How's this for a vital point? It shouldn't matter if the wizard isn't evil, attacking a non-evil person isn't an evil act. A person can still be neutral and still be a villan. If a bunch of chaotic neutral bandits jump the paladin's party on the road, is the palaaidn suddenly not allowed to defend himself?
Besides, as some people seem to forget, detecting evil can have it's own problems. Firstly, if the evil wizard just happens to be a polymoprhed high-HD dragon, the paladin could potentially be having the biggest headache he'll ever get.
Or what if the wizard, who is clearly just acting in a way to make the paladin fall instead of like a realistic villan who would just excecute his plan, just happened to prepere for said paladin by taking a ring of mind sheilding, which means when the paladin detects, he won't pick up anything.
Or hell, if he's a wizard, he can just cast non-detection. If harming a non-evil is suddenly an issue, the wizard can kidnap and taught all he wants, since the paladin won't fight him. Let's see how your "Always check before smiting" paladins save the day there. You have to realise that the paladin might still have to fight even if the "EVIL" light's don't glow.
It's possible that in such a situation, even if he didn't get an evil aura, a smart paladin would still take into account the possibility of hidding an aura, after all, if he blocks his aura, the paladin might not resort to one of the most powerful abilities in his arsenal (and possibly lesser abilities as well, like Holy Sword).
Besides, as I said, it's an unrealistic view. The only reason I can think of a wizard setting up somthing so elaborate is if he/she has a personal vendetta against the paladin, hence my "The DM is trying to screw me" approach, especially considering that the only illusion spells not requiring concentration can only repeat a few words and gestures, so unless the paladin strikes right away or the wizard knows the paladin well enough to know which buttons to push, he'll realise right away.
Would you honestly consider it fun to be in such a situation and found all your class features gone just like that? I wouldn't. The paladin's code and such is meant to enchance RP and provide flavour, not put outraiously ridiculous restrictions on every action he ever takes. They might be paragons of good, but no paladin is ever, and I mean ever, going to be perfect, so they shouldn't be treated like that's how they should be.
How's this for a vital point? It shouldn't matter if the wizard isn't evil, attacking a non-evil person isn't an evil act.
Killing an innocent person is.
Even if they happen to be evil-aligned, actually. Going around murdering everyone who glows red under Detect Evil isn't exactly acceptable behaviour for a Lawful Good character.
If they stand there taunting you, grin and bear it. If you witness them committing an evil act, then you step in.
There sure is a lot of hullaballoo. I guess I'm the only one that has his PCs fight neutral characters and monsters like 80% of the time.
|
Like I said want to fix the paladin problem, just remove the double damage vs. certain types.You know you could just make the paladin pick which of the three he gets the double damage against. Let's paladins be a little different from each other, Dragonsalyer, Demonslayer, UndeadSlayer....limiting things but allowing them to truly shine against one of the three.
except that wouldn't fix the paladin problem, I guess it's kind of time to come clean. I don't even think double damage against certain types is overpowered, I've never thought the new paladin was overpowered. My problem is that I hate hate hate the idea of a paladin doing more damage against certain types. A) that's the rangers schtick, if you want to do more damage against types take favored enemy. B)paladins are supposed to confront all evil I don't like the idea that a paladin somehow finds he has more power vs. a certain type of evil. It encourages him to save smites when confronting normal evil in case he might be fighting the evil he is typed against.
The joke is that I've been saying you want to fix the paladin problem remove the double damage. I never actually specified what I thought the paladin problem is, it's not that the paladin is overpowered because I don't agree with that assessment. So to me no, limiting the paladin to dealing double damage to one type actually makes the paladin problem worse, not better
Besides, as I said, it's an unrealistic view. The only reason I can think of a wizard setting up somthing so elaborate is if he/she has a personal vendetta against the paladin, hence my "The DM is trying to screw me" approach, especially considering that the only illusion spells not requiring concentration can only repeat a few words and gestures, so unless the paladin strikes right away or the wizard knows the paladin well enough to know which buttons to push, he'll...
As a DM, I tend to play evil wizards as having a personality, not just as being the end of dungeon boss. If the wizard is intelligent (and he is, being a wizard and all) he should effectively try to screw the PC. Why would he not eleborate something as soon as the paladin get into his tower? (Scry, divination, teleport back with a loved one, set the trap...) I think you are trying to make the DM feel bad to actually doing what he have to do - playing the role of the villain in a flavorfull way.
But then again, depends of your style of play - if you want a more "static" experience where wizards are a mere bunch of stats and spells, with one or two pieces of information and a line of dialog - go for it and have fun!
But for me, this experience you can get in a computer game. Being srewed by vilains is what you get when they are controlled by a human brain - and as a DM and a player, that's what I am searching for - intelligent villains, not cumputerized patterns.
And I also tend to see The paladin code of conduct being very restrictive - do this trick once on the paladin's player and watch him begin to think before smiting, getting to be for this reason a greater force for good. Gods tend to teach lessons...
Don't play a paladin, at least in our group, if you only want the power. You are a puppet to a god - his will is your will, and that means that when you loose your powers, the GM have a good reason - your god is teaching you something - the vilain and the god are "screwing" with you - the GM is just doing his job.
If you don't like getting morality lessons, don't play a paladin.
That being said - that's in our group. If you want to play with an unrestrictive code of conduct, have fun!
Killing an innocent person is.
Right, because it would be clearly intentional. Does killing someone via an accident also make the paladin evil?
Even if they happen to be evil-aligned, actually. Going around murdering everyone who glows red under Detect Evil isn't exactly acceptable behaviour for a Lawful Good character.
Actually, I figured the paladin might be attacking the wizard because he's kidnapping people. You want to go through all the hypoeticals as to why the paladin's there and why he's attacking in the first place?
It's like this I can't stand hypoetical paladin situations, they're built to screw over a paladin rather than provide a decent reason for stripping his powers and leaves an opening for all sorts of (particularly stupid) questions and loopholes.
As a DM, I tend to play evil wizards as having a personality, not just as being the end of dungeon boss.
Contrary to what you might think, alot of people actually give personalities to their NPC's, not just you. Explain me to me exactly why then would a wizard want to screw over a paladin? "Just for fun?" "Because he's evil?" Actually give a decent reason, since somthing like this would only crop up in a game for a very specific reason or if a DM is trying to make the paladin fall.
If the wizard is intelligent (and he is, being a wizard and all) he should effectively try to screw the PC.
Why the paladin? A standard adventuring party has more than one person. Secondly, why assume this person is a paladin? It could just be a holy warrior or cleric. Unless this wizard has actually seen the paladin before, he has little reason to assume they're a paladin and therfore has little chance to set up a very specific means of making someone fall (and a very poor means I might add).
Do you also give your NPC's extraordinary metagamish clarisentience that let's them sense what classes the PC's are?
Don't play a paladin, at least in our group, if you only want the power.
I won't, and quite frnakly I would never play one for power (beleive me, if I wanted a power build caharacter, I'd have plenty of other options). I'd never play one in your group though, because even an unintetional evil act would cause my chaarcter to fall needlessly. I see the paladin code as being there to make sure that the LG warrior's stay LG, wheras you seem to see it as a means to strip a PC of their powers should the NPC's just happen to be smart enough to trick them.
Quite frankly, I'd rather not play in such a game, if I get class features, I don't want to lose them because of some crappy plot element that's inconsitant with the actual code, I'd rather the PC lost them because he actually deserves to lose them.
|
Mind you, I was not castigating any and all uses of Smite Evil without checking first.
But I find it a failure of duty not to do it when you have the opportunity. A bit like a cop not reading criminals their rights in the US when he arrests them.
Ah and to give it another point of view.
The Paladin even doesn`t have to devote to a SINGLE Deity.
He can draw his powers from everything thats good and right.
It seems even more than the Power is just imbued in the paladin in everyway. Because with a single deity you could have said "he is giving when need" but with lots of gods in a prayer like "by all thats good and righteous i will smite you evil!" or "by the gods and the power of the holy light" or some more clichè it wouldn`t come from a special named deity.
Any ideas? ^^
From what I understand, a paladin in PFRPG has to be devoted to a single deity.
I won't, and quite frnakly I would never play one for power (beleive me, if I wanted a power build caharacter, I'd have plenty of other options). I'd never play one in your group though, because even an unintetional evil act would cause my chaarcter to fall needlessly. I see the paladin code as being there to make sure that the LG warrior's stay LG, wheras you seem to see it as a means to strip a PC of their powers should the NPC's just happen to be smart enough to trick them.
Quite frankly, I'd rather not play in such a game, if I get class features, I don't want to lose them because of some crappy plot element that's inconsitant with the actual code, I'd rather the PC lost them because he actually deserves to lose them.
Funnily, I share the exact same point of view on the bolded parts :-)
How is that for a riddle ?
OTE="Nero24200"] I see the paladin code as being there to make sure that the LG warrior's stay LG, wheras you seem to see it as a means to strip a PC of their powers should the NPC's just happen to be smart enough to trick them.
Quite frankly, I'd rather not play in such a game, if I get class features, I don't want to lose them because of some crappy plot element that's inconsitant with the actual code, I'd rather the PC lost them because he actually deserves to lose them.
The way you see the role of the paladin code seems a little "metagamish" to mee. ;-)
And "good intention", as a moral criterion, is just one way to understand morality (and rooted in late christian scholastic / 17-18th century german philosophy, by the way, if you are interrested in the historical sources of what you take to be common sense, but is in fact only our present way of looking at morality)
Why would the good judge the paladin according to his intentions and not according to his deeds? (What a lame excuse - I did not intend to kill the little girl - well, you did, live with it and atone!)
I want my game to be serious with religion - if you get your powers from a god, you have to follow what that god is thinking about what is moral or not, not what you think. Life would indeed be better if every zealot was following your common sense morality - that is just not the case - those codes are heavy, they demand you to kill ennemies of your god, follow orders and never question.
Was it evil or good for the crusaders to kill muslims? Common-sense would say yes, the code of the knight templars would say it was good - and would held you responsible and send you to hell (or at leat to confession) if you killed an innocent christian - even if it was not your intention... You've been tricked by the devil? Shame on you, atone and maybe you'll end up in the purgatory...
Now, if you want to play sword wielding religous zealots as just another "do-gooder" following your common-sense idea of what is good, go for it and have fun! Just don't assume you idea of what is moral is the only and definitive take on morality and religion.
Serioulsy, man, I keep repeating myself : there is no good way of playing this game. I happen to play with philosophy/history/political sciences majors who like to get a feel they are getting out of "common-sense" assumptions about religion and morality. If you are happy with a lighter game (and dont get me wrong, I do enjoy this kind of game too, once in a while) go for it and have fun.
This is just a game! Chill out!
The way you see the role of the paladin code seems a little "metagamish" to mee. ;-)
How? The consquences are just as much OOC as they are IC. It's never entirely metagamish or entirely in-charater where the code is concearned, because breaking it has increadibly harsh IC and OOC reprecushions.
Why would the good judge the paladin according to his intentions and not according to his deeds? (What a lame excuse - I did not intend to kill the little girl - well, you did, live with it and atone!)
Because the wizard was the one doing the kidnapping and intentionally set it up to kill the girl. If a man holds a gun to a person's head and then forces someone else to pull the trigger, the man is the murderer. Even modern day judges and policement agree with that mentaility. Besides, a judge using the logic of "You commited the crime, you'll be punished, regardless of circumstance" is simply a lawful way of thinking, never good, and a paladin is meant to encompass both.
I want my game to be serious with religion - if you get your powers from a god, you have to follow what that god is thinking about what is moral or not, not what you think.
Paladins would be an exception, since they have to be, first and foremost, lawful good. A cleric can still be within one step of his/her deity.
Was it evil or good for the crusaders to kill muslims? Common-sense would say yes, the code of the knight templars would say it was good - and would held you responsible and send you to hell (or at leat to confession) if you killed an innocent christian - even if it was not your intention... You've been tricked by the devil? Shame on you, atone and maybe you'll end up in the purgatory...
I'll be honest, this is somthing I don't like at all. I actually hate the idea of "holy wars", it's quite a contradiction to cristan teachings to activly engage in war and kill. You don't even need to research cristianity to have heard of the commandmant "Thou shalt not kill". Personally, I wouldn't use this as an example for any point regarding a paladin, even if the knight's templars were partially the inspiration for the class.
Serioulsy, man, I keep repeating myself : there is no good way of playing this game.
Apparently there is, remember that this discusion on morality started as some sort of justification for having overpowering abilities. Some apparently think that being able to screw over a paladin using questionable logic on alignment is a balancing factor.
I didn't mean to get into a alignment debate either. I just didn't like that someone was using "paladin's can be screwed over" as some form of justification for it's power then giving what I felt was a poor example. If you feel alignment should be something determined by your group first and foremost, nothing wrong with that, but if alignment restritions are suddenly supposed to be some balancing factor, then everyone elses interpretation of alignment suddenly matter a little less when you want balance.
I'll be honest, this is somthing I don't like at all. I actually hate the idea of "holy wars", it's quite a contradiction to cristan teachings to activly engage in war and kill. You don't even need to research cristianity to have heard of the commandmant "Thou shalt not kill". Personally, I wouldn't use this as an example for any point regarding a paladin, even if the knight's templars were partially the inspiration for the class.
Like it or not, you cannot change history - religions are full of contradictions (even if you are a christian believer, you must aknowledge holy wars were fought - and are still fought today - for god : that is a social and historical fact, not a moral interpretation.) You don't want paladins in your games to be medieval holy warriors, play the way you want - but as you said, they were inspired by the historical, medieval crusaders.
As for loyal-good religions not fighting each others - I would say neutral good religions would not, but it's easy to fight over the "right rules to uphold good" - Holy wars were, historically, always between two interpretations of those rules - between two ways to see the correct "divine laws", even if the religions in conflict believed their gods were good.
By the way you are depicting the paladin code, it seems to me the "good" is more important for you than the "loyal". If you want neutral goods paladins, do it and have fun. But they will be imbalanced in that case.
Edit : by the way, sorry if I may seem rather "blunt" but I do have difficulties to not get directly to the point while writing, english being a second language for me. I really enjoy this discussion!
|
|
so far as i read it, there is NOWHERE a Line with "you have to follow a chosen deity".
And in the Beta-Rulebook there was even a passage like:
"A Paladin can also choose to fight for good itself with not following any particular good"
There is a whole thread about this specific change here