TolkienBard's page

Just to clarify, I see Cinematic Wonderwoman and Thor as around level 12-13ish (to say they roughly belong in a party slinging 6th or 7th level spells.)

THat is one severely STEEP power curve. I mean, these are characters already defying the will of gods and sometimes surviving going toe-to-toe with them.

LEt me be clear, I don't find anything at all wrong with that. This is a matter of to each their own.

I guess my biggest question at that point though would be, how does one ever find their way beyond level 13-15 or so without being born to it?

However, this is a thread about skill proficiency. My take on that is, I need WAY more information on how this is going to work. With just the basics out there right now, it sure seems that a great many issues are bound to creep in almost immediately, especially when we start comparing untrained or trained with experts.

Trimalchio wrote:

Everyone seems to have a different line on where martials should be. Personaly, a level 20 fighter should be on par with the upper half of marvel heroes, like silver surfer, hulk, Thor, etc reskinned for fantasy of course.

Yeah, Thor (and Wonder Woman) are excellent examples of peak martials.

Linked for the pre-fight analysis not the animation or results

Not sure I could ever imagine a pure martial being Thor, an actual god, with the power to, without his magic items, still control primal parts of the universe. Not to mention, outside of other gods assailing him, he's immortal. There are some questions about whether or not he is vulnerable even then. He's certainly impervious to anything else mundane, to the extent that even planet destroying events do not hurt him. THat's WAY BEYOND just being a 20th level martial class.

Wonder Woman, on the other hand, does feel just about right - assuming the lack of deific powers, such as pseudo-immortality.

I'm still trying to figure out when/where it became a thing that a PC's on-sheet alignment determined behaviour, and not the other way around. Picking an alignment at creation is just a rough idea of how you think your PC will be at THAT MOMENT IN TIME. That doesn't mean the alignment will never change as the result of decisions that arise through normal gameplay.

Sure, there are some, mostly Paladins and Druids that need to be mindful of their alignment, but that is actually baked into the very fabric of the class' persona. Paladins needing to remain LG is a GOOD thing. It's what gives them their abilities. Looking to maintain a balance so that nature can exist in harmony is the very definition of the point of a Druid. These PCs still start off with arbitrary alignments. Then, through making decisions, that alignment might shift deeper into their favour, or start to show where they are starting to slip against their ethos.

MASSIVE alignment shifts should always be a truly rare thing. Alignment shifting a point or two (on a scale of 0-100) is not the end of the world. If it is, chances are the PC has had plenty of time and opportunity to examine their behaviour before that.

Thematically, I have never been a fan of 1-level dips. On the other hand, I have never outright banned them at my tables, even the heavily homebrewed ones. If the player REALLY wants the 1st level abilities and is willing to pay the cost when looking at needing to wait longer to unlock the top level stuff in their primary class, I'm not going to rain on their fun.

The only time I can think of that I really put up a bit of a stink about it was in an old 3.0 game, where I had a player want to 1-level dip for HiPS out of Shadowdancer, despite not having really shown any inclination to being that sort of character to that point. Sure, they had the requisite stats, but they had never used them in THAT fashion. I compromised and allowed him to take the level, but he didn't get the feat until he found someone to teach it to him. It opened up some nice side-session role-play.

Full caster progression for multi-class casters is one of the biggest benefits I still see from the concept of prestige classes. Arcane Tricksters needed three levels of rogue and five of wizard to enter the class, but then could take 10 levels of AT and get sneak and casting both. Then, at the end of those 10 levels, they could take 2 more levels of wizard for 9th level spells, or they could take 2 more levels of rogue for additional skills/sneak.

Mystic Theurge had a higher cost of entry (5/5) and, at the end, the cast had 8th level spell from both sides. Then, the player had to choose how to progress after level 20.

These sorts of solutions always seemed the most balanced and worthy to me. They didn't allow full casting from the very start. They made a PC "earn" it. THis at least helped somewhat mitigate the fact that allowing casters to do MORE while still getting full casting bonuses on levelling up made them even more powerful. After all, a balanced AT essentially eliminated the need for a rogue from a party. A MT was a master of magic. They didn't blast as hard or heal as well, but they did do each of them far better than most other people ever could hope to, and could often use the abilities from one side to benefit the other.

THe problem with PrCs was that once they were introduced, developers everywhere tried creating PrCs for every single character concept ever conceived. Paizo might have a great chance to create a similar feel using archetypes in new ways with PF2. Racial and cultural heritage defining characters more at creation is a step in the right way to allowing customization without creating tons of new races, sub-races, classes, etc. Hopefully, they can apply this to multi-classed casters as well.

Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.

I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.

We clearly have a different idea of the relative power levels of the different levels. I always considered a seasoned, veteran soldier, complete with the associated training to be rather equivalent to a level 9-10 fighter. Guys like Garet Jax and Kenshin Himura were so skilled that they made these level 9-10's look like level 0's.

But, that's the beauty of these RPG systems. They allow for scaling expectations.

This is such a fine line that I'm not sure there is any way that Paizo can create a system in PF2 that isn't going to piss off a major portion of the player base.

On one hand, it's great that there are already 10 classes that can engage in some sort of healing. It's EVEN BETTER that they are looking at making is so players of any class can invest in healing skills/feats and be mundane healers using bandages and salves.

On the other hand, if these same characters are able to eliminate the likes of Mummy Rot and other status-altering effects, then what in the world is the point of playing a cleric that actually plays to type? If anything, playing a cleric to type quickly becomes as much a hindrance as it helps with resource allocation. Sure, the healer can come along and magically spell things away, but they aren't contributing nearly as much in combat and other situations, and those magical heals just aren't really all that NECESSARY. In smaller groups, anything that isn't necessary for survival and advancement is usually quickly discarded.

Maybe Paizo finds a way to make a balance, but I fear any system that tries to balance the two will have too many loopholes. Sure, mundane healing can keep a disease or poison from killing a person, but maybe it doesn't actually CURE it, and that healing needs to be applied regularly (once per day?). You would still need some sort of magical healing to remove blindness and such, but there are multiple ways in which someone can come by this, not just through clerics.

I understand the concept of "If a role is required, it isn't special."

By the same token, if a role is irrelevant, then there are a ton of other issues.

Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

MMOs took their lead from AD&D. There's something to be said for a balanced party of a fighter, a rogue, a divine caster (Cleric/Druid) and an arcanist. IT's awesome when one member is able to branch out and help out in another area, but there still needs to be some reason for a player to specialize in one of these paths. If all of a cleric's healing abilities (short of resurrection) can be duplicated through mundane means, there is little point to playing a cleric to type and a massive emphasis on playing against type and embracing an archetype other than healer.

I can't count how many times I have played in campaigns where my healer was merely dead weight because the party didn't need one, due to wands, potions, and other mundane healing.

This is one area where I REALLY want to see some of the math laid out before I get too excited one way or the other. IMHO, Outside of combat and inside of combat are just too disparately different beasts to be rolled into one system - but with the right math, maybe it DOES work.

The idea that a mundane, untrained, or even moderately trained person is might still have a fairly robust chance of doing something an expert could bothers me. At the same time, if my wizard invests heavily in sneaking, I like the idea that he could become an expert sneak, on par with a rogue.

I applaud Paizo for wanting to make skills and proficiencies more relevant and engaging in PF2. That's a big ask though, so I am only cautiously optimistic that they are able to do so without bringing in a whole new set of problems on the back end.

The martial/caster disparity has existed since the beginning of D&D and is never going to be entirely removed. Honestly, in many ways, AD&D got the solution best. Rather than trying to make a level 20 fighter equal to a level 20 magic-user, it became MUCH easier to reach level 20 as a fighter than as a magic-user.

One thing that 3e brought in that has NEVER made sense to me is that all characters level at the same rate, regardless of what class they are playing. Since the very beginning, this has created disparities that all dedicated martial players come out on the short side of.

But if one stops and thinks about, it makes some sense. I mean, a level 20 fighter is a character that even the most fearsome of opponents should fear to meet on the battlefield and should never want to encounter 1:1, like Garet Jax of Shannara (of the books not the weaksauce show version). A 20th level rogue is a PC of legend, someone that most anyone has only ever heard of in stories, but cannot say they have honestly seen, since they NEVER ARE SEEN, except maybe by the unfortunate soul who they dispatch in an instant from the shadows, right before stealing the medallion right off the sleeping wizard's throat (Artemis Anteri).

These are supremely awesome characters that any player could be proud of. Even wizards cower before them - unless of course that wizard is also 20th level. A 20th level wizard is feared by the gods because of the power he or she wields. They can temporarily alter the very fabric of reality with their spells and, if others aren't careful, maybe even permanently.

In the early years, fighter-types carried casters on their backs for many of the early levels. The pay-off was that at the higher levels, casters were no longer squishy and could empower the fighter-types to do even GREATER things than their ordinary skills would allow. Now though, the mechanic of all classes levelling up at an equal rate has the focus on trying to balance mundane characters with magical ones of the same level.

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

Lady Firebird wrote:

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

"A master is extremely skilled in an area, and she can achieve incredible results. In addition to adjusting her checks and DCs by +2, she may unlock powerful perks like master-level skill feats for skills, **or the ability to dodge fireballs completely for Reflex saves**."

Please tell me you didn't just make Evasion a feat instead of a Class Feature....

Why not? This would make it more readily available to everyone, but especially to those nimble characters whose expertise lies in that sort of thing.

We don't need a Dex-Based Barbarian that in addition to having a MASSIVE pool of HP, and probably DR of some sort, also just "Lol, Nope"-ing Fireballs.

We don’t?

MEh, I can see where the concern might be, but I think it can be quickly mitigated. It would depend entirely on just HOW MUCH a barbarian needs to invest in acrobatics (or whatever the eventual choice is)before unlocking the ability to take the evasion feat. I mean, if he invests in acrobatics to the detriment of all other skills, then - why not? If it is just a basic skill anyone can take though, then there are some serious issues.

Another palad...alignment post. Cool.

Seriously though, im all in favor of scrapping alignment.

Well, it didn't start out that way, however, it is impossible to discuss scrapping alignment without also finding a way to address the elephant in the room that is the class almost 100% DEFINED by alignment - a class that a large portion of the player base does not want to see eliminated.

As far as the players’ morality being challenged such that they have to defend it, that’s exactly what doesn’t happen at all. A challenge is a trial that is overcome or not, but with alignment, you’re not supposed to overcome it, you’re supposed to already be agreeing with it. Or you’re supposed to be knuckling under. But there are no provisions for, say, when the game says casting Infernal Healing is an evil act by virtue of nothing more than an alignment descriptor, full stop, to tell the game “no” and expect any resolution other than you agreeing, you knuckling under, or you leaving.

Except there IS a provision for this sort of thing. It's called working with your GM and agreeing to what is and is not evil, what will and will not be allowed. If the agreed upon rule is that the evil descriptor applies to Infernal Healing, full-stop, then the evil descriptor applies and anyone using the spell is committing an evil act - period.

If it is agreed that there are grey areas, and if used in the service of good, infernal healing is at worst a neutral act, then so be it.

Often times these descriptors are added to acts/spells/creatures/classes as part of a way of balancing cost-benefit and consequences.

Do bad/evil things, and the game becomes easier from the point of view of power acquisition and problem solving, but the cost is that you become the villain in your own story. Instead of people seeking you out for help, they are seeking you out to end you. THe opposite also applies.

TolkienBard wrote:

Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

By all that is unholy, please learn about power gameing before you try to use this debunked and vastly flawed argument. Cleric dipping into paladin for a few levels is NOT power gaming.

I never said anything about a cleric taking levels of Paladin being power-gaming. In fact, I have, more than once in these threads, pointed out that paladin-fighters and paladin-clerics are very much a thing that makes sense.

There are ways to in which a Paladin-dip can be used though which do break game balance.

TolkienBard wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this affect you?

We already have 12 core base classes coming out. Now you want to add SEVEN MORE? The point of PF2 is to simplify.

No I don't. The Champion of Ideals is one class.

Just like the Sorcerer is one class despite numerous bloodlines.

Just like the Wizard is one class despite numerous specializations.

Just like the Cleric is one class despite numerous domains.

It's NOT just like though. All of those classes have zero restrictions upon them. Short of the cleric, they can do whatever they want whenever they want without fear of consequence when it come to the class they have chosen. Even the cleric is likely to get away with just about anything so long as they aren't champioing something in direct opposition to their deity's wishes.

Having Champion of Ideals as ONE class with 8 branches seems interesting, I'll admit. But then each one still needs a full 1-20 uniqueness to it, including its own rigid code that punishes the character with loss of blessings for straying too far from the path. Call it one class if you want, at that point, it pretty much is eight classes.

A necromancer is still just a wizard. They just like playing with dead things. The difference is mostly cosmetic. Heck, by high levels the penalty for opposition schools is almost irrelevant. This is very different from making a dedicated path of each alignment.

The entire point of the Paladin class is to force a rigid alignment restriction upon a character in exchange for blessings. If the only restriction is that a player must choose an alignment they like at creation and that's it, the difficulty stops. "Hi, I'm CG, so I can do anything I want whenever I want so long as it helps the greater good and I get all sorts of benefits for doing so." They've just completely insulated themselves from most alignment-based repercussions that could strip them of their gifts. It gets even worse if they choose to be CN. Now there are no repercussions for ANY act.

Part of the Paladin's drive is the innate understanding that behaving in ways that stray from the LG path are going to cost them internally, scarring them, and also leaving them bereft of blessings they have come to use and rely on.

I have no idea what you are talking about with an alternate account. But. it has been my experience on numerous occasions that the Paladin dip has resulted in a massive influx of abilities that broke the game in some spectacular (though admittedly entertaining) ways. Maybe we just have different powergamers that we are exposed to.

@ Nox

Let's say the CRB has a class called Champion of Ideals.

This class had eight branches, one representing each alignment other than True Neutral.

One of these branches are the Lawful Good Paladins.

In world, absolutely nothing changes.

How does this affect you?

We already have 12 core base classes coming out. Now you want to add SEVEN MORE? The point of PF2 is to simplify.

I get what you are saying, and at first blush, it almost makes some sense. But here's the problem.

All eight versions need to be core, base classes that come with their own, mostly unique level progression from 1-20 and all of them need to exhibit the same rigid alignment restriction that the Paladin does to LG. For some, especially CN, that is going to be a logical quagmire, since the nature of CN is TO BE UNBOUND.

Furthermore, do we really need seven more martial fighter classes? And once we open that bottle, giving each alignment its own flavour, does it stop there? Or are we then going to start just making these abilities more feat-like, as plenty of players will want some of column A and a bit of column B, all while playing a PC from column C.

For the record, I'm not against more classes. I think that the more classes that are brought in as core. BASE classes, the more complicated things are quickly going to get though. In such a system, one would almost, by force, need to adopt a rule prohibiting these classes from multi-classing, just to keep things sane. Hell, in the campaigns I am part of, the house rule is already that Paladins can only multi-class with fighter or cleric, but that's a house rule we have settled on.

It seems some of the biggest reasons the existence of Paladins as a strictly LG class is even an issue really comes back to just a few glaring problems. First, there is the "Paladin of (deity name here)" issue. Paladins, don't need to worship a specific deity to obtain their blessings. They need to follow the path of LG. Outside of following that path, they could in fact be devotees/worshipers of pretty much any deity. That does not make said deity where they get there gifts from though. Granted, it would be illogical for the Paladin to worship any deity devoted to chaos and suffering, but that falls into following the LG path, not with a conflict of religious tennant. Secondly, there is the multi-classing issue. One thing early editions of D&D got mostly right (IMHO) was restricting the Paladin's ability to multi-class. They couldn't do it. As I pointed out above, we modified things to allow more fighter or, if the Paladin IS a devotee of a particular deity, cleric. Those are the only options. That eliminates the many of the incentives for players to take the Paladin dip. Players taking a Paladin dip are ALMOST always doing it for power optimization, not for story-driven reasons.

The classic Paladin archetype has been around for 600+ years now. Many players want to attempt it. It isn't easy. The fun of playing a Paladin often comes from the challenge of following such a rigid code, or else losing the gifts of Paladin-hood.

OPening up the Paladin to any alignment as some of suggested makes ZERO sense. Creating seven more base classes makes more sense, but still seems awfully fraught with problems. Then the arguments begin that rigid codes of conduct are silly and that there should be no reason for alignment to come into play. Except for the Paladin, alignment rests at the very core of their being.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

News flash, there are nine alignments. If there's a paladin for every alignment, I can effectively behave however I want and still be a paladin.

That's false. Because your alignment do not dictate your behaviour. Your personality does, and in case of paladins, your code does. Just like not all LG act the same, not all NG or CN or LN act the same.

In pathfinder, a Paladin of Torag have this tenet (among others):

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

But a Paladin of Iomedae has this one:
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives

Those are 2 different codes for LG, and those codes guide the action of the character, not the fact he is LG. Same goes for other alignments.

Same goes for characters of other aligments and ethos. Saerenrae is a NG goddess, and her tenet says:
"The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight. I will fight fairly when the fight is fair, and I will strike quickly and without mercy when it is not."

while the also NG Shelyn says:
"I am peaceful. I come first with a rose rather than a weapon, and act to prevent conflict before it blossoms. I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent."

Just because both gods are NG, doesn't mean both behaeave the same.

Some of this comes back to the silly development that crept in that a Paladin be associated with a deity in the first place. Removing the need for deities and Paladins to be tied to one another would seem to be a better solution than eliminating the need for Paladins to be LG.

Devoting oneself to being an exemplar of one walking the LG path is pretty much the underlining definition of being a PAladin. The "reward" for being so devoted is a set of blessings and abilities.

Opening up thes blessing and abilities to PCs of any alignment entirely removes the cost of obtaining the abilities. At that point, Paladin abilities and blessings just become something any fighter can take simply because they feel they are an example of some alignment. There's no cost there, just benefit.

The most important thing that the devs need to focus on is creating a solid, stable set of core rules. If these rules are balanced and stable and pay attention to flexibility with unexpected interactions, it shouldn't really be a problem to add mythic/epic/post-20 content.

The foundation is the most important thing. If the power creep is out of control in levels 15-20, then anything beyond 20 is going to be exponentially more broken. If, however, the scaling works, the interactions of abilities remains somewhat balanced, and the end-game content remains on the established power curve for each class, then adding new post-20 content is not difficult.

I DO THINK it is a mistake for the devs to not consider the community desire for post-20 content when creating this new set of core rules. If all the rules are designed to top out at level 20 (or at any specific level really), then power curves and ability interactions are going to be be adjusted with that in mind, making any future additional abilities and powers problematic.

Many people I know claim that 20 levels is plenty of time to develop a character and to become immensely powerful. The thing is, that puts an almost definitive end on the adventuring careers of some PCs. OPen-ended campaigns that exist in a thriving setting could find themselves filled with level 20 PCs after a considerable time playing. Heck, I personally have had four different PC that lasted in excess of five years in ongoing campaigns. Even the slow leveller eventually hit the point where post-20 content became essential.

I'd much rather there be at least the skeleton of a system in place, built on a solid foundation that addresses these PCs rather than getting to the point where it's simple, "Whelp, you've become so powerful that it's time to retire your awesome PC that we all love and start a new one."

necromental wrote:

Inquisitor

Oracle
Bloodrager
Occultist
Summoner
..whatever

Although depending on how they go about their base classes and archetypes, maybe none will be necessary.

Like if rogue is full BAB that's a slayer, new action economy could subsume practically all that is unique in swashbuckler, and new gun rules maybe won't need a dedicated class (i think eric mona mention it will be a class but nevermind now). Even all of the those I mentioned could be archetypes (ok, you need a 3/4 bab 6th lvl divine casting class, as that is not present in the core).

Yeah, I agree that it’s classes which are hardest to do as archetypes/another class that are most pressing.

So the Kineticist isn’t remotely like any other class, and so is a natural candidate.

Likewise, the Occultist works very differently from any existing class, and so is another natural candidate.

Ditto for something like the Harrowed Medium.

This is the boat I am in. I would be very slow to add new classes, making damn sure that some combination of archetypes, skills, and playstyles couldn't be combined with relative ease in order to create the desired class effect.

Kineticist probably ranks at the very top of that list. It is a class entirely unto itself in how it is played and approached. Meanwhile, many of the others mentioned above feel more like they could be achieved through creative application of archetypes, skills, and RP.

I think the proliferation of classes is one of the things that has needlessly complicated D&D/PF over the years. Keep classes as incredibly basic as possible, make the add-ons and customizations where the different PC types come from. There's no need for a dedicated swashbuckler class if some combination of fighter and rogue mix can achieve it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's really kind of jarring to me how people can read that section of Horror Adventures about consent and jump right to the conclusion that "the most upsetting thing that can happen to me in a game is being told 'no' or that the thing I did was not acceptable." Like that is what upsets you?

No - and in good faith I explain that consent isn't about being told no - it's about making a change to my character against my will. All the other parts of the game that affect my character are coded by rules - even domination effects. I can read the book and you can read the book and we both understand what the save is and how it affects my character.

However none of these rules (even death - honestly) changes a fundamental *core* concept of what my character is.

None of them - except alignment (but only for those classes that have actual restrictions - everyone else is just fine). A sense of self over your character is one of the most fundamental things you have control over - it shouldn't even be an option to take it away. Domination effects are contentious and they aren't even as horrible.

To me, this comes down WAY MORE to an understanding between the PC and DM as to what is and is not going on. Instantly invalidating a PC's build based on anything, including alignment is just plain wrong IMHO. That said, a mild build-up, including a number of RP warnings that result in a change seems entirely acceptable to me. If the DM is giving the PC plenty of opportunities to amend their ways, I just don't see a problem with consequences.

Example:

If someone is playing a Paladin, there is a reasonable expectation that they will, to the best of their ability, uphold and support the causes of being LG. The reward/payoff for doing so is a specific set of benefits and abilities. If the Paladin is unable, or more seriously, actively chooses NOT to pursue the LG path, if he wantonly pals around with morally disreputable sorts, then it makes total sense to claim that the PC is no longer receiving the cosmic blessings of being an exemplar of the LG path. The blessings, such as LoH were the direct result of the adherence to the LG path. That's the benefit from choosing to so rigidly follow the path. It makes no sense that a CG or CN fighter would receive the same blessing. Where's the cost?Now they are nothing more than fighters being given blessings and abilities without the need to pay for them through discipline and restrictions.

There are SOME alignment restrictions I never understood. I always was a bit fuzzy on why Rangers being good was ever a thing beyond the fact that the original game made the pretty basic assumption that PCs were going to be the "good guys" and should be striving to embody that. I also was a bit sketchy about the requisite that assassins be evil. James Bond is the classic example of a non-evil assassin.

On the other hand, Druids sticking to the five alignments on the neutrality axis makes total sense to me. A Druid straying too far to one of the four corners is not embracing the balance that is at the heart of the Druid's nature.

Igwilly wrote:

Fighters may advance as high as 36th level.

Some of us still miss having 36 levels to the game.

As someone who has played in multiple long-running campaigns, I am heartily in this boat. After playing the same PC with a regular group for almost six years, uber epicness was inevitable.

That said, with two of the three PCs that I played that lasted for great lengths of time in an open setting, alignment came into play more than once as a mechanic that added loads of flavour and conflict. The alignment issues became driving motivators to great sub-plots that I would be sad to have seen eliminated.

seriously, to me, the OP's original argument is

"When the DM makes things happen to our characters that we don't want to have happen because of a rule we don't think we should have to follow it's not fair.

In campaigns that I have been a part of, we don't share with each other our alignments. In fact, we share very little of our character's stats or composition. All that meta stuff is left on the sheet and private between the DM and the PCs.

That has, in the past, led to a Paladin paling about with a LE wizard. She was not some sort of openly evil, kill fluffy bunnies and enslave all inferior species evil. She was, however, very selfish with knowledge and power and had very little compunction against violating the physical (and later mental) spaces of others. The ends (her becoming a magical force with no peer) justified the means, so long asd those means did not bring more trouble than could be easily handled. In other words, not Lawful Stupid. She was also incredibly charismatic and enjoyed using her wiles to get what she wanted. After a bit, this also included her having fun making the Paladin very self-conscious, as she made it quite clear time and again that she was up for finding out who could out-sex whom (not in the pornographic sense- gets your minds out of the gutter, LOL).

For his part, the Paladin was very true to class when the party left the hamlet and began its adventure. When they settled in the city a bit later, the party had grown to be something of a family (sort of). They continued to have plenty of adventures, and the Paladin was a for many in the world, was essentially the face of this adventuring party. They began to gain a reputation as problem solvers - and his reputation grew as a force which truly evil people feared.

This was all fine and dandy until he had what became his "Sturm Brightblade moment" and he was called to task by another Paladin who had (through previous actions of the party) been wronged by the wizard's actions. Then it slowly came out through a pretty involved, intense, and utterly enjoyable RP session that the Paladin, through his actions working with the group, had been assisting an evil power become more powerful.

This evolved into a crisis of personal belief and had the Paladin begin questioning everything he "thought" he stood for. How could he have been a beacon of god and justice and not noticed the evil under his nose (and potentially other places). It also created a new conflict by giving him a chance to see the wizard in a new light and letting him reassess his relationship with her.

While he never became a "fallen" Paladin, he did find that his convictions did not serve him as well as they once did until after the party reached the next milestone moment in the campaign. At that point, he put his best Paladin foot forward in some pretty epic fashion that was further augmented by some great dice rolls. After that, he was able to continue to party with the wizard because he was able to make a strong case that it was his presence and influence that was keeping her from becoming an out-and-out exemplar of evil incarnate. He made it clear that he was set on keeping her from going entirely dark by helping her to learn to be good by example. He would be there to teach her and guide her to being a good person. He would also be there to end her should she slip.

This was all great RP, and it was largely dictated by the alignment mechanics with regards to Paladins paling around with evil characters. Removing the restriction on Paladins needing to be LG, or removing their prohibition to assisting evil characters would have probably eliminated this storyline.

Alignment as guidelines with SOME mechanical restrictions has always made sense to me. I do think that alignment became far too attached to too many mechanics at some point, likely late in the development of D&D 2E. It also has not helped that the systems over the years have gone out of their way to define what is and is not good and evil, instead of letting the PCs and DMs decide it.

Necromancy come to mind in this manner. At this point, necromancy is, by almost any measure, evil. Go back to AD&D though, and healing spells were from the necromancy school of magic, not the conjuration. Creating numerous subtypes of magic with alignment descriptors didn't help either. Had they just left the spells as being identified with a school, but nothing more, the alignment issues go away in terms of mechanics. The PCs and DMs then dictate how these spells interact and who can or cannot use them.

Alignment does need re-evaluation, but it absolutely should be here to stay.