I wasn't sure exactly where to put this since it is a rule question, but I'm more wondering if folks think it makes sense to do so, which strikes me as a general discussion kind of thing.
Can a Paladin use Smite Evil on a non-evil undead?
I use ghosts as my example because they are the only undead I can think of that doesn't come with a default setting of evil. By the reading of the ability on the d20pfsrd, the paladin would Smite the ghost on the first hit for double level in damage, without the Cha bonus to hit. Not sure after that first hit though.
Other than that, how would everyone run this? Would it make sense to allow smiting of a ghost?
The second paragraph has this clause:
"If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."
So first hit gets no bonuses if target is not evil.
Right, but that's what makes this sentence after that odd.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature.
That last sentence leads me to believe that Undead may be meant as an exception in the case of a non evil one.
Not twice nothing, twice level, it isn't multiplication. It also says "the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses" if the target meets a set of specific conditions. One of those is being undead. Ergo, this discussion.
Assuming the ghost is evil, yes. The next question is whether or not the paladin's weapon can actually harm incorporeal creatures or not.
Smite bypasses DR, but doesn't actually count as "magic" (the attack buns is untyped) so there's still the problem of the ghost being incorporeal.
A Paladin with a magic weapon still only does half damage, unless it's a ghost touch weapon.
Oath against Undead is good for getting around that, as is Ghost Salt.
It isn't so much that the bonus "doesn't increase" because of a non-evil ghost, it's actually that non-evil creatures, regardless of type, aren't applicable to the ability. Evil is the first requirement on the checklist. If is is Evil it takes extra damage. If it is Evil and a dragon, outsider or undead, it takes more extra damage.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.
The outsider is called out as needing to have the evil subtype (not needing to be evil) the dragon is called out as needing to BE evil aligned and the undead just states undead.
So an outsider with the evil subtype will be a legal target even if non-evil. And an undead will be a target even if nonevil.
I've been looking and can't find a non-evil undead in any of the bestiaries and there certainly are none in the Bestiary 1 which was all that was available when the text for Smite Evil was written. Ghosts say they are Chaotic Evil. Where are we getting that there can be non-evil ghosts? It may be that the reason the "evil" qualifier wasn't added to undead for the Paladin smite is because, at least at the time the ability was written, is there was no such thing as a non-evil undead.
|
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.The outsider is called out as needing to have the evil subtype (not needing to be evil) the dragon is called out as needing to BE evil aligned and the undead just states undead.
So an outsider with the evil subtype will be a legal target even if non-evil. And an undead will be a target even if nonevil.
You're taking that sentence out of context. Yes, if the smite works (the target is evil) and the target is one of those specific creaures then it takes extra damage on the first hit.
But if the target isn't evil to begin with, the smite doesn't work.
If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
@OldSkoolRPG - ghosts are the only undead that I know of that aren't always evil. They are generally evil most of the time but not always.
Although ghosts can be any alignment, the majority cling to the living world out of a powerful sense of rage and hatred, and as a result are chaotic evil—even the ghost of a good or lawful creature can become hateful and cruel in its afterlife.
Ghosts say they are Chaotic Evil. Where are we getting that there can be non-evil ghosts?
The example ghost given in the bestiary is chaotic evil, but the ghost template itself does not change the alignment of the underlying creature. (Compare this with the vampire template, which explicitly changes the alignment to "any evil," or the lich, which does the same, or a wight which changes alignment to "lawful evil" specifically.)
So a paladin turned to a wight would be lawful evil, or a paladin turned to a vampire would be evil of some sort, but a paladin turned to a ghost would still be lawful good.
I've been looking and can't find a non-evil undead in any of the bestiaries and there certainly are none in the Bestiary 1 which was all that was available when the text for Smite Evil was written. Ghosts say they are Chaotic Evil. Where are we getting that there can be non-evil ghosts? It may be that the reason the "evil" qualifier wasn't added to undead for the Paladin smite is because, at least at the time the ability was written, is there was no such thing as a non-evil undead.
I believe this is the case, that the ability was written before neutral undead came into existence. However, there is the Deathweb from the Bestiary 3 for precedence. Though I thought for sure that there was something in there about neutral incorporeals. I'll keep looking but I may be wrong. I was asking more as a thought exercise either way.
EDIT: nevermind, seems this was figured out as I posted.
Err, I'm not sure I agree with this. As she is now LG, she is no longer a valid target for Smite, despite having the right subtype.To look at this in anotehr way. A succubus is redeemed by Sarenrae and she takes class levels as a Paladin.
She can then be smote by both Anti-Paladins, because she's now lawful good, and by Paladins, because she retains the evil subtype.
Sometimes redemption is hard.
This argument seems to follow a similar line of thought as mine:
1. Smite evil works on evil creatures, dealing +1 damage per level to them on each attack, as well as other bonuses.
2. Outsider with evil sub-type is called out separately as taking +2 damage from first strike of Smite Evil. However, the paladin gains no other bonuses because they are not listed here.
|
|
Err, I'm not sure I agree with this. As she is now LG, she is no longer a valid target for Smite, despite having the right subtype.To look at this in anotehr way. A succubus is redeemed by Sarenrae and she takes class levels as a Paladin.
She can then be smote by both Anti-Paladins, because she's now lawful good, and by Paladins, because she retains the evil subtype.
Sometimes redemption is hard.
This argument seems to follow a similar line of thought as mine:
1. Smite evil works on evil creatures, dealing +1 damage per level to them on each attack, as well as other bonuses.
2. Outsider with evil sub-type is called out separately as taking +2 damage from first strike of Smite Evil. However, the paladin gains no other bonuses because they are not listed here.
That is not how smite evil works though. You are reading that line out of context. Those creature types take extra damage than all the other evil creatures on the first strike. Everything else is the same. That line doesn't negate the other things smite evil does.
I quoted the relevant line earlier but maybe you missed it so I'll quote it again:
If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
It either works or it doesn't. There are no gray areas or partial bonuses.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question that needs to be answered is, in regards to "if the creature is evil", does that mean a creature with an alignment of either LE, NE, or CE, or does it mean a creature with one of those alignments or the evil subtype?
If "evil creture" means a creature with an evil alignment, then the succubus Lazar suggested would not be affected by Smite Evil. But it "evil creature" means evil alignment or the evil subtype, then the succubus would be affected.
Here is the relevant info as it pertains to this side-discussion:
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.
So it works just as LazarX states.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quoted the relevant line earlier but maybe you missed it so I'll quote it again:If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
Ah, I didn't see that line the several times I read the ability after thinking of this question. Congratulations, you've changed someone's mind on the internet with facts!
|
|
I think you misread LazarX's post. He said WOTC discussion, not WotR. He never mentioned any specific succubus, just used it as an example.
Besides, she is a "special" creature. Sometimes they make creatures that break the rules a little...especially in a mythic campaign that pretty much breaks all of the rules.
EDIT: Or it's a typo. There are plenty of them in that AP.
Does trying to murder a paladin constitute an alignment shift?
Does trying to murder a paladin constitute an alignment shift?Trying to murder anyone could constitute an alignment shift since murder is an evil act.
Though I don't see how that relates to this discussion.
Since most unintelligent undead are NE like the zombie in the bestiary, the player could argue that intelligent creatures the paladin fights claiming immunity to smite evil due to GM alignment fiat would be negated by evil action of combating a paladin for their own selfish interests.
By RAW Smite Evil will only work on evil aligned or evil sub-type creatures so the paladin needs to make sure that whatever they are trying to kill is acting in the wrong. Role-playing can bring about an alignment shift if done well.
|
|
I'm failing to comprehend the relation between murder, alignment shifts, and the smite evil ability still.
If the paladin smites something, whether it worked or not, he has taken an aggressive act and the target is now acting in self-defense if they didn't act aggressively first. So, yes, I suppose he has to have a good reason for acting in that way towards a non-evil creature or he'd risk falling.
Does trying to murder a paladin constitute an alignment shift?Trying to murder anyone could constitute an alignment shift since murder is an evil act.
Though I don't see how that relates to this discussion.
Since most unintelligent undead are NE like the zombie in the bestiary, the player could argue that intelligent creatures the paladin fights claiming immunity to smite evil due to GM alignment fiat would be negated by evil action of combating a paladin for their own selfish interests.
By RAW Smite Evil will only work on evil aligned or evil sub-type creatures so the paladin needs to make sure that whatever they are trying to kill is acting in the wrong. Role-playing can bring about an alignment shift if done well.
A single evil act does not make someone automatically evil. If repeated, or if an act is evil "enough", it could change your alignment. Defending yourself from an overly zelous paladin who is attacking you because you are a (non-evil) ghost and the paladin is lawful dumb doesn't mean your alignment is suddenly evil if your respond to the paladin's aggression by knocking him or killing him.
Hell, modern self defense laws have the understanding that if you were defending yourself you are not cupable for the damages caused to the aggressor, including loss of life on their part.