Hmm, I'm thinking of an analogue.
Let's say you see a homeless person, and feeling a surge of pity, you give them $20. You say, "Here, go buy some food for yourself." Later, you find out they spent $2 on food and the other $18 on booze. Understandably, you are pissed and refuse to give them more money. You gave them the money with clear conditions, and they broke them.
But, continuing with your analogy, if you then went and beat the homeless person up until they gave you the $18 back, you would not be Lawful Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Redeemer Archetype (from ARG) loses the Detect Evil class ability. So, can he never Smite a creature, because he can never be certain that it's evil?
Detect Evil is part of the Paladin's arsenal, not a restriction on his abilities.
yes.
but isnt it reasonable to assume that the player must make an attempt to determine the evil before calling down gods power.
the characters are level 7+ and this is not an isolated incident. the players preferred method of determining the alignment of any encounter is to smite first and ask later.
the action seems wrong on several levels. it seems more chaotic than lawful for one, but beyond that it seems irreverent.
Honestly... I'd have ZERO problem with this, and I'm surprised that ANYONE would...
I've already seen a COUPLE threads floating around about how 'annoying' it is for a Paladin to 'detect evil' EVERYONE he runs across...
This player sounds like he is using clues and deductions based on the actions of his opponent to determine if something is evil..
Isn't that PREFERABLE???
now.. I'm not sure how your running the smites... But from my reading, the Smite is USED wheter the target is evil or not. If they want to take the gamble and risk losing it when they need it at the expense of thier move action... I really LIKE that option.
Frankly I think the 'evil radar' is a crutch and kindof annoying... I prefer the RPing and random guesswork in battle :)
I've long been a standard that Evil actions don't always turn you evil... Good people do evil things... Neutral people do evil things...
If random bandit #2 is doing something evil... the Paladin has every right to assume that he's evil. ;) That's the penalty for doing bad things. You lose your reputation.
But seriously... I would have thought this would be a DM's dream come true... Holy beatstick wasting his Smites on ineffective targets?? What's not to love?!?
Man... have a group of baddies with two being NE and three being CN... Let's see if the Paladin guess correctly ^_^
I can imagine a prayer... Dear Saenrae, give me the strenght to do your will. Help me prevail against my opponent and if he be worthy of your wrath, strengthen my arm and sharpen my blade...
Look at it from the gods perspective as if your playing the role of the god(which is the role the GM must play or at least interpret) If you as a god grant a follower a special power to use in your name do you or do you not expect them to use that power with a certain amount of respect and caution.
If you noticed a follower using the power basically indiscriminately and expecting you the god to basically waste your gift to the follower purely because the follower refuses to use the tools provided to them to determine the validity of their actions... would you be OK with that?
I don't see it the way you seem to...
Honestly, it's a Self-policing power. If using the power is in any way justified... it works. If it is NOT justified... it doesn't work.
THAT in itself, is the god looking down and saying... 'uhhhh No, Not THIS time...'
Compare that to Rage or any other class 'stat-boosting' power... A barbarian can say 'I rage' and tear into anything he wants... A Paladin can say 'I Smite' and it ONLY works when his god SAYS it does...
I agree with some of the above who said the BIG question is whether he should be in BATTLE with these enemies... Once battles been JOINED, It's pretty much his job to end it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Iomedae is the typical Knight in Shining Armor: she specifically expects her paladins to determine guilt before resorting to violence; if there is doubt, she demands her paladins force their enemies to surrender, and that they take responsibility for their captive's lives. She may offer the war domain, but she is not very militaristic when compared to the Dawnflower.
Sarenrae specifically charges her paladins to be warriors, almost overzealous in their struggle against evil. Their methods are straightforward: Demand repentance, and cut them down swiftly if they falter in their response, even for a second. They are even instructed to fight dirty if it is necessary to win the day; they are to seek victory against the darkness at any cost. She may be a goddess of redemption, but she is not a forgiving deity; if you do not immediately comply with a paladin of Sarenrae's initial demand to repent, don't expect any additional requests -- prepare yourself for cleansing fire and a scimitar strike instead. Additionally, never expect a paladin of Sarenrae to accept surrender without repentance. She grants her followers freedom to execute captives that do not willingly change their ways.
Iomedae is the typical Knight in Shining Armor: she specifically expects her paladins to determine guilt before resorting to violence; if there is doubt, she demands her paladins force their enemies to surrender, and that they take responsibility for their captive's lives. She may offer the war domain, but she is not very militaristic when compared to the Dawnflower.
Sarenrae specifically charges her paladins to be warriors, almost overzealous in their struggle against evil. Their methods are straightforward: Demand repentance, and cut them down swiftly if they falter in their response, even for a second. They are even instructed to fight dirty if it is necessary to win the day; they are to seek victory against the darkness at any cost. She may be a goddess of redemption, but she is not a forgiving deity; if you do not immediately comply with a paladin of Sarenrae's initial demand to repent, don't expect any additional requests -- prepare yourself for cleansing fire and a scimitar strike instead. Additionally, never expect a paladin of Sarenrae to accept surrender without repentance. She grants her followers freedom to execute captives that do not willingly change their ways.
Wait... What!?!?!
What sources are you getting THIS interpretation from?? All the ones I've been reading (3.5 campaign, inner sea guide, gods and magic, Faits of purity) as prep work for my paladin of Sarenrae show these two to be exactly OPPOSITE..
Iomedae is the one with the stick up her butt... the my way or the highway Zealot type of paladin... where Sarenrae is the 'everyone has free will.... lead by example' type of paladin.
Her 'paladin code' even has
Unless someone has shown himself to be irretrievably evil, your faith demands that you treat him with the kindness you would show to anyone who had lost his way. Redemption is rarely a swift process, and your faith demands the patience to hold our temper and help others to walk the righteous path.
There will be MANY battles that you kill you opponent of course... but your description of 'Do you repent? TOO SLOW!!!' CHOP! Seems WAY off.
Unless your a member of a Cult of Rovagug, she's PRETTY lenient. (they get killed outright ;) )
Are there some other sources on her out there? This may actually save me from starting a new thread ;)
I'm sure there are paladins LIKE the one you describe... but t
|
Iomedae is the typical Knight in Shining Armor: she specifically expects her paladins to determine guilt before resorting to violence; if there is doubt, she demands her paladins force their enemies to surrender, and that they take responsibility for their captive's lives. She may offer the war domain, but she is not very militaristic when compared to the Dawnflower.
Sarenrae specifically charges her paladins to be warriors, almost overzealous in their struggle against evil. Their methods are straightforward: Demand repentance, and cut them down swiftly if they falter in their response, even for a second. They are even instructed to fight dirty if it is necessary to win the day; they are to seek victory against the darkness at any cost. She may be a goddess of redemption, but she is not a forgiving deity; if you do not immediately comply with a paladin of Sarenrae's initial demand to repent, don't expect any additional requests -- prepare yourself for cleansing fire and a scimitar strike instead. Additionally, never expect a paladin of Sarenrae to accept surrender without repentance. She grants her followers freedom to execute captives that do not willingly change their ways.
This is not the latest canon, at least not according to the Faiths of Purity.
Iomedae's symbol is the sword, not Sarenrae. All it says about Iomedae is that her followers are the most vigilant about hunting down evil and fighting it. It refers to not being stupid, but nowhere does it say they are careful and discerning in their pursuit of evil.
Sarenrae it says specifically "Sarenrae is kind and loving, a figure of light, guidance, and healing, and has great patience with those who choose to be blind but may one day see. Yet for all her compassion, Sarenrae is also a powerful force against evil, and strikes down the irredeemable without mercy." Note it does not say "Kill them all and let Sarenrae sort them out".
It also goes on to say "Overall, Sarenrae’s focus on redemption means that almost any class is welcome within her ranks so long as its practitioners are devoted to the cause of good, bringing righteous action into those areas where it’s needed most."
Finally, it says of her followers "Like your goddess, you are open and friendly with worshipers of other faiths—even many of the evil ones(emphasis mine). Unless someone has shown himself to be rretrievably evil, your faith demands that you treat him with the kindness you would show to anyone who had lost his way. Redemption is rarely a swift process, and your faith demands the patience to hold your temper and help others to walk the righteous path. Only the followers of Rovagug are denied a chance at salvation, for to entertain the Rough Beast is to display a total rejection of righteousness."
Three passages about redemption and compassion vs none for Iomedae, inlcuding one about consorting with evil in order to redeem it. I would say that makes Sarenrae the temperate one.
|
This is kind of a strange one... not a rules question, more of a flavor question. I am looking for opinions on paladins who use smite without knowing if their target is evil.
Not against the rules, mostly it seem lazy for the paladin to do that. choosing the path that require minimal effort.
Note that I will never say to the Paladin character if his its are affected by the smite evil ability in that situation. It will be a bit annoying to have to add/subtract the smite damage from each attack roll and damage roll, but maybe if the paladin player was forced to do the math every time he attack he will learn to detect first, smite later.
|
|
As for the people that have said a paladin wouldn't know if the smite worked I disagree. You know how hard you can hit, and what kind of damage you do. So if your sword is causing bigger wounds then normal, you would know it's because of a special power. Just like you can tell sometimes if the enemy has damage reduction, you hit it with all your might and it doesn't seem too concerned, there is something going on.
HP =/= from physical wounds.
If that wasn't true a high level character could resist to a direct hit from a cannonball.Our characters are powerful but they aren't comics superheroes.
|
|
If the Deities cared, surely somewhere in one of the books it would be mentioned.. somewhere? anywhere?
Folks have talked about using Create Water to solve anything from irrigation problems to dry and itchy scalps but no mention of abusing or wasting the divine power given to them.
There's no mention in *any place* in any book that I know of that talks about or mentions or even hints about "wasting" anything. You are simply tired of your PC not blowing a move action and so you are trying to figure out a way to put the thumb screws to him to force him to play how You want the paladin to play.
Stop.
Its that simple. Just stop. Next campaign, you play- and pick a paladin.. then play it the way you want. But don't come in now at 7th level and invent a brand spanking new rule to the game that has absolutely *no goal* in mind escept to screw with someone who's only sin is to not play the way you want.Detect Evil isn't a requirement or prerequisite to smite evil. It hasn't been, isn't now, and that shouldn't be changed in the middle of an on-going campaign.
I get that you don't like what he's doing but he's not doing anything incorrect with the mechanics or fluff or even the theme of the class. As long as he's not breaking his vow, code, or alignment to be in the combat in the first place there's not *one thing* that stops him from using smite. Heck, he could smite the same guy over and over and over again and blow them all on a neutral opponent and the rules perfectly support that decision.
(it'd be a stupid decision- to be sure, but not one actionable by his deity.)If it gets on your goat that much change it for the next campaign.. but I really do strongly advise hosing the guy in This campaign because halfway through you think he's playing a Paladin the wrong way.
-S
Iomedae
The paladins of Iomedae are just and strong.• I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
• I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
• I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae's perfection.
Sarenrae
The paladins of the Dawnflower are fierce warriors, like their goddess.
• I will redeem the ignorant with my words and my actions. If they will not turn toward the light, I will redeem them by the sword.
Shelyn
The paladins of Shelyn are peaceable promoters of art and beauty.
• I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
• I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
• I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
• I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
While none of those quotes prohibit it they seem to be against the idea of "smite anything I fight because it could be irredeemably evil".
Again, the paladin isn't violating any rule beside being lazy in his behaviour. Bur for a paladin being lazy is a bad thing.
However, I would encourage any GMs who are using a lot of roleplay/character development to guide the mechanics of the game to consider rewarding the character for wise use of smite, perhaps with additional uses, spontaneous buffs or heals when needed to defend the righteous and those of his faith, etc. If the god(dess) cares enough to bother the paladin about it, they should care enough to reinforce their will. :)
Good idea, I will borrow it.
|
|
Ultimately, you are role-playing the deity in question. A deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, might be quite displeased with a smite-happy Paladin using it as a backhanded detect evil.HAH! Yeah, right. Sarenrae's the most martially-minded god that calls paladins. She'd have no problem with auto-smite.
You are a follower of the eastern branch of Sanrenrae faith, I gather.
;-)
As for the people that have said a paladin wouldn't know if the smite worked I disagree. You know how hard you can hit, and what kind of damage you do. So if your sword is causing bigger wounds then normal, you would know it's because of a special power. Just like you can tell sometimes if the enemy has damage reduction, you hit it with all your might and it doesn't seem too concerned, there is something going on.HP =/= from physical wounds.
If that wasn't true a high level character could resist to a direct hit from a cannonball.
Our characters are powerful but they aren't comics superheroes.
At high levels they kind of are superheros (or at least the fantasy equivalent). They're certainly tossing around powers and using abilities that are far in excess of what any ordinary humanoid can manage.
|
|
Capitan America can be a 20th level fighter (or even spell less Paladin, depend on the incarnation) and Batman a 20th rogue and some other thing Gestalt character, but Hulk, Superman or even most of the X-Man are more powerful (even if not as versatile) than a 20th level spellcaster while at the same time being so resilient they can receive a artillery projectile on their chest and shrug it off.
Add plot armor to that mix and you see how they are far above our characters.
yes.
but isnt it reasonable to assume that the player must make an attempt to determine the evil before calling down gods power.
the characters are level 7+ and this is not an isolated incident. the players preferred method of determining the alignment of any encounter is to smite first and ask later.
the action seems wrong on several levels. it seems more chaotic than lawful for one, but beyond that it seems irreverent.
I think why the paladin is sticking a sword into someone's soft and squishy liver has more alignment ramifications than whether or not there's a smite with it.
If the smite goes off then the person has it coming. If the smite doesn't go off then the paladin has just stabbed someone that probably shouldn't have been stabbed.
Capitan America can be a 20th level fighter (or even spell less Paladin, depend on the incarnation) and Batman a 20th rogue and some other thing Gestalt character, but Hulk, Superman or even most of the X-Man are more powerful (even if not as versatile) than a 20th level spellcaster while at the same time being so resilient they can receive a artillery projectile on their chest and shrug it off.
Add plot armor to that mix and you see how they are far above our characters.
I beg to differ. I think Batman is somwhere around 6th to 10th level and the Hulk would be some kind of barbarian around maybe 16th level. While you can rarely replicate every exact power they have, that's where I'd put them. Storm? Sorcerer of maybe 14th level or so.
And it's kind of a circular argument, because you say that a D&D character can't take a cannonball to their chest (despite the rules allowing it) because they're not superheroes and that superheroes are more powerful than D&D characters because they can take an artillery projectile (cannonball?) to their chest.
While I agree hp damage does not need to be physical if you don't want to, it might as well be - especially for high-level characters. Nothing stops you from interpreting that 12d6 cannon critical to the 120 hp fighter as a cannonball to hirs chest that ze shrugs off. You can also explain it as being an excellent dodger, though that won't explain being able to survive for a turn or three sunken into an acid bath.
It's simply not in the rules, except that the healing rules and cure spells somewhat implies hp damage is physical wounds.
yes.
but isnt it reasonable to assume that the player must make an attempt to determine the evil before calling down gods power.
the characters are level 7+ and this is not an isolated incident. the players preferred method of determining the alignment of any encounter is to smite first and ask later.
the action seems wrong on several levels. it seems more chaotic than lawful for one, but beyond that it seems irreverent.
I think why the paladin is sticking a sword into someone's soft and squishy liver has more alignment ramifications than whether or not there's a smite with it.
If the smite goes off then the person has it coming. If the smite doesn't go off then the paladin has just stabbed someone that probably shouldn't have been stabbed.
Not really. Paladins may often be justified to attack neutral creatures, and they're not always justified to attack evil creatures. Just because something goes bleep on the evilometer does not mean it is deserving of death, nor that the paladin necessarily has the jurisdiction to determine that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strinburka: Right, but under what circumstances would sword to the gut be acceptable but sword to the gut +smite wouldn't be?
Strinburka: Right, but under what circumstances would sword to the gut be acceptable but sword to the gut +smite wouldn't be?
None.
What sources are you getting THIS interpretation from??
This is not the latest canon, at least not according to the Faiths of Purity.
It is directly drawn from the paladin codes in Faiths of Purity.
You are looking at elements of the goddesses and drawing conclusions based on those aspects alone, rather than the entirety of the characters. You say Iomedae is more warlike because she grants the War Domain and her holy symbol is a sword; she grants the War domain because both she and her followers are fighting a constant war against true evil, currently centered in Lastwall, and a sword is more often a symbol of peace than it is war. Hers are the typical knights of Aurthurian legend: Warriors in shining armor, protecting the weak, showing love and mercy to ally and enemy while cutting down evil monsters. They are seen as somewhat gullible, due to their adherence to fair play; because of their unwavering desire to righteously champion the good an innocent they are what most would call the lawful stupid paladin.
Sarenrae is a goddess of redemption, but not forgiveness. She was a warrior angel before attaining her divinity, and feels evil cannot be underestimated. He paladins protect the weak and innocent, but the have no patience for evil. The code presented in Faith of Purity expressly demands they strive to win at all costs. It calls for not only evil beings to be cut down if they fail to repent, but ignorant beings as well; ignorance is no excuse in her mind. Her paladins are more akin to the Crusaders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Basically, their codes and philosophies boil down to the goddesses' roles before attaining divinity. Iomedae was a warrior, but she was a protector above all else. She raised her sword against evil but her objective was the defense of the innocent, not war. Sarenrae was a warrior angel, delivering divine fire and destruction upon the wicked. She was a divine weapon, forged for war and the destruction of evil. Hers' is not the place to forgive evil. Her calling is to scour darkness from the world by any means necessary.
I don't see it the way you seem to...Honestly, it's a Self-policing power. If using the power is in any way justified... it works. If it is NOT justified... it doesn't work.
THAT in itself, is the god looking down and saying... 'uhhhh No, Not THIS time...'
Compare that to Rage or any other class 'stat-boosting' power... A barbarian can say 'I rage' and tear into anything he wants... A Paladin can say 'I Smite' and it ONLY works when his god SAYS it does...
I agree with some of the above who said the BIG question is whether he should be in BATTLE with these enemies... Once battles been JOINED, It's pretty much his job to end it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Not quite.
The power is used up every time it is activated. If the target was not Evil, there is no effecr, and the power is wasted.If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
A deity is well within its rights to say "I gave you the power to defeat evil, not blow it on every enemy because they MIGHT be evil!"
In any effect, it is not a "self-policing power" that doesn't work unless it is supposed to. It works, with no effect, if the Paladin mis-uses it.
Sarenrae specifically charges her paladins to be warriors, almost overzealous in their struggle against evil. Their methods are straightforward: Demand repentance, and cut them down swiftly if they falter in their response, even for a second. They are even instructed to fight dirty if it is necessary to win the day; they are to seek victory against the darkness at any cost. She may be a goddess of redemption, but she is not a forgiving deity; if you do not immediately comply with a paladin of Sarenrae's initial demand to repent, don't expect any additional requests -- prepare yourself for cleansing fire and a scimitar strike instead. Additionally, never expect a paladin of Sarenrae to accept surrender without repentance. She grants her followers freedom to execute captives that do not willingly change their ways.
I am curious to see the source you have for that. It does not jibe with what I read, particularly the part..
Sarenrae is a goddess of redemption, but not forgiveness.
From my sources:
In Katapesh, Osirion, and nearby lands the harsh sun beats down upon mortals, and the line between survival and extinction is much finer. Thus, it is no surprise that even benign Sarenrae emerges as a more steely, dangerous force. As tribal nomads say, “there are no second chances in the desert,” and here the Cult of the Dawnflower has taken that to heart. These hard-edged priests offer mercy once and only once to their opponents, and if refused they are ruthless in battle, ignoring offers to parley or surrender, unafraid to judge neutral opponents as if they were blackhearted evildoers. This severe stance only applies to enemies of the faith and sinful folk—among their friends, family, and other respectable members of the community, the people of the Desert Dawnflower are kind, generous, and forgiving. As a whole this subset of the main faith tends to fall much closer to true neutral than neutral good, though never to actual evil.
That's the borderline-heretical sect I mentioned. Even *they* offer redemption at least once before going to violence.
Sarenrae is a kind and loving goddess, a caring mother and sister to all in need. She joys in healing the sick, lifting up the fallen, and shining a guiding light into the darkest hearts and lands. She brushes off insults and def lects attacks, patiently trying to convince those who perceive her as an enemy that their belief is false. She is no victim, and once it is clear that her words and power are wasted on those who refuse to listen and believe, she responds to violence in kind, with swift metal and scorching light. She dislikes cruelty, lies, quenching darkness, needless suffering, and thoughtless destruction.
"Auto-smiting" everything you fight sounds like a variety of "thoughtless destruction" to me.
I don't see it the way you seem to...Honestly, it's a Self-policing power. If using the power is in any way justified... it works. If it is NOT justified... it doesn't work.
THAT in itself, is the god looking down and saying... 'uhhhh No, Not THIS time...'
Compare that to Rage or any other class 'stat-boosting' power... A barbarian can say 'I rage' and tear into anything he wants... A Paladin can say 'I Smite' and it ONLY works when his god SAYS it does...
I agree with some of the above who said the BIG question is whether he should be in BATTLE with these enemies... Once battles been JOINED, It's pretty much his job to end it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Not quite.
The power is used up every time it is activated. If the target was not Evil, there is no effecr, and the power is wasted.
Oh???
Then THAT is the FIRST thing I would houserule!!!
Though frankly, it sounds like a difference in interpretations of the core....
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a def lection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3–11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
The way I read it, is You call out to your god for smiting once per day.... IF the target is evil... Good things happen. It doesn't say anything about it 'not counting' if the target was not evil.. It says you can only call out for smite once per day.
Under THOSE rules, I'd be annoyed as a DM too. Seriously... Charge him for the blind smites!!! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Paladin is justified in hitting the foes, then he's justified in trying a Smite. The deity should not have any issue with the power being "wasted".
What is this obession about Paladins anyway? jeez, i think some DM's just shouldn't allow them or skip the whole Code thing.
If a Cleric heals his companion with a Cure Serious Wounds but only a Cure Light was needed, would anyone think the deity would scold the cleric?
Now, if you are playing that Smite is not wasted if the target is not Evil, then yes, you need to adjust things- that rule.
The over-use of Smite should correct itself. Even tho this Pally has more than most- still, as long as you keep to the 4 encounters a day general guideline, he'll use up his allotment long before the day is done.
And like we said, wasting a round to cast Detect Evil and only being about to use Smite if it "pings' is a HUGE nerf. Many many evil creatures won't ping. And I'd say if it's undead or a demon, would not the Deity be as upset of the waste of a round when a truly EVIL thing could be smote back to Hell?
Dm- just make sure you have a full adventuring day and that wasted smites are truly wasted, and don't worry about the rest.
Gods and Magic, and LOF Sarenrae Article wrote:
Sarenrae is a kind and loving goddess, a caring mother and sister to all in need. She joys in healing the sick, lifting up the fallen, and shining a guiding light into the darkest hearts and lands. She brushes off insults and def lects attacks, patiently trying to convince those who perceive her as an enemy that their belief is false. She is no victim, and once it is clear that her words and power are wasted on those who refuse to listen and believe, she responds to violence in kind, with swift metal and scorching light. She dislikes cruelty, lies, quenching darkness, needless suffering, and thoughtless destruction.
"Auto-smiting" everything you fight sounds like a variety of "thoughtless destruction" to me.
...
Why? Why would Smiting be any more thoughtless destruction that just hitting it with a big old nasty sword?
I am curious to see the source you have for that. It does not jibe with what I read, particularly the part..
As I noted, it is primarily from Faiths of Purity. It also has origins in many of the articles you list.
Urath, you're only citing the parts of the entries that agree with the view of a kind and caring mother figure. You're ignoring passages in the same articles that describe Sarenrae's militaristic and martial perspective. But ultimately, that is irrelevant to this discussion and off-topic. All that matter is that you even note the existence of the "borderline-heretical sect," and Sarenrae still grants them divine power despite their viewpoint. They would have no issue with auto-smiting a foe; as DrDerth pointed out, they would have already made the decision to attack anyway.
Honestly, it's a Self-policing power. If using the power is in any way justified... it works. If it is NOT justified... it doesn't work.
Thats not right in my opinion.
If you have someone who is evil by education but not very much by action on his knees begging for forgiveness and mercy a smite evil WILL WORK. But it surely is not justified.On the other hand someone doesn't become evil for doing something evil once. So you could have someone who just (why ever) murdered an innocent in cold blood and still has the bloody dagger in his hands.
Still he isn't evil. So while his action would justify it smite evil still would not work.
Strinburka: Right, but under what circumstances would sword to the gut be acceptable but sword to the gut +smite wouldn't be?
None, really, though it could matter for how grave an error is. If you smack an evil over the head when you're not allowed to it's assault. If you smite an evil over the head it might very well be manslaughter/murder.
But basically it would be the same.
Not quite.
The power is used up every time it is activated. If the target was not Evil, there is no effecr, and the power is wasted.
Oh???
Then THAT is the FIRST thing I would houserule!!!
Though frankly, it sounds like a difference in interpretations of the core....
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a def lection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
Take a look at the 2nd paragraph you quoted. I have bolded the relevant line here for emphasis. I'm not making this stuff up.. it really is wasted if you blow it on an inappropriate target.
Why? Why would Smiting be any more thoughtless destruction that just hitting it with a big old nasty sword?Gods and Magic, and LOF Sarenrae Article wrote:
Sarenrae is a kind and loving goddess, a caring mother and sister to all in need. She joys in healing the sick, lifting up the fallen, and shining a guiding light into the darkest hearts and lands. She brushes off insults and def lects attacks, patiently trying to convince those who perceive her as an enemy that their belief is false. She is no victim, and once it is clear that her words and power are wasted on those who refuse to listen and believe, she responds to violence in kind, with swift metal and scorching light. She dislikes cruelty, lies, quenching darkness, needless suffering, and thoughtless destruction.
"Auto-smiting" everything you fight sounds like a variety of "thoughtless destruction" to me.
...
I am not saying that Sarenrae would frown on Smite Evil. I am saying she would frown on the use as described by the OP... smiting in every combat and, if it works, deciding the enemy deserved it. THAT strikes me as the sort of "thoughtless destruction" Sarenrae would frown on.
Now.. to get back on-track.. we don't know the deities in the OP's campaign, so the use of Sarenrae and Iomedae are just two examples of Paladin-sponsoring deities with markedly different attitudes toward how aggressive they should be. My original point was, whatever deity the Paladin in the OP's campaing follows should be the OP's guide in whether or not there is an issue.
Take a look at the 2nd paragraph you quoted. I have bolded the relevant line here for emphasis. I'm not making this stuff up.. it really is wasted if you blow it on an inappropriate target.
/BLINK... BLINK...
/rereads....
Ohhhh KAY... I'm not sure WHAT I read before... but I could have sworn you were arguing that they were NOT used up with a 'false smite'....
We're TOTALLY agreeing ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually go the other way, since they have Oath of Vengeance.
If the paladin could have used their smite on more evil creatures and didn't, or even used some LoH to actually heal... I'd send them dreams of people they've known before being killed by hellspawn. Because that is what will happen if they don't destroy evil with every ounce of energy that they have.
The god didn't send the paladin there to babysit and coddle these other people.
If he goes around town and points the finger at everyone "Smite" and then slaps them to find out which one of them fly across the townsquare from the slap, because of the added smite, then I'd say he's being stupid.
Actually, that sounds like an awesome character concept.
My Paladin was ambushed in the middle of the night by an Owlbear. He only had one companion with him in the campaign so without having any armor on and being ravaged by the creature, he Smited Evil. He didn't know it was not evil, he didn't have time to Detect Evil. It failed and he realized he was having it pretty rough.
My Paladin was ambushed in the middle of the night by an Owlbear. He only had one companion with him in the campaign so without having any armor on and being ravaged by the creature, he Smited Evil. He didn't know it was not evil, he didn't have time to Detect Evil. It failed and he realized he was having it pretty rough.
The difference here is that the OP is saying the Paladin in question is not just uncertain whether something is evil or not. As described, the Paladin makes no effort to find out beforehand; he just uses Smite Evil all the time .I am not saying that means using detect evil first, and that is not what I got from the OP's message at all.
Certainly, there are clear circumstances when Smite Evil is just about always justified, such as when facing fiends, undead, or open worshippers of evil deities.
There are cases in which it might be prudent to try it because you suspect the target is evil. If you are not sure whether the thing you are fighting is a gargoyle or a minor devil, it might be prudent to use Smite Evil and worry about detecting evil first some other time.
It might be helpful if the OP provided some examples of questionable usage. Is it always when facing humanoids? That might be more justifiable by the Paladin's player than if he does the same when facing animals or vermin.
|
|
What's funny is, I could see this thread going this way as well (with a different title):
My players ran into a viscous-looking plant creature that's known to eat humanoids, but instead of assuming the thing was evil and smiting it accordingly, the paladin metagamed the knowledge that plants are most commonly neutral creatures and conserved his smite. Why do players metagame! etc. etc.
I don't get the conundrum.
For a paladin in any given situation it's either "okay" to strike/attack another creature or its not.
If the person you are considering stabbing in the face is an innocent, smiting or not you're making a mistake. If the person you are considering stabbing in the face is guilty/deserving, then it doesn't matter how hard you try to hit them. Smiting is just extra-special hurt-i-tude. Since it has zero consequence for anyone not evil, it's no problem to use any time you want to attack.
If a paladin attacks without determining if a target is deserving of an attack, well, that paladin is in for trouble.
I don't get the conundrum.
For a paladin in any given situation it's either "okay" to strike/attack another creature or its not.
If the person you are considering stabbing in the face is an innocent, smiting or not you're making a mistake. If the person you are considering stabbing in the face is guilty/deserving, then it doesn't matter how hard you try to hit them. Smiting is just extra-special hurt-i-tude. Since it has zero consequence for anyone not evil, it's no problem to use any time you want to attack.
If a paladin attacks without determining if a target is deserving of an attack, well, that paladin is in for trouble.
I think the issue comes down to opportunity cost. Every smite you waste now is a smite you can't use later when facing something that IS evil.
Ask yourself this - if a 5th level party is facing a single goblin, and the wizard uses Fireball, killing it, has he done anything wrong (assuming no allies were caught in the blast)? Does the party have any reason to be upset when the wizard doesn't have the use of Fireball later when they are facing two dozen goblins?
Edit: And keep in mind, the wizard could claim that he wasn't sure the goblin didn't have invisible companions nearby, or that the goblin wasn't a mighty hero (had class levels) - but the Fireball gave him information on both.
Ask yourself this - if a 5th level party is facing a single goblin, and the wizard uses Fireball, killing it, has he done anything wrong (assuming no allies were caught in the blast)? Does the party have any reason to be upset when the wizard doesn't have the use of Fireball later when they are facing two dozen goblins?
In my experience absolutely not. Each PC/player determines how they spend their resources, and it's nobody else's bloody business, unless they specifically ask for advice.
Then again, anyone in my group would be kicking themselves for not having that fireball for the two dozen goblins, just thinking of the damage they could have done.
We do like our damage numbers. :p
Ask yourself this - if a 5th level party is facing a single goblin, and the wizard uses Fireball, killing it, has he done anything wrong (assuming no allies were caught in the blast)? Does the party have any reason to be upset when the wizard doesn't have the use of Fireball later when they are facing two dozen goblins?Edit: And keep in mind, the wizard could claim that he wasn't sure the goblin didn't have invisible companions nearby, or that the goblin wasn't a mighty hero (had class levels) - but the Fireball gave him information on both.
Not the same. It is the DM who has beef with it, not the party.
In my experience absolutely not. Each PC/player determines how they spend their resources, and it's nobody else's bloody business, unless they specifically ask for advice.
A fair point, and one that highlights that my analogy isn't perfect. The rest of the party doesn't grant the wizard the ability to cast Fireball, but the paladin's deity DOES grant him the use of Smite Evil.
Not the same. It is the DM who has beef with it, not the party.
As I understood it, the DM had a beef because he felt the deity should have a beef. If a deity had granted the wizard a Fireball, then I feel such a being should feel slightly miffed at the misapplication.
I'd let him do it. Eventually he'll smite an innocent person, and he'll require an atonement. And I'd make him work for it.
And if he doesn't, no harm. Maybe he's actually thinking about the context before attacking, and that's roleplaying.
I'd let him do it. Eventually he'll smite an innocent person, and he'll require an atonement. And I'd make him work for it.
And if he doesn't, no harm. Maybe he's actually thinking about the context before attacking, and that's roleplaying.
He only attacks those who are enemies. Innocent enemies don't make sense.
