would mean he was not sincere about his wish to reform. And he just wasted 2500gp.

And as for you defending evil babies; by the same extent, are these people villains?

Ripley in Aliens, for burning xenomorph pods

Billy in Gremlins 1 & 2 for eradicating the gremlin spawns

The list goes on, following the formula "<Protagonist> in <monster/horror films> when they destroy <the monster(s)>"

Because they are not PEOPLE. They are MONSTERS. There is a WORLD of difference between eradicating a host of make-believe monsters that walk on two legs and have language, and committing genocide motivated by racism in the real world.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is not MY problem. You are disregarding the source material, applying your own sense of morality, and giving the monsters traits they do not have, and in my opinion SHOULDN'T, so that the hero can be a hero. If you want to skirt angst and flimsy ethical questions, go play Vampire - The Masquerade, or some similar real-world based game, where evil is a choice rather than a force.

As for your poor attempts of character sniping; go ahead. I've worked for the CPS. I got called much worse on a day to day basis, by people worse than you.

Invigorate is a bard only spell that allows barbarians to rage-cycle at will, as they become immune to fatigue, and it lasts a good long while too.

Sirocco has been used to great effect in my games. Applying fatigue and exhaustion as well as knocking clumsy fliers to the ground just screams controller wizard.

Acute Senses gives +20 to perception already at lv8. Does not last very long, but it makes even the "LOL I am invisible, +20 to stealth!" checks possible. Getting good use of it in the ninja-infested Jade Regent.

Good Hope is amazing for my bard. Stacks with inspire courage, lasts 10 minutes/level and gives +2 to virtually every roll, for everyone in the party. Good stuff.

Blistering Invective has already been mentioned. It is pretty darn awesome. A big debuff that sets people on fire. What is not to like?

Arcane Concordance has been amazing for me, since I am in a group with two other arcane casters with said bard. +1 to DCs is nice, but freely applying stuff like Silent, Still or Extend Spell to everything cast in the duration allows us to get a LOT of milage out of buffs, or undo the downside of circumstances that restrict us or silence us.

I was referring to the ridiculous post-count and the rampant use of strawmen and other logical fallacies.

I got buttmad in the wyvern thread because I knew the scenario to every detail, and the "Paladin must fall!" crew was spewing false imaginary scenarios and disregarding the fact that this was an encounter in an AP, where the wyverns were scripted to attack and try to kill the PCs, as they were guarding the tomb of an evil lich necromancer.

Killing a neutral creature in its sleep at random is no bueno, but that was not the case. It was a paladin killing the guardians of an evil lich that recently committed genocide on an entire community.

This thread is getting cartoonish on several levels. Probably why so many cartoon and comic-book characters are used as examples.

Lobolusk wrote:

Wait,

did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?

No.

The comedy must continue.

Agreed. This is almost as amazing as the Wyvern thread.

Kamelguru wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

Kamelguru wrote:

You have two martials? Haste, no question. Then you effectively double their damage output.

No he doesn't. The TWFer is going up by not more than 66% and the archer by 50%. In a level the archer will only be going up by 33% even ignoring iteratives. And that's only on full attacks anyhow. The archer almost always can full attack, but the TWFer generally can't.

It's good, but with an archer and a TWFer it's not as good as its hype and with only one front liner in a party of four summons increase in importance.

The haste attack is another with his best attack, at the best to-hit. It is more than a 33% increase, for both the archer and the dual-wielder, since it is very likely to hit, and does more damage than an off-hand attack. Perhaps it does not DOUBLE the output, but the increase is dramatic. Summoning is a time-consuming effort, and no monsters on summon monster 1-3 is going to out-damage two primary attacks from full-on martial characters.

At level 5 a TWF build will have at worst have 1d8 main hand and 1d6 off hand or 1d6 main hand and 1d4 off hand. He will have his strength mod and +4 power attack on his main hand and half his strength mod and +2 power attack on his off hand. Unless he has double slice. And favored enemy will also even things out. Doubling the main hand is +66% if it does exactly double what the off hand does. It will probably do slightly less than double without double slice or significantly less with it.

The archer will almost always full attack, but the TWFer will generally spend at least one round per combat moving and making a standard attack, which means no haste. As the only melee character he will probably have to move more than that, reducing the value of haste further. If he gets any attacks of opportunity those are also not doubled further reducing the relative value of haste.

And haste doesn't put another body on the battlemap. Summon Monster does. A single fast ranger cannot protect an archer, a wizard, and a sorcerer as effectively as a ranger and an aurochs or a ranger and an alligator or a ranger and 1d3 giant spiders or whatever it seems most appropriate to summon at the time.

I guess...? I have never been in a game where the casters need babysitting. Usually, it is the other way around; the casters protecting the melee people with spells, and then getting out of Dodge. Whenever I play/GM, the casters have enough sense to use defensive spells to make themselves the most difficult targets.

I mean, if you break it down:
Cast Haste:
Round 1:
- Everyone get into position (melee dudes into melee, casters and archers behind cover, etc) and likely can take another action. This grants you control of the flow of the battle, giving you the choice if you want to be defensive or offensive.
- The archer deals 10+ more damage this round, unless he is garbage.
- Everyone have improved defenses.

Round 2:
- TWF dude is almost guaranteed to get off a full attack. Might not have been without extra movement. His improved defenses makes his survivability higher.
- Archer does an additional 10+ more damage.
- Casters can relocate with great ease, keeping out of range from enemies.

Cast SM3:
Round 1:
- Nothing happens from the wizard. He needs the martial to babysit him so his spell does not fizzle.

Round 2:
- A single CR3 monster comes in, has to adapt to the flow of the battle, which has been handed to the enemy.

There is a reason Haste is seen as THE buff. It is better than any other spell at lv3. SM3 loses its usefulness within 2-3 levels, unless you are built around summoning and have the Augment Summoning feat.

Sorry but I cannot in any way or form agree with you. Not in any variation of the party, in any game since the current incarnation of Haste came into being, has there been a better lv3 spell.

Edit:
Artanthos: Is your magus a solo character? Or the only martially bent character in the party? There is no spell that can do more damage in your repertoire, and there never will be.

Let me tell you a story of my lv9 combat-focused bard, called "Every damn combat ever", it goes something like this:

Prior to combat: Cast Good Hope. Is nice. Lasts 10 min/lv, which I double with a lesser rod of extend. Lasts most of the dungeon.

Round 1: Cast Haste, Inspire Courage. The two other martial characters (ninja/monk and a proper martial) now deal out an average of 15 and 25 damage per hit, and with the +5 I give them to hit, they WILL hit. That means that _Haste_ effectively deals 40 damage per round. When I start swinging next round for 1d8+16, I add 20 more to that curve, so Haste deals 60 damage per round for 9 rounds. If I opt to cast other spells, which I often do, in order to remedy problems, it does roughly 50 instead.

The moral of the story: Haste does 450-540 damage. Its pretty damn good.

I was waiting for him to come in an activate my trap card, because due to my profession, I am a "legitimate authority" within my field of work. Thus, I am infallible by his own logic, with the power to command paladins. And if he protests to this logic, and my orders can be fallible, the paladin stands between choosing good or law, and as such, all it takes to make a paladin fall/put out of commission is ONE single corrupt official giving him an order that is not good.

I assume he thinks this is fine, and that is how the paladin should be, which makes the class completely unplayable, but it seems he is impervious to ethical or moral reflection beyond an immature grasp of categorical imperative, so it becomes somewhat amusing to troll the troll. Just gotta go deeper, like some parody of Inception.

Kamelguru wrote:

You have two martials? Haste, no question. Then you effectively double their damage output.

No he doesn't. The TWFer is going up by not more than 66% and the archer by 50%. In a level the archer will only be going up by 33% even ignoring iteratives. And that's only on full attacks anyhow. The archer almost always can full attack, but the TWFer generally can't.

It's good, but with an archer and a TWFer it's not as good as its hype and with only one front liner in a party of four summons increase in importance.

The haste attack is another with his best attack, at the best to-hit. It is more than a 33% increase, for both the archer and the dual-wielder, since it is very likely to hit, and does more damage than an off-hand attack. Perhaps it does not DOUBLE the output, but the increase is dramatic. Summoning is a time-consuming effort, and no monsters on summon monster 1-3 is going to out-damage two primary attacks from full-on martial characters.

You have two martials? Haste, no question. Then you effectively double their damage output. Not only that, you make it so everyone can position pretty much however they want to, with plenty of movement to avoid AoOs, and the general defenses of the entire party will increase as bonuses from haste stacks with everything.

It has been said before, and I say it again: Haste is the best. In our Jade Regent game, there are three arcane casters (sorcerer, bard and magus) and we ALL have Haste, because it is simply the best. That way we can cast it most every non-trivial combat.

Kamelguru wrote:

1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.

2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.

3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.

4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.

5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.

6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.

1) What paladin turns down the chance to redeem a demon?

2) They are both helpless. Neither of them are your lawful right to punish. Your point?
3) No I'm not you are. (Try examples next time)
4) Doesn't give you the right to break your paladin's code.
5) Someone else was trying to make a point about that. I disagreed. Comic book heros are not paladins. Someone else argued that my standard for paladin was too high. Thus that debate.
6) That's just your opinion. (again use examples)

1: A demon IS evil. He is not just of evil alignment. Consorting with them is basis to fall. It is on the checklist of "Yo dawg, I heard you like smiting, so we put twice the smite in your smite to smite demons, dragons and undead, so you can smite while you smite" for a REASON.

2:

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.

Emphasis mine. Not destroying teh satan himself given the opportunity is a complete fail of the whole last paragraph.

3: See above.

4: See above.

5: Then why use them so adamantly in further posts, if you disagree that they are valid representations?

6: My opinion is one forged from 20 years of GMing, extensive studies in the fields of ethics, reflection and legal legitimacy preparing me to work as a public servant, and one to which the bulk of the thread seem to agree. The "You cannot hurt me, I found a loophole" is a modern bureaucratic phenomenon, where the letter of the law is followed, while the spirit of the law is completely gone, in a corrupt world of manipulative lawyers, lobbying groups and redressing of once legitimate interest groups that long ago forgot their ideals.

So yes, it is my OPINION that a paladin is supposed to be a holy knight that crushes evil so the children can grow up to become something other than monster food, rather than a helpless parody that belongs in some modern drama like The Wire, who has to let killers and rapists go because "lol, you did not do the paperwork right".

1) Yep, no killing helpless creatures because you detected their evil.

2) No, I have no idea where you got this.
3) Yes, you have to follow all of the code, not parts of it.
4) I did not. I said he was close to a paladin. What makes a monster? Racist.
5) Yes? What is your point here.
6) Unless OP's group has that one non-PRD rule book or some way to aces those rules, then he is breaking the unaltered paladin's code.

1: So even demons would be safe from paladins in your setting.

2: From your response to 1). You insist on making comparisons between CE monsters and human prisoners in non-PF settings.

3: You are WILLFULLY disregarding large chunks of the code.

4: Being an evil monster in the bestiary, described as a horror that has no other purpose than to feed on those unfortunate enough to stray into its life. Not gonna report your slander, because I want people to see you for what you truly are.

5: My point is that comparison to comic-book characters under a different circumstance is pointless. Also, the setting does not have evil as a physical constant. Golarion has spells that use pure good to harm enemies of good. And vice versa. Judge Dredd has guns, mutants and tech.

6: That is wholly your opinion, based on your interpretation of the code, which is filled with fallacies that you willfully disregard.

So back to the topic. Can a non-court appointed paladin kill helpless prisoners and still be within their paladin code?

Or better yet. Can Superman break into a foreign prison and kill the inmates? Could any hero? Could anyone who calls themselves LG do such an act of senseless butchery?

OP's paladin is Judge Dredd. We have 15 or so pages of people saying that is OK. Tell me that there is nothing wrong with that.

Fallacies:

2: You assume that all things are equal, and should be held to the same standard. Basically, you demand that Satan and Saint Theresa are the same.

3: You give excessive weight to YOUR interpretation of a vaguely worded part of the code, while ignoring a clearly written one completely. Nowhere does it say he needs to spare evil prisoners, but it does say he needs to punish evil.

4: You assume superman, which was created to be a pro-American propaganda tool, is an appropriate representation of a paladin, and again suppose the killing of humans = killing of evil monsters. A more fitting comparison would be "Would <paladin equivalent> kill a helpless xenomorph from Alien?" or some other creature without capacity for good.

5: Again with the comic book comparison where the protagonist is held to a completely different set of circumstances and ideals.

6: OPs paladin is backed by his specific code, which is catered to fit the setting with situation-specific commandments. This involves the killing of enemies of his people, which is implied to be the innately evil humanoids towards which dwarves have the "hatred" or "defensive training" racial traits. He is NOT given free reign to dispense punishment to lawbreakers, nor slaughter prisoners wholesale when there is any question if they are damned.

In the end, your inability to consider anything but your binary take on the lawful alignment makes paladins a non-viable option if you ever were to GM, which is something I hope you warn your players about, so they do not go in under the false pretense that they will get to play an actual paladin.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.

You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.

Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.

After which, he must turn himself in and await judgement.

Don't you mean "After which, he must accept the lavishing of praise and love from the grateful citizens"?

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

Wrong again buddy, you are treading along the lines of LN and upholding the law of the land above all else even your own deity's commandments/codes/tenets. In my game, I'd sooner see your paladin fall for being lawful stupid than a dwarf stonelord paladin for "killing innocent" evil morlocks.

You can argue that a paladin does not have to submit to arrest from a non-legitimate governing body and can thus flee. He still can't slay all the LN guards in the town for doing their jobs. He falls.

Is anyone arguing that he should kill all the guards? Obviously, he needs to kill the psycho who MADE this law, or at least exorcise the fiend that clearly is possessing him if he is NOT a willing servant of darkness.

Sorry for your exaggerateing your stances earlier then - I misunderstood several statements that kind of implied the paladin could do basically whatever it wants. Now after your explanation I think we're pretty close in terms of how we view things.

However, wouldn't a paladin (in a society run by a legitimate authority) want to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else? Say she killed someone unlawfully, by the law of the land committing murder. And say people believed she did the right thing and just didn't persecute for it. If people neglected to persecute her, wouldn't she see that as corruption?

On a place with legitimate authority, this is relevant, yes. A paladin is burdened with being a spokesperson for the alignment and the ideals he or she embodies, and if the justice system is to be trusted, none should be above it. Because a justice system that sentences a PALADIN to death or similar is going to be sending out a very powerful message, and give the people a martyr.

A paladin should always strive to empower allies in justice, which includes legitimate authorities. Through such allies, more innocents can be protected, and more evildoers can be punished. All good. But corrupt authorities are not just bad for innocents and good for evildoers, it is a mockery of the ideals that the paladin is supposed to embody. In many ways, LE is the ultimate enemy of the paladin, as it corrupts and deludes the people, and destroy good far more effectively than CE can hope to.

Kamelguru wrote:

What I say is that the ideals that a paladin MUST live up to has a higher standard than most real or fictional system of government.

Uhhhhhmm... no. A paladin can do PLENTY of things that would get people jailed IRL, without any negative consequence. For example, at least in my country, ANY deliberate killing of a born human is against the law, except in extreme cases of self-defense (as in, if I point a gun to the head of a cop and he aims and shoots directly to kill me, that's illegal, but if he shoots me a few times in the legs and arms first and I still try to kill him then it might be legal).

How is a paladin that can kill almost anyone it wants, because whatever it says goes, living up to a higher authority?

First, real life does not translate to pathfinder. Real life laws vs Golarion laws have to deal with wildly different problems. Real life laws does not need to concern itself with demon summoners, undead, black magic and intellect devourers controlling politicians to manipulate the world for their evil ends. The real world laws deals with humans, and western law considers humans to be self-determined and responsible for their actions, and thus there is a whole lot more leeway when dealing with them.

And in response: Of course not. In a city, governed by a legitimate authority (non-evil), he is GIVEN the option to bring people in for trials, thus giving the legal system a chance to show its influence and gain further legitimacy.

A paladin does his best to further LG laws and LG ideals. He will go after a clearly evil baron that has people killed in the street for minor tax evasion, or the lord who enjoys trying out his brand new weapons on the children get in his way when he is out riding. There is no working from the inside with such evildoers, and the only way to rid the land of their poison is to remove it entirely, and replace them with better rulers.

My 2 cents on authority:
LG: Respect and follow, serve as example.
NG: Respect and follow, improve towards lawful when possible.

LN/N: Respect and follow when not in conflict, actively attempt to improve towards (lawful)good.

Lawful evil: Actively try to improve, overthrow if fruitless.
Neutral evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.
Chaotic Evil: Enemy; overthrow or oppose.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

However, you are exaggerating the other side. I know it's hard to make Marthkus's position any more comical, but could you please try, for the sake of balance?

Actually, Marthkus didn't say proper duel, just "honorably", which apparently includes not aiming for the soft spots, not attacking unless the opponent has an option to escape and most everything else... So I exaggerated in words, but not in the actual result.

And isn't that the same case with the other interpretation? What's the point of the paladin rule of "must respect legitimate authority" when this is the attitude towards legitimate authority?

Kamelguru wrote:

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

Renitent Rover wrote:

But that's half the point, the Paladin is the legitimate authority figure, ordained by his god to make such judgments.

EldonG wrote:

A paladin is a legitimate authority figure...his authority comes from his god...that had better be legitimate.

If the paladin is the ultimate authority then most anything the paladin does will be acceptible. Torturing baby goblins is ahokay since the paladin can just sentence them to torturous death - and his authority comes from his god! Thus it's legitimate, and no reason for the paladin to fall!

I dislike the whole attitude of paladin's goodness having gone from "a paladin must act good!" to "however a paladin acts, is good!".

What I say is that the ideals that a paladin MUST live up to has a higher standard than most real or fictional system of government. And a paladin cannot be corrupt and still be a paladin, while a judge and jury can be corrupted to the core, and still maintain their position.

And torture is out for a paladin. He is given spells and class abilities as well as Diplomacy and Sense Motive to find his information. There is no justifying torture.

Routing noncombatants that are irredeemably evil is fine, but he needs to do it in a humane manner. This is harsh for real world people to accept, because there is no such thing as a genetically EVIL race in real life. The only self-aware, sentient life on earth is humans, and arguably some sea-mammals and simians.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Keep in mind, Ilja, the reason people see killing the morlocks as okay is because morlocks are much worse than goblins. They're basically a step up from fiends. They aren't humanoids, they're creatures of the Darklands. In Golarion, they are born evil. Period.

So paladins can just stab baby creatures from evil races all day long and never worry about falling.

Not only would that be racist and evil, but it breaks his code. Fall

Racist...

REALLY!? In a world where creatures are hopelessly and irredeemably evil, created SPECIFICALLY to be so by super-charged demonic gods that have only malice envisioned when they created them, you bring in RACISM!? Holy smoke, Batman, you are on some fine psychedelics, mister. I almost want to ask for the number to your dealer.

And re: Judge Dredd clip: That is the paladin YOU envision. Blindly following the law until s+*+ goes wrong, law is used against him and he "falls". An actual paladin would stop and question Rob Schneider instead of arbitrarily sentencing him to prison.

Let me finish with this: I have never made a paladin fall in any of my games. But if someone played one like you claim they MUST be played... that streak would be broken.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

I take back what I said earlier, your sense of ethics is not just stunted, it is wholly nonexistent. You put the L waaaaaay over G, and make the paladin a construct with less self-determination than ED-209.

Being more true or pure to the idea of justice does not make you more legitimate. You are saying that paladins are basically Azatas while in fact they must behave more like Archons. Paladins must respect the law. They are not above the law.

Are you saying a paladin can be less lawful than Superman?

Respect =/= blind obedience and deference. A paladin is Lawful Good, not Lawful and Good. He supports good laws, and work to improve those that are not good. He will question the legitimacy of obviously corrupt rulers (much like superman) and destroy those who actively use law as a weapon to subjugate and terrorize.

He is JUSTICE, which is the ideal law can only hope to imitate, with its fallacies due to being crafted by humans, which means it is invariably corrupt. That is why he not only is above corrupt law, he is the ENEMY of corrupt law.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

He is above the law. He only has to abide legitimate authority. Again, not further defined. Clearly Evil based laws are out, as our demon princes (even though they are the ruler of their realms), but probably LN, N, NG and CG societies would be included as long as they did not conflict with his gods.

And again, how is he not? His god gave him the ability in order to have an impact, not to sit by and let some lazy, corrupt hillbilly court have the say.

A paladin cannot lead a rebellion or over-throw corrupt governments. He represents law and good. He cannot deny one to better serve the other.

He can try to reason with hillbilly court, but if their are no higher courts in the land that is all he can do.

10/10: Would rage again

This troll is amazing!

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

I take back what I said earlier, your sense of ethics is not just stunted, it is wholly nonexistent. You put the L waaaaaay over G, and make the paladin a construct with less self-determination than ED-209.

The paladin IS law, he is the most perfect and incorruptible servant of justice you can imagine, and no decision he ever makes will be improved upon by a potentially corrupt court.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

So...

- You cannot use ranged combat against someone who does not have a ranged weapon. Because that is an unfair advantage.

- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.

- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Fair is not the same as honorable. Please try again.

Lets play make-believe and say I used the word "dishonorable" instead of "unfair".

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

So...

- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.

- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Heck...I'd let a pally use poison. Those ants are a problem? I think the local alchemist has the right stuff... :p

Are you KILLING defenseless and INNOCENT NON-EVIL creatures with POISON?! Immediate fall! You fall so hard your mother falls! Your fall is a fall that is heard around the world!

Sense Motive DC 5:

Guys, guys! I just solved all our problems!

Paladin Archetype: Best-Friends-Forever Happy Shiny Friendship Hippie

Why can't we be friends?(Su): This ability can turn one evil creature into a good creature. The paladin can use this ability once per day, and once more every 3 levels beyond first. This ability replaces Smite Evil.

Jodokai wrote:

I've put forth the theory that you get it from 2013 ethics and wondered if you apply the same 2013 American ethics to every situation

Haha. No one has ever told me I have a modern view of ethics before.

It is hardly ethics though. You hold a kinda black/white stance, and seem to disregard the reality surrounding the paladin in favor of the wording of the code. Kinda like how cops who are afraid to get sued blindly follows, rather than interpret or see the reason/spirit behind the law, where the field of ethics and morality truly begin.

Not meant as an offense, but that is what it comes off as.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

EldonG wrote:

slade867 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"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"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

How honorable is it to fight an enemy 4 on 1?

For that matter...assume you've built this amazingly tough paladin. He's 20th level, and regularly deals with Earth-shattering foes. He comes upon a farm, where the sole inhabitant present, a young maiden, is being harassed by a single goblin, straight out of the bestiary.

"Halt, evildoer!"

Now...the goblin has NO chance of hurting you significantly. It needs a 20 to hit, and in your adamantine fortified plate, maximum damage will just get your attention.

I wonder what the appropriate response is supposed to be. The goblin is essentially helpless, compared to you.

Except it's not helpless. The goblin can run away or not attack you. A prisoner tied up in corner begging for mercy is helpless.

No.

You're kind'of an @$$. Just to let you know.

Opinion.

Those HD could have been gain through fighting off other monsters.

Then it is not evil. Something that exclusively fights combat-worthy monsters to survive is not evil.

Drizzt the drow creature kills monsters to survive, and does not kill anything that is not a threat to himself or others. He is good.

Most any given other drow kills, then tortures the non-combatants for fun, and sacrifices even their own children to gain favor with demonic lords and evil gods. They are evil.

This can be applied to other creatures. A wyvern is not evil by nature, but it is intelligent and capable of evil. A hill giant is evil by nature, but capable of NOT being evil if it so chooses.

There is a point made in here that is very valid in my opinion: There is no better judge than a paladin. No other person can ever hope to be given the same level of trust to give a fair judgment.

Think about it:
- The paladin can detect evil. Evil is the fruit of evil acts. People with an evil aura are guilty by their very nature, unless you make evil not really evil in your game.

- The paladin is also held responsible for his actions. He will NEVER be corrupt, or he will lose his powers, which a third party can easily identify by asking him to use lay on hands or similar.

- He will ensure that justice is done, if someone brings you in on false charges, he will likely want to look into it and catch whomever is doing the real evil acts.

- He will show mercy to those who REALLY are victims of circumstance; non-evil people who happened to get mixed up in something bad.

Heck, I would go so far as to say that in a perfect LG scenario, ONLY paladins should be allowed to mete out death penalties.

If you are playing morlocks and drow true to their nature, NO player character, from the spectrum of LG to CE should have any qualms about killing them. They are monsters, worshippers of a host of cruel gods, demon-consorts and worse. The drow are the epitome of evil, but thanks to the damage caused by Drizzt Do'Urden, people seem to think that drow are "misunderstood", rather than realizing that what makes him such an unlikely hero is that he comes from the worst of the worst sorts.

This is all irrelevant if you are playing a happy go lucky My Little Pathfinder edition, where there is no real evil, only victims of circumstance and tragic figures who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A magical world of rainbows and sunshine, where every villain can be turned to serve good, given the time and understanding that it was deprived of as a child.

The canon setting of Golarion has some horrifying stuff, just read up on the bestiary entries for ogres and goblins for confirmation, and the paladin has a holy mission to go forth and combat the terror that lurks out there, serving gods that embody the worst of sins, whose desire is to see the world filled with pestilence, death and ruin.

If the paladin shows mercy, and allows someone to keep their lives, HE becomes responsible for every act of evil that creature does from that point onward. In my game, letting an irredeemably evil creature live for any other purpose than being taken to a rightful trial, and subsequently imprisoned or magically atoned, would fall. It is a willful evil act to give aid to someone who will use said aid for evil.

Kamelguru wrote:

You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason.

Heh, I like this. But here's the flaw. Detect Evil is whenever you want, as long as you want, on whomever you want, without limitation. Smite evil is limited to only a certain number of times. Balance issues aside, there's also a philosophy behind it. An evil person can be evil at heart and perform 0 evil acts his entire life. A Paladin would not smite him. He is, despite his alignment, innocent.

One thing the OP didn't mention, and many people here have automatically assumed, is that the people in the cells were evil, had committed evil every waking moment of their life, and would do so again in barest second when given a chance. Who said they hadn't been born here? Raised here? Kept here for amusement and would ultimately die here?

Smiting is limited because "see evil, smash evil" on reflex is a downward spiral into the murky quandry many actively evil persons live in.

Evil and do 0 evil acts? How do you get to level 5+ without EVER doing an evil act as an evil character? That is silly at best and entrapment at worst. A person that wants the world to burn, but NEVER acts upon it, not even to the degree where he kicks a kitten, is a Neutral person with a bad disposition. Just like a person who wants the world to be a better place but never offers a single copper or helps an old woman cross the street is not good.

In order to be evil, you need to BE evil. I have changed PC alignments before due to their reluctance to ever do good acts. There was a NG wizard in my last game that never did anything for anyone else, and was completely consumed with his magical studies, and regulations of the kingdom for the sake of structure, income and order. I made him LN, and the player agreed that it was the correct decision.

Kamelguru wrote:

There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.

Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?

And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.

You Detect Evil, assess the situation appropriately and you Smite when necessary.

It doesn't work to Smite everything that pings evil. Not sure where you and a few others have gotten this stance.

Jeez, put some clothes on that straw-man, it is barely even humanoid.

That is not what I said, and you know it. My statement is that you get the power to destroy evil. You do not get the power to make evil magically turn non-evil.

No, you cannot smite everything that pings evil (and not just because you are limited to X smites/day), but everything that pings evil is corrupt, and warrants distrust. Depending on the god you follow, the next step varies. Paladins of Torag are obliged to kill everything considered "enemies of his people". Paladins of Sarenrae are obliged to give them a shot at redemption. But even they consider it a holy gift, and does not allow it to be subject of mockery or trifle.

In certain places, people have to live with evil, because evil is stronger, and have the upper hand. Societies can still exist, because people still have basic needs like food, shelter and so on. And most people are not heroes, and most heroes are not paladins. Thus, a lot of bad stuff needs to be accepted to survive. If a LE lord is the only reason the orcs are not violating your wife, sister and daughter, then you choose the lesser of two evils. If you are a paladin, you work your way up to reform or replace the evil lord, and become ruler yourself, for the good of the people. Or set out to destroy the orcs, so your people can unite against the evil lord. In no way is it acceptable for the paladin to do nothing and accept his people be kicked between two evils. Evil must be combated, for that is your purpose as a paladin.

There is a reason very few of the long-lived races have paladins. Most creatures that live for eons tend to get colored by the evils committed against someone they know well, and get rather callous about the lives of their enemies. Human lives are very short, which allows them to be naive and grow up without knowing repeated wars against creatures whose whole purpose in life is to kill you, nor the fight for mere survival.

Torag has been around since pretty much the dawn of time, and seen gods rise for the mere purpose of opposing him and his people. Orcs exist to destroy dwarves and elves, unless I am mixing up my lore here. Why would Torag NOT demand their extinction?

And to top it off, this is Golarion, where several gods of unquestionable evil exist. It is NOT earth, where you can argue that <insert religion/system of belief> is or is not evil, and open for interpretation. You follow a god, and if you do not live up to his or her VERY narrow expectations, you are cut off from their favor, and no spells for you. Nobody thinks Rovagug is actually a nice, misunderstood guy that is just acting out because he does not know how to otherwise express himself. And it is no secret that theft, poison and murder is the domain of the evil god Norgorber. People who choose to live within the domains of a god to the degree that their alignment correlates... well, if you are a paladin and want to protect the goodly people, it is your gods given MANDATE to kill them. You are given the powers "Detect Evil" and "SMITE EVIL" for a reason. IF you worship Sarenrae, and ONLY Sarenrae, are you obligated to give them a shot at redemption. And if you read up on Torag, you will see that he considers her weak and foolish.