|
You must be new here kid. There's nothing "moderate" about the effectiveness of a cleric in battle when they effectively use the power of their god. In Pathfinder rules and especially when using 3.x.
Clerics get 3/4 BAB and do not get melee specific abilities as the paladin does...and from what i understand they have fixed the brokenness that was the 3.5 cleric
The Paladin is not just the power granted by the diety it's the strength of character willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. Evil characters by their nature are simply not into the self-sacrafice bit.
LE can be a hard alignment to keep in check as well...it's easy to slip off into chaotic OR in my opinion harder for a player to roleplay because you would be required to make no good decisions which goes against what most of society has been taught.
Evil gods don't sponsor Paladins because they don't teach their minions restraint, they choose other methods to define their champions, vile minions, infernal advisers, or direct boons, frequently those clerics may recruit Fighters into their service and boost them as well.
I come back to LE being a hard alignment to uphold...just as hard, if not harder than LG.
Good and Evil as defined in the game are not just relativistic mirrors of each other. Evil typically seeks to make it's way by unleashing hordes of terror. Good on the other hand seeks out the few who are willing and have the potential to stand in the way of those hordes. That is part of what defines heroes.
CE attempts to accomplish its goals in this fashion, but the other evils not so much. The unearthed arcana had a paladin of tyranny class that was LE and i think tyranny is a good description of what a LE paladin would uphold. Making and enforcing laws that upheld evil to manipulate the populace...not just mindless wanton slaughter.
|
At the same time, I think Paizo dropped the ball with regards to requiring assassins to be evil. The assassin class is a mechanic and no class writeup should map to a character concept. I can easily imagine a group of halfling assassins who are dedicated to using their skills to protect the halfling race (kind of a variation of the dwarven battlerager or elven bladesinger) who don't do it just to get paid, but do it to protect the weak.
I think they published one like that, the Whisperknife or something. :)
I have to say I agree with you on the prestige classes. The assassin is too generic to have such specific requirements. The Red Mantis Assassin class is good because it is specifically for that group of evil assassins.
I feel prestige classes that don't describe an actual ingame group or society should be pretty well open to anyone. They describe a general style of fighting rather than a specific school. Prestige classes that describe a particular order like Purple Dragon Knight should only be allowed to those characters that earn their place in the order.
Clerics get 3/4 BAB and do not get melee specific abilities as the paladin does...and from what i understand they have fixed the brokenness that was the 3.5 cleric
You should disallow the Holy Warrior alternate class feature from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book then. :)
|
|
As a cop, I approve of this. When my players are running around, I tend to judge their actions on how I (or fellow officers) would act. I ran into this most recently when a player executed an unconscious bandit when capture would have been trivial. (He was literally two feet from a general store and actually had rope on hand.) I declared it an evil act and changed his alignment. His response was, "But I'm true neutral! Killing someone isn't evil to me!"
You can't apply today's morals and law to a fantasy setting (unless that's how you choose to run your game). I don't think it's outside of the realm of the law for a repeat offender (the bandit) to be summarily executed for his crimes in the "typical" PF setting...especially if caught and subdued in the act. If anything i would think the character might even have been awarded by the constabulary or sheriff of the location (depending on size). I think the problem is that people are trying to apply modern laws and morals to the game and in all reality they wouldn't really apply.
You can't apply today's morals and law to a fantasy setting (unless that's how you choose to run your game).
So, IOW, one can apply today's morals and law to a fantasy setting.
I don't think it's outside of the realm of the law for a repeat offender (the bandit) to be summarily executed for his crimes in the "typical" PF setting...especially if caught and subdued in the act.
In Ye Olden Days, such persons were often declared outlaws, meaning they were outside the protection of the law. Consequently, they could be killed with impunity. There's a cautionary tale in this historical detail: Be wary of governments that presume to have the authority to decide who is and who isn't worthy of protection.
|
|
So, IOW, one can apply today's morals and law to a fantasy setting.
you CAN but i personally believe it detracts from the flavor of the game...you're playing the game to roleplay, and it kinda zaps the fun out of it if you have to behave (in a moral and law-abiding sense) exactly as you do in your day to day life.
In Ye Olden Days, such persons were often declared outlaws, meaning they were outside the protection of the law. Consequently, they could be killed with impunity. There's a cautionary tale in this historical detail: Be wary of governments that presume to have the authority to decide who is and who isn't worthy of protection.
Governments are there for the protection of its citizens, if they do not have the resources to adequately detain and incarcerate all of the seriously bad ne'er do wells, then in a fantasy environment i see no problem with withdrawing protection of the law from said outlaws.
|
|
There's a major disconnect between how you and I see classes. I don't see classes in a class based game as merely a "mechanic" they're roles. A Paladin isn't just a sword swinger with funky divine powers, she's a chosen hero who's dedicated herself to defending society and the helpless and the thwarting of evil.
I agree that we do not see classes the same. It's the same argument Viletta Vadim and I had with others about letting a Bard character be a priest of the godess of song. We don't want the class fluff to constrict what type of character we could play with it.
After all, the Assassin class could be used to play a spec ops kind of character, one skilled in killing but also being able to strike to immobilize and capture. Nothing evil about him. You feel an Assassin character must be a cold-blooded murderer for hire. That's fine, but I disagree.
I feel a Rogue could be the town sheriff. Got the personal skills to ferret out the bad guys, and knows enough about fighting to hit them where it hurts to bring them down and haul them in. You might think a Rogue can be nothing but a thief. I simply disagree.
Unless the class has serious fluff built in like the Red Mantis Assassin class, it can be repurposed for anything your imagination can think of.
Seriously, I bet I could play Jubei from Ninja Scroll using the Paladin class. I hope this better explains our views of classes in the game.
|
|
Without the person providing the justice being appointed to do so? There's a word for that. It's called -lynching-.
Governments are there for the protection of its citizens, if they do not have the resources to adequately detain and incarcerate all of the seriously bad ne'er do wells, then in a fantasy environment i see no problem with withdrawing protection of the law from said outlaws.
A wanted dead or alive poster gives the authority to any nameless joe who happens to want some extra duckets. Or a standing royal decree that bandits are to be dealt with swiftly and lethally. I can definitely see something like this in place in the "typical" PF setting.
I think that's the basic problem with the Lawful Stupid alignment...people think of things in terms of modern laws as well as a very rigid definition of good (which good is anything but).
Personally, I have a very loose definition of good and a very strict definition of honor. This leads the Paladin to be shackled in ways other LG characters are not, as others do not have to maintain their honor.
|
|
I think that's the basic problem with the Lawful Stupid alignment...people think of things in terms of modern laws as well as a very rigid definition of good (which good is anything but).Personally, I have a very loose definition of good and a very strict definition of honor. This leads the Paladin to be shackled in ways other LG characters are not, as others do not have to maintain their honor.
Which is how it should be imho...but judging by a majority of the posts on here a paladin must stop in the middle of battling a Balor to help an elderly woman cross the street, then fight the Balor a little more, finally slay it, only to realize somebody put the illusion on a little kid and was really casting destructive spells to make it look like the "balor" was casting them, thereby losing their paladin powers and to atone they must cut off a hand in penance.
Then the next day they can't help the old lady across the street because they are missing a hand, so they lose their paladin powers again.
I mean, it's a bit of an exageration, but some of the posts on here make me wonder...
Aren't we confused enough trying to figure out how not to bring modern concepts into the paladins code,
Now you want to teach people what honor means.
"Maintain their honor"
Sounds like a social crutch & exalted classism to me."You have befouled my honor I demand satisfaction."
translation "You have slighted me and now you must die"My Paladin w/ vow of poverty and humble roots sees through the lies of honor, the codified edicts and the things done in the name of honor.
I think maybe my question was a good example of lawful stupid (my bad)!
No, your Paladin w/ vow of poverty just has a very different definition of honor than the high bravado person complaining about his being slighted.
The Paladin knows what he sees as right and just, regardless of what the outside thinks. That does not prevent him from saying that line, though he wouldn't be the guy in the movie saying it tongue in cheek. When he says it, you know the person is a deadman.
The high bravado character you describe sees his honor as something outward, keeping up appearances. He may display high honor, but actually have none (or he could actually have honor that was slighted), and demands the other person's death. His definition of honor does not have to be the same one I use for the Paladin, though they likely contain similar elements.
Sorry I brought up bill of rights and habeus corpus, but it seemed the logical extension of many of the assertions that were on here b/4
The ideas of government documents outlining rights to limit power and the concept of habeus corpus are not modern concepts. Both can be found in the Middle Ages, for example, and habeus corpus precedes the Magna Carta (1215).
|
|
My paladin declares Martial law and executes criminal......
you want to know how to kill as a paladin.
have your paladin Declare martial law each time....its a bit of a loophole, and I doubt it would be getting away with very often.
can we get back to the paladin's code and away from the NCIS stuff.
"each time"? Hell my paladin would walk around in a constant state of martial law...
|
|
"each time"? Hell my paladin would walk around in a constant state of martial law...My paladin declares Martial law and executes criminal......
you want to know how to kill as a paladin.
have your paladin Declare martial law each time....its a bit of a loophole, and I doubt it would be getting away with very often.
can we get back to the paladin's code and away from the NCIS stuff.
hehe,
I AM THE LAW- Judge Joseph Dredd
Exackery...that is what i envision when i think of a paladin-not these namby-pamby "i got a stick up my butt" do-gooders
Judge Dredd was LN.
Judge Dredd was LN.I can see that...I could still make an argument for LG--in that society, the way things were, he was acting in a good way IMHO. In a more "traditional" society, i would even be inclined to call him LE.
Well he was an embodiment of the Law, and that is how he saw himself.
He adjudicated based on the hard letters, and made no bones about it either way - he wasn't judgmental about the Laws themselves nor challenging of their basis - he was simply an impartial mediator and applicator of the Laws of the land.Now to be LG or LE, he would have to be seen as interpreting the Laws, and implementing them through the prism of his own moral compass - ie if there was scope to let people off with a warning, he might choose to do so as it might be the kinder/more humane outcome. LE he would be choosing how they apply to further his own gains and objectives, and be happy twisting the letter of the law when it suited.
|
|
Judge Dredd was LN.I can see that...I could still make an argument for LG--in that society, the way things were, he was acting in a good way IMHO. In a more "traditional" society, i would even be inclined to call him LE.Well he was an embodiment of the Law, and that is how he saw himself.
He adjudicated based on the hard letters, and made no bones about it either way - he wasn't judgmental about the Laws themselves nor challenging of their basis - he was simply an impartial mediator and applicator of the Laws of the land.Now to be LG or LE, he would have to be seen as interpreting the Laws, and implementing them through the prism of his own moral compass - ie if there was scope to let people off with a warning, he might choose to do so as it might be the kinder/more humane outcome. LE he would be choosing how they apply to further his own gains and objectives, and be happy twisting the letter of the law when it suited.
Now the way I remember the movie (and granted it has been awhile) is that the law was written as he enforced it. Had he granted leniency, then he would no longer be lawful. Can there be good and evil while holding such a position in a society so constrained by laws?
So you're telling me that a CE god of war and destruction is limited to a moderately effective martial class whereas a LG god of say plants and sun can have a battlemaster championing it?Evil characters by their nature are simply not into the self-sacrafice bit.
Evil gods don't sponsor Paladins because they don't teach their minions restraint, they choose other methods to define their champions,
If an evil person had a strong enough belief for something I don't see why he would not sacrifice himself for it. Evil does not mean you have not loyalty or honor.
Now the way I remember the movie (and granted it has been awhile) is that the law was written as he enforced it. Had he granted leniency, then he would no longer be lawful. Can there be good and evil while holding such a position in a society so constrained by laws?
Well it comes back to the source material.
Most laws have a range of penalties that can be applied, so applying the least harsh penalty in light of extenuating circumstances would be LG.
Application of merely the letter of the law as opposed to considering intent is LN.
"I don't make the rules buddy, I just enforce them" - LN :)
Well just thought I would check and looking at the Iconic Paladin (from Adventure path 30) she is indeed using a bow.
Can't see why they wouldn't.
It is a legitimate weapon, and also used for hunting.
Ugh, I hate paladins and their nebulous, restrictive, self-contradictory code.
Most D&D settings don't have kingdoms with the resources to hold prisoners for long terms. For evil druids and the like, they may not even have the capability to do so.
Paladins are not only allowed, but explicitly required to punish those who harm innocents. If they come across a bandit camp or orc warband that have been murdering travelers, they are not only allowed but required to stop them, and killing them is the most effective, efficient, and possibly even appropriate means of doing so.
Paladins don't fall for minor infractions, neutral acts, or even evil acts. Going against one of their many nebulous tennants in order to uphold another is a minor infraction not worthy of falling. Performing the occasional neutral act or even the occasional chaotic ace in favor of the greater good does not cause a paladin to fall. They might not feel great about it, but they won't lose their class features, either.
-------------------
So that thieving criminal helped you save the village? Well, it's a chaotic act to let them go afterwords to thank them, rather then force them to face punishment for their prior acts, but it's certainly not an evil act. No fall.
So the Paladins group took the ogres by surprise before the monsters knew they were there? Well, maybe it's not the most honorable act, but those ogres probably weren't going to agree to a challenge to single combat, and certainly weren't going to let the captive villagers survive once they realized they were under attack. No fall.
So the paladin's group has captured one of the death cultists who have been sacrificing children to their demonic masters? Certainly any information they can get out of the captive about their temple's defenses will help them stop this vile sect. And when they've learned what they can, the paladin is well within his rights, and indeed is quite probably duty bound, to see justice done on the wretched minion. A good act? No. But not an evil act, by any stretch, and explicitly within the paladin's mandate to punish those guilty of harming innocents. No fall.
So they come across a village where one of the houses is afflicted by the plague, and the paladin burns it down to save the rest of the village? Yeah, here's a fall. Why? That paladin has a class feature to heal that disease, and could easily have done so instead. DM made the disease immune to magic healing to try and force the paladin into an ethical dilemma? Then no fall. Because there's no paladin. Because I walked out on the game.
-------------------------------
D&D is a game for adventurers. Any DM who is going to use the Paladin code to punish players for adventuring should have just banned the class from the start.
But even when a DM isn't punishing the paladin with unnecessarily harsh and arbitrary rulings, the paladins code is still too harsh, due to the line forbidding the paladin from associating with those who perform evil acts. Any good-aligned adventuring group that doesn't include a paladin can accept a neutral aligned member who performs the occasional evil act in the pursuit of good ends, such as the fiendish bloodline sorcerer who occasionally casts 'summon monster' spells to summon fiends, giving the spell the [evil] subtype, and making casting it an evil act in many games.
The paladin, on the other hand, is forbidden from associating with such a character. Oh, they might be allowed to so so in the short term to achieve a specific goal, but in the long term, from adventure to adventure, a paladin is simply forbidden from being in the same group as such a character.
I can accept internal restrictions, but since the paladin code starts putting restrictions on what the other party members are allowed to do, or even what character concepts they're allowed to play, it crosses a line with me. When I run games, I re-write the paladin code because of this. If I'm player, I simply won't play in a game that includes one. The tyranny of a Paladin player over the other players creates no more enjoyable a game play environment then the tyranny of a DM over a Paladin.
Paladins don't fall for minor infractions, neutral acts, or even evil acts.
Here I of course mean they don't fall for chaotic acts. They very much do fall for evil acts.
But many DM's interpret way too many acts as evil, basically forbidding adventuring outright, and in doing so totally negating the premise of an adventure game.
But many DM's interpret way too many acts as evil, basically forbidding adventuring outright, and in doing so totally negating the premise of an adventure game.
Perhaps the problem lies not in the 'many' DM's interpretations, but rather on your playstyle, so perhaps Paladin is just not the class for you.
|
|
Judge dread was a Paladin!
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Someone else posted their paladin's code was something along the lines of "i will not accept surrender or quarter. My enemy's life was forfiet the moment they (did x, signed up w/ x BBEG)." i love it and think that that is the best description of a paladin i've seen on these boards yet. A vengeful champion of good, law, and badassery...judge, jury, and executioner all rolled up into one :D
|
|
Likewise Freddy :D
I was contemplating playing my "judge dredd"-adin, but decided to ask my GM first...boy am i glad i didn't invest too much in that character.
I am, however, working on a character concept that is basically a fighter that has a very skewed idea of what is and isn't lawful and how to deal with said law. He would basically run around bringing down swift, lethal justice on anybody who violated any law (whether standing law or part of his personal code of law).
EDIT: this character would think he was a paladin to top things off...havent decided if it would be a lawful evil alignment or lawful neutral. Hell, for that matter, i don't know if i could even play him...i'd end up ganking a group member.