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?
It was put forth in an adventure path and has never been worked on further. If your DM is willing here is a link to all the alternate paladins from 3.5 unearthed arcana converted to PF.
Other than that though, there's no reason a paladin shouldn't work with someone evil if it serves a purpose. To ignore the help of someone because they ping on a detect evil spell would be stupid. Despite what some people think, paladins shouldn't be stupid.
(you know, other than that whole "associates" thing, but if that was supposed to be followed 100% all the time, the paladin would be the most selfish class to play, because it would limit the choices of everyone else in the group even when the DM allowed evil PC's expressly)
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 :)
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.
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)
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.
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?)
|
Paladins aren't technically diety restricted. Cheliax paladins look at the darkness around them and hope to change the world... they dO so by taking the purely lawful society around them and trying to change the take on doing charitable acts. I love a properly role-played chelaxian pal. It does walk a fine line... the paladin learns to pick his battles, not frown at every misdeed... just those that truly hurt the good of society and the innocent. So if he "turns an eye" when the rogue wants to steal something on occasion, he gets more leverage when the thing the rogue wants to steal is from a peasant family. It is bringing good.
It is unlikely that the Pal would actually worship Asmodeus, it is more likely he respects his sovereignty. In the end, the chelaxian empire is organized and mostly crime free. So now he can try to make things better for the little people, who are generally oppressed.
As to the rogue-paladin relationship, sounds like a very well-role-played give and take. The rogue doesn't want the pally to keep him on a leash, so is willing to point out ways the Pally can help the populace, as long as it isn't costing him anything. He appreciates the Pally as a valuable pawn in keeping him safe and gettig him riches. The pally is aware that the rogue does dark deeds, but is used to this from his upbringing, and sees him as an ally who is willing to help with justice. In any case, he is necessary, and the paladin simply chooses not to ask what he does in his spare time. Lesser of evils and all of that.
Seems like a great concept, and you're playing great. Keep at it :).
Guys, we have one Paladin alignment thread running, do we really need another one?
Yes, we do.
I mean, won't the universe explode and stuff?
Destrying the universe is exactly why we need one.
Despite what seems to be popular opinion, Cheliax is NOT a monotheistic society. Iomedae is still a popular diety and that's the kind of diety a Chelaxian Paladin should venerate.
Technically true. The worship of other deities is however is not so much allowed as it is tolerated. An open paladin of Iomedae can expect to find life very difficult in cheliax.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I'm in a game where my LE rogue... detect evil
Your rogue wouldn't register as evil at all if he was below 5th level.
At higher levels, the paladin could be viewing you as a pet project. You've already got the law half of the equation down, he's just got to guide you to more compassionate ends.
Sorry but for what you're describing you're going a tad beyond "marginal" loosening on the description.
Says you. I disagree.
Says you. I disagree.
Sorry but for what you're describing you're going a tad beyond "marginal" loosening on the description.
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 l to a g in a way that is fitting with the deity's interests and character.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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...
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.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".
You hit the nail on the head with regards to the rogue though, he's pretty much out for himself with no interest in the paladin falling or in him not falling so long as it does not result in a loss in value or removal of his "tool". down the road if situations were different (and the player had shown interest in that road), then who knows... could be fun :)
While it is true in Golarion Paladins do not have to have a god, if they do it must be with in one step.When you truly worship a god, cleric or not you really will not be past 1 step anyhow. If you are just doing lip service and going to church on sunday type of worship then it does not matter. But if something is your chief god then you try to live by the code and the teaching they embrace. If that is more then one step then you end up moving more toward them (becoming non LG) or you end up not really being a true worshiper at all.
Sure you can give a prayer up to a CN god before battle, ask a CG god of freedom to watch over your endeavor but that is a far cry from being a worshiper or follower of that faith. Which is why the paladin of the big A fails on all levels and has been rendered an (mistake) or error that never should have saw print.
To the OP, check out the HellKnight PRC. It seems to be more of what you want. They are more Judge dread ,letter of the law, Black and white LN types. They do have Paladins among their orders, but all of those are also LG.
|
|
technically we are't even playing in golarian, I as just hoping to find some info on the idea
Since you're not playing in Golarion, it's up to your GM to determine whether or not other alignments have holy warriors or champions similar to Paladins or if non-good or non-lawful gods can sponsor orders of LG Paladins for their own purposes (such as Sune, in the Forgotten Realms, a chaotic goddess with an order of Paladins, or Nemorga, in the Scarred Lands, a N diety with an order of Paladins), perhaps in opposition to other evil rivals, such as, in the case of Asmodeus, sponsoring an order of Paladins to stand against the demons of the Worldwound or a similar demonic, daemonic or even rival LE god's forces.
Even my mom is capable of saying, 'do as I say, not as I do,' and encouraging behavior that she does not practice herself, and, IMO, Asmodeus would be even better at that sort of thinking, quite willing to sponsor an order of demon-killing holy champions who do not practice the ways of tyranny.
[Indeed, it could be argued that Asmodeus would be the king of idiots if he actually encouraged all of his followers to be as treacherous and untrustworthy as he is, all things considered... Followers should be encouraged to be loyal and selfless and obedient to the cause, by any opportunistic and self-serving leader worthy of the name.]
Given the widely-discussed possibility that gods are affected by their worshippers in some way, gaining power from them, and even changing over centuries, as beliefs about them change, it's conceivable that an order of Paladins and goodly folk devoted to a deity that is currently evil might have the eventual end goal of *converting the god* over time to a more moderate or benevolent aspect.
Alternately, they might see themselves as simply propiating that power, just as real-world clergy of gods of death or disease weren't necessarily cackling sociopaths, but worked to honor and pay respect to their god to *prevent* catastrophes.
Unlike in the real world, where bad things are done in the name of good religions, and vice-versa, and nobody has commune, in a fantasy game, a cleric can contact their deity directly and find out whether or not Asmodeus a) can empower Paladins, but hates them, and so doesn't, b) thinks that the idea is perfectly sinister and brilliant, but lacks the ability to empower LG Paladins, c) can only empower LE 'paladins of tyranny,' d) pretends to be a LG angel and empowers an order of LG Paladins under another name or e) can and does empower LG Paladins under his own name and finds them useful for demon-killing.
The GM gets to choose if Asmodeus (or any non-good or non-lawful god) is powerful enough to accomplish that feat, or smart enough to think of it, or self-serving enough to go through with it, for his game world.
The Asmodeus of Golarion appears to be smart enough to have thought of it, and enough of a naughty boy to have thought it was friggin' hilarious, but been cockblocked by some higher authority. (And not Iomedae, one of those goddesses who got her powers the old, old fashioned way, by sleeping with Aroden, but someone with *real* power, and usually appearing as a tyrannosaurus rex.)
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.
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.
But serving the Lord of hell is both spreading his evil and helping damn souls to hell. The code pretty much forbids this.
Disregarding that Asmodeus may have other interests to serve besides BIG EEEVIL (such as enjoying fine wine or laws)...
That´s probably why the article also mentioned falling as the inveitable outcome of Paladin/Asmodeus interactions....Which doesn´t seem that controversial: Paladins who serve Asmodeus inevitably fall. Exactly what the article said.
I'm pretty sure James did say that any notion of association between Paladins and Asmodeus should be nuked from orbit, only way to be sure.
AFAIK, He´s also affirmed the ´working with Evil´ clause of the Core Paladin,
which can certainly be seen as ´serving´ Asmodeus´ interests.Probably at some point the Paladin is going to fall if they continue to work with Big A,
but the Code certainly allows for them to work together for ´some´ period of time without falling...
/shrug
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's a cleric. A paladin is not only not required to represent his deity, he doesn't even have to *have* a deity.
(And, technically, acting like your deity is sacrilegious, so even a cleric shouldn't act *too much* like his deity. One is supposed to obey and honor one's deity, not cosplay as them.)
(And, technically, acting like your deity is sacrilegious, so even a cleric shouldn't act *too much* like his deity. One is supposed to obey and honor one's deity, not cosplay as them.)
Highly dependent on the religion in question. Emulating ones god is precisely what some gods act and expect of their priests.
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.
That's a cleric. A paladin is not only not required to represent his deity, he doesn't even have to *have* a deity.
Yes many paladins do not have a god. However if you do you are as much his clergy as the cleric. A paladin with a god must be one step anyhow and one without must still be with in one step of any god they choose as their own god or he isn't really fallowing that god anyhow.
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.
In the dawn of prehistory, Rovagug was born to destroy the
world, but all the other gods stood against him, side by
side. Many died in the struggle, but in the end, Sarenrae
sliced open the world to imprison him within, and Asmodeus
bound him there, keeping the only key.
There are nine circles to Hell, each of which serves a different
role in the punishment of sinful mortals, and each of which is
ruled by a different archdevil. The lord of Hell and ruler of its
deepest circle is Asmodeus, a god in his own right—the other
eight Lords of Hell bow before him and exist to serve him even
as they scheme among themselves for methods of gaining in
power.
Demons exist for one reason—to destroy. Where their
more lawful counterparts, the devils of Hell, seek to
twist mortal minds and values to remake and reshape
them into reflections of their own evil, demons seek
only to maim, ruin, and feed. They recruit mortal life
only if such cohorts speed along the eventual destruction
of hope and goodness.
some devils spontaneously rise from particularly evil souls long trapped upon an infernal layer. Thus, although the various diabolical breeds possess recognizable abilities and hold generalized rankings in the great infernal hierarchy, a devil’s type alone does not always correspond to a specific tenure of torment or place in the infernal chain of command. Asmodeus’s legions hold respect for aptitude and experience, and a particularly skilled lesser devil might come to oversee newly formed members of a fundamentally more powerful form.
One cannot corrupt that which is destroyed.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
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.
A one time team up with a cleric is not really working with the Big A. The paladin can not work with or serve him, sure the Big A might find them useful lackeys if they could. He might be fine with it as he uses everyone but they are not fine with it and can not be.
The point is as long as he is all the things listed above Paladins can not work for or serve him.
So, can you be a paladin of....STALIN?
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?
No, but you may oppose Stalin.
No, but you may oppose Stalin.
So I'm a paladin of...HITLER!?!
Gaining power from an enemy due to a shared enemy is not necessarily serving or employing.
If you work with them then you represent them and all there evil they do. You can not spread evil and be a paladin. Even Hell knights are not normally aligned with him, much less paladins.