| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"How can I force a rogue to sneak attack himself?",
Seems to happen if they try to backstab the spine of the book.
|
I realized something-- the OP was asking because he wanted some way to be prepared in case this evil druid NPC betrayed them.
Pretty much anything you could do that would make this druid fall would involve coercing, tricking, or manipulating him to do something he would never normally do.
If you can manipulate his behavior to that degree, regardless of how you're doing it, it'd almost certainly be easier to just manipulate him into not betraying you.
The no lying thing is really dumb. A paladin should absolutely be able to lie to evil creatures, at least ones that have an evil aura or detect strongly to detect evil... Pretty much the entire code should include the conditional "...to legitimate authority." With what counts as such being determined by the paladin and his god/beliefs.
The no lying thing is really dumb. A paladin should absolutely be able to lie to evil creatures, at least ones that have an evil aura or detect strongly to detect evil... Pretty much the entire code should include the conditional "...to legitimate authority." With what counts as such being determined by the paladin and his god/beliefs.
No, it's not. The Code judges the conduct of the Paladin; not his enemies. He has to be the paragon of lawful good, not them. My Paladins cultivate the "strong but silent image" :) They are very deliberate before committing themselves verbally...
*Sigh* I really don't want Gowin's Law to happen, so I'll just drop the issue rather than pointing out that in a lot of situations telling the truth or refusing to answer at does nothing but harm, especially in a game world where Evil (capital E) is a tangible thing that can be exuded and detected.
It's like the people who think Paladins shouldn't flee from unwinnable, suicidal battles...
No, it's not. The Code judges the conduct of the Paladin; not his enemies. He has to be the paragon of lawful good, not them. My Paladins cultivate the "strong but silent image" :) They are very deliberate before committing themselves verbally...
They also have one face and are forced to be a hundred of the same men pretending to be 100 individuals. Such is the way of the code. You are not allowed to be an individual, but one of many. No lying, no poisons, no being evil or having fun. Personality and individualism is chaotics. Choice is for chaotics. Live to be reminded a hundred times that you have to be a specific person at all times. The code is not flexible and demanding! Such is the way of the code...
The thing I have against alignment restrictions is that it forces everyone to be the same person. The idea that every cleric of the same god/monk/druid/fighter is the same person is bothersome. The code and restrictions create an image and gives people an excuse to enforce their idea of the way something is supposed to be. Theres a clash when someone else thinks an absolute is different than you. I always placed alot of the "Everyone has to fall!" gig on that.
Druids don't get that much flak because its easy to revere nature and theres not a super strict guideline that comes with the class beyond an hour of meditation.
If you can manipulate his behavior to that degree, regardless of how you're doing it, it'd almost certainly be easier to just manipulate him into not betraying you.
Or maybe just kill him. When he betrays you, or better yet attempts it. Just be prepared to act. And make sure he actually *is* doing it.
Forcing someone to fall is still on the evil end of the scale.
What? Huh? So it's ok to ram your sword into the guy but to get him to lose his efficacy as an agent of evil through clever interplay is evil?
Forcing someone to fall is still on the evil end of the scale.What? Huh? So it's ok to ram your sword into the guy but to get him to lose his efficacy as an agent of evil through clever interplay is evil?
Opinions may vary, but taking away something that makes someone who they are, violently ripping them from their diety, and laughing about it later is usually on the far end of the evil scale if only for malevolence. Not something we need to argue about, I said usually.
Edit: its more so that a cleric or druid falling would hurt since it is a part of them, particular a cleric of the ideal if you did it t them. Its also a good way to start a holy war or possibly crossing a moral event horizon where its okay to harm others. It really requires planning or going out of the way, which stabbing really doesn't.
*Sigh* I really don't want Gowin's Law to happen, so I'll just drop the issue rather than pointing out that in a lot of situations telling the truth or refusing to answer at does nothing but harm, especially in a game world where Evil (capital E) is a tangible thing that can be exuded and detected.It's like the people who think Paladins shouldn't flee from unwinnable, suicidal battles...
The Code isn't situational. It doesn't have little legal provisos about your behavior being excused if the other side are evil. With a Paladin that's not exactly unusual. The Code doesn't say anything about living to fight another day. If the battle is unwinnable, it just is.
You can't lie. Period. You can't use poison. Period. And so on. There is no dishonor in surviving and carrying on the fight.
Why do people assume that being the ultimate good guy is easy? Why should it be? Sure it can be awkward. If you don't want to be a Paladin, then don't.
The Code isn't situational. It doesn't have little legal provisos about your behavior being excused if the other side are evil. With a Paladin that's not exactly unusual. The Code doesn't say anything about living to fight another day. If the battle is unwinnable, it just is.
You can't lie. Period. You can't use poison. Period. And so on. There is no dishonor in surviving and carrying on the fight.
Why do people assume that being the ultimate good guy is easy? Why should it be? Sure it can be awkward. If you don't want to be a Paladin, then don't.
All the same... I'll say it again, all the same...
You know what would be cool? A class that was playable and fun and didn't mandate suicide. Yeah.
I always thought CG was the ultimate good, bypass the legislation and do the right thing. LG characters have too much red tape to do the right thing. NG I can live with, but LG always seemed like the lesser good to me.
You keep getting your hopes up... Beware, it might reinforce LG and leave CG/NG in the dust. But thats not important to the thread I guess.
The more problems and arguments I see arise from whether a Paladin has to be an overbearing douche, a suicidal moron, or just a really good guy, the more I think the Paladin class should just disappear and be replaced with like a Cleric archetype or something.
Just "Well, now he's a Cleric with this stuff in place of this stuff, now quit b*%%!in' about the no longer extant Code" would make my day.
They also have one face and are forced to be a hundred of the same men pretending to be 100 individuals. Such is the way of the code. You are not allowed to be an individual, but one of many. No lying, no poisons, no being evil or having fun. Personality and individualism is chaotics. Choice is for chaotics. Live to be reminded a hundred times that you have to be a specific person at all times. The code is not flexible and demanding! Such is the way of the code...The thing I have against alignment restrictions is that it forces everyone to be the same person. The idea that every cleric of the same god/monk/druid/fighter is the same person is bothersome. The code and restrictions create an image and gives people an excuse to enforce their idea of the way something is supposed to be. Theres a clash when someone else thinks an absolute is different than you. I always placed alot of the "Everyone has to fall!" gig on that.
Druids don't get that much flak because its easy to revere nature and theres not a super strict guideline that comes with the class beyond an hour of meditation.
They are a brotherhood. That's part of it. That doesn't mean they aren't individuals. There's a lot more to personality than the relative handful of restrictions a Paladin has. And, outside of evil, there is nothing about a lack of tolerance. People read that in to the class.
The more problems and arguments I see arise from whether a Paladin has to be an overbearing douche, a suicidal moron, or just a really good guy, the more I think the Paladin class should just disappear and be replaced with like a Cleric archetype or something.Just "Well, now he's a Cleric with this stuff in place of this stuff, now quit b~~@#in' about the no longer extant Code" would make my day.
Then just play a Cleric. Simple.
They are a brotherhood. That's part of it. That doesn't mean they aren't individuals. There's a lot more to personality than the relative handful of restrictions a Paladin has. And, outside of evil, there is nothing about a lack of tolerance. People read that in to the class.
They are not individuals. They are all the same. They are what you make them and the more rules you add, the more restrictions the more they become the same person who you see over and over in every one that you pass. You take away freedom and choice and you seriously kill some creativity here. You just prove my point by claiming their a brotherhood and put them all in the same box. Paladins can fight paladins and have disagreements shockingly, my comments are just on the way the code makes them all the same guy with the same tactics. Though I do exagerate, its a serious point.
Then just play a Cleric. Simple.
Thats just insulting. Cleric have D8 HD, fullcasting, 3/4 BAB and domains. They don't have crazy auras or smite and certainly not full BAB. Do you hand someone a monk when they tell you they want to play an unarmed fighter?
Edit:
The more problems and arguments I see arise from whether a Paladin has to be an overbearing douche, a suicidal moron, or just a really good guy, the more I think the Paladin class should just disappear and be replaced with like a Cleric archetype or something.
Just "Well, now he's a Cleric with this stuff in place of this stuff, now quit b+%%&in' about the no longer extant Code" would make my day.
Waste of a good series of mechanics. The changes to paladins from 3.5 to pathfinder made them look appealing. Change the name and make it a new class with some flexibility, give the code to the LG guys and we're good, and add 2 more skillpoints per level so they have the intellegence to know better. Besides, the champion of Calstria looks darn sexy. I would love to see this all come to and end myself, don't get me wrong. I just hate to throw away scraps of paper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then just play a Cleric. Simple.
But I would have liked to play a Paladin, with a Paladin's abilities, and what I think of as a Paladin's morals.
Unfortunately, Paladin is not "The ultimate Paragon of Good and Justice" in most people's eyes, he is "The Ultimate Paragon of Being Hobbled and Shackled beyond All Reason By Needlessly Strict Interpretations of his Outdated and Poorly Worded Code of Conduct".
Prime example, I had a discussion with a player over why a Paladin wouldn't be able to use traps.
His argument was this: That traps (and by extension any molding of the terrain to your advantage), by their nature of being hidden, are JUST ANOTHER FORM OF LIE AND WOULD MAKE A PALADIN INSTANTLY FALL.
The fact that the Code, in a way, supports this is one of the few (in my opinion) glaring, gaping flaws in this game.
Thankfully, unlike the others, which would require entire class rewrites or an overhaul of certain systems, the Code of Conduct should be pretty easy to fix.
Unfortunately, many like the current state of the Code since it CAN be interpreted well, even when strictly read (so many favorable GMs can use it), but it's vague enough and leaves enough up to GM interpretation that it gives anyone a butt monkey in any particular game they'd like to run.
Either loosen the restrictions, or tighten them to the point that there can be no "interpreting" silly little things to make them fall, is all I ask.
They are a brotherhood. That's part of it. That doesn't mean they aren't individuals. There's a lot more to personality than the relative handful of restrictions a Paladin has. And, outside of evil, there is nothing about a lack of tolerance. People read that in to the class.They are not individuals. They are all the same. They are what you make them and the more rules you add, the more restrictions the more they become the same person who you see over and over in every one that you pass. You take away freedom and choice and you seriously kill some creativity here. You just prove my point by claiming their a brotherhood and put them all in the same box. Paladins can fight paladins and have disagreements shockingly, my comments are just on the way the code makes them all the same guy with the same tactics. Though I do exagerate, its a serious point.
Really? because they don't lie, don't use poison and are honorable they are all the same? There's no room to roleplay them differently? Being in any organization dedicated to a cause takes away some freedom. Not all of it. What you're saying goes way beyond exaggeration.
Then just play a Cleric. Simple.Thats just insulting. Cleric have D8 HD, fullcasting, 3/4 BAB and domains. They don't have crazy auras or smite and certainly not full BAB. Do you hand someone a monk when they tell you they want to play an unarmed fighter?
No it's not. If you don't want the whole package, code and all (which is why they get the nifty abilities), play something else. A Paladin is about more than just their ability to smite and the other mechanical advantages and abilities. They receive those perks because of their faith and adherence to a difficult code. They are not just Fighters or Clerics with a different set of abilities.
Waste of a good series of mechanics. The changes to paladins from 3.5 to pathfinder made them look appealing. Change the name and make it a new class with some flexibility, give the code to the LG guys and we're good, and add 2 more skillpoints per level so they have the intellegence to know better. Besides, the champion of Calstria looks darn sexy. I would love to see this all come to and end myself, don't get me...
As I said, the Paladin is not just a set of abilities. That's losing the whole point of the class. If you have a class with these abilities and no relation to the "restrictive" code and requirements then they aren't Paladins.
Then just play a Cleric. Simple.
But I would have liked to play a Paladin, with a Paladin's abilities, and what I think of as a Paladin's morals.
Unfortunately, Paladin is not "The ultimate Paragon of Good and Justice" in most people's eyes, he is "The Ultimate Paragon of Being Hobbled and Shackled beyond All Reason By Needlessly Strict Interpretations of his Outdated and Poorly Worded Code of Conduct".
Most people don't want to be good. They want to do what they want to do. And that pesky code gets in the way.
Prime example, I had a discussion with a player over why a Paladin wouldn't be able to use traps.His argument was this: That traps (and by extension any molding of the terrain to your advantage), by their nature of being hidden, are JUST ANOTHER FORM OF LIE AND WOULD MAKE A PALADIN INSTANTLY FALL.
The fact that the Code, in a way, supports this is one of the few (in my opinion) glaring, gaping flaws in this game.
Taking an idea to truly ludicrous extremes is not an effective argument about why the original idea is "bad".
Thankfully, unlike the others, which would require entire class rewrites or an overhaul of certain systems, the Code of Conduct should be pretty easy to fix.Unfortunately, many like the current state of the Code since it CAN be interpreted well, even when strictly read (so many favorable GMs can use it), but it's vague enough and leaves enough up to GM interpretation that it gives anyone a butt monkey in any particular game they'd like to run.
Either loosen the restrictions, or tighten them to the point that there can be no "interpreting" silly little things to make them fall, is all I ask.
Your argument seems to be more about what bad GMs or players or weird interpretations of the code can do to a game. Yes, a bad GM can screw up a game. A bad player can also do a lot of damage. Find a good GM and group. Discuss the GM's opinion of the Paladin's code before you decide to play one. Then have at it. Unless you want a hundred page Paladin's code that only a lawyer can read, it will never be lacking interpretation. Come to think of it, with lawyers everything is open to interpretation. So, we have GMs to avoid lawyers :)
The paladin code violates the basic definition of Good. There is no excuse for it.All you may be able to demonstrate is that the Lawful Good alignment does not actually exist.
No, it apparently does violate your definition of good though. Not mine. As is typical in alignment discussions this one has gone strange places...
This is going way off from a talk about why don't druids fall, I put any responces in a spoiler, but I really don't intend to follow up anymore. The point I was trying to make was the attachment to the "Way things have to be" creates a stigma that is adhered to and enforced. The many ideas of "this is what a paladin is!" have an excuse to be enforced in the code. Sometimes it takes the radical extreme such as lying means no traps, or that you have to suicide or fall. You see a disagreement on what things mean and to what extent they go repeatedly in this thread.
The druid got lucky and got off with a few restrictions about revering nature and not wearing metal armor. Him and the monk still get hit sometimes with ideas like "all monks come from monastaries!" or monks have to take a lawful extreme even though being lawful has nothing to do with punching people. The druid sometimes gets hit with this idea he has to be completely attached to the forest and removed from civilization, but that usually removes him as a PC even.
Really? because they don't lie, don't use poison and are honorable they are all the same? There's no room to roleplay them differently? Being in any organization dedicated to a cause takes away some freedom. Not all of it. What you're saying goes way beyond exaggeration.
I'm saying that putting them all in the same box strips a lot of the choice. Taking it to the extreme you strip them of individuality. Same way you put them all in a "Brotherhood" like every paladin is the same guy fighting for the same reasons. I even said paladin can fight paladin in my own statement, give me some credit.
No it's not. If you don't want the whole package, code and all (which is why they get the nifty abilities), play something else. A Paladin is about more than just their ability to smite and the other mechanical advantages and abilities. They receive those perks because of their faith and adherence to a difficult code. They are not just Fighters or Clerics with a different set of abilities.
Now... This is hard to believe, but they are just fighters or clerics with a different set of abilities. As much as unarmed fighters are different than monks, and inquisitors are different than barbarians.
As I said, the Paladin is not just a set of abilities. That's losing the whole point of the class. If you have a class with these abilities and no relation to the "restrictive" code and requirements then they aren't Paladins.
They are. You give the meaning to the label. Change the name to champion and let alignment determine the code and he gets smote, and its the same pile of mechanics but a lot more flexibility.
This is going way off from a talk about why don't druids fall, I put any responces in a spoiler, but I really don't intend to follow up anymore. The point I was trying to make was the attachment to the "Way things have to be" creates a stigma that is adhered to and enforced. The many ideas of "this is what a paladin is!" have an excuse to be enforced in the code. Sometimes it takes the radical extreme such as lying means no traps, or that you have to suicide or fall. You see a disagreement on what things mean and to what extent they go repeatedly in this thread.The druid got lucky and got off with a few restrictions about revering nature and not wearing metal armor. Him and the monk still get hit sometimes with ideas like "all monks come from monastaries!" or monks have to take a lawful extreme even though being lawful has nothing to do with punching people. The druid sometimes gets hit with this idea he has to be completely attached to the forest and removed from civilization, but that usually removes him as a PC even.
** spoiler omitted **
...
You're right, it is way off the OP. It can make for an interesting discussion, but ultimately it's a matter of opinion and past experience as much as RAW. Time to let the Paladin discussion go.
The thing is, if automatically you're limited to "Find someone who has an interpretation you agree with", it's poorly written.
It doesn't have to be 100 pages. Simple is better.
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
That, and even people who are otherwise good players/GMs seem to have a...thing about Codes, and how strict they are with them, and so forth. It's a style difference, not a quality difference.
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The parts in bold need clarification.
1.) "Evil acts" have always been pretty vague in Pathfinder. What's classified as evil? Killing someone? Killing someone in cold blood? Torturing, and THEN killing someone? Where is the line drawn?
Are there minor and major evils, and even a minor one makes the Paladin fall?
2.) What defines a "legitimate authority". Is it a lawfully elected representative and/or one who legitimately finds his way onto the throne? Is it one who works to the betterment of his people above himself (i.e. non-evil)? Is it something else? Needs clear defining.
3.) Define what is considered honorable conduct. EXACTLY. It says no lying, no cheating, no using poison.
Fine, I can handle that. But then it says "and so forth", which pretty much ruins the clear cut statements with a WHOLE LOT of ambiguity.
Is Stealth dishonorable? Traps, ambushes, using favorable terrain (high ground and so forth)? Flanking? Charging on a horse against an unmounted foe?
Explain, exactly. Cut out the "so forth".
That'd fix about 90% of the problems with the Code right on the spot.
If you really think your precious code is more important than innocent lives then I hope you live somewhere far away that doesn't hold elections.
I think you're mixing real life up with a fantasy universe where good and evil are demonstrable concrete ideas. In that fantasy universe the means taint the ends. If you do "bad things" to achieve your desired outcome don't expect it to be good.
*edit*. *sigh* Must leave argument about Paladin's code... the OP here was about Druids. If we want to discuss Paladins maybe we should start a new thread, or just re-read one of the hundred or so that litter these boards like mushrooms and pick up where we left off :) Or discuss Druids and their restrictions.
I was always under the imression that Paladins were ultimately "more good than lawful" and when the two aspects came into conflict over what to do, good wins. Every time.
But apparently slavishly obeying any possible legal wrangling of what their code means for the most ridiculous, nebulous of situations is more important that doing the right thing.
I do like how people talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to paladins. They'll complain about having a paladin in the party and how his asinine and strict code hand cuffs the party to all be lawful stupid. Then when you try and argue Paladins shouldn't be required to be lawful stupid, (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same) people jump on the offensive and strenuously argue against that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine. Since this seems to be an attempt to apply "Pally logic fall" to a druid.
That's fine. Give him a steak for dinner.... WHOOPS. Your now no longer respecting nature because you are killing and eating it. I mean, you respect women and you don't kill and eat them right? Similar logic can be applied with a stir fry with baby corn but for a more gross out factor.
Give him an apple. See if he eats the whole thing. If he doesn't BAM. Fallen. He's being wasteful of the haverst nature has provided him with and must fall. Alternately, if he does eat the whole thing BAMMO again.... why? Well... he ate the seeds, ensuring that there will not be future generations of apples around (and the whole eating babies thing from above).
Give him a plague infested wolf to eat. If he even bats an eyelid at why he should eat it, you guessed it. BAM. Goneski. Why? Because removing the diseased and sick from a herd is what a predator does to strengthen the herd overall. That same argument can also be used as to why he should go first into everything BTW... because if he's strong, he'll survive and prosper. If not, your better off without him AND HE SHOULD WANT IT THAT WAY DAMMIT!
Heck, walking outside his grove and he falls because he's encroaching on and not respecting the territory of the other animals in the area. Not that he has a home or range in the first place mind you because the land doesn't belong to anyone and nor should it.
Which segue's nicely into the next one about bringing one into a city. Has he gone ballistic and attacked everything? That'll be 8K for the atonement because cities are hives of pollution, wastefulness and disease that upset the local ecology. It's very existence is upsetting the balance of nature in an area and if your ignoring that, OBVIOUSLY you don't give a hoot about nature any more.
So.... moral of the story.... applying pally fall logic to a druid ends you up never leaving home and dying of starvation and dysentery in the dark. Cold and alone and welcoming death because of your weakness only made the place worse anyway.
Have fun!
[Edit] Dammit. I forgot to work in something about returning all of the gold that was stolen from the earth to the earth.
Now THAT'S the kind of insane troll logic we need to bring into a "How to make X fall" thread!
Good job Ecaterina!