tetrasodium's page

Drop combat casting and resistance. Humans get an extra feat.

You can also take one level of soldier & get some nifty bonuses from fighting style & such in addition to Basic & adv melee weapons, small arms, long arms, Heavy Weapons Sniper weapons, & grenades too.

some back of the napkin type example improvements I could think of in the armor department to help fix the system. Names are just throwing it out :)

• Magecrafted: Special magics worked into this armor at the time of creation allow up to the enhancement bonus of the armor to be shifted between the dex cap and armor bonus (or vice versa) at the time of armor's creation. [low cost?]
  
• Adamantine threaded/woven: This enhancement raises the catch to bypass the DR of armor's by one step (up to adamantine) and allows 50% of the armor's DR to count towards adamantine weapons. This can be applied to any type of armor [low Moderate cost?]
  
• Tempered: This enhancement can be applied to any type of metal armor and adds the armor's enhancement bonus to the armor's DR catch making armor that would otherwise require "mere" /adamantine to bypass require /]+enhancenment]adamantine (not sure if that should be enhancement,adamantine?) for example, /magic would need /[+enhancement]magic [moderate cost?]
  
• Gnome/dwarf crafted: the gnomes/dwarves have long had fueds with giants & have adapted techniques in helping to protect against larger creatures allowing one additional size increment before the attacker is able to bypass the DR on armor's with this enhancement. This enhancement can be applied to any type of armor [low moderate cost?]
  
• Since armor now applies to different things differently and doesn't break down if it gives more than +5 plate &+5 tower like it does under normal rules, it's possible to have armor go higher than +5 and not break down horrifically to make the +5 plate& tower user untouchable Someone mentioned a rogue earlier being unable to hurt someone in full plate at low levels a +10 fullplate wearing ~epic level wearing fighter would presumably have dr23/+10,Adamantine. Lets say an equal level rogue has a +5 flaming dagger, sure the dagger's d4 is still irrelevant, the d6 of flaming ignores the DR & the 10d6()or more) of sneak attack is still capable to punching past the DR on all but the worst rolls& all three of the rogue's attacks are almost certain to hit. where before the second/third were probably just likely to miss and deal no damage to easily make up for the reduced damage per hit.

When considering the base stats of a weapon, I'd say we shouldn't be using unique examples in history. They are, if anything, the exception that proves the rule.

Most of them can be explained as special training, which translates to class abilities or feats, etc.

The base weapon though is a two handed weapon. It was designed to get the leverage of strength from using two hands. This is something that requires at least a one-handed weapon in stats, as a light weapon does not get any benefit from holding a weapon in two hands (strength damage or power attack bonus).

The full grip on the katana, and the primary method of holding and using the weapon, pushes me towards a two handed weapon. However, since it can be used with one hand quite effectively (with some training and with specific technique), it lands squarely in the "bastard sword" medium: one-handed weapon exotic, two handed martial.

However, because of the "flowing" and quick movements of the typical styles used with it, Weapon Finesse really seems like it should be an option.
When looking at most techniques with the one-handed use of the katana, they are typically fierce stabs and chops (barring the unique styles that would indicate superior training).

For this reason I think the weapon fits best as this:

Martial Proficiency: Can use it two-handed without penalty.
Exotic Proficiency: Can use it one-handed, or with weapon finesse with two handed.

For a Musashi character, I'd probably just add a specialized feat that lets you use the Katana in TWF with weapon finesse. Seems fitting.

lol... You just described what would quite possibly be the worst choice ever requiring an unheard of five feats (ewp,finesse, twf, twf katana+other) just to finesse twf with the weapon and don't even appear to realize it

Shizvestus wrote:

And speaking from experience its relatively harder to learn two handed Katana style than one handed.

Also there is a two handed Katana that is more of a Bastard sword that you have to use two handed. It is a larger heavier version of the Katana.

Maybe its just naive American me. Isn't Kendo the most commonly taught/popular form of Eastern style swordplay.

Regardless what actual stats did you think were better? What your describing to me sounds like a renamed sawtooth saber at the moment. Or maybe a slashing rapier.

I could be mistaken, but I always thought Kendo is preserved as sort of a formal/cultural thing rather than an actual combat style. I can't say I've seen many anim,e shows with characters that mimic kendo either with the exception of one actually about a high school kendo competition

What are your reasons for wanting to make it a light weapon? Personally I was really surprised and disappointed when I saw it in UC without the finessable tag that exists on the Elven Curve Blade, it really should have it :(. If your reason is to offhand wield it without penalty... that's what a wakazishi is for.

Spoiler:

Prof: I have been saying it's eminently possible to do evil acts without realizing it all along. What you don't understand is:

First, doing evil acts is not a binary proposition. You can make mistakes, and you can repent, and you can change. Your alignment is a measure of how you can be expected to act, what your priorities are, not "has this person EVER committed an evil act?" As a consequence, it's not as easy as detecting evil.

Second, you don't have to be a complete sociopath to ignore the suffering of others. A sociopath is someone who can't understand the consequences for others. Someone who does understand and doesn't care is something else: EVIL.

Third, whether "she was asking for it" or not, there is no excuse. As I also stated earlier.

Fourth, you claim that the existence of pure alignments is impossible because everyone has access to detect evil. This is patently ridiculous, and makes a ton of assumptions that are not reasonable. Spellcasting isn't all that common in the typical setting, but more importantly: The magic provides the information ONLY to the caster of the spell. If you detect on yourself, fine, but what do you really know if someone tells you they cast detect evil and you showed up as evil?

Fifth, and this is a more serious problem in your reasoning: You assume that everyone WANTS to be good and avoid doing evil. This certainly does not follow.

In short, you can't argue against "pure alignments" without understanding that such a system has other consequences, ones that you simply choose to ignore in your post.

By (finally) confirming that you accept the fact that good & evil are not necessarily binary positions, you are once again going full circle and arguing with the point I made in the OP. Specifically the fact that the alignment system is flawed and should be updated to account for good & evil being more complex than pure black & pure white as it tries to paint them.

As to the idea of being able to change if you repent... It takes more to atone than simply repenting, especially when you are talking about unit731 type things

As to your claim that you need to be a complete sociopath or "evil" to ignore the suffering of others, I posted the stanford prison experiment earlier... the confessions of unit731's doctors over the years is another data point against the claim. Many of them were in a do or die situation and went through a rapid period of desensitization very similar to that of the guards in the person experiment that allowed them to continue on, but they have been haunted by the things they did since that time & have been trying to do what little they can to atone with themselves since.
You don't need to be a psychopath... jusat Milgram/Stanford prison experiment type influences and/or a healthy dash of Goebbels style propaganda & conditioning

As to your claim that fixing the system to account for the problems already pointed out and debated about over the last few pages... I notice you conveniently neglected to state those consequences in your post where anyone could do things like point out the benefits outweighing the drawbacks or explain any flaws in the claim... That's not the first time you've done that sort of thing in this thread either & it's getting old.

Sissyl uhh... huh? it's been pointed out previously that you keep trying to move the goalposts... You've tried it so many times that you just came full circle and accidentally supported my original point that the alignment system is flawed because it tries to remove the subjective nature from good & evil with your latest pure black example by specifically defining the act, the thought process, the reason, and the extent the "evil" person is intending to go in the "evil" act. It's obviously not possible to define everything evil down to that level for a game just to keep the concept of an absolute good/evil lacking any subjective nature in tact... the alignment system would have more pages than all content ever published for any version of D&D+Pathfinder ever published to even begin to account for things on that level of detail. in order to avoid the problem of a several thousand page alignment system and the ones already pointed out in the existing system, the alignment system should be adjusted to account for the subjective nature of good & evil.

I think the armor as DR optional rule makes for an interesting start of an idea that's not fully fleshed out yet & needs more components.
1:attacks from the same kind of creature should have the potential to bypass certain types/% of DR against others of that same kind (I used kind instead of type because type might potentially make it too broad)
2: It should add more types of armor & armor enhancements that do things like raise the dex cap on heavy armors or ac on light armors, Possibly with medium armors getting classed in with light or heavy ones depending on which end of the spectrum they fall in in need be
3: There should be enhancements that raise what is needed to bypass DR in a more granular fashion than magic>adamantine

The fact that armor functions differently than core means that improved armorsdon't break the game as long as they don't improve that type's new strong point (heavy armor's DR/, light's potential defense class)

I think the real potential lies in a path towards building around the things that start to fall apart in epic play.

I want it, but I don't want them (Paizo) to feel rushed. I can wait.

This!...

certain acts cause all healthy persons to consider them evil. It's how our brains are wired, and that's my working definition of evil. It's not provably objective, true, but it might as well be. Do such things, and you are an evil person.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...

But with that said and because someone brought up the atrocities from Japanese in the WW2 era... Lets talk about unit731... I assure you that it pales the baby in acid exanple already given. The most important part about it is the fact that much of what we know is due to ordinary people recollecting the activities of unit 731 rather than an Auchwitz>Josef Megele investigation where he at least tried to protect his experiments from some of the other problems going on there at the time & used things like anesthesia.

The prisoners that unit731 experimented on were referred to as logs as a result ofd the lumber mill coverstory of the loication.... They didn't even get the number that the stanford prison experiment prisoners got.

Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.

is enough pressure from a figure of authority directed towards ~60% of ordinary people to kill another... you always have to think for yourself, the Alignment system discourages thinking.

Really nice post CunningMongoose. As to Sissyl, it's great that you finally acknowledge that there are grey areas, but given the admission... what exactly have you been attempting to argue all this time considering the OP was using Dexter as an example of why the alignment system's attempt to remove the subjective nature of concepts like good & evil is flawed and should be fixed to account for that to avoid the sorts of problems it causes.

I dunno how sissyl got "only shades of grey" out of what people were saying either. Just because it's not always a simple either/or equation doesn't mean it can't be black and white on occasion. Sometimes there is not even a choice too:

-guy gets a phonecall explaining how his wife & kids have been kidnapped and will be killed if he doesn't plant a bomb, if any attempt to contact or alert the authorities is made, they will be killed. if the bomb fails to detonate, they will be killed... there is no white choice.

- Same guy... instead of a terrible phone call The office building is on fire and he is trapped on the 23 floor with no hope of rescue or getting past the fire that has spread to corner him and a baby in this room right up against the window he broke to let in fresh air. The fire is getting closer & will get both soon... does he leave the baby to burn to death in agony with him or jump out the window with it for a quick death. Those are situations where you only ave a pair of grey options. As you can see, they are a bit more complex than the simple "murder is always wrong" example you tried to put out earlier when it was shown that there are exceptions to that overly simplified setup of yours.

Jus because it's not always a pure good/evil binary choice doesn't mean it can't be... just like sometimes you don't even have a pure good -or- evil choice.

The scifi version is best seen if you've seen the original, but it's decent due to the fact that it starts a little earlier in the timeline between he vampire/werewolf (names escape me at the moment), combined with he fact that it shows you the various events through the series from a slightly different perspective allowing for the injection of a bit of extra depth. Don't think of it as a remake, so much as a different attempt at converting the story of those three folks' lives in a television medium.
If you've seen the original version:

Hello,

I'll be playing a LN cleric(evangelist) of Asmodeus in an upcoming game and I was looking for some creative advice. His whole shtick is being a young, rich, contract lawyer who loves summoning things to do his bidding. I still need to talk to my DM to go over a few things, but he has approved the general idea of my character. He'll be pretty easy to make, but I need help with selecting my only domain. What would be the best domain for this kind of character?

Now I love the idea of roleplaying out the casting of summon spells as contracts, for example: "This contract is between the caster, Kennedy Valanor, and the Celestial Eagle. It shall be under his and only his control for the entire duration of 1 round(s). This takes effect at the end of this binding spoken agreement by the power vested in me from the great Lord Asmodeus himself. May his works be mighty and all glory be given to him. Amen." My major problem I have is the sermonic performance. Particularly: inspire courage. How do I roleplay this guy so he is inspiring to his party members?

Closing arguments, they just have to show the flaws in the defense/prosecution for the jury... they don't even really have to be all that relevant (at least on tv). point out the flaws in your opponents as he situation warrants... regardless of the reality, criticze the sword technique and pronunciation of arcane words of power to your party, just say whatever comes to mind whenever it seems to fit;)

It's an old debate, yes. But if you claim that there are only gray areas, using only examples that most people acknowledge to be gray areas and thereby avoid even talking about the clear-cut pitch black cases that do exist, you don't impress anyone.

So I will put my question again:

When is raping or murdering, nonconsensually and just for kicks, acceptable? What special case do you need to build up to try to convince yourself that it could be done in your "gray area"?

My point is, if there is ONE SINGLE ACTION that is pitch black, no matter how many special conditions I have to add, then it is not ALL gray areas. You could claim that thereby I have to build such a weird scenario that it could not happen for real... but I am only talking about rape and murder here, something that is all too common.

Oh, and of course, do keep it up. Claim that this too is a gray area, and we'll next discuss violence against newborns. If even that is not a pitch black area to you, well, I think that says it all about how relevant your moral philosophy is.

When is it acceptable?... I named two earlier, funny that you should rephrase it to specifically exclude them in multiple ways. It's even more amusing that one of those ways is barely even addressed by the alignment system unless very specific conditions are met to make it important.

So I've put a point into Linguistics. Yay.

What language should I learn? Are there better ones? More common ones? If I'm using language-dependant spells, how many languages should I shoot for to cover my bases?

In all honestly it depends on your GM.. either languages will be important and give you a real benefit and appreciated by your GM, they will be important because you need to speak with the creatures you summon, They will annoy your GM and he will use things you can't talk to whenever possible.

there should be a mechanic to choke up on the weapon to not take size penalties in small spaces. but deal damage as a smaller weapon.

Also now I am thinking of having a spell be reasearched to heal hurt rotator cuffs. casts tommy John.

ind some AD&D books and they have those rules along with dozens upon dozens of other edge cases that will make your head spin with all the "does anyone remember the rule for that" obscurity. There is a reason you don't see those rules in the common house rules listings...

I think 2d4 jumps to 1d10 with the size bump, 2d6 is two bumps if I'm not mistaken

[off-topic]

We should really have an 'Advice' forum, where people can ask for ideas about how to expand their game, and not be shouted down about badwrongfun or whatever.
[/off-topic]

Thank you, excellent post :). I think I've about got what I needed from the naysayers, they can congratulate themselves for making it easier and more likely for me to help with putting my considered idea dinto motion own the road by giving me a bunch of silly arguments I know that I know how to effortlessly kick out their supports without pause when presented to me or my rogue.

I guess they can be proud of themselves for helping to make sure the original idea can come to ligh-.. err... the warm shady embrace of darkness :)

Spoiler:

To step out of the hilarity for a moment(warning site NSFW).

You're blatantly ignoring two particular aspects about the two parties.

1st. Asmodeus preaches tyranny and slavery. This is no secret he doesn't lie to people about it.

2nd. Paladins must pu nish those who allow harm come to innocents and help those in need.

No matter how you butter it tyranny and slavery harm those who are innocent and cause pain and suffering this is esepcially the case where Asmodeus is concerned.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend does not apply here. He's still your enemy he just happens to be charging at another enemy. A paladin is not a soldier, scientist, or worker, he's a pinnacle of righteousness and good empowered by faith and will to do what is right. Asmodeus doesn't stop being evil because he happens to like killing another evil guy, he's simply evil given another form. Like Desna is the good of freedom, or Cayden Cailean is the good of having a gun time, or Iomedae is the good crusade for a righteous cause. Asmodeus represents lawyers who tie you up in red tape, he's the contractor who writes tiny lettered sub clauses that sign over your first born son, Asmodeus is the iron handed tyrant, the cruel enforcer, and the slave master.

For him all alliances are temporary conveniences all friends are pawns. His ways are silver tongued, long term, and subtle in the extreme. If you think for one moment that you have found a friend in Asmodeus you have only walked into his claws willingly.

Remember how I mentioned Stalin? If you keep reading your history you'll understand his bodycount is much higher than Hitler. You'll get the idea that he basically conquered all the territories that the Russians ran over and made them his own. His own party was terrified to be the ones that stopped clapping first when he entered the room for fear he'd notice and send them and their families to the Gulags to die. He had his predecessor mummified and put on display against the...

I put your entire post in quotes because it was already pointed out as incorrect, I'll do so again and make it more clear this time since you put the effort into forming a potentially logical argument even if it does fail to take RAW into account, spoiler tags for size.

Good catch I should have picked Milani.

DON'T ENCROACH ON MY FREEDOM TO WANTONLY KILL PALADINS OF ASMODEUS!!!

THIS BELT OF BABY SKULLS WAS RIPPED FROM THE CHILDREN OF SLAVERS DO NOT JUDGE ME!!

I WILL KILL ALL THE HELLKNIGHTS FOLLOWED BY ALL THE CHELAXIAN NOBLES!! I WILL BURN THE PRISONS AND RELEASE THE PRISONERS!!

Horrific Epic Failure. The need to impose Tyranny is part of the antipaladin code! Milani "is the patron of all those who fight against oppression and unjust rule" did you even look at her before you made that silly post? You still need to find a shared enemy that is good though since killing anything evil would cause your antipaladin to fall by committing an act of good.

1) Melee have a hard enough time as it is

2) You would be surprised how agile those big "unweildy" weapons can be. They can be grabbed like a quarterstaff, or you can use them to thrust instead of slash of you have to.

3) If the tunnel is small then people have less room to DODGE that giant blade coming at their head.

This... Plus I don't think it's been mentioned in the PHB/DMG since it said advanced dungeons and dragons on the cover... the omission of it and dozens of other bizarre edge case rules for planetary alignment situations was an improvement

I'm so going to enjoy my Anti-Paladin of Sarenrae now.

Looks like no, but for different reasons

I stumbled across a fun technicality in another thread (about paladins of Asmodeus) that shows a flawed aspect of the alignment system's wording. So long as you do not "debase", "destroy", or "kill" an innocent... it is perfectly fine to corrupt them and not an evil act. By that same token, it is not good/evil to purify that corruption. it's a shame that I can't edit this into the original post now...

You are failing to understand the Paladins code. He can not help to spread evil. And yes working with the Big A helps to spread evil. Every time you do any good in the Big A's name you spread his name, his teachings, his churches power and you fuel Hell. You help damn innocents to the pits, you help spread tyranny make the legions of hell stronger even as you spread corruption.

Something a paladin simply can not do,the paladin's code forbids it. It is a line he simply can not cross and stay a paladin.

*Bzzt*

tetrasodium wrote:

You just gave me the excuse to show a bunch of good real world people working (ultimately) for a person often considered to be "terrible"

So how many of those were paladins? How many Lived by the very strict and unyielding paladin code? And how many thought he was a god that granted them magical powers and took souls to hell to torment for all time?

All that doers is explain people in cheilix, not paladins who would auto fall for serving hell.

Likely about as many of them as there were humans with deific levels in the 1930's. People are claiming that working for or gaining power from Asmodeus to use against a shared enemy in ways that ultimately benefits the goals of both parties is evil... However it is no more evil than the aforementioned teachers, doctors, and students/workers who were let into the topic when someone tried to play the shock value card hoping to illicit enough shock to stun people into speechlessness. If the mere act of working for/with someone evil against a common foe (influenza, illiteracy, demons, etc) is evil, then so are those Teachers, students, doctors and Sarenrae are as well using the exact same logic.

So, can you be a paladin of....STALIN?

Not being a scholar of 1930's era russian history, I went looking to see if there were any other not quite friendly states he gave support to because they were even more unfriendly to an enemy and found better It looks like you were trying to equate Stalin with Asmodeus... so lets go...

Serving Asmodeus/Hell, even against Demons, is basically shouting out to the world "Good can't do what needs to be done against Demons, serve Asmodeus and He will save you, like He is saving me!"

Thus, you are spreading his dogma, convincing souls to follow that path and leading them to Hell, even if you never preach a word for Him and do nothing but fight in his name.

And that is spreading the word, writ and infamy of Evil, and making Good appear weak. No paladin can do this and remain a paladin. It is undercutting Good of the finest, subtlest sort.

==Aelryinth

Gaining power from an enemy due to a shared enemy is not necessarily serving or employing. We both have this here enemy, you have power, but are incapable of easily deploying it yourself in ways/places that I would be able to do easily" covers that fine... but lets clear something up... are you saying that Sarenrae working for & preaching for him when she worked with Asmodeus to seal Rovagug in the world to keep him from destroying it?

How is anything in those spoilers even close to saying he is not evil? By Canon he is..

The Lord of Hell and Master of Devils
A God of Tyranny, Slavery, Pride and Contracts
He is both a devil and a God, he is evil as much as any other devil.

People see "LE" and assume incorrectly he is a God of Laws. He is not. His portfolios are Tyranny, Slavery, Pride and Contracts. That is what he is god of, and Oh yes have we covered he is Ruler of hell and in charge of ALL devils? Devils that prey upon, torment , corrupt and destroy mortals? That twist souls into new evil form? That try there best to shape all mortals into corrupt evil versions of them for easier damnation?

He is evil in its seductive, controlling form. He is a tyrant and the Lord of Hell. You can't make that any less evil.

And as long as he is any of the above, No paladin will or can serve him. They may work with some his clerics to stop demons, but they will not work with the church, nor will they serve the King of Hell. If they do, they fall as they have forsaken the oath.

The spoilers say nothing about him not being evil, they say much about law and points out that they hold respect for aptitude and experience (i.e. competence) of a tool over mere power. A paladin is capable of doing things & going places a devil is not. It also shows that Asmodieus is willing to work with good in order to protect the world from destruction (also by RAW) using the Rovagug example. If a paladin of Asmodeus protects a village from being destroyed zombies or whatever, it serves the interest of both the paladin and the devils by preserving it from outright destruction just as Asmodeus himself did with Rovagug and the entire world. Asmodeus himself is the one who allows the paladin to even exist by keeping Rovagug imprisoned. with his (and only) key to release him stored safely where it can not be used by others.If he simply wanted to destroy, using the key would accomplish that.

tetrasodium wrote:

Asmodious is a special case.

No he is not. He is EVIL the King of Hell, Master of devils God of Tyranny, Slavery, Pride and Contracts. He is not a God of Law, that would be Adabar.

Asmodeus is the great Evil, he is pure and uncaring evil, he is not Law, he is not order, he is the god of control and tyranny. Not a God a paladin should ever even think of kinda serving.

RAW would show you as being mistaken about his evilness. I'm using spoiler tags to save space.

One cannot corrupt that which is destroyed.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

Anybody see this fridays episode?

Yes. Assuming the Mumm-ra flashbacks are correct... The history of the series just got VERY interesting.

(Oh, and I disliked the Mumm-ra tank. To much like "Here's another toy coming out soon" for my taste, though it did look kind of cool.)

I am curious as to who were the orignal owners of the Eye of Thundara. I also noticed the use of what looked to be the Feliner in the flashback.

I agree that the history got a whole lot more interesting. I have a feeling that the original owners are going to be some form of humans though given mumra's more twisted human than ape appearance and the animals he had enslaves were created that way. Given how things ended, it seems interesting that the planet would be left unvisited..."mumra's trapped on the planet... good! stay away & don't give him any tech to get off by landing a ship there!"

CunningMongoose wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.

We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.

No. As a human, there are limits to what you should do. If you transgress past that line, you do something that reflects on the quality of your actions, behaviour, and the way you think. These limits look somewhat different at different places and times, but there is a central core of things that remains more or less constant. You do not kill someone without good reason, you do not steal, you do not lie with intent to harm, you do not commit incest, you do not eat human flesh, you do not rape, you do not betray those close to you.

Once you do these things, expect people to react badly to you if they find out. Why do they? Because you have shown by these actions that you actively distance yourself from all the things they consider basics of human behaviour. Some call this evil, some call it sociopathy, but all agree that such a person is not to be trusted.

Shades of gray? Sure. There are lots of shades of gray, but that doesn't mean there isn't pitch black as well. If you doubt this, think on what would make you consider rape or murder just for kicks to be acceptable. If you can't, well, then by your own admission, CM, Evil should apply just as well to you. Or, you could, you know, accept that shades of gray do not preclude unforgivable blackness.

I once dated a rather kinky girl with a rape fantasy that wanted me to do so up to the point of giving me a recording explaining it and asking me to do so while saying that it was a completely desired and willing thing that I should not get in trouble for should anything go wrong if I were to accept and do go through with it for her (I didn't).

With regards to your"kill without good reason", that "good reason" is 100% subjective, as someone who signed a living will with conditions for when I want to have the plug pulled after a cerebral hemmorage where I learned what it was like to be trapped & helpless in my own body... I don't think anyone with a "never a good reason" argument has a chance in arguing that point. If it were legal to just OD me on morphine rather than just pull the plug, it would include circumstances for when do do that as well... anyone still thinking about arguing that point can bite me!

With the "lie with intent to harm" That is another subjective thing... Harm who? The one, or the many? What if it is not possible to be truthful with both without causing even more harm?

Grey area grey area grey area... One person's grey area is not necessarily another's likewise with good and evil. There are circumstances I would consider it an act of mercy to kill me, another might consider it a crime against humanity to do so and think that I should be kept alive as long as possible in a torturous state rather than granting me the desired mercy.

In fact... I think Asmodious would be amused by the very thought of a paladin serving him within the paladin's own limits given his description :P

A paladin is supposed to represent his deity. How can he represent Asmodeus if he is not doing it fully. Right now by saying the paladin is only promoting law he is cherry picking, and if he promotes any good which is the primary concern he is going against the evil part of LE for Asmodeus.

A paladin in most people's game would not be allowed to half serve a deity. Either you are commited to his ideals fully or you need to find a new deity.

Asmodious is a special case. It works for him, and pretty much him specifically, because he is basically Lawful-[good is dumb... screw that rubbish] making the evil portion incidental simply because it practically rounds the decimal over to into evil. /the fact that he is amused by things like groups he disrespects worshiping him and people using the letter of the law/bargain/contract/etc to their advantage over those not bright enough to see the loophole makes him a nearly unique entity would would be interested in having a Paladin following him.

For reasons already stated, if the GM wants your book... your screwed. The best you can do is make it technically not something he would get by coincidence like a sinking ship or something. I like to use spellshards/Auron's spellshards from the eberron book to avoid this problem since it's a crystal... crystal get wet, so what! Improve hardness ()or whatever the spell I'm thinking of is called) is lowish in level and has a permanent duration allowing it to cover all but the most determined direct attack (i.e. you angered the GM and are screwed).
Don't taunt/anger your GM and give him reason to lash out at your book, stuff it in your bag and treat it like Varsuvius from OoTS treats his raven (it only comes out when directly interacted with:))

I disagree, spreading Hells forces, helping them solidify their hold upon people and helping to spread their Big A's faith is pure evil. You are not working with for the greater good, you are helping spread the faith and serving Hell not the forces of Good.

You can not serve the Big A and be a paladin Period.

Who said anything about actively spreading his forces... fighting against the Abyss' forces (demons) is in the interests of both Asmodious and a paladin. Wiping out some NE zombies threatening the town is stopping the inadvertant spread of chaos the zombies were causing by threatening the safety of the town and both directly in the paladin's interests and indirectly in Asmodious' interests. Big A would even approve and be amused by that logic! Paladin gives amusement and is indirectly useful with the potential to be directly useful in his own fight against the abyss. Since pointing that useful tool at his incidental enemy (good) would diminish or potentially destroy its usefulness, doing so would not be worth the loss for the brief amusement it could grant.

Quandary wrote:

Not sure how it affects the OP´s case, but AFAIK the ´asmodeus and paladins´ article never mentioned the word worship, it said ´serve´, which can be quite a different thing. A paladin may serve a mortal king, or it may serve the interests of the Pathfinder Society, etc.

But serving the Lord of hell is both spreading his evil and helping damn souls to hell. The code pretty much forbids this.

Asmodious isn't too happy about things like chaos, disorder, or those "weak" enough to be fooled either. Not all of those concepts are things that are heretical for a core paladin to fight, Many of them actually go hand in hand with the things a paladin is supposed to fight more often than not. He's also the sort to understand and agree that the enemy of my enemy can be my friend and have a willingness to sustain that relation if it remains more beneficial than harmful to his plans. LE devils by RAW have fought against CE demons(?) since the beginning of time. The two are creatures of law/chaos who simply looked into the abyss long enough for it to look back and happen to be evil due to lack of a moral code thanks to that look.

edit:Just as the rogue views the paladin as being more useful to him than the potential danger/clash of having him around, Asmodious could see the same and throwing the useful tool away by sending it on a job that would have a high likelyhood of causing that tool to lose value would be a chaotic deed of simple spite as long as the tool continues proving itself to be more useful than not. Accepting that the tool has limitations and not using it against those limitations while it remains useful could be copnsidered more beneficial than the brief amusement gained by seeing that tool fall and lose value works great for an Asmodious type strongly focused on law with the evil portion just being incidental and barely applivable. It would fail miserably for a Zon Kuthon type where the weight on the LE scale is practically the exact opposite with strong evil & nearly incidental law.

The concept of Paladins of asmodious shouldn't be nuked from orbit, they should be given a "Thid class requires you to speak to your GM ansd see if Asmodious is willing to consider you useful enough to help guide you on a path that remains beneficial to both his interests and your own befiore taking it. GM's should not allow this class unless the campaign is planned to have a strong anti-chaotic-evil bent rather than just the usual anti-evil one" style footnote

Sissyl wrote:

Very good point. There is a word for those who consider themselves "beyond good and evil": Evil.

We could say the same word applies to people who consider there is only black and white and no shades of grey.

I can think of several potential words, but don't think saying them would be wise for the health of the thread. Those who do think that way, should probably read Jim Butcher's Dresden files books. They have characters that range from Michael Carpenter (basically a real life paladin with a family & real world complications to deal with), to Harry Dresden who can pretty well be compared to David Tennent's Doctor (10th?) nicknamed the oncoming storm... Harry is a protector against the darkness who uses whatever reasonable things are required to get the job done when dealing with everything from werewolf type creatures to the Fae, actual fallen angels, outsiders, and corruption in his own organization but manages to do so in ways that cause both [spoiler1] and [spoiler2]to take an interest in his life (major spoilers there) along with a bunch of other folks who are just normal real world people doing their best to make things better along with the Lawful-(/n/A) fae who grow quite a bit from the first impression they seem to give the more you learn about them.

2:I warned you... Major spoiler from the tail end of ghost story(currently last printed in the series)

The fae were pretty much my template for how I handle lawful outsiders, their nature is so incredibly different from ours that concepts like good & evil are not something they can even begin to understand. Turn someone into a hunting& keep them in your kennel with the other hounds?... what's wrong with that?... he'd be safe happy and well cared for through the rest of his life. What's not to like? The mindset of mortals (humans) is just as alien to them as their own mindset is to mortals. Over the course of the books, you start to understand their mindsets and come to realize they can be pretty nice folks within their limits. A LE devil could be pretty useful to a true neutral druid that wants to stop some force of chaos harming the forest... Given time, they might even learn each other's mindsets and be able to phrase to work well together given the limits of their underastanding oh the other.

Others have already explained why the time is ok, personally I don't think it's unreasonable considering your going for mithral rather than just plain enchanted armor. Plus I've never seen a game where anyone figured out the time to craft things beyond:
DM: OK so your all back to town and have a few days/weeks/whatever to kill now that the last adventure arc wrapped up. do your shopping/crafting/whatever & let me know if there is anything too out of the ordinary in your minds so we can see about availability & such.
Player: I have craft magic [X] & wanted to make a [enhancement] +Y [X] of [enhancement]. I figured out the cost & can afford it fine is that cool? (or similar for another character in the group)
DM: ok
Player:scribble scribble scribble in the details of the new thing on his sheet.

My biggest gripe with crafting is that the craft magic arms & armor/weapons feats. Basically they are pretty useless to most people who use those things because they don't have the needed spells to make anything. The people who have access to the spells however, are basically burning a feat so someone else can save money because they are crap with weapons and typically hurt by the ASF of the armor. They would be better off burning the feat on craft ring/wonderous item/staff/etc type feats they would actually benefit from.

The craft magic armor/weapons feats should probably be free once you have a certain number of other craft magic [thing] feats. Something like:
-Armor at 1 because of the "simplicity"of infusing the defensive enhancements into the large structure of the armor.
- Weapons at 2 because the varied knowledge of infusing often complex enchantments into items makes the application of enchantments into weapons without risk of having them accidental backfire on the wielder in ways not designed a simple manner.
Give the actual feats an extra 10% price drop or something if it's taken over just some other craft magical [thing] feats.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

You have not read all the paladin archetypes, then. There is at least one, and maybe more, that require a paladin to pick a specific deity.

Right, I´ve definitely not... Though I´ll take your word on that one,

the Core Paladin definitely does not receive their powers from the worship of a Deity.
I didn´t notice anything in the OP suggesting use of a non-standard Paladin Archetype.

tetrasodim wrote:

Thanks for the info & nice post :) ...It's yet to be delved into in game so far & has been left up to the GM, but the scholar of the great beyond trait & conversation with the GM set his parentage with an imp or other devil as "possibly" his father giving excuse for the hyperfocus on the law portion of his alignment. :)

Sounds fun :-)

Given that he still sounsd pretty much like he´s ´out for his own´, it wouldn´t seem like he has any particular interest in the Paladin ´falling´, though he wouldn´t be bothered much either (unless he thought that would reduce the usefulness of the Paladin). I could see things developing towards potential fall territory (with possible Demon-gods getting involved) because of the Rogue´s ´softening up´ of the Paladin, but if the Rogue himself becomes aware of this interest, it would be interesting to see the response... For one, if his pet tool is threatened to be taken away, that could provoke a different responce... For another angle, shouldn´t their be some price for the Rogue so helping these Devil-Gods? Can´t just let them have their dessert for free, right? That could be a wierd case of the Rogue then selfishly playing the role of the Paladin´s conscience... but only to sweeten the price for letting him fall later. Of course, the Paladin may have something to say along the way...

Yep, your assumptions about the paladin are correct, no special archtypes or unusual streaks as far as I know. if it ever came down to dealing with an asmodious type, I'm sure the GM might bring in some price for the rogue if he were involved, but that's a ways down the road given we are level 3 and the rogue's parentage is so far no more developed than "possibly".

Nice post, I like how you showed/explained the fate points in a way that isn't too likely to shatter brains... Usually you tell people they let the GM/players force stuff on the other with the option to spend a fate point to ignore it and their eyes glaze over followed by a hasty attempt to explain it trying to use d&d/PF terms/situations but desperately trying to put together some cohesion to it hehe

At that level, you pretty much have to look at your party & their capabilities or you could easily wind up throwing out unstoppable forces/immovable objects or wet tissue paper
Edit: why are you starting at 20?

What i like about traits

Some of them are a very nice way to add customization to my characters (like my dwarven druid who really should have knowledge dungeoneering as a class skill)

Some of them are very cool abilities that i would like to do, but are too minor to blow a feat on, ie, being able to use a whip as a grappling hook (dun da dun da, dun dun dun...)

What i don't like about traits:

They can be pretty easy to min max with. Every spellcaster i conceive of optimizing has reactionary for +2 initiative and +2 on concentration checks.

It hurts the rogue class. Their primary ability is access to a heaping pile of skills, and since traits can get you pretty much any skill you want as a class skill everyone can be a rogue.

Some of the traits are very circumstantial and hard to remember (making unarmed attacks of opportunity under a blue moon while listening to bardic music...)

I don't mind the suggested background that comes with them, but i don't like being locked into it. For example our group has a cleric of Calistra with disable device as a class skill. I don't think she's spent a lot of time on the streets, we just figure she reaaaaly needed to make sure she had a backup plan if someone lost the key to the fur lined manacles.

I like to pretend that balance is attainable... :)

Well, either everyone in your campaign has them or no one does. That should be pretty balanced.

Quote:

Some traits give you +1 to a specific skill and make it a class skill. Others give +1 to three specific skills and allow you to choose 1 as a class skill. The benefits shouldn't be that disparate.

Not all skills are created equal. Something giving knowledge nobility and royalty as a class skill doesn't stack up well against gaining perception , acrobatics or stealth as a class skill.

I agree with both of BigNirseWolf's points & quoted both posts because they tie into what I wanted to say

Comparatively, many of the traits are either over or underpowered for the exact reason he said, some of the "lame" ones like treating a choice of two less than awesome knowledge skill as a class skill could grant another skill point or three per level and give both while still be fine yet suddenly start to look like they are potentially as enticing as +2 initiative or something

Rather than things like +2 initiative or a bonus to hit/damage/crit/etc I decided to use my rogue's traits to shore up a party weakness (knowledge religion was the only knowledge skill!...). In doing so, his backstory went from:

I just wish the "sucky" traits were improved a bit to come up to being as potentially useful as the awesome ones, they could easily grant both skills and/or an extra skillpoint or two per level and still remain balanced while allowing low skillpoint characters to even consider them. The only reason the ones I picked would work out was because I had a reasonaably intelligent rogue with some extra skillpoints to spare so he could catch up after occasional fighter dips (thinking rogue18ish fighter2-3ish type thinking probably in the end).

Enevhar wrote:

Yep, that article is no longer official and is not part of canon. So if you are playing "by the book" in Golarion, then your paladin must be LG and must be within one step of any deity he follows/gets his power from, limiting you to LG, LN and NG deities.

Paladins don´t get powers from Dieties in PRPG.

Being within one step of their deity is thus more a matter of simply being self-consistent, which would apply as much to a Monk or Rogue. If you aren´t a Cleric, ´worshipping´ a Diety is a pretty vague thing with no specific rules constraints.
Also note, the article in question NEVER tried to change the ´paladins must be LG´ rule.
The entire premise of the article is that Asmodeus likes to draw Paladins into his sway, which inevitably leads to their fall as Paladins.
Nothing about their powers actually being drawn from Asmodeus, or anything else that conflicts with RAW.

I would say that given the set-up the OP describes, and a push towards a direction of further allegiance to forces of Evil (Asmodeus, or since he said they aren´t playing in Golarion, an equivalent Deity I suppose), the ultimate possibility of the Paladin falling should definitely be a possibility. It sounds like given existing trends in the game, and how Paladins explicitly CAN work with Evil per RAW, this could well be a long, drawn-out process... But dealing with the Big F(all) at some point seems like something you should definitely consider. Around these boards, the thought of loss of class abilities seems like sacrilege, but it´s a plot direction practically baked into the Paladin Class. Dealing with it, and overcoming it, possibly in conflict with the LE Rogue in question, seems like a rich experience for a Paladin who dedicates themself to overcoming the moral conflicts that morals must face.

Thanks for the info & nice post :) The rogue is pretty much LAWFUL-n/a so slots into LE since those red tapey bits of morality do not conflict with him if doing so bears him no inconvenience or risk wounding his pride. Nor do they or get consideration if doing so would give him the slightest inconvenience or result in a wound on his pride. :). Talking the talk for the paladin's useful presence outweighs the inconvenience of doing so. Laying out plans within plans for a fallback that helps preserve the paladin's usefulness should it diminish or be at risk of diminishing & causing inconvenience to the Rogue while the paladin tries to atone is simply a matter of protecting his investment. It also has the benefit of helping to keep things fun at the table with everyone happy :)

It's yet to be delved into in game so far & has been left up to the GM, but the scholar of the great beyond trait & conversation with the GM set his parentage with an imp or other devil as "possibly" his father giving excuse for the hyperfocus on the law portion of his alignment. :)

-People who believe in objective good and evil are so different from people who don't that the two are not even capable of speaking meaningfully to each other.

-I can play with other party members who 'don't believe in objective evil' and I refer to such characters in my own head as "naive evil" . Characters who are 'neutral but I take your stuff' are "selfish evil". And outright sadists and child molesters are "dear God, my eyes" evil.

-That said I have played an evil character. And he was evil Not selfish, not sadistic, just convinced that the destruction of all the gods and all beauty was better than "this lie of a life." That said the DM was happy to have an 'evil character who doesn't just want to steal stuff."

Excellent post :) I love the alternate mental descriptions. I have a LE rogue/fighter with traits that let him treat Knowledge Arcana, Dungeoneering, Engineering, & Planes as class skills since the group had no real access to knowledge skills and Scholar of the Great Beyond

LazarX wrote:

Sorry but for what you're describing you're going a tad beyond "marginal" loosening on the description.

Says you. I disagree.

I also disagree with him, he is ignoring the fact that it simultaneously tightens the already loose aspect of paladins (Law) in the process of loosening the existing tight aspect (Good) going from a lG to a Lg in a way that is fitting with the deity's interests and character.

tetrasodium wrote:

That's disppointing to hear, I was hoping for something more developed/informational :(. Personally I think that Asmodeus would be happy t have paladins & they would be just as restricted (if not moreso)by following his code if it emphasized the Lawful aspect and reluffed to be anti-oathbreaker/chaos while forcing hem to remain true to the letter of their bargains/contracts and promote order over chaos whenever possible (rather that the good over evil). It could provide acharacter a good bit of depth i new & refreshing ways without the problem Wombat alluded to since the C* barbarian is still a useful tool for helping to promoting order despite his own personal chaotic disorder. maybe give them some bluff type skills and another point or two for skills (smite/protection from chaos isn't exactly as useful as evil, seems perfectly fair to give free)

I agree with you. Unfortunately the developers of the game have a hard-on for 2nd edition paladins and refuse to lax the AL restrictions even marginally, even though most of the other class alignment restrictions have been relaxed or removed completely compared to 3.5.

The amusing thing about a paladin like I described is that it's simultaneously both more and less restrictive at The same time and still requires them to do good. They work great for a lawful focused screw morality LE deity like asmodeus, less so for a Zon kuthon type more into the torture /evil aspet with law just sorta getting taped on over top of a chaotic lable... how is ZK even Lawful with Pain, Darkness, Loss Destruction, Evil, "Law" (law.. huh?)

Yep, that article is no longer official and is not part of canon. So if you are playing "by the book" in Golarion, then your paladin must be LG and must be within one step of any deity he follows/gets his power from, limiting you to LG, LN and NG deities. If you are playing in a game where your GM allows you to house rule it into not having to do it that way, then of course you can. But as others have said, it has been retconned out of existence and there will never be any more info relating to it, and if that AP issue were to ever be reprinted, that info would almost definitely be removed. If it were not so much extra work for no extra profit, it would have probably already been edited out of the pdf.

technically we are't even playing in golarian, I as just hoping to find some info on the idea

That's disppointing to hear, I was hoping for something more developed/informational :(. Personally I think that Asmodeus would be happy t have paladins & they would be just as restricted (if not moreso)by following his code if it emphasized the Lawful aspect and reluffed to be anti-oathbreaker/chaos while forcing hem to remain true to the letter of their bargains/contracts and promote order over chaos whenever possible (rather that the good over evil). It could provide acharacter a good bit of depth i new & refreshing ways without the problem Wombat alluded to since the C* barbarian is still a useful tool for helping to promoting order despite his own personal chaotic disorder. maybe give them some bluff type skills and another point or two for skills (smite/protection from chaos isn't exactly as useful as evil, seems perfectly fair to give free)

Edit: it's the sort of thing hat fits perfectly with him too, he penned the contract of creation for the loophole'd power it was able to grant him by doing so even though it could technically be considered a good thing to do for the other deities :). having paladins out ad about promoting order when possible in the most positive (good) way they can see possible is a suitable tradeoff for the power it gives even though t ignores some of his portfolio sometimes. It's a slippery slope than only gets more slippery as they start flexing their freedom and bluff-type skills in more ad more creative ways :)

I'm in a game where my LE rogue is somewhat patterned after the way Jim Butcher presents he Sidhe (Prideful & not necessarily good or evil by human standards... but bound by the letter of their word & not subscribing to the human concept of "morality") In this game there is an amused GM and a paladin. he paladin voiced concern other the potential need for him to possibly go with a hellknight/antipaladin due to the he definately not-good CN/CG character's actions making him detect evil & realize the rogue was LE. the cross table discussion convinced the group that things would be fine for a paladin. I've so far embraced the letter of my word and bargains in ways that are both keeping with his alignment and convincing the Paladin the various ways he could do the most good... some examples:
- Paladin killed an evil gnome keeping people enslaved (who was being attacked by a lion) in a rage without knowing the gnome was pretty much helpless & wanted to go tell he authorities and turn himself in.>"There are no witnesses who would report this 'crime' and you gave him a quick merciful death rather than the slow torturous one of being eaten alive he was receiving"
-Paladin wanted to try reasoning with an angry mob of commoners the DM admitted we felt we could almost certainly kill them while the rogue considers the paladin a valuable resource capable of greatly enhancing his credibility.> "Tempers are flaring and doing so would only give them an outlet for their fear and panic to spill out into the death of many of those innocents, we should escape unseen instead"
-GM says we smell smoke in the direction away from the mob & paladin fails his perception check to smell it, Rogue/CN cleric do not , but the cleric has no particular interest in going either way and tries asking the party for advice.>Rogue still likes the potential usefulness of the paladin and points out the smoke to him while explaining that some innocent person could be hurt or in need of help at the source of the smoke (rogue doesn't care, but talks the talk & stirs the cool-aid for the useful paladin & intends to continue doing so as best he can), Paladin agrees and group heads towards he smoke but session ends after the group finds a burned down farm with slaughtered animals.

In thinking about it I was pretty sure that I could continue with cheliax(?) style improvements to society without offending the paladin /7 accomplish a heck of a lot of good without changing my alignment or making the paladin fall... But as the devious plans within plans letter of the agreement style character the Rogue is, I was looking into the possibility of Asmodean Paladins (I think the Gm will be peachy with the idea) just to be able to lay some potential groundwork ahead of time. I found an old thread scorning some official mention of the idea being described, but not the idea... and was wondering if anyone knew where the idea was put out by paizo or how well it was fleshed out there?