So I know it's a rather stupid question to ask, since I'm sure a thread is out there to cover it, but I'm playing a half-elf Warpriest (vanilla, no archetype) in a homebrew campaign. He is Lawful Good, follows the goddess Iomedae, and does so because he was adopted by a church of mostly humans, even when in this homebrew world half-elves are viewed with suspicion because elves are no longer seen in regular society and are viewed as weird bastard children that cannot be trusted unless they prove themselves to the local people.
He grows up in the church and views the paladins that guard his city as role models to look up to, though he also acknowledges once he grows up and becomes a traveling messenger for his church and goddess that he can do things that the codes of a paladin would frown upon, if not his goddess, such as making small lies in order to find the truth of some greater good (example right now that he's lying to a merchant in that he claims he is looking for a slave in an underground slave market to purchase for his church as free labor when his greater goal is to find the slave ring, find a girl that had been kidnapped earlier and rescue her before calling in a sting operation for the city guard).
I'm trying to find ways to make him differentiate himself enough from a paladin to not fall under the banner of a LG Paladin, but still uphold that he is following what is considered the goddess of Paladin's. Either that or I just need help finding a way to play Lawful Good without turning into Lawful Nice/Lawful Goody Two-Shoes.
Any suggestions or advice to help with this?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really have the wrong impression of Iomedae if you think her Paladins are Mr. LG TwoShoes. You may have the wrong impressions of Paladins in general.
"Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.
The Anglo-Saxon punishment for rape and/or murder of a woman was as follows: tearing off of the scalp, cutting off of the ears and nose, blinding, chopping off of the feet and hands, and leaving the criminal beside the road for all bypassers to see. I don't know if they cauterized the limb stumps or not before doing that. It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...
Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.
I am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.
Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.
Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good." -Gary Gygax 2005
Iomedae's Paladins are the frontline against both the Demons of the Worldwound and the undead of Geb, not the place for milquetoasts, standing beside them are Iomedae's warpriests who provide inspiration, support, and when needed, a storng swordarm.
Well, that's certainly an eye opener, since I was not aware that that sort of interpretation was about. I was aware of the idea's of "Lawful Good, not Lawful Nice" and that some paladins look forward to falling from grace not because it was a bad thing but because something was evil enough to make them believe the rewards of stopping evil outweighed the consequences, but that definitely changes what I'm going to be looking at in regards to how my character interacts with the people about him.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iomedae is not Lawful Nice from what I have seen as her being portrayed in the game. Hell she damages people for not knowing the correct answer even to the point of killing them (she does resurrect them later). She is a Crusader through and through though.
The biggest idea is just don't be constrained by the paladin code. Also Why choose Lawful Good instead of Neutral Good? Warpriests of Iomedae can be LG,NG, or LN.
To answer your question, he see's law as a way to maintain structure and order, as well as provide a manner to fairly (in his eyes) punish those who commit an evil act, since he has not seen a government abuse their power as of yet.
He also does this as a way to uphold the respect he has for the paladin's he had worked under growing up, seeing their philosophy as a worthy one to follow in spirit, if not in code. While he places good above the law, he has not seen a case whether they both cannot work in tandem with each other.
Iomedae is not Lawful Nice from what I have seen as her being portrayed in the game. Hell she damages people for not knowing the correct answer even to the point of killing them (she does resurrect them later). She is a Crusader through and through though.
The biggest idea is just don't be constrained by the paladin code. Also Why choose Lawful Good instead of Neutral Good? Warpriests of Iomedae can be LG,NG, or LN.
I know what you're referring to.. and while Iomedae is tough on her tests, her responses only go to lethal on those foolish enough to stubbornly badmouth her in her Presence.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh! Alignment thread!
Characters are complex, so I just have this checklist for you. As long as you meet those fields, you're good! And remember, it's not what you do, it's why you do it!
- Protect Innocent Life
- Have concern for the dignity for the dignity of sentient being
- Make personal sacrifices to help others
- Tell the truth
- Keep your word
- respect authority
- honor tradition
- Be honorable (vague and up to your interpretation)
Be committed to fight evil, and be disciplined enough to keep at it. Help those in need, speak out against injustice, and keep your word.
Pick a code, and be consistent in following it, without bending it. Your path is correct, and the ends do not justify the means.
Now mind, it isn't all or nothing. More of a spectrum, so you don't have to hit every tick mark, just most of them. I would say if there's something you don't hit, it has to be for a good reason. For Lawful Good Characters it'd be lying on behalf of the government to protect the people from endangering themself. Lawful Good objective, and mostly Lawful Good with slight compromising. Still a Lawful Good Character.
I know what you're referring to.. and while Iomedae is tough on her tests, her responses only go to lethal on those foolish enough to stubbornly badmouth her in her Presence.Iomedae is not Lawful Nice from what I have seen as her being portrayed in the game. Hell she damages people for not knowing the correct answer even to the point of killing them (she does resurrect them later). She is a Crusader through and through though.
The biggest idea is just don't be constrained by the paladin code. Also Why choose Lawful Good instead of Neutral Good? Warpriests of Iomedae can be LG,NG, or LN.
That is a chaotic act, which shows rebellion, which shows you might be compromised, and are willing to bend the rules, code, and do things the 'wrong' way.
Seems extreme, but all for creating the perfect warriors. When leading crusades against the worldwound, that is exactly the kind of stuff you need in every soldier. Discipline.
This is actually a conversation you should be having with your GM. While you're not a paladin, strict alignment questions are always interrupted differently by different people.
Since this is a homebrew campaign and it sounds like you want to bring in a deeply faithful and law abiding Warpriest. I suggest you write up a code of ethics and check them with your GM.
Anything that might cause you to come in conflict with that code can be used as a plot device for a soul searching experience.Question -
What is everyone else playing and what kind of style do they plan on playing with? Something you need to check as from what I'm reading here, there's a lot of parties this character would not group up with once he got to know them.
This has happened to me a couple of times when I wanted to play some divine characters and had other party characters that wanted to do stuff that was against the religious tenets my character followed.
To answer your question, here is the general rundown of the rest of the party:
Kobold Sorceror-TN, his motivation is to reach demi-god status by becoming as powerful a caster as he can, and to achieve a goal of becoming a dragon himself (in his case a blue dragon due to their intelligence and trickster ways). Doesn't like I am the religious sort but tolerates it due to me healing him on past occasions and and smooth-talking my way into letting guards enter towns with little challenge (since kobolds are treated as monsters and are viewed as subhuman compared to half-elves/elves). Main reason I work alongside him is I am sympathetic to peoples views on him since its similar to how my race is treated and I try and temper his selfish ways towards goals that while not necessarily lawful are meant to be a way for him to do the morally right thing.
Dwarf Skald- CG, motivation is to make a story of adventure that would be heard for generations to come; and brain a few heads in along the way for a greater good or whatnot (his words, not mine)
Dwarf Barbarian- CG so far, mostly just wants to assist his brother since whereever his brother goes, fighting usually follows, and he lives for a fight
Dwarf Cavalier- LG, Order of the Dragon (last I recall), wants to do the right thing and maintain order in a kingdom he believes is wracked with doubts and fears.
The barbarian and cavalier just joined last session so I'll give an update once I get a better feel for what the players intend to do with the characters.
I'm trying to find ways to make him differentiate himself enough from a paladin to not fall under the banner of a LG Paladin, but still uphold that he is following what is considered the goddess of Paladin's.
Perhaps he aspires to the same values a paladin of Iomedae would but doesn't always make it / put them into practice.
He could be brave but not suicidal - e.g. will step up to fight a bunch of undead when the the odds look ok but would actually run if things look hopeless.
Generous but not self-sacrificing - he'd normally give coins to a beggar in need but not if those are the last ones in his pouch.
Maybe he then feels guilty afterwards about not living up to those high aspirations. However he probably comes across as much more of a normal person to many - lots of people would admire the paladin's zeal but find them a bit intense & would rather hang out the warpriest if choosing who to have a drink with.
Alternatively how someone who does meet many of the standards of a paladin on the big things - brave, generous, compassionate and all the rest but has a vice or two - maybe he is a glutton or drinks too much, or flirts with every woman he meets or is very vain about his looks or is a compulsive gambler - some clearly defined flaw that stops him being Mr Perfect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd play him a bit as a knight-errant.
He's not constrained by belonging to a specific knightly order, nor by the strict tenets of a paladin's code. That means he can step in and do the things that a paladin can't do or would find questionable.
It's fine to make this something he's not *entirely* happy about. He could be slightly resigned to it.
For whatever reason, my first thought was of Kormac the Templar from Diablo III (GLORIOUS!)
My next thought was of The Operative played by Chiwetel Ejiofor in Serenity (not that he counts as LG - Lawful, certainly, but in the aspect of being quietly and sadly resigned to his fate.)
Honestly this is a question for your dm on what is included within LG. For example I do very much disagree on some of the definitions for both lawful and good mentioned earlier in the thread. Unless I am shooting for an alignment I just describe my character's most important qualities to the dm and ask "what is my alignment?". Also you can very well play a NG character that supports and encourages the forces of law even if you yourself can't find it within you to do so. Don't have to change your character concept. He could even view himself as lawful despite not quite being there. Another point is that when you start looking through all the paladin oaths you can find a huge variety under what being a paladin means. To this end I'm pretty sure anything that falls under lawful good can be a paladin of some kind
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest difference between a Paladin and a Warpriest is that the Paladin is an advocate for her personal cause, while the Warpriest is an advocate for her religion/deity.
The Paladin almost certainly follows a god, but because they are the best example of the Paladin's values, not so much to further the cause of that god's religion. The Paladin's commitment is to goodness, law, and their personal code first and foremost and the values instilled as such bring them to whichever deity.
The Warpriest, however, is a direct advocate for a deity/religion, and so is going to put a lot more emphasis on the portfolio of their deity and the tenets of their religion. A warpriest is about their god and their religion first and foremost, and ends up one alignment or another because that's the one that best synthesizes best with their religion.
Since Iomedae's porfolio is so Paladin-ey this is going to be subtle, but I think the primary distinction should be that a Paladin's motivation for being LG should be internal, and a Warpriest's motivation for being LG should be external. Paladins start out with "world's best person" status and merely need to maintain it to keep their powers, whereas warpriests (also inquisitors, clerics, etc.) have to strive to live up to the example they revere.
If you are looking to avoid being like a paladin you may have chosen the wrong deity. A common saying about Iomedae is that she was a paladin. Her paladins are paladins, her clerics are paladins, and even her inquisitors are paladins. As a warpriesst you are not bound by the paladins code, but you are bound by your deities code. Since your deities code is pretty much a paladins code you are kind of stuck. Keep in mind that clerics and warpriests do not have a code of conduct that all of those classes have to follow, but they do still have a code of conduct. Instead of one overall code each deity has their own code of conduct they expect their followers to adhere to. This is not an option it is part of the class and is defined by the Ex-Cleric, or Ex-Warpriest section. This mean you can fall just as easily as a paladin
That is the bad news, the good news is that as others have said Iomedae does not require he paladins to be nice smiley goody two shoes. Lying cheating and acting dishonorably is still going to be a problem for you. You can be as bad assed against evil as you want. Iomedae is not the goddess of redemption so you don’t have to try to forgive those who are evil, or even try and convert them. You are of course free to do so if you wish, but unlike a follower of Sarenrae failing to do so will not be considered acting against your deities code.
If you want to play a worshiper of Iomedae who is able to act dishonorably when pursuing the greater good and Inquisitor would have been a better choice. It states in their class description that they are above many of the normal rules and convention of their church and answer only to their deity and their own sense of justice. Even in the Ex-inquisitor section they are allowed more freedom. When they fall all they lose is their spells and judgments, where a cleric or warpriest loses all class features except for proficiencies and bonus feats. Also for an inquisitor to fall he has to actually change alignment or become corrupt. Where a cleric or warpriest falls for gross violation of their code of conduct.
A lawful good priest of Iomadae is going to have to be well within the range of acceptable paladin behavior (which is wider than some people give it credit for)
A lawful good priest of Iomadae is going to have to be well within the range of acceptable paladin behavior (which is wider than some people give it credit for)
More so than a LN or NG priest of Iomadae? Why?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Embrace the core values of the deity, and stop thinking about paladins.
I think an important thing to consider is this; What defines a paladin?
Personally, I think any martial exemplar of a deity or alignment could be considered a sort of paladin. That being said, LG is the iconic.
A LG warpriest is in a sense a Wisdom based paladin with more casting, and more slack.
That being said, consider following her Godclaw interpretation (though I wish there was a writeup of such). An exemplar of law first and foremost, though one of good alignment. Paladins tend to be lawful GOOD, though not necessarily nice. This would put you as LAWFUL good. This may cause you to butt heads with the chaotic members of the party, but since they are good and if all are in agreement then it should be good, though considering redemption is in her portfolio perhaps he tries to encourage them to act in accordance to rules, trying to 'redeem' them.
A lawful good priest of Iomadae is going to have to be well within the range of acceptable paladin behavior (which is wider than some people give it credit for)More so than a LN or NG priest of Iomadae? Why?
A cleric that matches the alignment of their patron is essentially a mainline follower whereas those who only match one aspect are kind of fringe believers who may only worship partial aspects of their patron. A NG Iomedan values her commmitment to protect good by defeating evil, whereas a Lawful Neutral one values her discipline as the main method of building civilisation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the difference may be reflected more in the stats. A paladin is charisma based, so is more of a talker. The warpriest is wisdom based, so is more of a listener.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More so than a LN or NG priest of Iomadae? Why?
Because a LN is strictly by the book and lacks the overarching idea of what the laws are for in the first place. He's got the cart before the horse and thus can do some pretty morally questionable things that a paladin could not.
A NG cleric of iomadae wouldn't have the same attention to law and society as a whole and would instead just do the right thing as they see it , which contrary to what some people think is NOT a paladin. the more good you are, the less emphasis you place on anything else the closer you get to NG rather than LG.
Iomadae is the most stereo-typically pallidiny of the Gods. Emulating her is going to get you mistaken for a paladin.
More so than a LN or NG priest of Iomadae? Why?
Because a LN is strictly by the book and lacks the overarching idea of what the laws are for in the first place. He's got the cart before the horse and thus can do some pretty morally questionable things that a paladin could not.
A NG cleric of iomadae wouldn't have the same attention to law and society as a whole and would instead just do the right thing as they see it , which contrary to what some people think is NOT a paladin. the more good you are, the less emphasis you place on anything else the closer you get to NG rather than LG.
Iomadae is the most stereo-typically pallidiny of the Gods. Emulating her is going to get you mistaken for a paladin.
Keep in mind that's not a bad thing. Iomedae is essentially the Divine Crusader. The only sign that you play Paladins badly is that you play both a Torag Paladin, an Iomedan Paladin, a Sarenrae Paladin, and a Shelynite Paladin, and they all play like the Torag.
Now if you are still obsessed with getting away from a Paladin image and want to remain lawful good, have you considered Erastil?
Emulating her is going to get you mistaken for a paladin.
Are people in the world aware of the existence of different classes? Like could they tell the difference between a Paladin, Cleric, Warpriest, and Inquisitor of Iomedae if they were all dressed/equipped the same? With a longsword and shield wearing a breastplate, say?
Obviously some classes are pinned down by things that commoners with no specific knowledge can observe (alchemists, kineticists, etc.) but "Holy warrior, wears armor, casts spells, fights with a sword and a shield" potentially describes four different classes in the case of followers of someone like Iomedae.
It wouldn't be at all weird if, say, Clerics of Gozreh and Druids got mistaken for each other from time to time.
Emulating her is going to get you mistaken for a paladin.Are people in the world aware of the existence of different classes? Like could they tell the difference between a Paladin, Cleric, Warpriest, and Inquisitor of Iomedae if they were all dressed/equipped the same? (say with a longsword and shield wearing a breastplate)?
Obviously some classes are pinned down by things that commoners with no specific knowledge can observe (alchemists, kineticists, etc.) but "Holy warrior, wears armor, casts spells, fights with a sword and a shield" potentially describes four different classes in the case of followers of someone like Iomedae.
The point that the poster was making is that the more you emulate Iomedae, the more your character is going to act like a proper Paladin. Because that essentially IS what Iomedae embodies.
Emulating her is going to get you mistaken for a paladin.Are people in the world aware of the existence of different classes?
I meant by other players (whoops) since he's mostly worried about role playing.
Like could they tell the difference between a Paladin, Cleric, Warpriest, and Inquisitor of Iomedae if they were all dressed/equipped the same? With a longsword and shield wearing a breastplate, say?
James Jacobs says yes, or at least they would be aware that there is a diffrence even if they couldn't tell it (like most people can't tell a wolf a coyote apart)
I generally don't play it that way... for most classes. Paladin and druids have some fairly official orders/vows or at the very least the characters think of THEMSELVES as druids/paladins, but for most other classes the ease of multiclassing and the proliferation of archetypes has made the distinctions kinda blurry.
It wouldn't be at all weird if, say, Clerics of Gozreh and Druids got mistaken for each other from time to time.
things happen at the moots when the "special incense" gets burned...
The point that the poster was making is that the more you emulate Iomedae, the more your character is going to act like a proper Paladin. Because that essentially IS what Iomedae embodies.
I'm wondering though if the notion "I'm a Warpriest not a Paladin" would even occur to someone in Iomedae's church. Like would they even understand the distinction?
There has to be some understanding, seeing how only one of those two is going to get smote for telling a lie (and so on).
You could interpret a Paladin's "fall" as an internal crisis of faith/confidence that they need to work through before they can be back to 100%. I mean, all of Iomedae's Paladins, Clerics, Inquisitors, and Warpriests understand that breaking your sworn promise is bad ("honor" being part of her portfolio) but maybe the difference between the Paladins and the Inquisitors is that the Paladins feel really bad about it whereas the Inquisitors can shrug it off.
I'm just not sure that people on Golarion should understand what classes are and how they work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There has to be some understanding, seeing how only one of those two is going to get smote for telling a lie (and so on).You could interpret a Paladin's "fall" as an internal crisis of faith/confidence that they need to work through before they can be back to 100%. I mean, all of Iomedae's Paladins, Clerics, Inquisitors, and Warpriests understand that breaking your sworn promise is bad ("honor" being part of her portfolio) but maybe the difference between the Paladins and the Inquisitors is that the Paladins feel really bad about it whereas the Inquisitors can shrug it off.
I'm just not sure that people on Golarion should understand what classes are and how they work.
I imagine in setting it is a lot like explaining the difference between Barbina, Capellini, Fedelini, Spaghetti, Spaghettini, Spaghettoni, Vermicelli, and Vermicelloni. They are all different, possessing their own unique qualities that separate them from others (even if they are just another type but more), but most people are just going to call all of them spaghetti.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But would all of Iomedae's Hospitalers, Divine Hunters, Ghost Hunters, Holy Tacticians, Divine Defenders, Redeemers, Sacred Servants, Shining Knights, etc. all understand that they're in a sense the same thing?
I imagine that the Hospitaler and the Ghost Hunter would both understand that while they are both martially adept advocates for their deity, since one is concerned with healing the sick and helping the needy and the other is concerned with putting malevolent spirits to rest, they're pretty different. I would think within a given church "archetyped versions of a class" might be closer in terms of what they do to other classes entirely than to archetyped versions of that same class.
Wow talk about opening a big can of worms.
Well, from what I am gathering here, to differentiate from a warpriest I shouldn't necessarily hold myself to a code as thorough as a paladin's, and would be able to reason my way out of minor infringements of my code provided they don't blatantly violate what my goddesses goals are.
My warpriest honestly doesn't place fighting first, since the most he has done is be a party face (LG goes a long way to holding audiences with people in legitimate positions of power) and healing on the cheap for the party, though I guess other than the barbarian I can rack up damage fast on anyone that pings on my radar as evil in aura.
And he actually isn't a sword a board, more like a sword in one hand and holy symbol in the other. But I can definitely understand the arguments over alignment, since now I'm starting to wonder if my character is more LG or NG at this point, or just switches between the two given the situation.
Wow talk about opening a big can of worms.
Well, from what I am gathering here, to differentiate from a warpriest I shouldn't necessarily hold myself to a code as thorough as a paladin's, and would be able to reason my way out of minor infringements of my code provided they don't blatantly violate what my goddesses goals are.
Paladins can do that as well. paladins fall for a single act of evil, not a single code violation. You might have a little more slack, but its iomadae so..not much.
My warpriest honestly doesn't place fighting first
*facepalm* You've been adventuring with those kinds of paladins haven't you?
Talking is an entirely valid way to be a paladin (also something i get accused of when my druid wants to talk things over)
And he actually isn't a sword a board, more like a sword in one hand and holy symbol in the other
I would get a light shield. Pretty much has no penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the nice things is that Warpriests have more room for change, growth, and the player better defining them. You do what seems reasonable for the character, and the GM doesn't have to strip any powers if that takes them over to an adjacent alignment.
Well I do a bit of talking with my times as a paladin as well, however, it gets...difficult to play a diplomacy type paladin when the party cleric of Sarenrae (past party) decides to best way to convert people is set them on fire...
Anyway's, to get back on topic, I should get myself a buckler just for the extra +1.
FWIW, Iomedae strikes me as a Crusader God, and her followers should be Crusader priests; that is to say that they are concerned with the recruitment, training, arrangement, discipline and support of a body of people intent on a crusade. That should make any cleric of Iomedae quite Military-minded. It doesn't mean that they would always try to get in the front at a fight, or even try to seek fights out; but their conversation and conduct would be Military in flavour. They see the necessity for Good people to organise themselves into an army for the advancement of Good (after all, the only thing necessary for the triumph of Evil is for Good men to do nothing).
Paladins may be the Footsoldiers of the army, but such armies still need other organisers (paymasters, quartermasters, scouts, intelligence officers, tacticians, diplomats, procurers, engineers, etc.) and many of these jobs can be handled by non-paladins more effectively. Such individuals would be Lawful Good, would buy into the aim of the Crusade yet would not be Paladins. I would argue that many of these jobs would be better dealt with by clerics of Iomedae than by paladins. The Clerics are the ones that enable the Paladins to do their jobs; that provide the secure locations, look after the mounts, ensure the troops are fed, etc.
The point that the poster was making is that the more you emulate Iomedae, the more your character is going to act like a proper Paladin. Because that essentially IS what Iomedae embodies.I'm wondering though if the notion "I'm a Warpriest not a Paladin" would even occur to someone in Iomedae's church. Like would they even understand the distinction?
On the other hand, Iomedans might not take as narrow a view of what a Paladin, or to use their words a "Crusader" must be, as forum posters would seem to think..
WarPriests have considerably more magical ability, with somewhat less combat ability, and most Iomedans would be wise enough to recognize their different capabilities. WarPriests do bring a somewhat different plate to the table, and presumably Iomedans would celebrate those different utilities.
But would all of Iomedae's Hospitalers, Divine Hunters, Ghost Hunters, Holy Tacticians, Divine Defenders, Redeemers, Sacred Servants, Shining Knights, etc. all understand that they're in a sense the same thing?
What they along with all of the different types of WarPriests, would demonstrate that the term Crusader embodies many roles.. with varying amounts of differences between them, but united in common ends.
The continuum is very vast, from Paladins with greater than usual healing ability, to WarPriests who have traded some abilities for the power to smite.
And he actually isn't a sword a board, more like a sword in one hand and holy symbol in the other.
With the reliquary property, that sword might BE your holy symbol. Just to muddy things up further in the cause of enlightenment. :)
For those that think that a warpriest of Iomedae does not have to worry about falling like paladin does, remember that warpriests and clerics are also expected to uphold their deities code of conduct.
Ex-Warpriests
A warpriest who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for his armor, shield, weapon proficiencies, and bonus feats. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a warpriest of that god until he atones for his deeds (see the atonement spell).
The only real difference between a paladin and a warpriest when it comes to falling is the alignment restriction. A paladin who changes alignments automatically falls, where a warpriest can change to either lawful neutral or neutral good and not fall. If it where any other deity besides Iomedae then that would not be the case.
The only real difference between a paladin and a warpriest when it comes to falling is the alignment restrictionWell that and it's much, much easier for the former to fall. A warpriest needs to grossly violate their code, while any violation at all instantly shuts down the paladin.
please quote the section of the paladin that says that.
please quote the section of the paladin that says that.The only real difference between a paladin and a warpriest when it comes to falling is the alignment restrictionWell that and it's much, much easier for the former to fall. A warpriest needs to grossly violate their code, while any violation at all instantly shuts down the paladin.
"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
That doesn't say a paladin instantly falls if they violate any part of their code. It says they fall if they intentionally commit an evil act, knowing full well that what they are about to do is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
please quote the section of the paladin that says that.The only real difference between a paladin and a warpriest when it comes to falling is the alignment restrictionWell that and it's much, much easier for the former to fall. A warpriest needs to grossly violate their code, while any violation at all instantly shuts down the paladin."A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."
The paladin code is not automatic shut down. Evil acts are
The paladin code prohibits many things that aren't evil (poison. Lying. Dishonorable acts etc)