Question concerning a Pathfinder paladin's abilities

[Jaelithe]

I've been for all intents and purposes off this train for a long time: I played and DM'd extensively from 1982 until just before the onset of 3rd Edition, and only a handful of times since. Thus, I'll ask the gallery's indulgence if my inquiry seems a little ignorant.

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook states, on page 63, "At 17th level, a paladin gains DR 5/evil," and then a few lines later, adds, "At 20th level ... DR increases to 10/evil." Am I reading this correctly? I infer from the above that the paladin receives damage reduction against physical attacks from all sources—that is, except the one against which it would most benefit him or her. Would it not make more sense for a paladin to have damage reduction against evil only? Was it decided that such was somehow detrimental to game balance? I'm really having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that a devil would find it easier to hurt a high-level paladin than would, say, a couatl. [Of course, I'm sufficiently old school to still be irritated paladins no longer radiate Protection from Evil, so ...]

[TriOmegaZero]

Because Evil is the antimatter of Good, so the more Good you are, the more Evil hurts you.

Edit: I do agree it is a little silly. But better than getting DR/magic.

[KnightErrantJR]

Well, I can see why you would have that opinion. That having been said, I can see how it works now as well. Think of it this way: the paladin cannot be harmed by the BBEG's minions on his way to face the big villain.

In fact, a powerful evil warlord (say, a fighter or barbarian) may still not be able to overcome the DR unless he's got an evil weapon on hand.

Don't think of (Evil) meaning that evil harms the paladin, so much as that something that counts as (Evil) for purposes of DR is something that is not just "normally" evil, but supernaturally evil.

[Gorbacz]

Also, because it's more cinematic to have Paldins die to devils than crazed couatls.

[TriOmegaZero]

Or kobolds.

[KnightErrantJR]

Gorbacz wrote:

Also, because it's more cinematic to have Paldins die to devils than crazed couatls.

"How exactly did Sir Edwin die?"

"Well, there was an embarrassing misunderstanding with a unicorn, and, well, one thing led to another."

"We'll have to hire another bard to start spreading stories about corrupted black unicorn's again."

"At least it wasn't another treant accident, my lord."

[GeraintElberion]

Jaelithe wrote:

Paladins and DR

Look at it from the other direction.

Powerful demons, devils and daemons have DR5/good or DR10/good.

Because the best demon-slayers are paladins and other agents of good.

It's also worth noting - this basically means that only powerful agents of evil can cut through this DR, a goblin doesn't overcome it - a weapon magically aligned to evil does.

Surely 'pure evil' would be kryptonite to the paladin superman?

[Jaelithe]

On reflection, I should have realized a game which holds the default position that good and evil are relatively equal opposites—"matter and antimatter," as TriOmegaZero said—would interpret a paladin's powers in this fashion.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I now have a fuller understanding of the rationale behind such a decision. I very much appreciate that you took the time to post.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

What I want to know is what's the point of:

Core Rules wrote:

Aura of Resolve (Su): At 8th level, a paladin is immune to charm spells and spell-like abilities. Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against charm effects.

There are 4 count them 4 spells with the charm subschool... Doesn't seem like a really useful ability. Now if it were compulsion... that's a different story.

[Jaelithe]

They acquire that immunity at 17th level, with the Aura of Righteousness.

[stonechild]

What I want to know is why paladins are not proficient in their dieties favored weapon but clerics and inquisitors are?

[Gorbacz]

stonechild wrote:

What I want to know is why paladins are not proficient in their dieties favored weapon but clerics and inquisitors are?

That's because Paladins are proficient with all martial weapons.

[stonechild]

Gorbacz wrote:

stonechild wrote:

What I want to know is why paladins are not proficient in their dieties favored weapon but clerics and inquisitors are?

That's because Paladins are proficient with all martial weapons.

And if your diety has an exotic weapon as a favored weapon?

[Gorbacz]

stonechild wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

stonechild wrote:

What I want to know is why paladins are not proficient in their dieties favored weapon but clerics and inquisitors are?

That's because Paladins are proficient with all martial weapons.

And if your diety has an exotic weapon as a favored weapon?

*opens a can of worms*

Paladins are not agents of the deity to a degree that Inquisitors and Clerics are. Mind you, druids/oracles that follow a deity don't get free proficiencies either.

[stonechild]

"paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teaching of the virtuous deities they serve". PCR pg. 60
Sounds like they're pretty tied in to their deities to me.

[Joana]

In Golarion, apparently, most paladins venerate the good deities in general.

Advanced Player's Guide wrote:

Sacred Servant

Paladins as a general rule, venerate the gods of good
and purity, but some take this a step further, dedicating
themselves to a specific deity and furthering the cause of the
faith.

(Emphasis mine.)

In this sense, they're like oracles, who identify with a portfolio rather than a specific deity.

[KnightErrantJR]

Oh no! Not this well trod path once again. ;)

[TriOmegaZero]

Hey, I'm behaving myself!