RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An excellent post. I'd add one small qualifier about the when to smite thing.
It will vary by code to code. Paladins of Saranae, for example, should stock up on sense motive skill points, because redemption is part of their creed. If a 'ping' on the evildar says he's not evil or trying to not be evil, just misunderstood, then the Paladin should check if he's a) telling the truth and b) if he's sincere.
For the redemption Paladin, if he gets it wrong (low die roll, evil guy has glibness) the Paladin should not be penalized.
Also because of the "can associate with evil for greater good" in PF, if the evil person isn't immediately committing evil, he can make sure that smiting won't make the problem worse. Again looking to the Dresden Files, Johnny Marcone comes to mind. If Harry had got his Paladin on and smote Johnny early on, many worse things, which MArcone kept in check, would have befallen.
Paladins of Iomedae OTOH, are likely smite happy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Binary black and white? Since when, D&D and Pathfinder have nine alignments, and they're generally guidelines, not strict rules.Honestly most of those 64 new posts appear to be related to the fact that the binary black and white nature of D&D and the Paladin in particular are kind of stupid.so boiling down 64 new posts. to: "exceptions exist" and "if a paladin makes a MISTAKE, and kills one of the exceptions, then this is a reason to fall, because there was a mistake made"
What part of WILLINGLY committing an evil act isn't understood here?
People have been trying to say this for years, but alignment-haters really never seem to take it into account, if the number if times I've seen "alignment straightjacket" is anything to say.
That's why there's so many neutral people in PF APs and such
Not nearly enough, IMO, especially as antagonists. Playing a Paladin in an AP nearly always pays off that way, at least 80% of the time.
|
Uh, since when does a 2nd level spell qualify as "high level?"Hahahahahah! Since I entirely goofed up!
That was entirely an artifact of my post. I'd actually had a few spell tabs open, looked at the wrong one (I forget which, now), and wrote up one draft, realized my mistake, and edited to get the second draft which I posted. Whoops! My bad. :)
I do agree that a clear setting-out of campaign style ans expectations beforehand can save a lot of grief.Which is really the majority of my point. :)
Detect Evil tells you nothing about the individual except for its aura of evil. It doesn't tell you that it's a demon or devil in disguise nor does Detect Evil give you the go ahead to smite to your hearts content, you don't get to hide behind ignorance. A really high level mortal can still radiate a strong evil but he's still mortal and if you haven't seen him do anything then you can't smite him just because he pings on your radar.Alright, let's look at Detect Evil.
Talking about strong auras first.
** spoiler omitted **...
To make a long story short, Detect Evil never ever gives you a license to smite.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
shallowsoul: you're either being obtuse (purposefully or not), or you're trolling. Stop it. You're quite intelligent, but right now (and in several other threads you've been in lately) you're coming off as an arrogant jerk. Stop. It. Be the better, smarter you I've seen 'round here, please.
You quoted my post just to make a quip that wasn't even accurate.
Actual long story short: Detect Evil with strong auras or higher gives you the general "okay, smite" in an incalculably large number of situations.
Other detect evils may require some judicious care (dependent upon the campaign and style): most won't.
Actually smiting something that's actually evil is never - in a vacuum - an evil act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what if the overwhelming evil aura just belongs to someone with 51 levels of commoner who only got that aura by being a jerk? Checkmate.
I would love to see a level 51 commoner and hear the story behind how he got that high.
He'd be the equivalent of the God of Farmers or some s**@ which is really funny.
People have been trying to say this for years, but alignment-haters really never seem to take it into account, if the number if times I've seen "alignment straightjacket" is anything to say.Binary black and white? Since when, D&D and Pathfinder have nine alignments, and they're generally guidelines, not strict rules.Honestly most of those 64 new posts appear to be related to the fact that the binary black and white nature of D&D and the Paladin in particular are kind of stupid.so boiling down 64 new posts. to: "exceptions exist" and "if a paladin makes a MISTAKE, and kills one of the exceptions, then this is a reason to fall, because there was a mistake made"
What part of WILLINGLY committing an evil act isn't understood here?
To be fair, not every table plays alignment the way it's supposed to be played. I've had GM's outright tell me "Your character wouldn't do X, because it's not the (alignment) thing to do." Funny enough, those GMs don't usually see me again.
But what if the overwhelming evil aura just belongs to someone with 51 levels of commoner who only got that aura by being a jerk? Checkmate.
Then you have a evil DM to equate jerk with evil. You should smite him not her commoner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, not every table plays alignment the way it's supposed to be played. I've had GM's outright tell me "Your character wouldn't do X, because it's not the (alignment) thing to do." Funny enough, those GMs don't usually see me again.People have been trying to say this for years, but alignment-haters really never seem to take it into account, if the number if times I've seen "alignment straightjacket" is anything to say.Binary black and white? Since when, D&D and Pathfinder have nine alignments, and they're generally guidelines, not strict rules.Honestly most of those 64 new posts appear to be related to the fact that the binary black and white nature of D&D and the Paladin in particular are kind of stupid.so boiling down 64 new posts. to: "exceptions exist" and "if a paladin makes a MISTAKE, and kills one of the exceptions, then this is a reason to fall, because there was a mistake made"
What part of WILLINGLY committing an evil act isn't understood here?
This is true, and another of my pet peeves.
|
|
shallowsoul: you're either being obtuse (purposefully or not), or you're trolling. Stop it. You're quite intelligent, but right now (and in several other threads you've been in lately) you're coming off as an arrogant jerk. Stop. It. Be the better, smarter you I've seen 'round here, please.
You quoted my post just to make a quip that wasn't even accurate.
Actual long story short: Detect Evil with strong auras or higher gives you the general "okay, smite" in an incalculably large number of situations.
Other detect evils may require some judicious care (dependent upon the campaign and style): most won't.
Actually smiting something that's actually evil is never - in a vacuum - an evil act.
Sorry but hiding behind he trolling excuse doesn't always work. You can't throw that card when someone doesn't agree with you.
Like I said before ans I will say it again. Detect Evil doesn't tell you what type of creature you ate observing nor does it give you free reign to smite. Now if you want to allow that in your games then knock yourself out but that is not Paladin like behavior.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I would love to see a level 51 commoner and hear the story behind how he got that high.
[b]He'd be the equivalent of the God of Farmers]/b] or some s!@+ which is really funny.
"Well I here chased Bessie into that there Cathedrial. Got right mad at her too. Had all sorts of thoughts on what I was going to do to that cow. Well next thing I knew, I was coming out of that place with a nice new leather coat, oodles of well cooked steak, and a really nice pitchfork. And that's how I became the god of crafting, slaughter, vengeance and farmin."
"Now put away the pointy stick there Mister Pal-a-din, afore I make you walk funny with a pitchfork stuffed up there."
Sometimes I think I understand which of you are arguing for the paladin to just mercilessly beat on anything but then it becomes unclear again when the snark one-upping gets to Jenga-tower-stack proportions and oh man now I understand why someone might roll a fighter instead.
...
|
|
Sometimes I think I understand which of you are arguing for the paladin to just mercilessly beat on anything but then it becomes unclear again when the snark one-upping gets to Jenga-tower-stack proportions and oh man now I understand why someone might roll a fighter instead.
Some people are just trying to find ways to dodge the restrictions of the Paladin.
I'm just going to start adding Orthos' hand thing after all my posts to save him the trouble.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but hiding behind he trolling excuse doesn't always work. You can't throw that card when someone doesn't agree with you.shallowsoul: you're either being obtuse (purposefully or not), or you're trolling. Stop it. You're quite intelligent, but right now (and in several other threads you've been in lately) you're coming off as an arrogant jerk. Stop. It. Be the better, smarter you I've seen 'round here, please.
You quoted my post just to make a quip that wasn't even accurate.
Actual long story short: Detect Evil with strong auras or higher gives you the general "okay, smite" in an incalculably large number of situations.
Other detect evils may require some judicious care (dependent upon the campaign and style): most won't.
Actually smiting something that's actually evil is never - in a vacuum - an evil act.
No. I'm not 'hiding' behind anything. You are being rude. I've seen you be not rude. Cease being rude.
You may disagree with me all you wish - there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with me, at all. I'm perfectly okay with that.
The problem is the attitude you are currently evincing in your posts: it arrogant and not in the entertaining way. You quote my post only to "sum" it up in a way that indicates something other than what I was saying. This is either dishonest, failing to see anything other than what you want to, or purposefully trying to get a rise. Stop doing that.
Like I said before ans I will say it again. Detect Evil doesn't tell you what type of creature you ate observing nor does it give you free reign to smite. Now if you want to allow that in your games then knock yourself out but that is not Paladin like behavior.
This is a fine point; incorrect in it's absolutism across all games and hard-line interpretation of words that mean different things to different people, but a fine point nonetheless. It is, on the other hand, perfectly accurate (if you wish to be pedantic about it) to say that it's not Paladin like behavior in your interpretation.
Lamontius: I am arguing that the Paladin is (or rather can be) a nuanced character that does not automatically have a single answer to all situations. Most blanket statements (including things like, "detect evil never ever gives you a licence to smite") are simply incorrect, and there are a number of different potential interpretations of their code which are, all things considered, equally valid.
Personally, in real life, I have a solid, unyielding, interpretation of what right and wrong is. I am very convinced on this, and it will often take much evidence to sway me otherwise. I'm an absolutist in my real-world views and it generally drives people up the wall as a result, even if I try to be diplomatic about it.
In game worlds, though? Things are different. Primarily because a game is supposed to be fun over-all. "Everything comes before D&D - even D&D." as the saying goes. Thus telling others "you're doing it wrong" when using something that is, ultimately, open to interpretation (words like "honor" being key components of this and similar arguments) will fail.
There are certain things that are spelled out for us in-game that only the most ridiculous reading could come to any other conclusion. There are other things that many different people will come to many different conclusions automatically. Alignment, honor, justice, and the like, are included in those.
While general guidelines can certainly be followed to come to similar (yet still different) views in various situations, the fact is there will always be some disagreement.
Thus my original assertion: talk with your GM first.
Followed by: there is nothing wrong (or not-RAW or not-RAI) with determining that detect evil in certain circumstances, grants paladins autonomy to smite with impunity. The reverse is also true. So, you know, talk to your GM.
Obviously, shallowsoul has a harsh, hard view of what would happen if paladins smote in his games (or at least that's what his posts seem to indicate). So, you know, I wouldn't play a paladin if he was GMing because it sounds unfun and unpleasant. But that's his right to determine as a GM, and others might like the style. Further it's an allowable interpretation (one of several) under RAW.
I'm not arguing that paladins should auto-smite everything all the time, just because it pings evil: there are always mitigating circumstances in any game and situation (thus the difficulty with blanket statements). However, if something pings strong or stronger on the alignment scale, and there is no pressing reason not to at the moment, there is nothing evil about smiting evil... unless a GM wishes to rule that way in his own game.
One other possibility is that SS is simply being super-pedantic. In which case, that's just annoying.
I'm just going to start adding Orthos' hand thing after all my posts to save him the trouble.
Actually yours are some of the few posts in this thread that don't evoke that response from me.
My timing is admittedly not the best, even when the forums aren't down for a night.
I'm just going to start adding Orthos' hand thing after all my posts to save him the trouble.Actually yours are some of the few posts in this thread that don't evoke that response from me.
My timing is admittedly not the best, even when the forums aren't down for a night.
No no trust me it's pretty fitting no matter what I post.
|
|
Sorry but hiding behind he trolling excuse doesn't always work. You can't throw that card when someone doesn't agree with you.shallowsoul: you're either being obtuse (purposefully or not), or you're trolling. Stop it. You're quite intelligent, but right now (and in several other threads you've been in lately) you're coming off as an arrogant jerk. Stop. It. Be the better, smarter you I've seen 'round here, please.
You quoted my post just to make a quip that wasn't even accurate.
Actual long story short: Detect Evil with strong auras or higher gives you the general "okay, smite" in an incalculably large number of situations.
Other detect evils may require some judicious care (dependent upon the campaign and style): most won't.
Actually smiting something that's actually evil is never - in a vacuum - an evil act.
No. I'm not 'hiding' behind anything. You are being rude. I've seen you be not rude. Cease being rude.
You may disagree with me all you wish - there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with me, at all. I'm perfectly okay with that.
The problem is the attitude you are currently evincing in your posts: it arrogant and not in the entertaining way. You quote my post only to "sum" it up in a way that indicates something other than what I was saying. This is either dishonest, failing to see anything other than what you want to, or purposefully trying to get a rise. Stop doing that.
Like I said before ans I will say it again. Detect Evil doesn't tell you what type of creature you ate observing nor does it give you free reign to smite. Now if you want to allow that in your games then knock yourself out but that is not Paladin like behavior.This is a fine point; incorrect in it's absolutism across all games and hard-line interpretation of words that mean different things to different people, but a fine point nonetheless. It is, on the other hand, perfectly...
Oh now it's the "rude card" being thrown followed by a wall of text.
Look, you can believe what ever you want to believe but the fact still stands.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
***However, if something pings strong or stronger on the alignment scale, and there is no pressing reason not to at the moment, there is nothing evil about smiting evil... unless a GM wishes to rule that way in his own game.
Just as a note here, the whole aura of evil thing really is just an indicator. In the core world of Golarion you've got the entire nation of Cheliax with Asmodeus as their primary deity. A 5th level LN Cleric of Asmodeus could be a perfectly nice law-abiding citizen following his societal norms, but he'd ping as having a strong evil aura to a paladin's senses. Auto-smiting this guy would undeniably be a BAD THING. So even your general rule of "strong or stronger" has some pretty big holes in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are despised because the concept of a prime moral law has vanished like tears in the rain. The younger generation has no concept of absolute right and absolute wrong. Even the terms invoke anger and hate in them.
In a world where each person has their own moral standards, and hold no one to the same standards, there is no room for a champion of justice and good. Killing is wrong for me, but its ok for you to do it. Slavery is wrong in my opinion, but it is ok if X culture does it. Or to put it into more contemporary, every-day terms, it is ok for people to curse in public, or in front of ladies nowadays, to use an example. Our culture has lost that sense of "common decency." It has been replaced by an "individualistic decency."
Argue against that if you will, but it is the truth. For better or for worse, we have abandoned the concept of a prime moral law. The repercussions will supposedly lead us to a new age of enlightenment...but is that really true? Or will the repercussions lead to something worse...
In any event, you stick a Paladin into that mess, and its like sticking oil into water. It doesn't mix.
Now that is a "main" reason. There are others. Like for instance, the "sterotypical" paladin concept is Waaaaayy over-used by players. Too many Paladin clones, not enough original thought. This is a failing of the players, not the class though. Paladins have just as much RP value as anyone else. In addition, Paladins are not exactly an OP class, nor are they inherently useful in every campaign. And even other moralists often find that the code can get in the way, particularly when it comes to the age-old question of "do the ends justify the means?"
So one main reason: culture, and several smaller reasons. There's your answer.
What prime moral law are you talking about? Religion or civil law?
In the second paragrahp you are talking about moral relativism, which is generally immoral. We can however gain some sort of understanding why people would do such actions (bad or good). But doesn't make it moral.
There are no such thing as a absolute morality, but it is easy to argue why lying and murdering is wrong, even biologically arguments for it.
Why is cursing wrong? Isn't the whole concept of cursing that you give words powers, a meaning beyond a sound? Do women deserve more respect than men? Isn't that sexist? There is a standard, the civil law. Are you hinting that we should follow a deity, this smells like religious morality preaching, but I might be wrong.
Common decency? Be specific.
"Argue against that if you will, but it's the truth", ehh, what? Why would write something if you aren't going to listen to other arguments?
I agree with you on the 2nd last paragraph, way too many paladin clones, there are many ways to roleplay a paladin. But I wouldn't point out indviduality as the reason why, maybe hypothetical morality situation doesn't just have one right or wrong answer.
As a GM, I would give the paladin a warning after doing something that would be a immoral, unless it's hororific beyond belief.
But what if the town is evil?
But what if the town is evil?
What like everyone in the town or the town structures them/itself gives off an evil alignment?
If everyone is evil: first make suee because this seems too good to be true. Good be a DM trap.
If absolutely sure, then smite the town (people/structures).
It is probably a hellmouth, a cultist town; Destroying it is the most good you can do.
I know right? Just because I am lawful good doesn't mean I can't kill villagers and turn them into bloody burning skeletons that destroy their own town.To be fair, not every table plays alignment the way it's supposed to be played. I've had GM's outright tell me "Your character wouldn't do X, because it's not the (alignment) thing to do." Funny enough, those GMs don't usually see me again.People have been trying to say this for years, but alignment-haters really never seem to take it into account, if the number if times I've seen "alignment straightjacket" is anything to say.Binary black and white? Since when, D&D and Pathfinder have nine alignments, and they're generally guidelines, not strict rules.Honestly most of those 64 new posts appear to be related to the fact that the binary black and white nature of D&D and the Paladin in particular are kind of stupid.so boiling down 64 new posts. to: "exceptions exist" and "if a paladin makes a MISTAKE, and kills one of the exceptions, then this is a reason to fall, because there was a mistake made"
What part of WILLINGLY committing an evil act isn't understood here?
True. Of course, there's a very good chance you'll no longer be Lawful Good once you do that action.
Which is how it should be.
|
Design Manager
|
But what if the town is evil?What like everyone in the town or the town structures them/itself gives off an evil alignment?
If everyone is evil: first make suee because this seems too good to be true. Good be a DM trap.
If absolutely sure, then smite the town (people/structures).
It is probably a hellmouth, a cultist town; Destroying it is the most good you can do.
Unless it's a town of LN Asmodeus worshippers dedicating thei new temple and the restoration of order to a previously lawless community.
Well no but I mean what if just the town is evil but the people are kinda okay...I mean like what if that town has just gone bad?
Just as a note here, the whole aura of evil thing really is just an indicator. In the core world of Golarion you've got the entire nation of Cheliax with Asmodeus as their primary deity. A 5th level LN Cleric of Asmodeus could be a perfectly nice law-abiding citizen following his societal norms, but he'd ping as having a strong evil aura to a paladin's senses. Auto-smiting this guy would undeniably be a BAD THING. So even your general rule of "strong or stronger" has some pretty big holes in it.***However, if something pings strong or stronger on the alignment scale, and there is no pressing reason not to at the moment, there is nothing evil about smiting evil... unless a GM wishes to rule that way in his own game.
I'm afraid you might have missed this:
I'm not arguing that paladins should auto-smite everything all the time, just because it pings evil: there are always mitigating circumstances in any game and situation (thus the difficulty with blanket statements). However, if something pings strong or stronger on the alignment scale, and there is no pressing reason not to at the moment, there is nothing evil about smiting evil... unless a GM wishes to rule that way in his own game.
One of the important things to note there? Being in Chelliax would be a valid 'pressing reason'.
Further, smiting evil only functions against evil creatures. Any paladin that smites an evil creature and the smite doesn't function will know something screwy is going on, and will generally work to correct accidental mistakes. Plus, considering the smite doesn't work, the cleric is at least 5th level, and the paladin is (presumably) a player, one attack with a non-functioning smite won't kill him (). The attack will function sure, if it hits, but the smite won't. Paladins don't have to be stupid.
Finally, this is covered under my "hedge cases".
It is very unlikely that cleric who follows Asmodeus will not willingly embrace the things Asmodeus teaches. This means that while clerics are able to be vary in alignment, there's a reason the church has a general alignment. As many have explained, it's far easier to fall than 'ascend' because being good is hard.
Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith.
Someone that does this will inevitably tend to match the faith they evince. It's very true that a LN cleric can exist, it's just harder to justify, over-all. Very possible, but harder to justify.
And, as I said, there are mitigating circumstances in every campaign. The preponderance of cases ignoring mitigating circumstances, however? Entirely fine.
EDIT: incidentally, Sslarn, I'm not dismissing your argument. It's one of the best "wait, don't hate" type posts I've seen. But that's what I meant about hedge cases and mitigating circumstances. The majority of campaigns won't focus on that, and, at best the LN makes up less than 1/3 of Asmodeus' faith (LN/LE/NE - the majority being LE by definition). In other words, in the overwhelmingly large number of cases, avoiding mitigating circumstances, it's a free licence to smite. And in those cases it's not? GM trap and GM fault unless they've spoken with the player of the paladin in advance.
As someone else said: paladins are far more aware of their own world than a player is. That's part of the difficulty of roleplaying: you're entering into someone's shoes without having all their life experiences yourself. That's why my primary point is the most important point I can make: GMs and players need to talk first.
Tch. Towns, amirite!?
Sure! You're fine! That's part of communication! Especially over text-based forms like forums. :)
Further, smiting evil only functions against evil creatures. Any paladin that smites an evil creature and the smite doesn't function will know something screwy is going on, and will generally work to correct accidental mistakes. Plus, considering the smite doesn't work, the cleric is at least 5th level, and the paladin is (presumably) a player, one attack with a non-functioning smite won't kill him (...
Wait, where do you see that the Paladin gets some sort of notification when his Smite doesn't work?
And generally I see Smiting worded by a player as "I Smite Evil and swing my Greatsword" not "I Smite Evil and wait to see if it works."
Because once your 5th level Cleric takes a Greatsword to the face, it doesn't matter whether it killed him or not, he's going to get pissed and retaliate, likely with lethal force since you just SLICED HIM WITH A GREATSWORD.
So now your options are to try and deal non-lethal damage to the Cleric while he tries to kill you, or end up killing him anyway. And all of this could've been avoided by keeping your sword in your pants for 30 seconds.
|
Design Manager
|
Further, smiting evil only functions against evil creatures. Any paladin that smites an evil creature and the smite doesn't function will know something screwy is going on, and will generally work to correct accidental mistakes. Plus, considering the smite doesn't work, the cleric is at least 5th level, and the paladin is (presumably) a player, one attack with a non-functioning smite won't kill him (...Wait, where do you see that the Paladin gets some sort of notification when his Smite doesn't work?
And generally I see Smiting worded by a player as "I Smite Evil and swing my Greatsword" not "I Smite Evil and wait to see if it works."
Because once your 5th level Cleric takes a Greatsword to the face, it doesn't matter whether it killed him or not, he's going to get pissed and retaliate, likely with lethal force since you just SLICED HIM WITH A GREATSWORD.
So now your options are to try and deal non-lethal damage to the Cleric while he tries to kill you, or end up killing him anyway. And all of this could've been avoided by keeping your sword in your pants for 30 seconds.
This is an excellent point. I have trouble picturing someone shooting me with a silver bullet and then forgiving them, just because when I'm rolling on the ground screaming because there's a silver bullet in my shoulder they say "Huh, your flesh didn't start burning? Guess you're not a werewolf. My bad."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is worth a FAQ! Does the paladin know if the target of his smite is actually evil, and if so, when? As soon as the target is announced or after an attack is made or after an attack is successful or after an attack which would have hit because of the attack bonus actually misses or if the target attacks/hits/would have missed but actually hit or what?
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
Because of the above, I'm inclined to believe that the paladin would know, but when?
Rynjin: I admit I could be wrong, but last I understood was that you always know when your abilities function or not, unless your GM has changed the rules. That's why they've got the feat for letting you fool people into thinking that you're charmed when you're not. Similarly, people always know when they're making a save, if I recall correctly. Note that I don't play that way, but I believe the rules spell that out.
This is an excellent point. I have trouble picturing someone shooting me with a silver bullet and then forgiving them, just because when I'm rolling on the ground screaming because there's a silver bullet in my shoulder they say "Huh, your flesh didn't start burning? Guess you're not a werewolf. My bad."
... and that's where we're having trouble talking about this.
The paladin (if not played for laughs) isn't going to treat his mistake nonchalantly. He's going to do some serious "Oh, crap. I have made a terrible mistake! Please let us cease battle and speak! I will gladly use my power to heal you!" and he's going to roll quite a lot of diplomacies with it, and also likely to be fighting purely defensively unless he learns he can't keep it up. If he fails, he fails, and, yes, he'll likely need to atone (again, dependent upon the campaign).
But again, you're focusing on hedge cases - corner cases that a paladin isn't really going to come across very much.
Also, the "keeping your pants on for 30 seconds" is a disingenuous insinuation anyway.
Literally the vast, vast majority of the times a paladin is going to run into an aura of that nature:
- In the midst of an adventure (thus looking for/facing said foes)
- In the midst of a locale run by evil people (which, dependent on the level of the paladin, the kind of locale, the nature of the people, will inevitably vary his reaction)
Of the two, the first is the most common.
Let me remind: paladins don't usually come from Chelliax (or similar), and that's for a reason. If they do, they're extremely rare and in a very difficult position from the start.
If they're in their own church and sense that aura? Look at what the aura is on: a person, animal, item, or area/structure? Of the three, two are an auto-smite (because you need to eliminate that creature, as it's likely possessed or shape-shifted or item), one is a probe it with your sword (to see if it needs smiting), and one is a smite in the majority of cases because whoever it is likely made a dreadful mistake in not putting up their 'undetectable alignment' spell this morning.
As I said: hedge cases are hedge cases. They are not the overwhelming majority of the time.
If you're in Chelliax, on the other hand, you're not going to go smite crazy because you'll quickly be tried, executed, and killed and ultimately do no good.
And again: actually "smiting evil" with Smite Evil is never an evil act, because you're, you know, smiting evil.
Also: neutral clerics of evil gods kind of have to know what they're getting themselves in for when they sign up for the package. They're literally signing on with the full knowledge that their souls will be stained by the evil god in question for their devotion (they automatically gain access to detect alignment spells, and know what the spell does, and are typically wise or else not clerics, and thus they almost certainly know how the process of being a cleric would affect them), and, presuming they have a most passing familiarity with a paladin, must know they're likely setting themselves up for trouble should they ever meet one.
Basically, if they're accepting the stain of evil on their soul for no reason other than power, they've got to be smart enough to expect the occasional smiteousness.
Alternatively, if they're genuinely trying to 'reform' the evil church, they'd know, since evil is so neatly codified in PF, that they're basically taking on the impossible by trying to convert a god and that they'd be performing evil rituals for 'the great good'. In the case of an LN cleric of Asmodeus, this is literally a case of 'good intentions pave the road to hell', which is always something worth stopping.
Also, if they're not evil, but still fully devoted to Asmodeus? That's excellent PR for the devil himself, and thus they are inadvertently making evil more acceptable to the broader world. Thus, they need to be stopped.
Literally they're doing more harm than good. Which, again, is worth stopping.
But again, that all rides on how GMs interpret things. So, as I said, and has been my creed: talk to your GM first.
Incidentally, I don't play in my home games that smiting is always the right thing. I've used the good demon, the need to ally with evils for a greater good, and other things of that nature. But given the majority of situations that a typical paladin will run into? It's fine.
|
Design Manager
|
Holy wall of text TL!
I didn't mean to suggest that every paladin is going to give an Erkel-esque "Did I do that?" when he mis-Smites someone, but most GM's would be pretty safe to invoke the "Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat" clause if you've just whacked someone with a weapon intending to obliterate them. That plus the DC 25+ creature's CHA mod check to un-hostile a creature means that most paladins for quite a few levels of play are going to end up being guilty of at least assault and beating a person unconscious when they Smite something they think is evil and turn out to be wrong.
I generally think that Smite first policies are best reserved for obviously hostile creatures encountered outside of normal city environs. A paladin who nails a necromancer in the middle of the street totally unprovoked, regardless of the fact that said necromancer really was a bad dude, has still murdered someone. If his only eveidence that said personage was guilty of a crime was that he detected evil on him, there should at least be serious role-playing consequences, like, you know, prison time, even if his god is secretly patting him on the back and chooses not to revoke his powers. Though I think most paladin's would be trained to accrue at least some kind of physical evidence and give the local authorities a heads up first.
Heh, I make all the time. I've secretly got that as a spell-like ability at will. :)
Also, note that when I do that, it's not me trying to say, "No, you're all wrong forever" so much as me trying to explain myself in as complete a way as possible. For me, conversational "victory" (as ephemeral as that is anyway) isn't "yes, you're right", so much as, "I can see your point, even if I disagree" (though, as all people, of course I'd like people to agree). :)
The thing is, outside of highly organized evil cultures, evil people aren't likely to leave a 'clean' trail behind them on their road to being evil.
I'm perfectly okay with role play 'repercussions'... but that's why, ultimately, I'm all for the, "Talk to your GM first." ()
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to point out that due process and chain of evidence are highly unlikely to matter in pseudo-medieval judicial systems: almost any Lawful society (even the evil ones) are probably going to take a proven paladin's word that he was attacking an evil foe. Whether they choose to accept that word as effective guilt on the target's part is another matter entirely, and local laws may exist that say that a paladin isn't allowed to do what he did, but it would be rare for him to not be believed.
I can even see a case for legal proceedings in some jurisdictions requiring proof of paladinhood both before and after giving evidence to a judge, since if he lied during the process, he'd lose his paladin abilities.
|
Design Manager
|
Just to point out that due process and chain of evidence are highly unlikely to matter in pseudo-medieval judicial systems: almost any Lawful society (even the evil ones) are probably going to take a proven paladin's word that he was attacking an evil foe. Whether they choose to accept that word as effective guilt on the target's part is another matter entirely, and local laws may exist that say that a paladin isn't allowed to do what he did, but it would be rare for him to not be believed.
I can even see a case for legal proceedings in some jurisdictions requiring proof of paladinhood both before and after giving evidence to a judge, since if he lied during the process, he'd lose his paladin abilities.
That's actually kind of funny. "Thank you witness. Now, before you step down, could I have you lay hands on this wounded soldier just to show that you remained honest during the proceedings?"
CLW is a DC11 Knowledge check to ID as a level 1 spell. Laying on of Hands can't be ID'd as a spell AT ALL.
==Aelryinth
Look, guys. Really, we shouldn't argue about this. It's not like it's the end of the worl-... oh.
Uh, nevermind.
I'd play a paladin all day and all night if they got more then two skill points a level.
As it stands... never.
