I agree with almost every point you make in the above post, Rynjin, and think you'll find I'm not arguing with you half as hard as my cold text may appear, haha. The paladin is in for a well deserved rough time attempting to join this group. I'm merely defending the ideal of paladinhood as I did necromancers in another fifteen threads, as I [play both and feel I do them fair RP justice.
Speaking of necromancy- tread carefully on Gygax, sir.
;)
Being Lawful Good is not impossible.
By a strict reading, however, the Paladin Code nearly is.
Fall or Fall scenarios are quite easy to engineer even by accident. A favorite is "Lie or get someone killed", both choices force a Fall.
This. Furthermore I have no problems with a player who wants to play the fettered, but tying this to a particular class, and to a particular kind of fetteredness, is a really bone-headed idea. And any character like this should be ready to accept the tragic, horrible consequences that inevitably results: Which sort of goes against the Paladin's entire Knight in Shining Armor thing in all but the most idealistic settings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with almost every point you make in the above post, Rynjin, and think you'll find I'm not arguing with you half as hard as my cold text may appear, haha. The paladin is in for a well deserved rough time attempting to join this group. I'm merely defending the ideal of paladinhood as I did necromancers in another fifteen threads, as I [play both and feel I do them fair RP justice.
Ah, gotcha.
The Paladin as a class kinda gets under my skin as written (I'm very lax with them in actual play as a result. I figure as long as they're trying to be Good and don't do something monstrously evil they can afford a few laxes, accidental or otherwise), and I'm never sure where someone's coming from when they're defending it, so I just kinda toss out my stock "What I don't like here" post.
Speaking of necromancy- tread carefully on Gygax, sir.
;)
Nothing but respect for the guy himself, I'm just a bit tired of "But it's what Gygax would do!" being used as an actual argument in a discussion.
HA! Have you SEEN 2nd ed? Or, the original? Definitely a flawed system. A beloved system, but a flawed one. It's like telling anyone over 30 something bad about Star Wars, lol
Just did a run down on the wizard/sorcerer list of necromancy spells:Evil necromancy spells
0th level: 0/3
1st level: 1/9 - Interrogation
2nd level: 0/14
3rd level: 4/15 - Animate Dead, Eldritch Fever, Ki Leech, Malediction
4th level: 3/11 - Animate Dead, Contagion, Shadow Projection
5th level: 3/12 - Ghoul Army, Plague Carrier, Symbol of Pain
6th level: 2/8 - Contagion, Create Undead
7th level: 2/7 - Epidemic, Plague Storm
8th level: 1/5 - Create Greater Undead
9th level: 2/7 - Canopic Conversion, Cursed Earthso of the total 91 necromancy spells belonging to the wizard/sorcerer list only 18 of them are evil. 18/91 is almost 20%. For the most part necromancy is NOT evil. I've never been a fan of this common misconception.
EDIT: You can be a LG necromancer and still use 80% of the spell list. Doesn't seem that bad.
So can you point out the key ones there, that any actual Necromancer will be using?
All of the ones that involve actual Necromancy, not the "Making people afraid of stuff is totally Necromancy, right?" spells.
I think you missed the Worm Infestation spell or whatever by the by, pretty sure that one's evil.
I agree with almost every point you make in the above post, Rynjin, and think you'll find I'm not arguing with you half as hard as my cold text may appear, haha. The paladin is in for a well deserved rough time attempting to join this group. I'm merely defending the ideal of paladinhood as I did necromancers in another fifteen threads, as I [play both and feel I do them fair RP justice.
Speaking of necromancy- tread carefully on Gygax, sir.
;)
Gygax did a LOT of things wrong; this is one of them. The only reason alignment exists at all was because he had inter-party conflict and decided to create a ham-handed 'you're all on the same team' mechanic, rather than doing what I think every GM in the world would say, which is 'you need to talk to your players about the expectations of the game and appropriate protagonist behavior'.
To put it another way ... if the creator of something is always right, why aren't we still driving around in Model Ts?
A necromancer isn't defined by animating dead. That's just your interpretation. YMMV.
That is most people's interpretation. When you say the word Necromancy or Necromancer, the first thing that springs to mind is "Zombies and stuff".
Hell, it's even sort of the "official" definition as per Wikipedia. "Necromancy /ˈnɛkrɵˌmænsi/ is a form of magic involving communication with the deceased – either by summoning their spirit as an apparition or raising them bodily".
I'm pretty sure ray of exhaustion, enervate, vampiric touch, many of the other 73 spells in the school aren't just fear related. They're also really effective at what they do.
Which is all beside the point. You're nitpicking my usage of a word here for no discernible purpose I can tell.
Fleshworm Infestation is a conjuration spell.
My mistake.
The wiki doesn't validate this at all. Finish the sentence that says for the purpose of divination. It says communicate with the deceased to glean information about the future. Nowhere does it say you command them as a mindless army of skeletons.
Just because a fantasy trope exists where necromancers animate skeletons doesn't make it the only trope. What about Clerics of Pharasma? They have access to necromancy spells yet they can't animate dead as Pharasma deems them an abomination.
Indeed they do, and Phrasmites get access to some of the few "True Necromancy" (I guess I'll use this from now on to avoid confusion) that are non-evil, like Speak With Dead.
The fact remains that the general interpretation of Necromancy means it has to do with death.
Animate Dead, Create Undead, Speak With Dead, these are Necromancy in the sense that 90% of people are going to think of first upon hearing the word.
Not many people are going to hear Necromancy and think "Cause Fear" or "Make people exhausted" (though they will think of stuff like Enervation because of the flavor...and probably won't think of Contagion at all I mean seriously why is that one even Necromancy, because they couldn't find another category for it?).
But this is off topic, really.
Yes, yes. Way off topic.
I just feel necromancy gets a bad rap because everyone assumes its evil and loves to throw around "necromancy is inherently evil" when only a portion of it is. You noted an evil conjuration spell so the same assertion can be made there. I'm sure if someone did an analysis on all the pathfinder spells you may find another school to have more evil among it.
Just because something is the general interpretation doesn't make it correct. Many people once believed we were the center of the universe. The pathfinder rule set doesn't say necromancy is evil. It says some of it is evil along with some of other schools of magic. Maybe the good necromancer hates undead and uses his talents to rid the world of them along with their creators.
My first magus was a necromancy focused caster even though the spell list isn't really accommodating so I had to use arcana to get wizard spells, but it was still fun playing a good character that was cold and calculating while inflicting status conditions to people. He worshiped Pharasma
Ah, I think you may misunderstand my intentions here.
I don't think Necromancy (or any) spells should be inherently evil. That is one of the few things I consistently do away with in my game.
It was just meant as a (poorly worded) statement of fact that most Necromancy spells that deal with Necromancy in its more well known aspects are evil (Speak With Dead being the sole exception, I believe).
It gets a bad rap because either you're using the fun stuff (like Animate Dead) and are forced to be evil as a result, or you're using the stuff that can be pretty well replicated by other schools, which is no fun to me, at least as the sole focus.
If I'm gonna make a White Necromancer, I want to make one with an army of "reformed" murderers or something. ;)
The easiest way to resolve this is to simply say that his god told him to go with the party because he will do something vital to preventing these evil characters from bringing something horrible to the world.
For additional cheese have it be an alliance between the goddess Pharasma and the Paladin's god. This way the god can overlook the requirement of paladins not being able to work with evil characters.
Basically, as the DM you can wave the penalty if you weave it into the plot.
Don't tell me "The differences are irreconcilable" because that's horse s@*$. You control literally everything about your characters, down to their entire personal histories (which can be retroactively retconned if need be) and motivations.
Right. If you play where character histories are not important, and can be retconned to fit any situation, then sure. I imagine many people do not play this way (I certainly hope not).
As for falling... the paladin code is stupid anyway, and if the DM actually enforces it then a Paladin is screwed no matter what, even in an all-paladin party, because the code is self-contradictory and impossible to avoid breaking.
No, the paladin code is not stupid, and does not screw paladins. The only purpose of the code is to enforce a particular role playing trope. If your group does not role play, or if role playing is not important to you, then just disregard the code.
No, the paladin code is not stupid, and does not screw paladins. The only purpose of the code is to enforce a particular role playing trope. If your group does not role play, or if role playing is not important to you, then just disregard the code.
Riiight. Any group that doesn't like the Code doesn't like roleplaying.
It couldn't possibly be any one of a hundred other explanations. No no, they just don't roleplay.
Don't tell me "The differences are irreconcilable" because that's horse s@*$. You control literally everything about your characters, down to their entire personal histories (which can be retroactively retconned if need be) and motivations.
Right. If you play where character histories are not important, and can be retconned to fit any situation, then sure. I imagine many people do not play this way (I certainly hope not).
As for falling... the paladin code is stupid anyway, and if the DM actually enforces it then a Paladin is screwed no matter what, even in an all-paladin party, because the code is self-contradictory and impossible to avoid breaking.No, the paladin code is not stupid, and does not screw paladins. The only purpose of the code is to enforce a particular role playing trope. If your group does not role play, or if role playing is not important to you, then just disregard the code.
Yeah, that's bull.
The rules should not tell you how to roleplay your character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually find at times that the strict requirements of the paladin can be a detriment to roleplaying. The times when I feel like I'm roleplaying my character are when I'm making choices.
Attempting to play a morally perfect character isn't making choices, it's performing a calculation. It's the same reason I don't like when one strategy is clearly optimal, recognizing and selecting the optimal option isn't a choice just an exercise in mental drudgery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attempting to play a morally perfect character isn't making choices, it's performing a calculation. It's the same reason I don't like when one strategy is clearly optimal, recognizing and selecting the optimal option isn't a choice just an exercise in mental drudgery.
Paladins aren't morally perfect people. Read the code. Not every paladin is a carbon copy of each other. Some paladins are nice, some are stern, some are optimistic, some are depressed and think evil is going to win no matter what. Some are alcoholics, some enjoy visiting brothels (assuming both of these activities are legal.)
The associates section of the class description is what seems to get people into trouble. Honestly, I think this section could pretty much apply to any good character. What good character is going to want to be fast friends with an evil character?
The problem is players wanting to soften evil. They want to play as necromancers, assassins, demon worshipers, etc, without being evil. IMO, this isn't compatible with a serious campaign world.
With this thread, and the party in question, the paladin player is in the wrong because he's trying to bring in an incompatible character to the group (a paladin with evil allies.) This is a problem with the player, not with the alignment system or the paladin class.
Lastly, when speaking of optimal versus non-optimal, not everyone is concerned with having an optimal character. Some of the best characters in campaigns that I have ever seen were sub-optimal. But the players played them well, their characters fit into the campaign world well, and the players consistently role-played their characters so that the character's integrity was kept intact.
So while my level 1 fighter with a two-handed weapon maybe should take power attack because it is a good feat, he may be more concerned about precision, and as such, his character doesn't embrace any kind of fighting style that reduces precision.
It doesn't make it mental drudgery creating a character in this way. It is a character creating method that focuses on taking the mental image & information of a character and converting it into the Pathfinder system. When you're trying to make that conversion, you're not concerned about what is optimal, and if you decide to change the image or idea of the character in order to make the character more optimal, then you're sacrificing the character concept.
That would not be an acceptable character creation method at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put it another way ... if the creator of something is always right, why aren't we still driving around in Model Ts?
Because people's tastes suck now? I'd TOTALLY drive a steampunked model T... haha
A paladin must be of lawful Good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
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.
Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Loopholes are identified. Nothing I read there necessitates a zealot (although it certainly can include them), rather requires a character to have high yet attainable moral principles.
Back to the OP though, even the best, most flexible paladin will likely have trouble in such a group, and I have my doubts this player is making such a paladin anyway.
I've played a seriously evil character in a party with a Paladin. It involved a lot of sneaking around to avoid the Paladin noticing the evil stuff I did. Also lots of enchantment spells, I made sure that Paladin did not have a firm grip on reality.
The problem is players wanting to soften evil. They want to play as necromancers, assassins, demon worshipers, etc, without being evil. IMO, this isn't compatible with a serious campaign world.
IMO, if you can't have necromancers, assassins, and demon worshippers who aren't evil, your campaign world can't be taken seriously.
Lastly, when speaking of optimal versus non-optimal, not everyone is concerned with having an optimal character. Some of the best characters in campaigns that I have ever seen were sub-optimal. But the players played them well, their characters fit into the campaign world well, and the players consistently role-played their characters so that the character's integrity was kept intact.
So while my level 1 fighter with a two-handed weapon maybe should take power attack because it is a good feat, he may be more concerned about precision, and as such, his character doesn't embrace any kind of fighting style that reduces precision.
It doesn't make it mental drudgery creating a character in this way. It is a character creating method that focuses on taking the mental image & information of a character and converting it into the Pathfinder system. When you're trying to make that conversion, you're not concerned about what is optimal, and if you decide to change the image or idea of the character in order to make the character more optimal, then you're sacrificing the character concept.
That would not be an acceptable character creation method at my table.
Gee, it sure is stormy in here...
|
The problem is players wanting to soften evil. They want to play as necromancers, assassins, demon worshipers, etc, without being evil. IMO, this isn't compatible with a serious campaign world.IMO, if you can't have necromancers, assassins, and demon worshippers who aren't evil, your campaign world can't be taken seriously.
Assassins and necromancers, maybe (SGG has a class called the Death Mage whose Reaper path is pretty sweet for good-aligned necromancers). In a system where Alignment is actually directly tied to mechanical implications (with things like Smite Evil, Holy Smite, etc.)I think that non-evil demon worshippers stretches things too far. At least for creatures who are mechanically tied in to their demon worship.If Joe the generally good-natured Minotaur goes to Baphomet's Wednesday night service because that's where his folks go, that's one thing; if Baphomet has recognized Joe's drive and ambition and gifted him with unholy powers to acheive his ends, that's another.
By far my all time favorite quote from anyone. EVER!
You do realize the rules are in place to guide you in how you should role play, correct?
Actually, they're not, in the slightest. Rules are mechanics. Roleplay should be left up to the player.
You don't play a rogue and run around trying to cast spells.
You run around trying to be a rogue.
And the two things are mutually exclusive...how exactly?
If you want to play a righteous (not self righteous) paladin, you follow your code. This is how you maintain your amazing powers given to you by a deity. The deity has said you must do this and I will grant you power to do so. Violation of these tenets means they will not grant these powers. Its a very easy concept. Yes these tenets can be frustrating and hard to "role play" in a group if that group is being conflicting, but that's the fun of role playing. Waving the tenets is saying you can have all the powers of a paladin and not have to uphold anything. Now back to roll playing.
The problem with that concept is that if the Paladin follows his Code to the letter, he is not the only one that affects.
He is imposing his restrictions on:
-The rest of the party (unless he decides to sit out any mission other than "Let's kill some Demons, 'kay?" problems are going to show up eventually).
-The GM (who can no longer throw anything remotely morally ambiguous or complicated at the party unless he wants to go through the tedium of making sure the Paladin can Atone every few hours)
-The campaign setting (which is now forcibly locked into either A.) A world where everything is black and white, with nothing in between or B.) A world where Paladins are laughable, the cosmic version of a klutz who keeps falling down the stairs).
There's a difference between restricting the Paladin to being a Good guy (which is a perfectly fine restriction) and restricting the Paladin into being a very specific kind of Good guy who can only survive in a very specific kind of setting.
No amount of insulting people who disagree with you is going to change that.
OP
Go for it. Report back.
Rules exist to tell you how to play a game. Every game has rules. Trying to play a game outside of the rule set that defines it means you aren't playing the game the rules intended.
Rules DO exist to tell you how to play the game.
But only the game.
They don't define your RP, at least not to the extent you seem to believe they do.
Pointing to some abilities a rogue can take to grant minor magic skills does not make you a wizard. You miss the point entirely.
Goalposts officially moved. You just said "You don't play a rogue and run around trying to cast spells.", not "A Rogue isn't a Wizard".
You pick a class based on the style of play you intend to play. If you want to cast spells, you be a spell caster. Don't be that guy that cripples his party because he has an idea that he thinks is fun. Its a game for everyone not just you.
If you think those Talents are crippling the Rogue, you're sorely mistaken.
Being a Rogue cripples the Rogue. But those are probably 3 of the best Talents on his Talent list.
And one shudders to think how you react to the horror of...THE ARCANE TRICKSTER!
Seriously man.... someone posted the code of a paladin above. Stop trying to pigeonhole them into something even more restrictive to suit your argument.
I haven't been.
The Code ONLY works in a very straightforward "Stop the bad guys" plot. Anything else is almost sure to end in a fall.
A paladin is the epitome of Law and Good. This is why it's the only alignment allowed.
Really, it may be the epitome of Good, but Law has pretty much zero impact on the class as written. Seriously, read the Code again.
If Law and Good are not the aims of a party then a paladin should not be a part of your group. Communicate with your players.
First thing you've said I agree with.
Fits very well with the topic of the thread...
Please take the time to carefully read what I've written. At no point did I insult anyone and don't infer that I have.
This:
Waving the tenets is saying you can have all the powers of a paladin and not have to uphold anything. Now back to roll playing.
Reads like an insult. Nobody uses the word "rollplay" unless they're trying to belittle a playstyle that doesn't fall lockstep with their own.
In a system where Alignment is actually directly tied to mechanical implications (with things like Smite Evil, Holy Smite, etc.)I think that non-evil demon worshippers stretches things too far. At least for creatures who are mechanically tied in to their demon worship.If Joe the generally good-natured Minotaur goes to Baphomet's Wednesday night service because that's where his folks go, that's one thing; if Baphomet has recognized Joe's drive and ambition and gifted him with unholy powers to acheive his ends, that's another.
In Cheliax, most everyone worships Asmodeus because it's illegal not to: If you went around saying everyone in Cheliax is thus evil, or worse, that everyone in Cheliax thus deserves to be killed on sight, I'd call you a looney. Don't see why the same principle couldn't apply to a community where demon worship is considered the norm (like, say, in Gnoll, Boggart, or Drow society). And even clerics of demon lords can be chaotic neutral.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a system where Alignment is actually directly tied to mechanical implications (with things like Smite Evil, Holy Smite, etc.)I think that non-evil demon worshippers stretches things too far. At least for creatures who are mechanically tied in to their demon worship.If Joe the generally good-natured Minotaur goes to Baphomet's Wednesday night service because that's where his folks go, that's one thing; if Baphomet has recognized Joe's drive and ambition and gifted him with unholy powers to acheive his ends, that's another.In Cheliax, most everyone worships Asmodeus because it's illegal not to: If you went around saying everyone in Cheliax is thus evil, or worse, that everyone in Cheliax thus deserves to be killed on sight, I'd call you a looney. Don't see why the same principle couldn't apply to a community where demon worship is considered the norm (like, say, in Gnoll, Boggart, or Drow society). And even clerics of demon lords can be chaotic neutral.
Note that I said there's a difference between a mechanically empowered Demon Worshipper and a guy who happens to be a member of a society where the primary religious force happens to be a demon or devil.
If I give lip-service to Asmodeus because my nation is legally required to ackowledge him as the supreme deity at a national level that is something completely different than me being so in tune with Asmodeus that he imbues me with unholy power so that can I serve as a vessel of his will.Varien Jeggare from Dave Gross' novels is a good example of this; while he hails from Cheliax and ackowledges Asmodeus as the premier deity of the land he serves, he isn't actually a devil worshipper, nor does he consort with devilish powers.
Note that I said there's a difference between a mechanically empowered Demon Worshipper and a guy who happens to be a member of a society where the primary religious force happens to be a demon or devil.
I agree with you, but that's because I read the description of the cleric or paladin and then read their mechanical abilities and pair the two together. Some people assume that the description isn't important and can be tossed. If you toss the description, then its very easy to twist this in any way you want.
It goes without saying that anyone can play whatever way that they want. I just know what is fun for me, and having evil characters that use evil powers but write down Chaotic Neutral in the alignment section is not fun. It's probably because I have been playing for a long time, and in older editions this kind of behavior was specifically called out as poor.
As far as paladins are concerned, I have a paladin in my table top group right now. He's playing the character as a crusader type mentality. His quick description of his character is "Lawful Good doesn't mean Lawful Nice." That is completely fine for a paladin. None of the rest of the group is evil, so there are no problems.