Zetser_Requiem's page

Well I'll be damned. James Jacobs himself to confirm it. (here for reference http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=414?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu %20estions-Here#20660)

I humbly recant my denials. I must say that I am confused to why they give detect evil to you at level 1 then, and not until level 4 when you get all your spells.

Zetser_Requiem wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.

No. It does not. It works like the detect evil spell.

Detect evil does not detect hd under 4 with a few exceptions.

I am reading it from the book, it says nothing about not knowing the alignment. First thing detect evil spell does is to detect the presence of evil, with the following 2 steps determining how powerful it is via an aura surrounding the creature, if any.

In other words, you know they are evil, they just don't have an aura that you could gauge them off of. Now if the player had the undetectable alignment spell that would be different.

Also the paladin would need a reason to detect evil on the guy. otherwise they wouldn't know.

Says who? You meet a guy who is the twin of the other guy that was just off'd and you wouldn't check to see if he may not be on the level?

It is a built in feature that the paladin can use whenever they want, and it is a spell like ability, meaning they can do it without being noticed.

In this situation caution is and should be reason enough, not that you need one to use the ability in the first place.

Detect evil does not detect non-divine casters under level 4.

I believe that is only for aura power. They would still know they are evil. They just wouldn't pick up an aura. You may be right though. I'll have to verify this.

Edit: So just checked. I was correct, you would still know they are evil, just not how evil.

It's certainly a lot easier than you people seem to think, which if we're being honest - is basically "impossible" in your opinions since to even work with someone evil, they basically have to already be "formerly evil."

You know who's a great example of Paladins without a stick in their ass? Jedi. Yeah, those guys who mind trick the s~$* out of everyone, constantly deal peaceably with probably evil people all the time like the huts, occasionally disobey legitimate authority if it gets in the way of their doing good - and they're just as morally righteous as any vanilla Paladin. Plus, even if they break the rules, they don't "fall" or become Sith automatically.

The way you portray Paladins is as people who only ever deal with absolutes...and well, I'll let Obi Wan speak about what that means to him.

Forgot about this bit. The original jedi order fell exactly due to the way they acted. The Jedi from the Star Wars Prequels followed the Jedi Code, which was meant as a mere guideline, as a set of unbreakable rules and set out to completely repress all emotion in somewhat unfounded fear of those emotions leading to the dark side, when they should have acknowledged that which makes us human and simply taught how to use them positively. Such arbitrarily following of the code leads the Council to turn a blind eye to the various problems Anakin Skywalker was having, thereby unintentionally sealing their own downfall.

Inb4 appeal to emotion fallacy

Zetser_Requiem wrote:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it. Just because you associate with an evil person, doesn't mean you tolerate acts of evil, or that you're going to start hanging out with devil summoners next. Sorry your argument is about as convincing as a DARE presentation of why marijuana is going to make you a meth head someday (read -> scare tactics, lies, and fallacies).

Quote:

The paladin of Saerenrae is not going to simply allow the evil character into the party in hopes of them becoming good; they are going to be hounding that character at all times to make sure they do. If the evil character objects, then no, they are out. After all, if you are so petty to refuse Saerenrae's forgiveness, you’re on your own. You don't have to smite the character on the spot, as they have not done anything wrong in your presence, (granted a slight against your god may count depending how you play the character) but they sure as heck are not going with you. If they do say yes, that evil character should be constantly be under watch and feel unwelcome at all times until their alignment changes on their sheet.

Redemption isn't behaving like a christian camp instructor thumping his bible at you. Hell, you're even worse than a bible thumper because at least those guys are persistent in trying to "save your soul." You on the other hand give up on the first 'no.' I don't think you get what it means to show people there's a better way to do things, since that's certainly what rehabilitation centers don't do. In fact, you kind of sound like Alcoholics Anonymous "If you don't accept Jesus [Sarenrae] into your heart, you can never overcome your addiction to alcohol [evil]."

So no, there are many ways to redemption. People who are evil aren't necessarily petty either, in fact some of the best fictional villains I can remember had a greater sense of honor and dignity than their heroic counterparts.

Couple of things.

1. The decision to NOT act(or in this case to allow the evil character knowing the risks), to refrain from acting, is not neutral. It is itself a conscious act freighted with its own set of consequences,legal, social, economic,and moral, e.g., the decision NOT to call the police when a crime is being committed because we don’t want to get involved. The “slippery slope” argument is, quite simply, a moral cop-out.

2. The reason why they can and will hound the evil character is because they literally have the ability to see their alignment. Again, every day they see this is enough to put them into a cautious stance against the evil character. This is not simply due to paladins being moral zealots, this is more to due with the potential wrong doer and/or danger in their midst.

3. I never explicitly stated that they pushed their religions on others in my post, nor did I say they would condone doing so either. They are dealing with someone they know is evil, who brings a risk to themselves and their comrades. By renouncing the evil deeds that they may have done or will do, they are forgiven (in the Saerenrae example at least)and are good to stay under said paladins help in becoming a better person (which again, if you're still evil they can tell). Simply saying "No, deal with it" is the best way to not go with the Paladins' group, who also now know the person is evil. And again, why would you bring someone you cannot trust? It logically and morally makes no sense. The paladins would literally be using the atonement ritual weekly, which is an added bit of unfairness(and cost) to the players of those characters, and another reason why this is a bad idea.

4. While insulting me is nice and all, it does nothing for your arguments. These are fictional characters in a fictional setting. My beliefs in real life do not equal my beliefs in game. Its called role playing for a reason. I will admit however that I have dealt with drug abuse within my family. After several years of insanity we are finally stable again. And yes, it was and is a slippery slope for them. It takes one moment of weakness to set you back for months or even years. It may be a fallacy to you, but it is a very real thing to me.

5. While subjective as a subject this is and will be, I agree that villains can and are often well written, more so than heros. That said, it's because they tend to be easier to write. Less rules and morals to consider and easier to love to hate them, whereas good characters, paladins even more so, have many things that can hinder their choices and a reader's enjoyment, such as being a mary sue so or a boy scout. It fun to write a good villain, it is a challenge to write a good hero.

"Also, that isn't how evil works. That's how GOOD works."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. While the term lawful stupid is funny and all it does not change what a paladin is. They are an embodiment of good and law, and while they do take their chosen deity’s teachings to heart, there are limitations under the code paladins abide by.

The paladin of Saerenrae is not going to simply allow the evil character into the party in hopes of them becoming good; they are going to be hounding that character at all times to make sure they do. If the evil character objects, then no, they are out. After all, if you are so petty to refuse Saerenrae's forgiveness, you’re on your own. You don't have to smite the character on the spot, as they have not done anything wrong in your presence, (granted a slight against your god may count depending how you play the character) but they sure as heck are not going with you. If they do say yes, that evil character should be constantly be under watch and feel unwelcome at all times until their alignment changes on their sheet.

If that’s too much or you feel that is unfair, then don't play an evil character with a group of paladins in the group. Simple as that. You could also not allow Paladins, as players tend to be in this state of denial about the whole lawful stupid thing. Paladins are not naive idiots that allow evil to pass. They exist to destroy evil and keep the world safe, no matter the cost. They are not just "good guys" like superman who does what they think is right to save the day, they do what they must under their strict code. They are an embodiment of holy law, often considering their law above that of the laws of the land.

Heck the book straight up states that they will likely come into conflict with the people they intend to help due to the path they tread. They will let many die to save the world if needed. Needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many and all that.

Playing a paladin is not meant to be easy, in a good group or otherwise, thus the alignment restriction. The paladin should and likely will bring as much drama as an evil character due to their code. Slaves would be attempted to be freed depending on the god, thieves stopped and brought to the authorities, the authorities shamed for either abusing their law given powers and/or not doing a good enough job to prevent the thief to exist, and if a fight should occur because of that? They better hope it’s a paladin of Sarenrae.

Is the above example an extreme? Yes. Is it unlikely to happen in a campaign? Depends on role-play for sure, but it is easier to happen than you may like.

Unlike many classes that can be whatever they want to be, Paladins have to adhere to their alignment. They have to balance the class somehow. And this restriction is what makes them hard to play. If you don't want to be a moral zealot who wears their faith on their sleeves and attempts to right every wrong they see under their beliefs, don't play them or allow them in a group. Play a cleric or something, they don't have to be as adamant or extreme. If you allow a paladin to not care about the alignment, you have missed the point of the restriction in the first place.