Paladin= game ruiners


Advice

151 to 200 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:


Not saying it's badwrongfun to treat the code of conduct for divine classes generically, but it sure seems pretty bland to me.

Play at my table...

In my home games I take the time to come up with a Code with the players of Clerics and Inquisitors.
A lesser extent with Druids too.
It does annoy me that Monks, Barbarians, Clerics, Inquisitors etc can do whatever they please while the poor Paladin gets stomped if he as much as gambles or doesn't buy his friends a drink...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
aboniks wrote:


My current PC is fiddling about with a divine PrC beholden to a deity of shadows, for instance. He doesn't have to deal with alignment issues, but:

Oath of Shadows wrote:
Oath of Shadow (Ex): A Shadow Fist may never activate, cast, or wield any item, spell, or weapon that creates light or fire, or has the light or fire descriptor. Doing so results in an immediate loss of all Shadow Fist class abilities (including Monk Abilities and spells gained from this class) until the Shadow Fist is the recipient of an Atonement spell cast by a cleric of her deity.
Not saying it's badwrongfun to treat the code of conduct for divine classes generically, but it sure seems pretty bland to me.
I couldn't find that text when I looked,.... but I think part of the reason it seems generic is that it's not tied to anything. ("spell cast by a cleric of her deity"

Indeed. That's from a homebrew PrC. The name of the god was omitted to save copyright grief. He's a shadow/darkness domain type.

I actually consider that particular restriction to be an example of not-bland holy code (no light, no fire, don't destroy the specific things I represent). The generic "don't willingly do evil stuff, now run along and play" is what gets me. It just leaves the impression that a pally could switch faiths with no issues, and that gods with very specific domains and motivations really couldn't care less what their militant champions are doing to advance their cause, just so long as they squish an orc once a week and don't backstab anybody. These are hugely powerful scheming creatures scrambling for control of the mortal world...their followers should be, imo, behaving rather more specifically to aid them than the basic pally class would suggest.

A god of nature and a god of cities have pallys that play as though they have identical codes of conduct most of the time. It's daft.


Kelarith wrote:

Scavion, this is your quote:

Here is what Detect Evil pings off of,

1. Powerful(5 HD) Evil Aligned Creatures
2. Undead, which are pretty KoS, Ghosts are an exception though even then most are evil.
3. Evil Outsiders get the smite no questions asked. Should I listen in case this is one of those silly special snowflake redeemed demons? Sure whatever. They've likely dealt with folks who have attacked first anyways.
4. Evil Cultists or heavens forbid an antipaladin. Definitely smite on sight. These people have pledged their lives to a greater evil power.
5. Misdirection'd innocents which a Paladin gets their tremendous save against.

Hesitation puts the lives of others at risk.

So if your Paladin were to come across a leader of a land, who pings evil, but is generally liked by the populace, by your rules he would have to attack on sight.

He may rule firmly but by the law, and his land is generally at peace due to his tight rein. By killing him outright, your Paladin causes unrest, a power vacuum that could result in the innocents being harmed in the end run.

In that case, that Paladin caused more harm than he healed because he didn't think. That is why being a Paladin is difficult, they have to weigh their actions against the greater good, ALWAYS. If it were as easy as "is evil, SMASH" there would never be a fallen Paladin...ever. Playing a Paladin is hard, and it should be. It's also some of the fun that goes into playing a Paladin. Their decisions matter, but watering the complex character down to a cheap Hulk knockoff ("Paladin smash evil!") is doing the class itself a great disservice.

In the case above, the Paladin would be causing farm more harm than good by outright slaying the Evil Leader. However, the Paladin could still work against the leader, stopping the evil where the leader puts it into action, thwarting him at each turn until the people start to see him for what he is. He is working for a far greater good that way, and ultimately, yeah, he'll probably...

See but thats the problem I'm seeing with the "examples" of not smite on sighting these people.

You say the King is evil but give no details except that he keeps a tight leash. Sounds pretty lawful. Ruling firmly doesn't exactly sound evil.

Its not like I'm going around killing people and leaving. That is ridiculous. In this scenario I'd likely go find a popular heir to stabilize the nation after dealing with the Evil King. I don't assassinate people and fly away like some bad ass avenging Angel of Justice despite if I started going around doing that, people would probably believe it since I could burst in through the stain glass window of the Evil King's court wearing shining silver armor that glows with a holy light and then struck down the Evil King with my sword with an accompanying explosion of holy power while saying something along the lines of

"KING MALCHIOR! THE GODS HAVE JUDGED YOU IN THEIR SCALES AND FOUND YOU WANTING! CONSIDER YOUR DIVINE RIGHT, REVOKED."


Scavion wrote:

See but thats the problem I'm seeing with the "examples" of not smite on sighting these people.

You say the King is evil but give no details except that he keeps a tight leash. Sounds pretty lawful. Ruling firmly doesn't exactly sound evil.

But that's exactly my point. All that you know from your ability is that he's evil. You don't get details. And yet you're willing to smite on sight, without knowing what situation he's embedded in.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scavion wrote:

See but thats the problem I'm seeing with the "examples" of not smite on sighting these people.

You say the King is evil but give no details except that he keeps a tight leash. Sounds pretty lawful. Ruling firmly doesn't exactly sound evil.

But that's exactly my point. All that you know from your ability is that he's evil. You don't get details. And yet you're willing to smite on sight, without knowing what situation he's embedded in.

The cool bit is that it doesn't exactly matter. It doesn't matter why they're evil. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are evil. Smite still explodes them.

A Paladin doesn't need to figure out WHY someone is evil. They're not detectives or psyche analysts. They're holy warriors for fighting evil. Knowing what the BBEG is doing or why he's resorted to this path is irrelevant. Your duty as a Paladin is to oppose evil. Evil Found. Time to fight.

Shadow Lodge

And then misdirection kicks in.


TOZ wrote:
And then misdirection kicks in.

Keep in mind how Misdirection works. The detector gets a Will Save to get the right info anyways. Paladins have amazing saves if I remember correctly. =)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Your paladin sounds like he dumped Wis.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Paladins don't ruin games. Players WITH paladins ruin games.


Sometimes I'm actually glad I gave up the Detect Evil ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Your paladin sounds like he dumped Wis.

=( Kinda hurt my feelings.

Shadow Lodge

Scavion wrote:
=( Kinda hurt my feelings.

My heart bleeds for you.


Scavion, I gotta be honest, if you ran a paladin like that in my game you'd fall the first time you failed to provide adequate proof that the evil character deserved to die. The hustler cheating people at 3 card monte on the corner might be 'evil' but is it an evil worth killing over? I think not.

If you get hauled in to jail for murder, and your only defense is 'Detect evil was positive', well, you're probably going to the headsman. Especially if one of the bad guys lawyer type lackeys steps up and demands that you prove you're actually a paladin after the fall. No proof that you can actually cast detect evil = no defense.

Not to mention, I don't see a paladin like that being able to atone for the fall. Atonement requires that the character honestly regret their actions. Your character clearly would not.

Paladin =/= Murder-hobo of evil NPCs only.


Gerrinson wrote:

Scavion, I gotta be honest, if you ran a paladin like that in my game you'd fall the first time you failed to provide adequate proof that the evil character deserved to die. The hustler cheating people at 3 card monte on the corner might be 'evil' but is it an evil worth killing over? I think not.

If you get hauled in to jail for murder, and your only defense is 'Detect evil was positive', well, you're probably going to the headsman. Especially if one of the bad guys lawyer type lackeys steps up and demands that you prove you're actually a paladin after the fall. No proof that you can actually cast detect evil = no defense.

Not to mention, I don't see a paladin like that being able to atone for the fall. Atonement requires that the character honestly regret their actions. Your character clearly would not.

Paladin =/= Murder-hobo of evil NPCs only.

Death Is NOT falling. You said the Paladin was put in jail and then executed. He never fell in your example.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Death Is NOT falling. You said the Paladin was put in jail and then executed. He never fell in your example.
Gerrinson wrote:
Scavion, I gotta be honest, if you ran a paladin like that in my game you'd fall the first time you failed to provide adequate proof that the evil character deserved to die.


Gerrinson wrote:

Scavion, I gotta be honest, if you ran a paladin like that in my game you'd fall the first time you failed to provide adequate proof that the evil character deserved to die. The hustler cheating people at 3 card monte on the corner might be 'evil' but is it an evil worth killing over? I think not.

If you get hauled in to jail for murder, and your only defense is 'Detect evil was positive', well, you're probably going to the headsman. Especially if one of the bad guys lawyer type lackeys steps up and demands that you prove you're actually a paladin after the fall. No proof that you can actually cast detect evil = no defense.

Not to mention, I don't see a paladin like that being able to atone for the fall. Atonement requires that the character honestly regret their actions. Your character clearly would not.

Paladin =/= Murder-hobo of evil NPCs only.

Evil alignment is a serious matter in my games. If you callously throw it around on every hoodlum, then yes we're not going to see eye to eye.

Scarab Sages

back to the OP's Problem. Do you tell barbarians they arent allowed fast movement cause they catch up to they bad guys to fast. Are your clerics not allowed to channel because they might heal someone you just tried to kill. Im sorry the class ability given to the paladin is causeing you problems... If they are evil enough (read as lvl 5 or above) they probably have the means to a nondetection spell, or one of those other hide alignment spells.. problem solved.


It's not a matter of nerfing a class because you don't like it's abilities or think they're too powerful. It's about what the class actually is. It's about role-playing a character that wants what's best for the world and is sometimes forced to perform an action, like killing a person, that he disagrees with because there's no other option. Because if he wasn't conflicted about killing people, he'd be evil. If you want to play an evil character, then do that. An insane anti-paladin that thinks good people are evil would be an interesting character. But good people are not just the guys that kill evil people, they are teh exact opposite of evil people. They kill when they have to, not because it's easy or convenient. When they kill, it's with a sense of regret, because they would rather not have to do it.

Reducing the equation to, "He's evil, so I can do whatever I want.", is not what the class is about. If a person wants to play it that way in a home game and the DM allows it, that's their business. They don't need anyone's permission for that. However, I don't think that you're going to convince a lot of people on this board that the smite-on-sight interpretation is the only one, or even the right one.


Scavion wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Scavion wrote:

See but thats the problem I'm seeing with the "examples" of not smite on sighting these people.

You say the King is evil but give no details except that he keeps a tight leash. Sounds pretty lawful. Ruling firmly doesn't exactly sound evil.

But that's exactly my point. All that you know from your ability is that he's evil. You don't get details. And yet you're willing to smite on sight, without knowing what situation he's embedded in.

The cool bit is that it doesn't exactly matter. It doesn't matter why they're evil. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are evil. Smite still explodes them.

Absolutely. And you still fall, because killing evil is not always a good action.

Welcome to the world of fighter-without-bonus-feats.


colemcm wrote:
It's not a matter of nerfing a class because you don't like it's abilities or think they're too powerful. It's about what the class actually is.

Well said.


Scavion wrote:
In a perfect world no one is evil =P

Real life nor Pathfinder is a perfect world.


Scavion wrote:


Evil alignment is a serious matter in my games. If you callously throw it around on every hoodlum, then yes we're not going to see eye to eye.

But what defines evil? There are grades of evil. Applying alignment to real life persons is kind of hard, but for analogy sake...

Is someone who pirates software evil? Possibly could be considered so by some people. Is a serial rapist-killer evil? Most definitely.

So, if you were doing a modern-day game and a selfish person that didn't care about anyone but themselves who regularly downloaded illegal movies and games but never physically harmed anyone... they must die, as they are neutral evil?

That even said, I've know people that I would have to unequivocally say would be Lawful Evil without any doubt that were much nicer than many who would deem themselves Lawful Good. Then again, there is doubt as this person would only be Lawful Evil by modern morality... very "Live and let live" attitude, cared only about himself most of the time, yes but does that make him evil, or is he only evil because he strays from the accepted morals of modern religion?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Paladins don't ruin games. Players WITH paladins ruin games.

This. And lawful evil GMs who put "law" before fun.

I'm playing in two different campaigns with two different GMs and two different Paladin characters (a Shelyn and an Abadar follower) and so far it's been all just good fun. Both players/GMs (two guys GMing one campaign and playing in the other) know very well how to balance paladinhood and table fun for everyone involved.
It's all in the players, not the characters.
If the players involved are smart enough to remember we all do this for fun, Paladins can be great to play and to play with.


Scavion wrote:
Kelarith wrote:

Scavion, this is your quote:

Here is what Detect Evil pings off of,

1. Powerful(5 HD) Evil Aligned Creatures
2. Undead, which are pretty KoS, Ghosts are an exception though even then most are evil.
3. Evil Outsiders get the smite no questions asked. Should I listen in case this is one of those silly special snowflake redeemed demons? Sure whatever. They've likely dealt with folks who have attacked first anyways.
4. Evil Cultists or heavens forbid an antipaladin. Definitely smite on sight. These people have pledged their lives to a greater evil power.
5. Misdirection'd innocents which a Paladin gets their tremendous save against.

Hesitation puts the lives of others at risk.

So if your Paladin were to come across a leader of a land, who pings evil, but is generally liked by the populace, by your rules he would have to attack on sight.

He may rule firmly but by the law, and his land is generally at peace due to his tight rein. By killing him outright, your Paladin causes unrest, a power vacuum that could result in the innocents being harmed in the end run.

In that case, that Paladin caused more harm than he healed because he didn't think. That is why being a Paladin is difficult, they have to weigh their actions against the greater good, ALWAYS. If it were as easy as "is evil, SMASH" there would never be a fallen Paladin...ever. Playing a Paladin is hard, and it should be. It's also some of the fun that goes into playing a Paladin. Their decisions matter, but watering the complex character down to a cheap Hulk knockoff ("Paladin smash evil!") is doing the class itself a great disservice.

In the case above, the Paladin would be causing farm more harm than good by outright slaying the Evil Leader. However, the Paladin could still work against the leader, stopping the evil where the leader puts it into action, thwarting him at each turn until the people start to see him for what he is. He is working for a far greater good that way, and

...

Wow, you completely missed the fact that D&D/PF alignment is OBJECTIVE! A paladin who commits an Evil act falls instantly. You kill him, you fall. It doesn't matter that you think you are doing it for the "greater good", committing an Evil act is still Evil.

Now, once you are a fighter without bonus feats, maybe you can try to find a replacement ruler to help partially fix the mess you caused. That could be part of your atonement quest.
Fortunately, though, the Atonement spell has this to say:
Atonement wrote:
The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

If your paladin continues feel "morally justified" in committing Evil atrocities, then he/she isn't truly repentant, and you cannot atone. And if you are repeatedly deliberately doing Evil and then trying to atone and claiming it is all for the 'greater good' or some other BS? Most deities won't be fooled. Redemption is a rare and special thing, after all. It is not for everyone.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Wow, you completely missed the fact that D&D/PF alignment is OBJECTIVE!

Well yeah. Except when the Pathfinder entry on alignment says it's subjective.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Unless there's a table somewhere with every possible action a PC could take, and a checkmark in the Good/Evil column for each one, then it's subjective by definition. There's a DM making the final call on what the action means in the context of the game world.

If I had a nickel for every perfectly objective DM I've ever met, I'd have no nickels.

I'm not defending the OP or his reasoning, but this alignment system is not objective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, aboniks. Thank Celestia someone else understands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Absolutely. And you still fall, because killing evil is not always a good action.

Welcome to the world of fighter-without-bonus-feats.

Good Gods. Bet you don't let Paladins drink. Is Killing Evil Evil? Not at all. Is Killing evil wrong if there is a better alternative? I suppose but theres hardly ever a better alternative. All these demons and wacko wizards are hardly the regretful types. 5 HD is a long time of Evil commitment. Imprisonment, the time it takes to redeem, and other methods of getting rid of evil are unreliable. Older folks or nobility are far more resistant to change. Younger folks are more susceptible to it.

I won't disagree that killing evil isn't always a good action, but I'll call shenanigans if it isn't the best route most of the time.

But apparently only your way is right since a Paladin couldn't be worried about the repercussions of not taking the most decisive action available to him.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Good Gods. Bet you don't let Paladins drink. Is Killing Evil Evil?

Sometimes.

The Exchange

One begs to question should a Paladin even be allowed to go shopping in most major cities as your average Blood-sucking merchant is most likely LE.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Death Is NOT falling. You said the Paladin was put in jail and then executed. He never fell in your example.

Let me clarify: The player would have to provide proof to me, as GM, that killing the guy was definitively required based solely on his 'evil' ping off of detect evil. Since I don't allow my players (except in the Evil games) to run around being uber dbags to everyone around them, that isn't going to happen.

Paladin falls immediately, at the time of the murder.

Then gets arrested for murder. His defense is 'Victim was evil and I know it because I'm a paladin and can detect evil!'. Then he is asked to prove that he can detect evil, by the clever barrister prosecuting him for murder, which he no longer can because he has fallen. Sir Fights-Without-Bonus-Feats gets executed for behaving like the very thing he claimed to oppose when he was a paladin.

The next time someone else runs our game, I'm playing a paladin. My paladin would never kill on sight a human/elf/etc. with only 'detects as evil' as proof.

Instead, he would note the person(s), follow them, study them, find EVIDENCE of what their evil actions are and turn them in to the proper authority. Unless the lives of the innocent were immediately in danger, in which case, IT'S SMITIN' TIME!

See the difference in the course of action there?

And let's not forget the bonus effect of the investigation, which is potentially locating other bad guys and thus removing the entire group of them, instead of just one random dirt bag who had the bad timing to cross my path when I was detecting evil.


Gerrinson wrote:


Instead, he would note the person(s), follow them, study them, find EVIDENCE of what their evil actions are and turn them in to the proper authority.

Last paladin I played (meaning both chronologically and the final one) got his powers yoinked for intending to do precisely that. He fell because he DIDN'T Smite On Sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal? That's not what evil characters are.

Quote:

Good versus Evil

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

While we could stretch the definition of hurting to include all forms of harm (monetary, emotional, physical, proprietary, etc.), I think that within context the definition is pretty clear. Stealing from someone or lying to customers isn't causing harm, and while it's certainly chaotic it's not evil. Evil characters torture, slave, murder, wrongfully imprison, and rule tyrannically either for their own personal good or for a higher purpose.

A Paladin killing an evil character without whatever due process they have a right to isn't non-good. It's at worst non-lawful.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?

The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.


Misnik wrote:
One begs to question should a Paladin even be allowed to go shopping in most major cities as your average Blood-sucking merchant is most likely LE.

I believe Vampires could be chaotic or neutral evil.


Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.

Perhaps it's a houserule but my DM always relays the strength of the Evil Aura. It's not a yes/no but a little evil; very evil...and so on.

The trouble is this is a debate that will never end. It's a subjective subject and will change depending on the players and DM your dealing with.

So the only real solution is to talk to your group.


Static Hamster wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.

Perhaps it's a houserule but my DM always relays the strength of the Evil Aura. It's not a yes/no but a little evil; very evil...and so on.

The trouble is this is a debate that will never end. It's a subjective subject and will change depending on the players and DM your dealing with.

So the only real solution is to talk to your group.

Or throw out the paladin and the alignment system. :)


Zhayne wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
At some point, did people take "evil" to mean petty criminal?
The problem ... well, one of the many problems ... with Detect Evil is that it's binary. Yes or no. No gradients. Crazy psycho baby eater registers the same as makes babies cry for fun.

The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who stoically smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
aboniks wrote:
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.

Not in my games he doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is PF's appendix ... most of the time, you can completely ignore its existence, but every now and again, it flares up into a colossal pain.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
aboniks wrote:
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.
Not in my games he doesn't.

Good. Er. Yes.

I concur, he wouldn't in my game either, but Paizo says Good can roll that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

90% of your paladins from stereotypical fables and such dating back more than 50 years did not fall for murdering the evil person without trying to save them! That is a completely modern squeamishness that we share based on our society. It in no way represents the morality of a classic fantasy setting, literary or otherwise, and to treat it otherwise is squeamish shenanigans on the part of GM's involved.

Killing evil for being evil traditionally is well within the setting and the role of a paladin, no questions asked.

Edit: To enumerate:

We may not consider a lot of historical actions good nowadays, the inquisitions, the witch trials, etc. But guess what? By code of religious conduct at the time, they were good. By code of religious organization, they were good. By rule of law, they were good.

A ton of actions seemed horrifying and barbaric, BUT BY EVERY STANDARD AT THE TIME FROM RELIGIOUS DOWN TO LAW, THEY WERE GOOD.


aboniks wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
aboniks wrote:
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.
Not in my games he doesn't.

Good. Er. Yes.

I concur, he wouldn't in my game either, but Paizo says Good can roll that way.

What? How? How would murdering children instead of taking them to an orphanage be good, or just taking them with you and raising them if necessary? I ask not to be critical of you, but more as a request to see their explanation.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.

No, it's really really not.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.

Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

90% of your paladins from stereotypical fables and such dating back more than 50 years did not fall for murdering the evil person without trying to save them! That is a completely modern squeamishness that we share based on our society. It in no way represents the morality of a classic fantasy setting, literary or otherwise, and to treat it otherwise is squeamish shenanigans on the part of GM's involved.

Killing evil for being evil traditionally is well within the setting and the role of a paladin, no questions asked.

Edit: To enumerate:

We may not consider a lot of historical actions good nowadays, the inquisitions, the witch trials, etc. But guess what? By code of religious conduct at the time, they were good. By code of religious organization, they were good. By rule of law, they were good.

A ton of actions seemed horrifying and barbaric, BUT BY EVERY STANDARD AT THE TIME FROM RELIGIOUS DOWN TO LAW, THEY WERE GOOD.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANo.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.

The presence of elves, dragons, and magic proves you wrong.


Zhayne wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Once again, relating this because it was ignored.

Pathfinder is medieval setting. MEDIEVAL SETTINGS IT IS COMPLETELY CANON AND WITHIN THE REALM OF GOOD TO KILL EVIL SIMPLY FOR BEING EVIL.

90% of your paladins from stereotypical fables and such dating back more than 50 years did not fall for murdering the evil person without trying to save them! That is a completely modern squeamishness that we share based on our society. It in no way represents the morality of a classic fantasy setting, literary or otherwise, and to treat it otherwise is squeamish shenanigans on the part of GM's involved.

Killing evil for being evil traditionally is well within the setting and the role of a paladin, no questions asked.

Edit: To enumerate:

We may not consider a lot of historical actions good nowadays, the inquisitions, the witch trials, etc. But guess what? By code of religious conduct at the time, they were good. By code of religious organization, they were good. By rule of law, they were good.

A ton of actions seemed horrifying and barbaric, BUT BY EVERY STANDARD AT THE TIME FROM RELIGIOUS DOWN TO LAW, THEY WERE GOOD.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANo.

If you've got the balls to reply like that, point out where I'm wrong. Why don't you back it up?


Zhayne wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Pathfinder is medieval setting.
No, it's really really not.
Pathfinder came off D&D 3.X, which traces back to basic, which was based off medieval wargaming. So yeah, it really is, hate to burst your bubble.
The presence of elves, dragons, and magic proves you wrong.

Which were believed real in historical settings. Sorry, you're wrong.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
aboniks wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
aboniks wrote:
The icing on that particular piece of the alignment fruitcake is that a guy who smashes baby goblins heads against the cave wall after killing their parents...he's just being merciful, and pings Capital-G Good.
Not in my games he doesn't.

Good. Er. Yes.

I concur, he wouldn't in my game either, but Paizo says Good can roll that way.

What? How? How would murdering children instead of taking them to an orphanage be good, or just taking them with you and raising them if necessary? I ask not to be critical of you, but more as a request to see their explanation.

From the SRD, under the "Good" Alignments section.

Ethics for Adventurers wrote:
One of the many quandaries good-aligned characters face during their adventuring careers is what to do about the progeny of evil humanoids. For example, shortly into their adventures, an adventuring party encounters a group of goblins who have been raiding a village, leaving a swath of death and destruction in their wake. The PCs track them to some caves and kill them—but the dead goblins leave behind babies. What should the PCs do with those? Kill them? Leave them be? What is the best and most appropriate thing for a good character to do in this situation? Just as there are varying good alignments, there are different solutions to this problem. One good character might believe the children are not inherently evil, that their behavior is learned, and round up the young ones to take them to a higher power like a church, a monastery, or an orphanage set up to deal with the issue of raising humanoid children. Alternatively, he might decide to raise them himself! This could be viewed as the most saintly thing to do. Another character might decide not to do anything, leaving the children to the whims of nature—either the children will survive in the wild on their own, or they will not. Lastly, a good character who believes the younglings can never overcome their innate evil might kill them all outright, viewing the action as good, just, and the most merciful option.

Meta-ethical relativism. Don't leave the tavern without it.

Ironically enough, this is from Champions of Purity.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Which were believed real in historical settings. Sorry, you're wrong.

The game is not a historical setting. You'll have to define 'medieval' better than that if you want to prove your point. And let me go dig up a particular quote while you do...

151 to 200 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Paladin= game ruiners All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.