Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nor'Morgwae 03-19-05, 05:28 PM	A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities 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. So, here is what I am thinking for a character. He is a dwarven Paladin who seeks to route out evil in its most well protected forms via assassination. He refuses to kill an innocent and will never willingly harm a non-evil person. That is why he chooses to hide in the shadows and strike in the dark. In open battles innocent people get hurt. In order to dethrone an evil tyrant you first have to get past his guards, who may not be evil. That is why he uses stealth, to prevent collateral damage. He is divinely empowered to pursue evil and uses this power respectfully, cautiously and to lethal effect. He usually coup de graces his mark with Smite Evil (because it is a powerful tool against evil and will not harm an innocent man). He does not use poisoned weapons or normal poisons despite the assassin stereotype. The reason is poison can hurt anyone, including an innocent who gets the wrong glass of wine or steps into the line of fire. Smite only hurts evil doers. He always uses detect evil before harming an individual. he thinks Paladins refusing to "stoop to such base tactics" may seem very Paladin, but argues it is not. Refusing to do something because it seems demeaning or petty is not honour; it is arrogance. While arrogance is common among Paladins, it is certainly not considered a virtue. These tactics prevent innocent people from getting hurt. Causing harm to innocents for the sake of arrogance is not a good act. The character is lawful because he is devoted to seeing justice done, he strictly adheres to a personal code of ethics as well as to that of an order of paladins (with the notable exception of knifing the bad guys in the dark). He is good because he is both selfless and actively peruses evil. I know that the code above says a paladin must act with honor, and he must be lawful good, but I think I meet these requirements. So I want to know if this character seems possible. I realize it is stretching what it means to be a Paladin. What do you think? Is this doable or is it too non-paladin? I am open to suggestions of other classes that might work better (though I have already considered cleric, but it is a last resort) or changes to the character that might make it fit the Paladin Code better.
Nuntius128 03-19-05, 08:54 PM	Without even reading the article I must say this: If you mean the Assassin PrC, you can't, because you have to be Evil to be an assassin. If you want to be a Rogue, how could you be an assassin? Assassins kill for money. That can't be Lawful Good, its still murder. EDIT: Now that I've read it, yeah, I guess it sounds doable, but without multiclassing into Rogue, its about impossile. Ranger is a possibility too.
DBoot 03-20-05, 01:09 AM	I strongly suggest you buy yourself a copy of Complete Adventurer. The Devoted Inquistor feat and the Shadowbane Inquisitor are exactly what you're looking for. Careful though. It's a tough road.
rbingham2000 03-20-05, 10:20 AM	Also check out the Slayer of Domiel from Book of Exalted Deeds. It uses a supernatural version of the assassin's Death Attack that only works on those of the evil persuasion.
Morka 03-20-05, 11:28 AM	Shouldn't a paladin offer a chance to the evil character to redeem himself? If you strike the assassin from the shadow, you'll never know the assassin's version of fact, perhaps was it in self-defense. I think this is more LN than LG.
Shar_Narishma 03-20-05, 01:53 PM	For what your doing, i reccomend you use slayer of domiel(sp?) from the book of exalted deeds. The slayer is a lawfull good rogue who slays evil. THey get deathsrike, and it it only works on evil (if i remember right, dont have the book infront of me) and they get detect evil at will, as well as some other cool stuff... also they get spells... maybe... EDIT... they get spells, detect evil at will, death touch that doesnt effect nonevil beings,divine grace, and sneak attack.
Tenken 03-21-05, 09:20 AM	Listen to what these other guys are saying about the classes on BoED and Complete Adventurer. Having said that, I think that if you REALLY wanted to play a Paladin/Assassin, as a DM, I would have no problem at all allowing you to play it, given the argument that you have. I would go so far as to allow your Smite Attack stack with your Asn levels to determine damage if you take some sort of feat. But that's just me. What's your DM think? I think you make some good points.
tivs 03-21-05, 08:22 PM	i still think that is more of a CG person than a LG person, i totally agree with the reasoning but pallys are dumb shiz, they have to talk to the person maybe see if they can convert the greater lord of hell before they smite him with great fury... pallys... lmao besides its not "honorable" to strike from the shadows.. honor is what its all aboout for pally's imo... other than that i think you should just be a ranger and do exactly what you said... CG all the way imo
Zerathidune 03-21-05, 11:16 PM	The way you describe your proposed character's ideollogy, you make it sound like evil characters are entirely and incurably 100% evil. The problem with the D&D alignment system is that it tends to oversimplify, and as a result, players, and DMs as well often seem to think that just because the alignment line on a character sheet says "evil," that they can be treated like a construct or undead. they can't. the difference between "bad killings" and "good killings" (let's assume for the moment it's a good killing under some circumstances, though I don't really believe that) is that when a good character kills someone, they don't do it unless they have to. a good character must try to redeem someone, and if they can't, they should at least do their best to turn them over to the proper authorities. acidents happen, and the d20 system is set up so that if a good character pulls off what they're supposed to want to do every time, they suffer for it. (little experience is ever gained.) In standard D&D, no one can really be blamed for not trying to convert a demon, undead or chrome dragon, and there really is nothing wrong with destroying a golem as they aren't sentient, but a good character can't go straight for the kill. Remember that evil doesn't mean a character isn't as much of a person. it implies some pretty signifigant character flaws, but they're still people. you can't just exterminate them. if they start something, they you can't let them get away with it, but just because they're spiteful doesn't give you the right to preemtive strike. The terms "good" and "evil" don't refer to two sides in a war. good is meant to be morally supirior to evil, and if a good person sinks to the same level as the evil ones, is that person really good? ok, enough with the philosophy. if you want to ignore this and just don't explain some things, go for it, I think considering that it's D&D you came up with a reasonable explanation, however, if your group is particularly into roleplaying, I would say the character you have described isn't quite "good." on the other hand, my paladin has taken a great many lives as well, just because my group finds it too difficult to always deal with all the moral details.
Nor'Morgwae 03-22-05, 02:06 AM	First, I don't want it to seem like this guy just walks around doing detect evil then stalking the first thing that shows up as evil. He never kills any neutral or good peopel, only kills evil people A) in self defense B) if they represent a real, immediate threat to innocent lives. A corrupt local sherif gets a chance to redeem himself even if he has taken innocent lives. A warlord who is actively scouring the country side killing everything in sight does not. As a general rule nothing that detect evil shows as less than moderate will be killed, even in self defence (they are seen as corrupted but redeemable); they might be killed to defend another defensless person however. Anything over moderate will be sought out and destroyed only after inquiry. Moderate is handled on a case by case basis. He kills when there seems to be no other choice. Whenever possible he gives the target his diety's equivalent of the Last Rites. He does some form of pennance for every life taken, evben though they are evil. He does not take killing lightly. Mechanicly the reason I want him to be paladin instead of ranger or something like that is the Detect Evil at will as well as the divine connection. Also, I'm open to suggestions about disabling without killing. I intend to get a Merciful weapon as soon as possible. Beyond that I'm not sure. I also want feed back on rogue maneuvers like Hamstring (I think that is what it is called, slows movement) and the like. They maime instead of killing, is that acceptable?
Zerathidune 03-22-05, 05:20 PM	check out the justicar prestige class in complete warrior. they're all about taking someone in alive.
Xeviat-DM 03-23-05, 01:25 AM	Use a Sap, or take Improved Unarmed Strike and use subdual coup de graces. Keep manacles around and lock them up, then take them in. That is what an infiltration based paladin should do. In extreme circumstances, I would be okay with you killing without warning, especially if your world believes in redemption during the afterlife.
schof 03-23-05, 10:22 AM	first of all i think he did an excellent job providing real reason for this and good roleplaying behind it, therefore i would DEFINATELY allow it. My experiances with paladins have been generally bad, and they are just normal paladins. This build sounds WONDERFUL, i think if you put the amount of time you described in his background into your playing, you will make an excellent pc with this character. I think sometimes other pc's and dm's alike forget the game is about roleplaying, and these classes are just for guides to play the game. Any time a character in one of my games provides me a roleplaying reason why a rule should be adapted, 9 out of 10 i let it slide. If the players are roleplaying then theres nothing to worry about because thats what your going for anyways. i would say go right ahead, and if you dm doesnt allow this perhaps he should read the early chapters in the dmg ps: the other people are right about the other classes, both complete adv and BoED are great for this check them out and you might find something even more interesting pss: i understand your getting alot of crap from people not understanding this idea and stuff but i get it
Morka 03-23-05, 05:54 PM	How can you kill in self-defense when you strike from the shadows? I understand why you won't kill the corrupted sheriff, because he's likely to act exactly like you. Perhaps should you just go pure paladin, and "optimize" your smite evil, with feats like Divine Might & Power Attack. OTOH, I understand that a paladin sometimes need stealth to pass the 100 guards and get to the BBEG to either smite him or redeem him. I'm also sure a LG can use his sneak attacks when flanking with a fellow warrior. But simply assassinating the evil one? I don't think so.
Arkonth 03-24-05, 10:31 PM	I think it's a great idea. After all good is an absolute but is really an issue between a paladin and his/her god/belief. If he can reconcile then he is entitled to his view.