Paladin (Alignment) Debate - Need help


Advice

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

if u concentrate it will give you source location strength, you can tell if this is an evil, unhallowed temple, or the guy over there is evil, the paladin version requires you to focus on one thing specifically as well, ie that guy, or this room, or that artifact


If handled correctly, I imagine that playing a fallen paladin could be quite entertaining. Sort of the "Bat Man" of paladins; he's a dark knight, willing to be the bad guy if that means that the world is made safer. Could always seek atonement later...

Ex-paladin Idea:
This thread has inspired in me a desire to play an Ex-paladin character. Mechanically that would suck, but I'm thinking that by replacing the paladin levels with fighter levels would work. Story-wise the character would have been a paladin that "fell." So much cool.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Reading through the posts, it seems clear that a few things occurred:

1.) The Detect Evil ability was not utilized properly. It is about intentions and history, not nature, but this is a minor point.

2.) The DM needed to provide a much better description to the players about exactly what they were witnessing. If he wanted to guide them into a morally questionable decision challenge, it could have been presented differently, such as the wererat holding it's child and trying to protect it while being cornered, questioned and/or attacked by the party.

3.) Any Paladin that attacked a non-threatening creature out of hand would be in for a bad time in my game. "Detected Evil = Bash it" would earn you a quick trip to non-paladin status IMO. I'm not saying that the end result in this scenario wouldn't have been a dead wererat, but in this case, the Paladin should have investigated the situation more.....why is it protecting a child? Why has it not attacked or fled? It's talking, so let's find out what the story is here. A true Paladin would have put the child's safety and welfare as it's highest priority and worked out the proper action from there. Eliminating evil is important, but so is redemption and the showing of mercy and compassion. The true test of a paladin is wisely balancing those extremes after careful thought.

Personally, I recommend that everyone in the group read through the Detect Evil description and become familiar with what it does, then sit down and hash out exactly what is expected of paladins in their particular game. Leaving things like this fuzzy will only lead to further confusion.


Detect Magic wrote:

If handled correctly, I imagine that playing a fallen paladin could be quite entertaining. Sort of the "Bat Man" of paladins; he's a dark knight, willing to be the bad guy if that means that the world is made safer. Could always seek atonement later...

** spoiler omitted **

I think a rogue would fit batman better(stealth + skill points).

You can also convert your paladin levels to antipaladin if you don't want to use homebrew.


Oh, I didn't mean an evil character. Definitely not anti-paladin. Still, fighter/rogue multi-class could work. Not your typical "honorable knight." This fella would be willing to get his hands dirty. Obviously, there would be no atonement for this guy (the paladin stuff is just background). But, an Ex-paladin/atoned-paladin could be cool, too (just mechanically garbage).


Shroud wrote:

Reading through the posts, it seems clear that a few things occurred:

1.) The Detect Evil ability was not utilized properly. It is about intentions and history, not nature, but this is a minor point.

2.) The DM needed to provide a much better description to the players about exactly what they were witnessing. If he wanted to guide them into a morally questionable decision challenge, it could have been presented differently, such as the wererat holding it's child and trying to protect it while being cornered, questioned and/or attacked by the party.

3.) Any Paladin that attacked a non-threatening creature out of hand would be in for a bad time in my game. "Detected Evil = Bash it" would earn you a quick trip to non-paladin status IMO. I'm not saying that the end result in this scenario wouldn't have been a dead wererat, but in this case, the Paladin should have investigated the situation more.....why is it protecting a child? Why has it not attacked or fled? It's talking, so let's find out what the story is here. A true Paladin would have put the child's safety and welfare as it's highest priority and worked out the proper action from there. Eliminating evil is important, but so is redemption and the showing of mercy and compassion. The true test of a paladin is wisely balancing those extremes after careful thought.

Personally, I recommend that everyone in the group read through the Detect Evil description and become familiar with what it does, then sit down and hash out exactly what is expected of paladins in their particular game. Leaving things like this fuzzy will only lead to further confusion.

The party does not KNOW about the child even existing yet.

Scarab Sages

I don't think revealing the child is necessarily going to guarantee the wererat's survival.

The first thought from most players is going to be "Look at the vile leader of this band of slavers! Holding an innocent child as a hostage! Kill him before he grabs the child and readies a killing bite!".

Scarab Sages

I agree with the former poster, that we should refrain from piling on the GM.

Posting this thread implies he is wanting to improve his game, and I want to give him(?) the benefit of the doubt, that he was attempting to introduce a more complex situation.

Any sarcasm I may post is directed at those here, who would give him utterly awful advice. Which is "Carry on how you were. Everything's fine. You have terrible players. They should be punished.".

That is utterly awful advice, because it doesn't attempt to address the problem at his table. It kicks the crap down the kerb, to be stepped in another day. Possibly with a more contentious situation, that provokes a blow-up, and a splitting of the group.

Very few players choose to play a Paladin with the intent of derailing the game for everybody else, or to play a kill-crazy warrior, who flips out several times a day, and attacks everything on sight.
If they did, there are far more efficient ways of doing that. Playing a berserker Barbarian, perhaps? Magical 2H weapon, Power Attack, enlarge person (all of which are available by mid-point of 4th level), you can dish out consistent 20+ damage per hit, before crits, before even spending any rage (with both, you're looking at 40+ minimum). And if raging means you can one-shot most opponents above your party's alleged CR, even the bosses and mini-bosses, then rage gives you uses against more opponents/day than smite ever would. You can dish out the damage all day, until someone brings you down, or you run out of targets. And there's not a person at the table can fault you for playing your character wrong, no divine Sword of Damocles being held over your head, warning you that you'll be stripped of your class abilities if you don't act courteously to creatures you consider enemies.

Given that players have much more convenient options if they want to play a psychopath, with no roleplaying restrictions attached, can we all start giving players the benefit of the doubt, that when they do choose to play a Paladin, they are actually doing so in good faith, because they want to play a courageous protector of innocents?

And that, if a GM is ever in the position of wondering "What the hell is he doing that for?", that he consider there has been some miscommunication somewhere in the past? Either from the pair of them never having discussed the fine points of the Paladin's Code, or the player misreading the current in-game situation, in a way his character (being present, and in possession of far more information) would not?

Silver Crusade

This is why you shouldn't play Int and Wis dump paladins.


Shroud wrote:

Reading through the posts, it seems clear that a few things occurred:

1.) The Detect Evil ability was not utilized properly. It is about intentions and history, not nature, but this is a minor point.

2.) The DM needed to provide a much better description to the players about exactly what they were witnessing. If he wanted to guide them into a morally questionable decision challenge, it could have been presented differently, such as the wererat holding it's child and trying to protect it while being cornered, questioned and/or attacked by the party.

3.) Any Paladin that attacked a non-threatening creature out of hand would be in for a bad time in my game. "Detected Evil = Bash it" would earn you a quick trip to non-paladin status IMO. I'm not saying that the end result in this scenario wouldn't have been a dead wererat, but in this case, the Paladin should have investigated the situation more.....why is it protecting a child? Why has it not attacked or fled? It's talking, so let's find out what the story is here. A true Paladin would have put the child's safety and welfare as it's highest priority and worked out the proper action from there. Eliminating evil is important, but so is redemption and the showing of mercy and compassion. The true test of a paladin is wisely balancing those extremes after careful thought.

Personally, I recommend that everyone in the group read through the Detect Evil description and become familiar with what it does, then sit down and hash out exactly what is expected of paladins in their particular game. Leaving things like this fuzzy will only lead to further confusion.

1 is wrong, detect alignment and alignment itself have nothing to do with intention or history, it's more of a tendency or trend as one developer said. It means that an evil character will usually decide on the most selfish, egoistical or harmful choice, but an evil character can be just very egoistic and petty and not necessarily a murderer.

2 is maybe, noone not at the table could really say how well the DM did or didn't explain.
3 is right, paladins are supposed to be holy and even saintly and that takes a whole lot of thinking things trough.


As a player currently running a paladin, I have a real problem with killing a creature that is not fighting back and is asking the party to leave. If there's no evidence he's up to anything nefarious the mere detection of evil is not a license to slaughter. There are exceptions, of course... evil outsiders, undead, OK. But a wererat? No. Slow down, take time to get all the information you can, and then make a decision. It may be that in the end the dirty rat has to die, but if he's not fighting back the fact that he's evil isn't enough.

Doesn't mean the party has to leave, either. Tell the rat to drop any weapons he has, maybe even tell him to change to human form. "Stand there. Don't move. We're going to look around. If you threaten us we WILL kill you." Use diplomacy, intimidate, whatever you like. Y'know, role play.

I tend to throw a bit of Mal Reynolds' code of honor in when I'm running a pally... "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed."

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people want the power of the Paladin without the restrictions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Some people want the power of the Paladin without the restrictions.

If I wanted power in Pathfinder then a class with only four-level spellcasting wouldn't be my first choice.

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Some people want the power of the Paladin without the restrictions.
If I wanted power in Pathfinder then a class with only four-level spellcasting wouldn't be my first choice.

Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.


shallowsoul wrote:
Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.

Which system are we talking about again?

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.
Which system are we talking about again?

You know which system we are talking about so once I again I say the same thing. Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.

Of course it does when you are talking in a vacuum but let's not be narrow minded here, vacuums don't exist in games outside of forum discussions.


shallowsoul wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.
Which system are we talking about again?

You know which system we are talking about so once I again I say the same thing. Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.

Of course it does when you are talking in a vacuum but let's not be narrow minded here, vacuums don't exist in games outside of forum discussions.

Melee characters can do 1 thing hit people (and occasionally add status effects) they do it very will, but casters can 100's of things and with the right spell can make melee, archers, gunslingers entirely irrelevant. Anyway paladins don't get pounce so they lose as melee monsters. Both barbarians and summoner beats paladins as melee damage dealers and beats them at utility (6th level spells and rage powers beats 4th level spells).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One would have to wonder how some people in this thread would handle a particular NPC in my home campaign: a LG reformed succubus.

Bear in mind that she is still a succubus, and still "pings" evil to Detect Evil, because she has the [Evil] subtype. She is also an upstanding member of society, given to kind acts and charity.

What does a paladin do when he meets her?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.
Which system are we talking about again?

You know which system we are talking about so once I again I say the same thing. Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.

Of course it does when you are talking in a vacuum but let's not be narrow minded here, vacuums don't exist in games outside of forum discussions.

Melee characters can do 1 thing hit people (and occasionally add status effects) they do it very will, but casters can 100's of things and with the right spell can make melee, archers, gunslingers entirely irrelevant. Anyway paladins don't get pounce so they lose as melee monsters.

Incorrect.

Please please please step out of the vacuum. Spellcasters do not always have the right spell for the right job nor do monsters always stand there in clumps so you can AoE them to death, also they don't always fail their saves, casters don't always beat their Spell Resistance etc etc etc etc etc......

I am not getting into this crappy old argument again because it has been proven time and time again to not be true. When spellcasters are in the right situation at the right time with the right spells then they kick ass but let's not pretend that this happens regularly.


Chemlak wrote:

One would have to wonder how some people in this thread would handle a particular NPC in my home campaign: a LG reformed succubus.

Bear in mind that she is still a succubus, and still "pings" evil to Detect Evil, because she has the [Evil] subtype. She is also an upstanding member of society, given to kind acts and charity.

What does a paladin do when he meets her?

If it has the evil sub-type it can't reform it is only playing nice as it is fundamentally evil. So if you want to make a Lawful Good Succubus you would have to remove the evil descriptor like they do for good un-dead and explain how a creature without free will is defeating her nature.

Silver Crusade

Chemlak wrote:

One would have to wonder how some people in this thread would handle a particular NPC in my home campaign: a LG reformed succubus.

Bear in mind that she is still a succubus, and still "pings" evil to Detect Evil, because she has the [Evil] subtype. She is also an upstanding member of society, given to kind acts and charity.

What does a paladin do when he meets her?

Use common sense when approaching her. Also it would depend on how you, the GM, present her to the paladin.

All it takes is a little common sense from the player to scope out the scenario in front of him/her to know what to do next.

Silver Crusade

Wind Chime wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

One would have to wonder how some people in this thread would handle a particular NPC in my home campaign: a LG reformed succubus.

Bear in mind that she is still a succubus, and still "pings" evil to Detect Evil, because she has the [Evil] subtype. She is also an upstanding member of society, given to kind acts and charity.

What does a paladin do when he meets her?

If it has the evil sub-type it can't reform it is only playing nice as it is fundamentally evil. So if you want to make a Lawful Good Succubus you would have to remove the evil descriptor like they do for good un-dead and explain how a creature without free will is defeating her nature.

Actually go and read the Book of Exalted Deeds for 3.5. It has rules for reformed demons, devils, etc....


shallowsoul wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.
Which system are we talking about again?

You know which system we are talking about so once I again I say the same thing. Funny how you think only spellcasting makes you powerful.

Of course it does when you are talking in a vacuum but let's not be narrow minded here, vacuums don't exist in games outside of forum discussions.

Melee characters can do 1 thing hit people (and occasionally add status effects) they do it very will, but casters can 100's of things and with the right spell can make melee, archers, gunslingers entirely irrelevant. Anyway paladins don't get pounce so they lose as melee monsters.

Incorrect.

Please please please step out of the vacuum. Spellcasters do not always have the right spell for the right job nor do monsters always stand there in clumps so you can AoE them to death, also they don't always fail their saves, casters don't always beat their Spell Resistance etc etc etc etc etc......

I am not getting into this crappy old argument again because it has been proven time and time again to not be true. When spellcasters are in the right situation at the right time with the right spells then they kick ass but let's not pretend that this happens regularly.

Fly + Wind Wall two 3rd level spells which make paladins entirely useless unless they are using an item made by a spell caster or a spell caster is casting on them. So Paladins are useless against caster unless they also have a casters help.


New on the Pathfinder forums: Cursed people are monsters and only deserve death, talking to a creature is never an option as the onus of proof is on everyone else to make you not duty-bound to kill them in cold blood, Paladins do not represent what is good, just or right nor must they strive to create a greater world in the wake of their actions but instead are just mindless thugs employed by nebulous gods to swathe through groups of creatures for no reason other than their holy mandate.

That's just bleak.

I don't think I'd want to play in a world where the dutiful and just heroes don't take the time to help those in need, don't live up to their oaths and fail to protect those who need protection the most. Heroes whose glimmering lights of hope only shine on those that their god deems worthy, eschewing those who their god decides are unclean. Heroes who kill people who are begging for mercy because they are evil.

I already live in that world. Who the hell would want to play in it?


What goes up must come down.

Silver Crusade

It's absolutely amazing how all these scenario situations leave out the fact that there are other members of a group.

Funny how it's always down to one on one and that a class isn't good because it can't handle every situation there is while there is no class out there that can.

Edit: Paladin can't reach the flying wizard? That's okay, his buddy the elven fighter (archer) can reach him just fine.


shallowsoul wrote:

It's absolutely amazing how all these scenario situations leave out the fact that there are other members of a group.

Funny how it's always down to one on one and that a class isn't good because it can't handle every situation there is while there is no class out there that can.

Edit: Paladin can't reach the flying wizard? That's okay, his buddy the elven fighter (archer) can reach him just fine.

You know I mentioned wind wall you know the anti-archery spells.

Silver Crusade

Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

It's absolutely amazing how all these scenario situations leave out the fact that there are other members of a group.

Funny how it's always down to one on one and that a class isn't good because it can't handle every situation there is while there is no class out there that can.

Edit: Paladin can't reach the flying wizard? That's okay, his buddy the elven fighter (archer) can reach him just fine.

Didn't I mention wind wall you know the spell that makes archers useless.

Javelins, daggers, throwing axes, are things that most ranged characters keep with them. Not to mentioned the fact that you need to win initiative and actually have the spell memorized.

It's actually easy for me to present a situation and then you go back and skim through the spells and pick one that is best for the situation. Notice how I can do that as well?

Silver Crusade

Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

It's absolutely amazing how all these scenario situations leave out the fact that there are other members of a group.

Funny how it's always down to one on one and that a class isn't good because it can't handle every situation there is while there is no class out there that can.

Edit: Paladin can't reach the flying wizard? That's okay, his buddy the elven fighter (archer) can reach him just fine.

You know I mentioned wind wall you know the anti-archery spells.

Did I also mention sling stones?

Has a 33% miss chance but that's okay.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love those threads where the OP never turns up after the first post ;)


Why were they in that wine cellar in the first place?

Most games I have been in we had a reason to enter the area, then a reason to look around?

It sounds like they said hey an empty house, there is a storm coming, inside will be better than outside.

Hey.look prisoners including a.lawful good ranger, let's free them.

Man i'm thirsty hey.a.wine cellar, let's go down.

Hey a monster......


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paladin's are also not allowed to kill. Or else they fall.

Silver Crusade

Wind Chime wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

It's absolutely amazing how all these scenario situations leave out the fact that there are other members of a group.

Funny how it's always down to one on one and that a class isn't good because it can't handle every situation there is while there is no class out there that can.

Edit: Paladin can't reach the flying wizard? That's okay, his buddy the elven fighter (archer) can reach him just fine.

You know I mentioned wind wall you know the anti-archery spells.

Did I also mention that if you have the spell in Wall form I can shoot you from the side or from behind and if you have it in cylinder form I can shoot you from underneath.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wind Chime wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

One would have to wonder how some people in this thread would handle a particular NPC in my home campaign: a LG reformed succubus.

Bear in mind that she is still a succubus, and still "pings" evil to Detect Evil, because she has the [Evil] subtype. She is also an upstanding member of society, given to kind acts and charity.

What does a paladin do when he meets her?

If it has the evil sub-type it can't reform it is only playing nice as it is fundamentally evil. So if you want to make a Lawful Good Succubus you would have to remove the evil descriptor like they do for good un-dead and explain how a creature without free will is defeating her nature.

Ahem.

Evil subtype wrote:
This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the evil-aligned outer planes. Evil outsiders are also called fiends. Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the evil subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are evil-aligned (see Damage Reduction, page 299).

Bolded the relevant bit for you. And yes, there's a reason her alignment is no longer evil.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an idea. Paladin disarms and restrains wererat. Paladin removes disease on wererat. Paladin escorts former wererat to kindly priest who teaches him the error of his ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Some people want the power of the Paladin without the restrictions.

Some people want the awesome skillset of the Rogue without being forced to backstab every fifth person they meet.

Some people want the spellcasting wonderfulness of the Cleric without being beholden to a deity.

Some people want the immense weapons and equipment combat knowledge of the Fighter without being stuck using swords alone (no axes, no hammers, no flails).

Some people want the opportunity to play a Samurai without being lawful.

Some people want the fun combination of skills, spellcasting, and some combat ability found in the Bard without being stuck with the music (or not being allowed to be lawful).

Some people want the spellcasting of a Wizard without being stuck taking care of a pet.

So why do some people get what they want and others don't? Why make the game so that 75% of the players are happy when 100% of the players could be happy instead?

Because some players who are fine with things as is are not just fine, but can't enjoy the game if it's made more open.

Just knowing that somewhere out there, someone is playing a Ki-using, non-Martial Artist, non-Lawful Monk and having a good time, in another game group, using the same game rules but not having to go through the headache of having to bribe, beg, threaten, cajole, armtwist, blackmail, etc. the GM just to do what the other players sitting at that table are doing, well, this just can't be tolerated.

There is One True Way to do things, and even though it's a game, something to be enjoyed, even though expanding it does not negatively impact me in any way whatsoever, let those lessers have to fight and stress over this. No skin off my back, right?


Brian Myhre 202 wrote:
Paladin removes disease on wererat.

Remove Disease

School conjuration (healing); Level alchemist 3, cleric/oracle 3, inquisitor 3, druid 3, ranger 3, witch 3; Domain restoration 2


Tectorman wrote:
Some people want the opportunity to play a Samurai without being lawful.

Samurai don't have any alignment restrictions. They do have a behavior code set by their order but these can range from Paladin-lite (Warrior) to Anti-Paladin-lite (Black Daiymo) and anywhere between. Ronin picks three tenets to follow, Shield protects the people, Dragons are loyal to their friends, Cockatrices always put themselves first.

And the penalty for breaking the tenets of their order doesn't result in the complete ruin of the character.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Brian Myhre 202 wrote:
Paladin removes disease on wererat.

Remove Disease

School conjuration (healing); Level alchemist 3, cleric/oracle 3, inquisitor 3, druid 3, ranger 3, witch 3; Domain restoration 2

I don't know if I should laugh about the factor that a Paladin apparently doesn't know how to cure an affliction through spells, or if the Developers are trying to find methods for Paladins to use their Lay on Hands for things besides healing.


Even if Remove Disease were actually on the paladin spell list, it would probably be third-level like for all the other classes, which means paladins wouldn't have access to it until tenth level anyhow - so it still wouldn't help the fourth-level party in question.

Silver Crusade

Roberta Yang wrote:
Even if Remove Disease were actually on the paladin spell list, it would probably be third-level like for all the other classes, which means paladins wouldn't have access to it until tenth level anyhow - so it still wouldn't help the fourth-level party in question.

Actually a Paladin can Remove Disease at 6th level but they could always restrain the wererat and deliver it to a church to have the affliction removed.


To cure lycanthropy you have the be 12 level cleric and catch the disease within 3 days, as lycnathropes don't turn until the next full moon that deadline is well and truly missed meaning it can't be cured by remove disease.


"Alternatively, consuming a dose of wolfsbane (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 560) gives an afflicted lycanthrope a new Fortitude save to recover from lycanthropy."

Not exactly cheap, but it's a pretty common subtstance. I'm sure a character could acquire some in a big city.


On the other hand, if you look at Paladins from a historical standpoint, the original Paladins focused on fighting and killing Muslims. So its not usual to see a Paladin focus on killing his enemies.


Brian Myhre 202 wrote:
Here's an idea. Paladin disarms and restrains wererat. Paladin removes disease on wererat. Paladin escorts former wererat to kindly priest who teaches him the error of his ways.

not possible read lycanthropy in the bestiary please.


shallowsoul wrote:
Actually a Paladin can Remove Disease at 6th level

Only if they chose that particular Mercy at the time. They have five options to choose from at that level, and unlike with spells, they can't choose different ones each day.

And 6 is still greater than 4.


johnlocke90 wrote:
On the other hand, if you look at Paladins from a historical standpoint, the original Paladins focused on fighting and killing Muslims. So its not usual to see a Paladin focus on killing his enemies.

Yes, let's looks at the historical paladins... which don't exist. There were several knightly orders, the Templars and Hospitalers among them, but none called paladins. First literature mentions are in the Matter of France starting with the Song of Roland. Both the Matter of France and the Matter of Britain, aka king Arthur and the round table, have saracens converted to christianity, and in many versions of the Matter of Britain the saracen is a knight of the table for several years befor being converted.


Wind Chime wrote:
To cure lycanthropy you have the be 12 level cleric and catch the disease within 3 days, as lycnathropes don't turn until the next full moon that deadline is well and truly missed meaning it can't be cured by remove disease.

Then it can just be removed with remove curse, since it's also a curse. 400-ish gold for a scroll of it.

Quote:
On the other hand, if you look at Paladins from a historical standpoint, the original Paladins focused on fighting and killing Muslims. So its not usual to see a Paladin focus on killing his enemies.

New on the Pathfinder forums: Muslims contextually equated to monsters.


READ lycanthropy, it is NOT removable after it has set in, must be done very soon after infection. It's really only available as a way to save PCs that have been infected. It's not something that can removed from every single were creature you meet.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

So, what went wrong? There was a disconnect between the expectations of the player and the DM.

...

Moving forward, what to do? Have an honest, two-way conversation with the player. Talk about your differing expectations of paladin behaviour in an attempt to reach common ground.

Snorter wrote:
And that, if a GM is ever in the position of wondering "What the hell is he doing that for?", that he consider there has been some miscommunication somewhere in the past? Either from the pair of them never having discussed the fine points of the Paladin's Code, or the player misreading the current in-game situation, in a way his character (being present, and in possession of far more information) would not?

I agree - the big issue here is communication.

In some games, monstrous creatures are irredeemably evil and it is useless to show them mercy or behave honourably towards them, and a creature that detects as evil deserves death.

In other games, mortal creatures are often redeemable; the horde of orcs will disperse peacefully without their tyrant warboss, and a lich can be shown the power of friendship. Detect evil may indicate minor crimes or evil intent without evil action, or may be easily fooled by Infernal Healing, etc.

If the paladin's player thinks he is playing the first sort of game and the GM thinks he is running the second sort of game, there will be problems. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, but this incident should spark a serious conversation between the two about what they expect from the game and how they expect the paladin to uphold his code of conduct and his alignment.

101 to 150 of 236 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Paladin (Alignment) Debate - Need help All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.