JJ says the company has a stance and if you don't like, it don't buy it. I assume the reason for this suggestion is that the product includes the stance intentionally. I don't like that the company is playing social justice warrior and, as per JJ's suggestion, I won't be buying Paizo's products.
To be clear, I have no damn idea who Miss Feathers, Anevia and Irabeth are - never heard of them. Based on JJ's comment, would it be outrageous to suppose these characters were added intentionally to further the cause of social justice warrior? I can't cite any examples, but am prepared to take JJ's word.
Meh, I've said my bit. Make of it what you will.
My problem only begins when JJ states that the company injects a political agenda into its product. Frankly, I don't consider being LGBT, black or white, male or female, etc., as having an agenda. However, it's hard to claim your company doesn't have an agenda when one of the leads makes the claim that it does. That's what I have an issue with - as much of an issue as if JJ had said that LGBT is wrong and sinful and that if you don't like that you shouldn't buy Pathfinder.
It's funny how I'm the one being accused of choosing to make an issue of this only because I disagree with the message, when it seems fairly clear that the ones accusing me of this would be guilty of it if the message were reversed. Projection, much?
In summary: I don't care what hot-button political issue it is. I don't care how this issue is presented in fiction. I do care about a company which provides products I consume becoming politicized and injecting political views into a game. If you really can't believe I just dislike politics that much, you're not trying very hard.
I'd prefer the company not have a political agenda. LGBT is a political issue right now. Murdering innocents is not, for example.
I'd have been happy to stick with Paizo if they'd simply included or excluded LGBT characters as they saw fit without weighing in on the moral implications thereof. I'd have preferred they not had any agenda at all, but even if they had an agenda, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't advertise it. I'm not sure what they could do now to change my mind; even if they wanted to, a certain innocence has been lost.
At this point, think whatever you want about me. JJ has made clear Paizo's position (I assume he speaks for the company there) and I am simply taking his advice.
Paizo is, of course, free to do what they want with their money. Before reading what JJ had to say, I was unaware that they were promoting any sort of agenda with their game.
Given the choice between two systems both publicly supporting some agenda, I'd of course choose the one with the agenda I prefer. Is it really so hard to believe, though, that I'd prefer a game system that didn't try to play social justice warrior? Is it so hard to believe that I'd rather give up tabletop RPGs altogether than to play one that spreads a message?
For the record, I don't particularly care if Paizo puts LGBT NPCs in its stories, or if players play LGBT characters. Purposefully excluding them based on an agenda is just as bad as purposefully including hem based on an agenda. When I hear "diversity" and "tolerance" in these contexts, I often find myself wondering whether people even know what those words mean (stupid, made-up newspeak meanings aside).
N. Jolly wrote:
It's always good to hear from the devs.
I, for one, will never be paying any money for any Paizo product based in part on this advice, and will default to looking to other systems for my future gaming needs (if any). I have no interest in subsidizing ideologies by playing a tabletop RPG.
I think Pathfinder is a reasonable system in which to include LGBT issues, as long as doing so doesn't detract from the rest of the game overmuch. If Pathfinder is where you're going to learn about societal issues and right vs. wrong, you should seriously reconsider your life choices.
In fact, I think plenty of what's presented in the game (and others like it) is pretty morally abominable, and would absolutely not want my or any other children playing this game until they're old enough to enjoy it responsibly (or as responsibly as possible). Before you ask what sorts of things I mean, think for a second about what you believe and see whether you can't answer it yourself.
As an 11th level fighter, you should have a few tricks up your sleeve - feats or magic items that let you do stuff besides take an AoO (which everybody gets) and grapple (again, everybody). You say you have Improved Trip (which implies you also have Combat Expertise)... there might be something hiding in the other dozen or so feats an 11th-level human fighter ought to have.
For instance, as somebody else pointed out, sundering the spell component pouch as part of an AoO could work. It depends on this guy's stats, but there's still a chance he's going to fail his concentration check if he tries to teleport away (not a great chance, but a chance).
Tentatively, my money'd say...
Otherwise, just fighting as hard as you can is really all that can be expected of you. If it's to be a TPK, then you might as well go out swinging.
This is the kind of thing that just makes me sick. Not everybody likes only potatoes - all edible plants are of equal value and importance, how can you not see that? I'm sorry, something must be done to stop your hateful stem-tuber rhetoric.
You know who else I bet liked potatoes? Hitler.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Let me amend my statement:
Since PFS disallows this, PFS is not a game I'm interested in playing.
I don't see anything particularly difficult about the question.
An antipaladin falls (or rises?) if he "willfully and altruistically" performs a good action. An antipaladin may, however, perform good actions as long as they are in the service of his own dark ends (which may be difficult to adjudicate from a rules standpoint; presumably, players with antipaladin PCs need to be ready to justify good actions to the GM, who will then rule on the appropriateness.)
A paladin, by contrast, falls if he "willfully" performs an evil act; if this were really the opposite of the antipaladin's restriction, it would be "willfully and selfishly", but it's not. Furthermore, there is no language about performing evil actions so long as they are in the service of others.
By RAW, it appears that it's harder to be an antipaladin than it is to be a paladin. This is only confusing if you insist that Good and Evil be equal but opposite in terms of how they work in the game world, a notion of which a cursory reading of the rules (including the rules for paladins vs. antipaladins) should disabuse one.
But occasionally he helps an old lady across the street or tosses his unfinished hunk if bread at a starving orphan instead of peeing on him while crumbling the bread up and making a paste with the crumbs and orphan tears to feed his hell hounds. (Which he totally also does, but not all the time cause, you know, he's busy and stuff.)
Either the antipaladin demonstrates that these actions were performed out of selfishness and/or in the service of his own dark ends, or he falls (rises?). I see no reason to change his alignment for such insignificant deeds, and would say he remains CE. If he makes a habit of doing this altruistically? Depends on what else he's doing, but habitually performing aligned actions should be grounds for an alignment shift.
It's just a 5th level divine spell, right? For minor offenses it might even be free, whereas I think it's a few thousand GP, tops, for pretty much any offense, except those requiring quests (which I would probably think is going a bit far here).
^ I see. I think we agree that it's iffy and that it probably doesn't merit a 10 page discussion. Where we disagree is that I think he should have just went with his gut and had the paladin fall, requiring a minor atonement, and you feel like he should have just ignored it.
So here we are, ten pages in, and the outcome of the great discussion is that it's up to the GM to decide what happens, there is no right or wrong answer. It's a game. Move along.
Why are you so Fall happy?
Who says I'm "Fall happy"? My position all along has been that the GM determines what's evil and is well within his rights to adjudicate on the basis of rules. It's not as though having paladins fall is a house-rule.
A Fall should be reserved for something truly heinous
A couple of things here: first, this is an opinion or house-rule unless cited; second, whose job is it to determine what's "heinous" if not the GM's?
not killing a randomly generated Wyvern who only exists to give the party EXP (that is the only reason random encounter tables exist).
EXP's given for overcoming encounters, and while killing is definitely the go-to solution for most encounters, it doesn't always need to be.
He's not relevant in any sense.
Just to be clear, this has no bearing on whether the action is evil or not, right? I get that bringing every little problem to the forums can be a problem, but if the point is that a paladin doesn't need to worry about committing acts of evil unless they're against somebody that's relevant...
There was no need to make a big deal of him killing the damned thing, just move on to the next randomly generated beastie.
... would the situation have been any different, in your opinion, if the random encounter had been with a Nymph? If so, why? Or, what if the Wyvern hadn't attacked? I mean, it's still just a random encounter... killing is still a viable way to end a random encounter, moral implications aside.
What I think a lot of people are still missing is that, by RAW, it's actually much easier for the paladin to fall than it is for other alignment-restricted classes to be penalized.
A barbarian does not lose the ability to rage by willfully committing a lawful act.
A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. She retains all other benefits of the class.
A paladin does fall by willfully committing a single evil act.
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 (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies).
Moreover, the penalty for paladins is more severe than it is for barbarians. Barbarians lose only the ability to rage. Paladins lose all abilities. In summary:
- It takes less for a paladin to fall;
I think this is a pretty straightforward explanation for the observation.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
A quick search reveals over 82,000 posts with "paladin" in them. I suspect most of them are probably "contributing" to the same "discussion".
(alt: shouting in the same hole, beating the same horse, etc.)
Presumably, the paladin disagrees that it's necessary. I don't know... it's hard for me to say as I'm not a paladin. For all I know, "necessary evil" may be a contradiction in terms for a paladin.
If you check out the link I provide, it explains how to create Animated Objects using the spell. I'm suggesting that you can use these guidelines when creating your own robotic NPCs.
"CP" stands for "Construction Points" and is a system that applies only (AFAIK) when designing animated objects. You spend Construction Points to give your animated objects abilities. By default, all animated objects have hardness, a slam attack, and construct traits. Stats, HP, CP and baseline CR are determined by the size.
You can adjust the CR by spending more CP than you're allowed by default; for every 2 CP you spend above the default, the CR increases by 1. You could probably house-rule that spending less CP than you have available reduces CR in a similar manner.
Oh, and the link above has a space before the last "t" that shouldn't be there. You can just go to the d20pfsrd and search for "animated objects" to find the relevant info. Not sure why it's adding a space before the "t"... might be some sort of Muppet "safety" theater or something. Based on this I've taken the time to learn the silly formatting rules and have crafted the URL:
A couple of points. First, Paladins must remain both Lawful and Good; other classes are restricted on only one axis (edit: guess clerics are restricted on both axes as well.) Second, Paladins can fall without changing alignment; all they need to do is screw up once. A barbarian can make and keep promises from time to time and still use his class features. A paladin that kicks one puppy can kiss smite goodbye.
Note: clerics are most like paladins in terms of restrictions... but also come in many more flavors than LG, so if you want to avoid the drama, it's more feasible.
I'd tend to agree, but this is why I asked the question in the first place: it seems really hard to be a Paladin and simultaneously have your cake and eat it, too. It's easy to say "don't impose on others," but it sort of falls apart when subject to any real scrutiny.
I have a hard time seeing how being a paladin can be anything but both a blessing and a curse, and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. In fact, the paladin wouldn't see always striving to have the right thing done as a curse... although others might.
You might want to be a bit more specific about your question. It's way too vague for a call.
Question: If a paladin is allied with a fighter, and the fighter is about to commit an act that both characters know is evil, what should the paladin do?- Just let it happen
- Close his eyes and go to his happy place
- Try to talk the fighter down
- Use force, if necessary, to stop the fighter
Follow-up question: Does the answer to the above question depend on the degree to which the act is considered evil?
Interesting line of discussion. So are you guys of the opinion that a Paladin is justified in standing by while an ally performs what is, for the paladin, an unambiguously evil action? What is his responsibility in this scenario? If it depends on the degree to which the action is evil... where does he draw the line?
It's easy to say that a paladin shouldn't force his beliefs on others. It's a bit harder to ask what he should do when he finds himself in situations where trying to stop the party might be the right thing to do.
ruthless slayers of evil.
Interestingly, consider the definition of ruthless (Merriam Webster online):
having no pity : merciless, cruel <a ruthless tyrant>
Considering that "Mercy" is a class feature of the Paladin and "Cruelty" is a class feature of the Antipaladin, I'd hesitate to agree that anybody trying to be a Paladin could habitually act in a "ruthless" manner.
If you really want to be a "ruthless slayer of evil", you might be better off playing an Inquisitor, for instance. Consider the description:
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile when righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.
I assume you mean that clerics can lose their powers for violating the tenets of their deity. But you can at least choose to play a cleric of a god who will allow you to play your character however you wish. You can't say "anyone who kills children for fun isn't a cleric" because there are evil gods who'd be OK with that.
As of the APG, "Antipaladin" is now a thing. I've even heard "Paladin of Freedom" tossed around (a CG variant, possibly from an AP or 3pp). It probably wouldn't take much imagination to define a LE version.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Going to agree with Blaphers here... I'd like to see where the devs say this. The RAW are pretty clear on the mechanical implications.
I'm wary of paladins because it seems like a very fine line to walk: you want the alignment restriction to mean something (otherwise, you're just playing a Smighter) but you don't want to derail the game (let's be frank, most of what adventurers do would in game would get you thrown in jail for a long time in real life, implying it's non-lawful, non-good, or both).
(By the way, when I say alignment restrictions should matter, what I mean to say is this: the paladin should be put in situations where the alignment restriction is going to force hard choices. For instance, the GM can create situations where the obvious choices present a dilemma: a minor act of evil for an easy victory, or a longer and/or more dangerous course of action to avoid evil and achieve similar victory. Sometimes, being a paladin might even mean choosing to fail a mission rather than do what it takes to succeed. A paladin that doesn't have to make hard choices that might lead to undesirable outcomes is, in my opinion, about as fair and realistic as a fighter always being lucky enough to be positioned for a full attack on his turn. As the GM, you can rig the game that way, too.)
You should check this out, it might give you some general ideas on how to make "robots" of approximately correct CR.
Using these rules, we could define the following creature by applying the Metal ability to a generic Medium animated object:
animated object (Medium) CR 3
AC 16, touch 10, flat-footed 16 (+6 natural)
Metal (Ex, 2 CP): The object is made of common metal. Its hardness increases to 10, and it gains a +2 increase to its natural armor bonus.
Speed 30 ft.
Str 14, Dex 10, Con —, Int —, Wis 1, Cha 1
Medium animated objects have 2 construction points.
As it is, it gets a slam natural attack (you could replace with some other natural attack that does the same amount of damage) and/or give it some defects if you'd rather it use a weapon or something.
You can also spend more CP than the default; for every additional 2 CP, you increase the CR by 1. So if you want a CR 5 medium animated object, you could throw on 4 more CP of abilities... throw on some Energy Resistance if you want, for instance.
I'd recommend one of the ones that end with Miracle. I believe the Luck domain ends with that one. Something about access to any effect for no material component cost and no restrictions to speak of sounds pretty sweet. Of course, you have to wait for tier 9, but hey, why not?
EDIT: Being able to grant yourself free, unrestricted miracles is something I'd recommend only if you can handle it responsibly.
EDIT2: Just checked, and Community grants it, too.
Record how much time you spend figuring out your initial stats, feats, skills, abilities, and growth plan.
Spend at least that amount of time finding or writing a paladin code, going over it with the GM, and making sure there aren't any philosophical differences that will cause you and/or your GM to come here and start another Paladin Falls thread.
Cool. Just so long as we're clear! :D
Sorry for the confusion. My point is this:
The paladin has no problem killing monsters because they can be raised from the dead. Death is therefore an inconvenience, and he can smite first and ask questions later.
As such, is it unreasonable to ask the paladin to atone for questionable behavior, since falling and requiring atonement is similarly a temporary inconvenience for the paladin?
(The comic is a bit confusing... it seems to imply that a paladin who has willfully committed an evil act can't atone. I'm not sure I'm seeing in the rules where that is the case. Still, a cute cartoon.)
DM Brew wrote:
Unacceptable. This spell is strictly better than Shadow Conjuration, another 4th level spell. Nope, nope, nope. Nupe. Nuh uh.
Tell your player he can learn Shadow Conjuration instead, or seriously gimp his version... maybe this:
Limited Limited Wish
Limited Limited Wish
EDIT: Then again, Wish is strictly better than Shades... maybe you could allow it, as long as you make it sufficiently costly. Shadow-type spells have some unique benefits that might justify using them instead of the similar Wish versions in some instances.
If you consider that Limited Wish is a 7th level spell and costs 1,500 to cast, it's a little over 1% of the WBL at the earliest level you can cast it as a Wizard. The same percentage of a 7th level Wizards WBL would be about 250 GP, suggesting that the material component cost could be that. Compared to Shadow Conjuration, which is free, this might be enough to make it acceptable.
Wow, surprised this is still going on.
I hope the GM sticks to his guns on this one. It's a somewhat murky call, sure, but there is an argument to be made that it's fall-worthy and it's not like falling is that big of a deal. Really, though, I think the bigger point here is that it is part of the GM's role to adjudicate this sort of thing... it's clear how the GM of this game feels about it, and it's his right - no, it's his responsibility - to enforce the rules and make the calls outside of the PCs' control.
Besides, is atonement really even that much to ask? For this kind of offense, at most, I'd expect a brief period of lost Paladin powers and a few thousand GP spent to get the spell cast. By the time you're fighting Wyverns in the woods, you can probably rustle up a cleric or druid somewhere.
If it helps, think of an atonement every once in a while as the cost of doing business for a Paladin. I mean, you get some pretty nice class features, why not pay for them once in a while?
you would be pretty mad no?
No... is this a trick question? It's a game and it's the GM's job to make these decisions, not the player's. I'd have as little problem with what you describe as I would with my GM amending any other decision retroactively, which, while not ideal, does happen from time to time.
Then again, I trust my GM and consider everybody involved to be pretty mature, but there you are.
Look at it from my point of view. When you play a sorcerer, do you expect to get to cast spells? Why? Because the rules say so, right?
Here are the rules for Paladins:
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 (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
Now this might be open to interpretation, but do we at least agree that it's possible for a Paladin to fall? Do we agree it's possible for a Paladin to fall, even if the Paladin wouldn't want to? Do we agree that it's possible for a Player's character to fall, even if the Player would have preferred otherwise?
I'm legitimately trying to understand at what point these alignment rules stop making sense.
EDIT: if the argument is really centered around whether killing the Wyvern was Evil or not, then I maintain it's moot: the GM is the first and last word on what's Evil.
"I will personally take on this execution so that my people can live a happy life safe from the unwarranted savage attacks from this...<insert anything you feel like killing>. To leave <insert anything you feel like killing> alive would endanger my people as I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that <insert anything you feel like killing> will not go on to harm more people in <insert anything you feel like killing>'s life."
Generalized that for you.
I am a Smighter and proud of it dammit. I believe that concept has room in RPGs. Not that it even applies in this scenario.
I mean, your opinion is no more or less valid than mine. Some people like playing Paladins (or other alignment-restricted classes) because it gives them an opportunity to more meaningfully incorporate roleplay into the game, and some people don't like to do that because (I presume) they value mechanics more and don't want roleplay getting in the way.
It sounds like the GM is in the former camp, though, and as such, whether the paladin falls is the GM's decision.
If all the paths point to loss then you're really taking the virtues of tabletop gaming and stomping them to death.
Who's to say all paths lead to loss? It's entirely possible that the players might come up with a resolution the GM hadn't considered, and that the GM wouldn't have considered Evil. Killing the monster isn't very creative, as far as solutions go, and if the GM decides that killing the monster is Evil, then the paladin falls.
I'd rather play a video game because I'd have more player agency than that.
Right, video games don't devolve into senseless orgies of immoral destruction. I've played video games before. The draw of social gaming is that it makes role-playing things like morality meaningful.
The whole point is to give players loads of options because "You can use your imagination to accomplish whatever you desire!"
Oh, I agree that players should have options. However, the options should be given in terms of choices the players make, not the outcomes of those choices. It's the difference between "I want to swing my sword" and "I want the monster to die"; one is a valid option for a fighter, one is not. Similarly, "I want to kill the Wyvern" is a valid option the GM must allow; but "I want to retain my Paladin powers despite committing what the GM deems to be an evil act" is not. We control our actions, not the consequences of those actions. It's an important distinction.
I thought RPGs were meant to be conclusive to ideas. But apparently we should punish players when they make decisions we don't like.
If you can't use alignment and still have fun, don't use alignment in your games. I can't imagine a mature player having his feelings hurt by the GM requiring atonement when the rules say that can happen.
It seems like the argument against what the Paladin did being Evil is that there were no viable Good options. What reason is there to think that there can't be lose-lose situations? Being a paragon of virtue is intended to be a strength and a weakness... Paladin's aren't just fighters with smite (I'm thinking of coining the term "Smighters" to describe players with this mindset; thoughts?)