Paladin hate.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,121 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Paladin Ardelaneu Zakath wrote:
CylonDorado wrote:

I'd play a paladin all day and all night if they got more then two skill points a level.

As it stands... never.

I get my favored class bonus, making it three. How's that?

One more if they're human, making it four. Heck, bump up that Int to 12, and it's now five!


Alzrius wrote:
Paladin Ardelaneu Zakath wrote:
CylonDorado wrote:

I'd play a paladin all day and all night if they got more then two skill points a level.

As it stands... never.

I get my favored class bonus, making it three. How's that?
One more if they're human, making it four. Heck, bump up that Int to 12, and it's now five!

I would rather dump int to 7 and still get 3.

Dark Archive

johnlocke90 wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Paladin Ardelaneu Zakath wrote:
CylonDorado wrote:

I'd play a paladin all day and all night if they got more then two skill points a level.

As it stands... never.

I get my favored class bonus, making it three. How's that?
One more if they're human, making it four. Heck, bump up that Int to 12, and it's now five!
I would rather dump int to 7 and still get 3.

I specifically went out of my way on my Half-orc Paladin to have 10 Int. Yes, he still only gets 3 Skill Points (thanks to his favored class bonus) but damnit, he's already both a Half-orc AND a Paladin, he doesn't need to be the stereotypical dimwit!

In return, he's got 8 Wisdom. Which I play closer to 5 Wisdom, because he's naive as HELL. It's an endearing character trait, honest.


Yeah, actually that's not bad. Still... I feel dirty not putting the point into HP on a melee character. And I just won't play a human. I guess it's just a personal thing.


With swift action lay on hands, Paladins have the largest effective health pool in the game. They don't need the extra hp.

Dark Archive

That was pretty much my thought process when I made Tomag.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh...I don't think I've ever used a favored class bonus for anything other than skill points, be it a sorcerer or a barbarian.

Especially considering how few of them some classes get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Skill points or more spells for spont-casters here. I'm a skill point junkie and I heavily favor spont-casters over prepared casters and want every spare spell known I can get.


My disdain for the class stems from years and years ago when the class had major restrictions to include alignment and ability scores. Also, a bad experience with a fellow player using a Paladin left a bad taste in my mouth.

So I jeer at the class, even though Pathfinder has balanced much of it.

It's the same as my distaste for Gnomes. Dragonlance and WoW ruined them for me.

One day, I'll make a Gnomeadin just to see if Pathfinder has restored my faith in the race/class. Yes, I will likely have to minmax/optimize them, but I'm ok with that.


Barry Armstrong wrote:

My disdain for the class stems from years and years ago when the class had major restrictions to include alignment and ability scores. Also, a bad experience with a fellow player using a Paladin left a bad taste in my mouth.

So I jeer at the class, even though Pathfinder has balanced much of it.

It's the same as my distaste for Gnomes. Dragonlance and WoW ruined them for me.

One day, I'll make a Gnomeadin just to see if Pathfinder has restored my faith in the race/class. Yes, I will likely have to minmax/optimize them, but I'm ok with that.

Gnome archer paladin would be very powerful. Con and charisma are both good for paladins

Dark Archive

Gnome CROSSBOW Archer Paladin. For additional silliness.


Mikaze wrote:

Huh...I don't think I've ever used a favored class bonus for anything other than skill points, be it a sorcerer or a barbarian.

Especially considering how few of them some classes get.

Depends on what I roll for HP. If I roll under half, I throw it into HP, otherwise, Skills all the way ^_^


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just love paladins! One of them is even my best friend.

I can still remember the day when he strode into my castle, beat up my guards, and demanded I call off my monstrous assassination squads that were attacking his upstart village. I delayed my attacks, we parlayed, and over time he began to view me better in light of my redemption (I procured some carefully disguised angelskin armor and took acting lessons from a Numerian bard they call Palpatine).

Now, 10 years later, he still makes for an excellent pawn. What was once a revenge attack on a lowly village became a grandiose plot to see me become king. Normally, it takes 20 years of grooming, preparation, and political manipulations for someone to become a king, but I managed it in half that time. And it's all thanks to the previous king's indiscretions (the false evidence for which I cleverly planted in plain sight for my dear friend). I don't know what I was thinking 10 years ago. I was such a petty child back in those days! I just couldn't have managed it all without the full support of my friend and his order of paladins. :D

Even if they figure it all out one day and I am unable to stop their retaliation, I still win!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is worth a FAQ! Does the paladin know if the target of his smite is actually evil, and if so, when?

The Paladin will always know if his smite works. This is an important distinction. Your smite will work on the succubus even if she really IS a lawful good paladin, because no matter how much she reforms, she'll still retain the evil outsider subtype that's part of her nature. And that's what the smite will be triggered by, not her alignment.

So yes in some ways life literally is Hell for reformed succubi. It's part of the reason they're more rare than hen's teeth.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

Huh...I don't think I've ever used a favored class bonus for anything other than skill points, be it a sorcerer or a barbarian.

Especially considering how few of them some classes get.

I used them for hit points for the first couple of my magus levels. At surviving first or second level, they make a real difference.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is worth a FAQ! Does the paladin know if the target of his smite is actually evil, and if so, when?

The Paladin will always know if his smite works. This is an important distinction. Your smite will work on the succubus even if she really IS a lawful good paladin, because no matter how much she reforms, she'll still retain the evil outsider subtype that's part of her nature. And that's what the smite will be triggered by, not her alignment.

So yes in some ways life literally is Hell for reformed succubi. It's part of the reason they're more rare than hen's teeth.

This actually isn't true. A paladin's smite fails when targeting creatures that don't have an evil alignment. A creature's subtype is not their alignment, only their true individual alignment is what is accounted for. The same applies to smiting an angel that's gone evil.

When paladins smite they're channeling a measure of cosmic Good, and that force would be well aware of whether it needs to be hurting its target or not. It's the same idea behind the Heavenly Fire ability, which would cure good dhampir and undead as easily as good normal living creatures rather than harming them.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
A paladin's smite fails when targeting creatures that don't have an evil alignment. A creature's subtype is not their alignment, only their true individual alignment is what is accounted for. The same applies to smiting an angel that's gone evil.

Incorrect. The Evil subtype states (emphasis mine):

Pathfinder SRD wrote:
Evil Subtype: 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).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's correct. So a Succubus Paladin can be hit by smite evil from a Paladin, AND Smite Good from his Anti Sister.

Silver Crusade

So much for the cosmic force of Good actually being competent at doing Good...

Ugh

Looks like it's time to houserule in order to let Good actually be good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's less that and more "you're still made of evil". Fallen Angels get the same can-be-smited-by-both schtick, since they retain their [Good] subtype but have an Evil alignment.

In the case of the Good Succubus they'd need to either reform into a different type of creature that is no longer composed of evil energies and Abyss-stuff, or somehow shed their [Evil] subtype, which would be a massive quest underdoing, assuming the GM even allows it. Fallen Angels the same - I imagine Archdevils/Demon Lords would be happy to strip their [Good] subtype from them and/or reform them into a devilish/demonic servitor, once the usefulness of that subtype had passed or the benefits of them becoming "just another fiend" outweighed those of them retaining their original form. I see no reason why a truly repentant fiend couldn't get the same deal from a Celestial power or Empyrial lord.


Yes, lets talk more about the succubus paladin ^_^

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

So much for the cosmic force of Good actually being competent at doing Good...

Ugh

Looks like it's time to houserule in order to let Good actually be good.

I don't exactly understand where this comment is coming from.

Besides the whole concept of heroic fantasy is the idea that Good acts in the form of the Hero triumphing over evil. If Good was as super competent at being Good as Evil is at being Evil, we'd all be out of a job. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
- I imagine Archdevils/Demon Lords would be happy to strip their [Good] subtype from them and/or reform them into a devilish/demonic servitor, once the usefulness of that subtype had passed or the benefits of them becoming "just another fiend" outweighed those of them retaining their original form. I see no reason why a truly repentant fiend couldn't get the same deal from a Celestial power or Empyrial lord.

That's assuming your cosmology rolls that way. It may very well be that you can't strip the Evil subtype from a repentent Succubus without destroying her entirely.

ArchDevils and Solars may be powerful beings, but even they have their limits as far as what rules of reality they can break.


True. I can't speak for Golarion or any other setting, but it's something I'd allow in my own game. With a lot of hard work and effort behind it, probably culminating in a pretty epic quest to prove their devotion and earn the favor, but possible, in the rare instance it occurs.


amir90 wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

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...

A few years ago Sam Harris wrote a pretty decent book where he argued for absolute morality not based on civil or religious law, it was called The Moral Landscape. I am simplifying the idea, but it was largely based on minimizing suffering while not forcing suffering on an individual to achieve this end. His sort of tip of the hat to relativism is that there is more than on route to moral justness or corruption; they have to be thought of sort of as an entire gene complex in which some traits are bad in the presence of others, but they can be very good with the appropriate counterparts. This is not relativism though, in that these things can be judged as right or wrong in their present state as a constant for everyone.

I think he did a speech on TED (I can probably find a link if interested) where the main points were summed up. It is worth a listen and/or read.

PS moral relativism is only immoral to the moral absolutist.


I was chalanged to play a paladin in LOF.

I played it as I thought a LG should play, and did fine until we encountered slavery.

Well the DM and I disagreed about how it should be resolved. It went so bad that I left the group. <still miss them>

I think the DM and the Paladin should have conversation about what is likely to be roll-playing chalanges and come to an agreement together before they get to far deep into the story.

When DM insists A, and player argues B, it wont end well.

Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franko a wrote:
I think the DM and the Paladin should have conversation about what is likely to be roll-playing chalanges and come to an agreement together before they get to far deep into the story.

Yes. As stated prior in the thread, a player interested in playing a Paladin and the GM should always get together and make sure they're on the same page with everything before the game begins.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

So much for the cosmic force of Good actually being competent at doing Good...

Ugh

Looks like it's time to houserule in order to let Good actually be good.

I don't exactly understand where this comment is coming from.

Primarily burnout over Good being portrayed as anything but. That this rules interaction feeds into the notion some hold that Team Good has the all-clear to smite risen(or rising) fiends is salt in a decades old wound.

Quote:
Besides the whole concept of heroic fantasy is the idea that Good acts in the form of the Hero triumphing over evil. If Good was as super competent at being Good as Evil is at being Evil, we'd all be out of a job. :)

My issue isn't with Good having challenges to overcome, but Good being regularly portrayed as being capable of only being able to put out fires at best and unable to actually live up to its ideals. I hate it when concepts like mercy and redemption wind up only being things you hear about while in-game and in-setting they feel rarer than Lil Jon tracks that don't involve the words "what", "yeah", or "okay", and when they do show up or players attempt to go for them, it's used only to blow up in their faces or plant a knife in the back.

So pretty much years of crap experiences starting from Day 1 of playing the game.


Mikaze, I'm on an iPad, so I can't linkiffy right now, but I believe the spell you are looking for is "polymorph any object", which can literally change anything that isn't a magic item into anything else that isn't a magic item.

Edit: ugh, autocorrect
Edit 2: 3.5 precedent, 7th level spells add templates; true, PF is a different game, but I'm mentioning for precedent sake instead of RAW... specifically in regards to Miracle (or wish).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
...and when they do show up or players attempt to go for them, it's used only to blow up in their faces or plant a knife in the back.

This sounds more like a matter of what a GM needs to work on (and, I image, the reason you say some houseruling is in order for it). While intrigue and backstabbings for the players have their place, it shouldn't be a matter of things being so obvious. When players can show compassion to their enemies, sure, maybe they'll get betrayal sometimes, possibly often... but they also deserve a legitimate 'victory' for the forces of good sometimes, in successfully bringing a previously evil creature over to the other team.

That said, I think this isn't just the GM's fault but the setting as a whole. A GM can certainly work things around to make a more Gray and Gray morality thing (which kind of already happens, as you said. Good doesn't always feel like... well, good).

The problem is sort of the inherent nature of good and evil. The fact that there are personifications and embodiments of good and evil makes things feel more absolute. When a demon is quite literally an incarnation of evil, it leads to good people saying SMITEKILLDEATH! ...and that's the problem, because it's basically genocide, which doesn't feel like Good.

So, TLDR, Pathfinder itself (and plenty of other systems) really distill things to a Black and White morality. So, if you're killing evil, you're doing good, the end. It's kinda static, and I personally think it's better if GM's run it with more variance, and actually let evil creatures shed their previous nature, and be redeemed, and let good creatures fall into corruption, and become evil.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a more... I dunno, like a more rewarding experience in a setting where such things can happen.


I like some variance, but offing evil to be and remain actually good (and not killing evil is murder and thus you are evil, ha ha, what a cunning ruse I have perpetuated... sigh).


With the whole Smite Evil vs. a redeemed creature of evil subtype, I always figured that it was because the paladin channeled holy power through his weapon. Holy is kind of... Anti-evil, right? Well that redeemed succubus is still MADE of the stuff of the abyss, it's what made her form in the first place right? She's made of evil. Becomin good doesn't change what she was physically made of, no one removes all of her black blood and replaces it with angel plasma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question.... Do demons actualy DIE in golarion? In 2E when you killed a Planar creature they didn't 'die', they went back to their home plane...

Sooooo yeah, Smiting a 'redeemed demon' doesn't actually 'murder' anything. If anything it's imprisoning it...


phantom1592 wrote:

Question.... Do demons actualy DIE in golarion? In 2E when you killed a Planar creature they didn't 'die', they went back to their home plane...

Sooooo yeah, Smiting a 'redeemed demon' doesn't actually 'murder' anything. If anything it's imprisoning it...

When an outsider dies they're gone, for realsies. Their life energy returns to the positive energy plane, IIRC.


Aratrok wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

Question.... Do demons actualy DIE in golarion? In 2E when you killed a Planar creature they didn't 'die', they went back to their home plane...

Sooooo yeah, Smiting a 'redeemed demon' doesn't actually 'murder' anything. If anything it's imprisoning it...

When an outsider dies they're gone, for realsies. Their energy returns to the positive energy plane.

Huh!

Intersting change... Don't really care for it. I like demons to be BIGGER than the average orc or hobgoblin... something about never TRULY destroying the evil... and someday it WILL be back, made them feel more epic.

Silver Crusade

IIRC they still reform on their native plane, though sometimes they'll be greatly lessened by the experience("demoted" and broken down into their component souls).

It's still a terrible thing to do to a risen fiend, and if they are broken down that's as good as killing the being they currently are. And even if it didn't lessen them, you're still banishing them to the plane most hostile to risen fiends.

Silver Crusade

Darkwolf117 wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a more... I dunno, like a more rewarding experience in a setting where such things can happen.

This cuts to the heart of it for me. Worlds where good and evil are run according to Black And White Insanity don't feel rewarding at all to me, nor does their take on Good often feel genuinely Good.

Silver Crusade

Tacticslion wrote:

Mikaze, I'm on an iPad, so I can't linkiffy right now, but I believe the spell you are looking for is "polymorph any object", which can literally change anything that isn't a magic item into anything else that isn't a magic item.

Edit: ugh, autocorrect
Edit 2: 3.5 precedent, 7th level spells add templates; true, PF is a different game, but I'm mentioning for precedent sake instead of RAW... specifically in regards to Miracle (or wish).

It kind of feels like there needs to be more spiritual "oomph" to whatever could remove the [Evil] descriptor. When I GM I keep a rewritten version of sanctify the wicked on tap for that, which only removes the evil descriptor from willing targets.

I prefer have it work along the lines of quests though, whether it's enduring a self-inflected purgatory on the Isle of Penitents(a Silent Hill-ish island on Nirvana!) from The Great Beyond or climbing the 7777777 steps up the slope of Heaven while carrying the weight of their sins or whatever else. The more poetic the better. :)

edit-Nice catch on the template precedent! I'm going to have to look into that now... Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwolf117 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
...and when they do show up or players attempt to go for them, it's used only to blow up in their faces or plant a knife in the back.

This sounds more like a matter of what a GM needs to work on (and, I image, the reason you say some houseruling is in order for it). While intrigue and backstabbings for the players have their place, it shouldn't be a matter of things being so obvious. When players can show compassion to their enemies, sure, maybe they'll get betrayal sometimes, possibly often... but they also deserve a legitimate 'victory' for the forces of good sometimes, in successfully bringing a previously evil creature over to the other team.

That said, I think this isn't just the GM's fault but the setting as a whole. A GM can certainly work things around to make a more Gray and Gray morality thing (which kind of already happens, as you said. Good doesn't always feel like... well, good).

The problem is sort of the inherent nature of good and evil. The fact that there are personifications and embodiments of good and evil makes things feel more absolute. When a demon is quite literally an incarnation of evil, it leads to good people saying SMITEKILLDEATH! ...and that's the problem, because it's basically genocide, which doesn't feel like Good.

So, TLDR, Pathfinder itself (and plenty of other systems) really distill things to a Black and White morality. So, if you're killing evil, you're doing good, the end. It's kinda static, and I personally think it's better if GM's run it with more variance, and actually let evil creatures shed their previous nature, and be redeemed, and let good creatures fall into corruption, and become evil.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a more... I dunno, like a more rewarding experience in a setting where such things can happen.

Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.


Sitri wrote:
amir90 wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

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...

A few years ago Sam Harris wrote a pretty decent book where he argued for absolute morality not based on civil or religious law, it was called The Moral Landscape. I am simplifying the idea, but it was largely based on minimizing suffering while not forcing suffering on an individual to achieve this end. His sort of tip of the hat to relativism is that there is more than on route to moral justness or corruption; they have to be thought of sort of as an entire gene complex in which some traits are bad in the presence of others, but they can be very good with the appropriate counterparts. This is not relativism though, in that these things can be judged as right or wrong in their present state as a constant for everyone.

I think he did a speech on TED (I can probably find a link if interested) where the main points were summed up. It is worth a listen and/or read.

PS moral relativism is only immoral to the moral absolutist.

Even if we accept that absolute morality exists, we still have widespread disagreement on right v wrong.

In fact, I think the nastiest disagreements are those between two people who have absolutist views or morality.


Mikaze wrote:

IIRC they still reform on their native plane, though sometimes they'll be greatly lessened by the experience("demoted" and broken down into their component souls).

It's still a terrible thing to do to a risen fiend, and if they are broken down that's as good as killing the being they currently are. And even if it didn't lessen them, you're still banishing them to the plane most hostile to risen fiends.

There is no such ruling in Pathfinder. You are thinking of 3.5

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.

WRONG!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.
WRONG!

I'm not seeing anything about Alignment on these JuJus... and under spirit Vessels there's a note,

Spirit Vessels' ability to create non-evil undead was an oversight, and this behavior is not intended. Gamemasters are encouraged to treat undead created with this ability as having evil alignment.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.

Along with juju oracles(which I refuse to ever give up as written), there's also the 3rd party White Necromancer.

AND Blood of the Night came out and said good and neutral vampires can exist!

As for Paizo supposedly being opposed to redemption....our ship is coming in this February/March. (and AUGUST!) :)

(it also gets a ton of play in Shattered Star)

Silver Crusade

johnlocke90 wrote:
There is no such ruling in Pathfinder. You are thinking of 3.5.

I don't think this is the case. There's multiple references throughout the setting material referring to it working the traditional way. Treerazer's unique position as a demon that will die permanently if killed on the Prime Material is one the comes to mind. There are also more that have "knowing they will eventually reform on their home plane" in their Tactics/Morale entries.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.
WRONG!

I am guessing you didn't read the editor's note where it was explained nonevil undead are an error and that you probably won't see pathfinder publish nonevil undead.


Mikaze wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
There is no such ruling in Pathfinder. You are thinking of 3.5.
I don't think this is the case. There's multiple references throughout the setting material referring to it working the traditional way. Treerazer's unique position as a demon that will die permanently if killed on the Prime Material is one the comes to mind. There are also more that have "knowing they will eventually reform on their home plane" in their Tactics/Morale entries.

Can you link that to me? I have read the book of the damned splat books and none of them mention this when describing evil outsiders.


Mikaze wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.

Along with juju oracles(which I refuse to ever give up as written), there's also the 3rd party White Necromancer.

AND Blood of the Night came out and said good and neutral vampires can exist!

As for Paizo supposedly being opposed to redemption....our ship is coming in this February/March. (and AUGUST!) :)

(it also gets a ton of play in Shattered Star)

I think this is a result of a disconnect between the AP writers and the higher ups at Paizo. The creative director of Paizo has stated that undead will always be evil in his world. AP producers often share your view.

I have no issue with nonevil undead, although dislike players focusing on commanding undead simply because of how powerful it is and how much time it takes up.

Silver Crusade

johnlocke90 wrote:
Can you link that to me? I have read the book of the damned splat books and none of them mention this when describing evil outsiders.

The Treerazer example it touched on in his entry in the Inner Sea World Guide IIRC, along with some possible notes elsehwere(most likely in Book of the Damned 2). The Morale/Tactics examples are scattered throughout various adventures.

Regarding the issue of liking the idea of non-evil undead but hating abuse of the idea by necromancers just after power, Kobold Quarterly's White Necromancer is well worth checking out. It's all about working with the dead rather than enslaving them, with diplomacy being hardwired into their necromancy.

I've been wanting to play a white necromancer/paladin ever since first seeing the class. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Unfortunately Paizo seems opposed to allowing evil creatures to redeem themselves. they have made it clear that we will never get access to nonevil undead.
WRONG!
I am guessing you didn't read the editor's note where it was explained nonevil undead are an error and that you probably won't see pathfinder publish nonevil undead.

Regardless you are still wrong about never getting nonevil undead. We already have.

301 to 350 of 1,121 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paladin hate. All Messageboards