Post/Author/DateTime	Post
knightofvoid 12-03-06, 09:30 PM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Maybe im fishing here for an answer.... or maybe i'll get an answer i like :rolleyes:
Rickiel 12-03-06, 09:58 PM	Generally, I'd think a paladin wishing to be a half-fiend, would go counter to the more inherently better alternative of becoming half-celestial. Bu I also think that a half-fiend has the capacity to be a paladin. It just takes a lot and I do mean A LOT of resistance to those lile slightly supernatural urges to eat babies. Or rather to simply do things counter to the Paladin's Code. In short, 1. Being normal then becoming a half-fiend = No. 2. Being born a half-fiend and becoming a paladin = Yes, it's just a tad hard. Hope that's a good answer for ya.
theotherdraxen 12-03-06, 10:03 PM	Selling your soul to a demon for power to fight evil is okay for a Lawful Good fighter that is just trying to do his best to bring about justice. For a paladin, his strength and power is derived from his deity, so no. If he sold his soul for power, then unless his deity is really screwy, then he's not a paladin anymore.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-03-06, 10:04 PM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Maybe im fishing here for an answer.... or maybe i'll get an answer i like :rolleyes: I think that you are asking if a human Paladin could somehow later become a 1/2 fiend, as you already said hell no. If you are asking if someone born with the 1/2 fiend template and be a Paladin it would depend on the player BSing the GM into it.
CryoSilver 12-03-06, 10:05 PM	A paladin cannot associate with an evil creature, else he forfeits his powers. If he sold his soul, IMC, he'd never get his powers back.
SilvercatMoonpaw 12-03-06, 10:12 PM	Can you explain that more? If the demon is evil: no. I highly doubt the paladin would get away from that deal still Good aligned. If the demon is good: yes. (For those of you telling me a demon cannot be good: bite my right to interpret or change the rules as I see fit.) This would be an example of the paladin accepting help from another good source to combat evil. If the paladin was tricked by an evil demon: yes, because it's not his fault. If the paladin made a deal with an evil demon to combat a greater evil: no. Part of the paladin's code is never knowingly associating with evil. Ultimate answer: why are you asking other people? Why not just decide for yourself? You've already made a decision for the paladin to get down and durty to do his job, something that sounds less like a LG Paladin than some would say, just take the extra step.
theotherdraxen 12-03-06, 11:10 PM	If the demon is good: yes. (For those of you telling me a demon cannot be good: bite my right to interpret or change the rules as I see fit.) This would be an example of the paladin accepting help from another good source to combat evil. No, this is actually the RAW perspecitve. If you read the always evil descriptor for a Baalor to literally mean that every last one of them is evil, then you are acually imposing a houserule. Always means that there are still very rare exceptions to it. In fact: Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predispostiton to the alignment, or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
ShinoAburame 12-03-06, 11:36 PM	I'd say a half-fiend born could become a paladin, but not someone who became half-fiend later. As more then likely he's being manipulated by evil forces, and no Holy entity would allow thier insturment to become a tool of the darkside.
Tempest Stormwind 12-03-06, 11:48 PM	The way I see it, if the paladin is so unsure in his faith that he believes that selling his soul do a demon is worth it in the name of the better good, he doesn't deserve to be a paladin. "Straight and narrow" goes a LONG way. Now, as for a half-fiend being born and hearing the call? By all means, yes -- if you're capable of RPing it. Paladinhood is difficult for beings like MORTALS, let alone getting a redeemed fiend into it. It'd be far easier (but still difficult) to simply play a half-fiend who is non-Evil. I say this as one who dislikes the problems that paladins cause strictly because there are so few people I know of who can successfully roleplay a paladin. I say this as one who hates alignment and actually doesn't bother teaching it when I teach the game due to the problems it causes. Read this. (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=58227) THAT is a Paladin, capital P. The fact that it also centers around a fiend helps a lot to tie it to this context -- in this case, it was a succubus sent to tempt the paladin to evil... but the paladin was SO true and SO good that he ended up having a more profound effect on the succubus. And then all hell breaks loose, which is where the real fun begins... (Note: Everyone involved is an exceptional roleplayer -- although I suspect bits of it were embellished by the GM novelizing it, the tactics and decisions remain strictly player territory.) EDIT: Found the *full* story. If you didn't read it earlier, check it now -- it's incredible. If you don't think you're capable of playing a paladin that good, then you shouldn't consider playing one. I enjoy playing Lawful Good, and am (I'm told) a damn good roleplayer to boot -- and I know I'm not capable of doing it.
Mitchell 12-04-06, 12:52 AM	The OP never said that the demon was good in any sense, just a couple of hypothetical situations where it was fighting against a greater evil... Welcome to the Abyss. That's business as usual and who is to define "Greater evil"? I'm sure that Grazz't (or however it's hyphenated) will tell you that if you don't help them, then Orcus and/or Demogorgon will run roughshod over the world... How much do you bet that either of the other two (well, three if you count both of Demogorgon's heads :)) would give you a similar story? Anyway, a paladin doesn't have a soul to give any more. Not literally, but figuratively. They gave their soul to their diety long ago and derive their power from that bargain. No way they are going to offer it up to some demon instead. Someone born as a 1/2 fiend could become a paladin, but no way would I allow a paladin to become a 1/2 fiend through some infernal bargain and keep their paladinhood.
sinrae_kinesti 12-04-06, 01:29 AM	The OP never said that the demon was good in any sense, just a couple of hypothetical situations where it was fighting against a greater evil... Welcome to the Abyss. That's business as usual and who is to define "Greater evil"? I'm sure that Grazz't (or however it's hyphenated) will tell you that if you don't help them, then Orcus and/or Demogorgon will run roughshod over the world... How much do you bet that either of the other two (well, three if you count both of Demogorgon's heads :)) would give you a similar story? Anyway, a paladin doesn't have a soul to give any more. Not literally, but figuratively. They gave their soul to their diety long ago and derive their power from that bargain. No way they are going to offer it up to some demon instead. Someone born as a 1/2 fiend could become a paladin, but no way would I allow a paladin to become a 1/2 fiend through some infernal bargain and keep their paladinhood. not only is this the best post I've seen in this forum, it lays it out straight. Not no, not hell no, but HELL F@[!{!ng NO
adamb0nd 12-04-06, 02:09 AM	Someone born as a 1/2 fiend could become a paladin I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lawful good diety that will take on a half demon to do their dirty work.
Tempest Stormwind 12-04-06, 02:32 AM	I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lawful good diety that will take on a half demon to do their dirty work. And you'll be hard-pressed to convince me of that. If a half-demon becomes a paladin, it's because his deity called him to that service. Thus, any half-demon paladin, regardless of what else he is, is still a paladin. His deity has already chosen him, and the onus is on the paladin, not the deity, to live up to those standards. If a PC were to present that to me, I would allow it -- after all, he's a player character and thus exceptional by definition! I'd leave the wannabes to the NPCs. However, I would NOT let him forget it -- while I wouldn't play his character for him (that's HIS job; I don't need nor want to say things like "You find that tempting". He made the character; if his half-demon truly is a paladin, he's beyond temptation. If he isn't, he's just pretending), I'd make sure he never forgot his heritage. NPCs would act suspicious, his church would probably consider him a loose cannon (a knight-errant, if you will), and people may be initially afraid of him. It's only after he demonstrates that he truly is a shining beacon of light, law, and good, regardless of what his flesh or blood or parentage may be, that people will appreciate him for it. (Note: I see this as fundamentally similar to Joan of Arc, where you had a commoner, and a woman, prove herself to her king and kingdom on the field of battle. The paladin is practically MADE for her -- even though I'm convinced historically it was nothing more than a mental condition, her legend screams 'paladin'.) It would be a different story if the PC was not a paladin to start, but was aiming to multiclass into one. Then, he'd have to earn it -- but it wouldn't be impossible. Most lawful good deities believe in forgiveness and exoneration, after all -- and deities are beyond duplicity. If this half-demon is worthy, then he is worthy. If he proves in the end that he was not strong enough, then he's out of luck. Of course, I'm just more likely to ban paladins altogether... they cause too many arguments and, I feel, are beyond most people's ability to play. If I did meet someone capable of doing it (see my post above) and if I felt up to the task of DMing for one, I'd allow it again -- but I'd likely give it a boost in power in some way to support the EXTREME difficulty in actually playing one. In the meantime, all other prospective paladins? Yeah, use the crusader.
adamb0nd 12-04-06, 02:57 AM	This is from the SRD: "Half-fiend" is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature with an Intelligence score of 4 or more and nongood alignment (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Now I really do hate myself for saying this, because I have a feeling i'm going to get flamed, but I've read over a dozen other threads emphasizing alignment in DnD. Evil is not an opinion, its black and white. A demon is evil, always. The rules say paladins must be lawful good. So the answer is officiall no. If your DM wants a more open view on alignment, and to change the rules, than by all means its fair.
Salla 12-04-06, 03:25 AM	Well, firstly, a Paladin does not have to have a deity, so the issues of source-of-power or calling become irrelevant if that is the case. Note that the flavor text (which can be altered per character) for Paladins about being called is NOT under 'Game Rules', which means that it is not, in fact, a requirement. Secondly, half-fiend is an inherited template, IIRC; which means it's applied, in effect, in utero, where the character is indeed nongood; he's true neutral because he is not yet cognizant enough to form moral and ethical thoughts. For the first, what, two years of his life he'll be using Smite Diaper 3 times a day. A strict reading of the template implies that the creature must be nongood when applied; it says nothing about alignment shifts thereafter, and since any sentient creature can choose its own moral path, there's no logical reason why such a creature couldn't choose to become a Paladin if he so desired; however, many of his special abilities (those with the Evil descriptor) would be off limits and he'd have to be very careful with the others. As far as acquiring the template later, it comes down to whether or not the Paladin was willing. Obviously, willingly infusing yourself with demonic essence is questionable (thus the 'nongood' requirement), however the DM and player could agree that the Paladin is turned into a half-fiend against his will. Since he was forced into it, it wasn't the character's choice (even if it was the player's), and the character's alignment would not shift. This falls under the DM purview of how much he's willing to bend the rules for a plot point, however, and would not necessarily work in all games. Lastly, so long as the Paladin remains behaving appropriately (which IS possible despite the half-fiend template), why would his god drop him? "Look, a walking example of good conquering evil! He PROVES that the good in the human soul can overcome the evils that tempt man!" and all kinds of stuff like that.
OneEye589 12-04-06, 08:30 AM	SRD: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. According to the SRD, they're okay if they weren't changed willingly. Of course, adamb0nd hit it right on, too. A half-fiend must be anything other than good. I'm not sure what happens if someone is a half-fiend and turns good later, but I don't know if they'd still have the power. I guess it would really be a DM's ordering.
Millennium 12-04-06, 09:20 AM	I'd allow a half-demon paladin, but the choice of race would have some severe consequences: Becoming a half-demon is an Evil act, and a paladin who becomes a half-demon is going to Fall for it. Even a paladin who becomes a half-demon unwillingly (i.e. through trickery or force) is going to have to atone for this one. The easiest way around this is to become a half-demon before becoming a paladin, such as by being born with the template. Several of a half-demon's powers are Evil. Using these powers will be treated as committing an Evil act, since, well, they are. Unless there is magic at work to prevent this, a half-demon is going to often feel instinctive urges to act in an Evil manner: this is a consequence of having the Evil subtype. A half-demon paladin does not have to give into these urges, but he cannot simply ignore them: I won't make you roll to resist them (auto-success if you want to resist) but it does take effort. Roleplay this. Because you have the Evil subtype, you will detect as Evil (you will, of course, also detect as Lawful and Good as is normal for paladins). The most immediate consequence of this is that it will interfere with your detect evil ability: your own aura always triggers the first-round effect, and it will usually trigger the second-round effect as well (if it doesn't, then you have other problems, because something's nearby that is stronger than you). This means that most of the time you're going to have to concentrate for three rounds in order to get useful information.
StarFyre 12-04-06, 10:39 AM	Occasionally offspring of succubus or mail counterpart (mentioned in planscape monster manual 1), and a humanoid is good aligned if the original victim was very strong willed in that sense. If so, the offspring never got changed...they were born good. If so, they COULD become a paladin once they left wherever they were and tried to start a life as a regular good person. However, roleplaying that would be awesome since no one would believe it !!! Sanjay
hiryuu 12-04-06, 12:42 PM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Maybe im fishing here for an answer.... or maybe i'll get an answer i like :rolleyes: No. On the other hand, someone who was born a half-demon could become a paladin, or someone who was cursed with a wretched form, but no selling yoursoul to evil for "greater good." Paladin doesn't get to use the words "greater good," the two words used as an excuse for the most evil in human history.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-04-06, 03:59 PM	Becoming a half-demon is an Evil act, and a paladin who becomes a half-demon is going to Fall for it. Uh, maybe in your campaign. But as written, he is not hurting anyone and is giving himself powers that may well aid him. I can't describe this act with any alignment. Maybe Chaotic as he's going against traditions. Several of a half-demon's powers are Evil. Using these powers will be treated as committing an Evil act, since, well, they are. Yes, Smite Good is an Evil act, but not necessarily an evil one (the forces of Good sometimes disagree, and as with everything else, there is the possibility of violence). Spell-like abilities with the Evil descriptor do not affect your alignment. Casting an Evil spell is not an Evil act. Unless there is magic at work to prevent this, a half-demon is going to often feel instinctive urges to act in an Evil manner: this is a consequence of having the Evil subtype. A half-demon paladin does not have to give into these urges, but he cannot simply ignore them: I won't make you roll to resist them (auto-success if you want to resist) but it does take effort. Roleplay this. He doesn't have the Evil subtype. I would encourage the player to roleplay the internal struggle, but I would not force him. Because you have the Evil subtype, you will detect as Evil (you will, of course, also detect as Lawful and Good as is normal for paladins). He doesn't have the Evil subtype. He will be detected as his own alignment.
Shayde 12-04-06, 05:14 PM	I would say NO to the paladin becoming a half fiend and keeping his powers, good opportunity to become a Blackguard though. On the topic of a Half Fiend becoming a paladin absoluely yes, there can be an internal struggle with his heritage but I would say he can't use most of his spell like abilities since many have the evil descriptor. As my own example of this I have a Half Fiend sorcerer/wild mage npc, she is chaotic good (Daddy was an Incubus) and as a good aligned creature she refuses to use her spell-like abilities which have the evil descriptor. With that example given I would say that a half fiend paladin is absolutly possible but there should be a refusal to use the spell abilites with the evil descriptor and the tempation to of course use them
General_Ridley 12-04-06, 05:53 PM	demons fight each other anyway. A demon that fights other demons is not good-aligned. Just a demon.
gullas 12-04-06, 05:57 PM	can a paladin be a half demon???? sure , why not:D
dalamb 12-05-06, 12:36 PM	I mean this message to be interpreted in the context of the Rules As Written, as much as is possible -- I know any DM can make any change s/he feels like, so that's not relevant to what I want to know. I'm puzzled about the 'becoming a half-demon' bit. The only way I know in the RAW of becoming a half-demon is to be 'born' that way via the template. Can templates be applied at higher levels, e.g. gain 5 levels of Warlock, then somehow acquire the template? Concerning the comment about 'always evil' meaning 'well, on unique or rare occasions' and the other comment about 'PCs are exceptional' -- would you allow any PC who felt like it to qualify as one of those 'unique or rare occasions'? In which case, how is it still rare? I guess the first one in your campaign might be 'unique.' Unless you already had an NPC of that sort. More subtly, if a dozen different things are 'unique or rare', doesn't allowing all of them spread over a dozen (or less) characters throw away the meaning of 'unique or rare'? Concerning a half-fiend starting 'non-good' and becoming Lawful Good later -- I suppose you could start Lawful Neutral, but how hard would you make it be to change? Would you say a starting character could just claim his background to that point made him Lawful Good? if so, doesn't that make the 'any non-good' part of the template meaningless? See, I understand about 'always' being an abbreviation for 'unique or rare' -- I don't really have a lot of trouble with that. I just think that 'unique' and 'rare' ought to mean something, since they're written in the rules, rather than 'words I can twist the meaning of by casuistry (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=casuistry)' (meaning 1).
AaronDireBear 12-05-06, 02:53 PM	Chaotic evil parent, lawful good child becoming a paladin to spite him. Someone has daddy issues.
Khael 12-05-06, 03:21 PM	I'm puzzled about the 'becoming a half-demon' bit. The only way I know in the RAW of becoming a half-demon is to be 'born' that way via the template. Can templates be applied at higher levels, e.g. gain 5 levels of Warlock, then somehow acquire the template? According to the BOVD, you can, but only if you were in ground zero of some great evil I.E. death of a good god, birth of an evil god(usually involving a small city of sacrifices probably), the summoning/releasing of a demon lord on the material plane... etc. The fact that by the same you may well be a gibberling loon as a result of said event, is a bit of a downer there but... And as everyone else has said, if the paladin changes into a half-fiend, he's at the very least fallen into a state of flux, which quite probably will have twisted him into some insane state of mind. So no not really qualified to be a devoted soldier of [insert diety/beleif system here]. If he was born a half-fiend by all means, let him be a paladin. Just be wary of strange paladins/good clerics/adventurers. In fact just fear anyone who doesn't know you while you're not sitting behind a desk. In a cathedral. An active and very very holy cathedral. (To those who haven't guessed by the above, I have no problems with such a character, but in-game fiends are things to be feared. I don't know about you but if some guy with batwings and red eyes walks into MY village, the pitchforks and burning stakes will come out. And enter. Enter with great swiftness. The aftermath of that will at the very least involve flying at great speed.) Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Demnos war among themselves all the time. There are no good demons who are in the soul trade (as in for your soul I'll give you power, type, not step into the light and your soul will be healed....) And any demon powerful enough to grant that power/pass on that power is likely The greater evil. And how do you get tricked into becoming a fiendish being? An immense document written by a fiend? If he fell for that one... And if he became a half-fiend yes he gets to use the abilities. And probably will since he now has a new master. A fiendish master...
High Octane 12-05-06, 03:41 PM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Maybe im fishing here for an answer.... or maybe i'll get an answer i like :rolleyes: In my campaign he sure could. But he wouldnt be a paladin anymore. SELLING HIS SOUL TO A DEMON? You cannot be serious.
makeshiftwings 12-05-06, 04:25 PM	I would only allow this if the player made it clear to me that he wanted to fall and become a blackguard.
Sae Cael Oanar 12-05-06, 04:37 PM	he could have sold his soul to a demon to save his mother's life or something. not an easy choice, but the right one.
Angus Cotton 12-05-06, 04:59 PM	Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) Your paladin would pretty much become a Blackguard. This is how Blackguards are created (read it in the DMG). Sure, the paladin might tell himself it is for the greater good, or that the demon is not evil and fighting other demons, or bringing order to the galaxy, or whatever excuse he wants to tell himself before or AFTER he makes the pact, but he is still a Blackguard. He may even believe himself to be a paladin after this act, but he is a Blackguard on paper, none the less, and in the eyes of his old god. A man can not serve two masters.
High Octane 12-05-06, 05:00 PM	he could have sold his soul to a demon to save his mother's life or something. not an easy choice, but the right one. Debateable, but if a DM ALLOWED, much less THOUGHT UP this kind of situation, I would leave his game and never look back.
SephDragoon 12-05-06, 05:02 PM	Paladin selling his soul, hell no. Immediately he loses his ability to be a paladin, and forever is banned from being a paladin, unless he gets his soul back. I wouldn't force an alignment change, but he couldn't be a paladin, or a chosen of any good aligned god. As for being born, this is actually a good example of how someone can become that unique exception. I played a half vampire paladin once. Her parent was a remorseful vampire who wanted to leave a child behind that could be what he could not. He even prayed to a good aligned god to take his child in and guide it. After that, alot of smoke and ash. The child was chosen by the god to serve it, and she kept her urges and instincts in check the same way a person does. Paladins have a MUCH higher chance of staving off temptation. Their discipline and their god help them to do so. So a half-fiend paladin is quite viable, assuming they were born that way, or became that way against their will. I should note however, even my character, the half vampire, eventually fell. She refused to wholesale slaughter vampires with a group of other paladins, and eventually fell when she protected some of them, and fought the other paladins. She beleived a few of the vampires were not beyond redemption. She was wrong of course, being tricked and stabbed in the back. Tragic... tragic story.
dalamb 12-05-06, 11:34 PM	According to the BOVD, you canThat explains my ignorace -- I don't own BoVD.
Stormbrand 12-06-06, 01:55 PM	he could have sold his soul to a demon to save his mother's life or something. not an easy choice, but the right one. But personal is not the same as important. And now that you no longer have a soul, your free will is gone and the first thing I will do is make you kill your mom, for no better reason than my fiendishness.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-06-06, 01:57 PM	And now that you no longer have a soul, your free will is gone and the first thing I will do is make you kill your mom, for no better reason than my fiendishness. Your soul has nothing to do with your free will. That's your mind.
High Octane 12-06-06, 02:15 PM	Your soul has nothing to do with your free will. That's your mind. To sell your soul is to pledge your allegience.
SephDragoon 12-06-06, 02:56 PM	Why do you think that souls are so highly sought after? If a paladin sold his soul to a fiend, I would ask for his character sheet right there, he is now an NPC.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-06-06, 03:30 PM	To sell your soul is to pledge your allegience. Not really. In D&D, souls are objects that belong to you (some WotC products hint at them being spirits from the Plane of Positive/Negative Energy). Selling them is like selling your clothes, except this deal determines what happens to your in the afterlife.
Sae Cael Oanar 12-06-06, 05:00 PM	okay, sorry for making it the mom, although you all should have just seen that it could just as easily be something more important. every church and follower of his diety will be destroyed tomorrow unless the attack is called off, and the only way for him to save all of them is to sell his soul. he sells his soul, and an evil diety calls off the oncoming purge. it would be selfish not to sell the soul at this point. as far as a dm thinking this up and that being terrible, it could be thought up in collaboration with the player who wants to become half-demon and wants a way for this to happen.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-06-06, 07:33 PM	Okay, selling his soul is not Evil by RAW. The soul is his to sell and he is in an unwilling association with that Demon. Selling his soul is a Lawful Good act. Not only is he saving a buttload of people, but he also gains powers he can use in the future to fight Evil (though, Half-Celestial would be a more optimal choice for that).
SephDragoon 12-06-06, 08:04 PM	Okay, selling his soul is not Evil by RAW. The soul is his to sell and he is in an unwilling association with that Demon. Selling his soul is a Lawful Good act. Not only is he saving a buttload of people, but he also gains powers he can use in the future to fight Evil (though, Half-Celestial would be a more optimal choice for that). Except look up the Paladin's Code... does the phrase, "This has nothing to do with being Lawful Good, but is simly part of the paladin's code." mean anything to you? It has NOTHING to do with alignment, the problem is, he can't consort or make deals with a demon. He could sell his soul, but he would never EVER be able to level up his Paladin class again, ever. Any DM who allows a paladin to sell his soul is being a chump. This is a case of, "I want to be a half demon, they bet uber power..." Because no good role player would do that to their character and try to get away with it. Sorry if I am coming off as a bit rude, but there is two pages now of this, and everyone is saying the same thing, so listen to it or deal with it.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-06-06, 09:12 PM	He could sell his soul, but he would never EVER be able to level up his Paladin class again, ever. Actually, nothing says he loses his powers for making the deal. It's a conundrum: Let her own moral principles go before the innocents he's supposed to save or let the Demon take his soul and save the innocents. If I were that Paladin, I'd pray for divine intervention. Because the forces of Good are, well, Good (!), they will have to come and save those innocents. Otherwise, the DM is just being a jackass and should be killed. Because no good role player would do that to their character and try to get away with it. Say you, but this is an actual conundrum which no good can come off. Some Paladins choose to sell their souls, others will fight the invasion. Still others will pray for divine intervention, and they WILL get it.
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 12:09 AM	Actually, nothing says he loses his powers for making the deal. It's a conundrum: Let her own moral principles go before the innocents he's supposed to save or let the Demon take his soul and save the innocents. I believe this: a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. would prove otherwise. I'm fairly sure that pledging an eternal afterlife of servitude to a personification of evil incarnate more than counts as "associating with".
Mitchell 12-07-06, 12:53 AM	Look up "sacrifice" in a dictionary. If a paladin had to make this deal to save all of reality as we know it and some other stuff we don't know, they would be facing, imo, a choice: 1) Do it, and know that you gave all that you held dear to stop this fiendish plan. Of course, there is more to it than just this... 2) Don't do it, be stripped of paladinhood, and then realize that it doesn't matter as the campaign multiverse just came crashing down. Either way, there is no paladin. Anyway, it is absurd to think that a demon that held the soul of a paladin would be interested in said paladin roaming the world and righting wrongs... They would probably have them give said demon, and perhaps a number of other demons the original demon is trying to impress, tongue-baths on a regular schedule.
DivineDragoonXD 12-07-06, 12:57 AM	Selling your soul to a demon for power to fight evil is okay for a Lawful Good fighter that is just trying to do his best to bring about justice. For a paladin, his strength and power is derived from his deity, so no. If he sold his soul for power, then unless his deity is really screwy, then he's not a paladin anymore. Sellings ur soul period (unless its a sacrifice to ur deity) is an evil act. u could b born half demon in which case ur heritage does not make u inherently evil therefore it is plausuble
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 01:14 AM	Look up "sacrifice" in a dictionary. If a paladin had to make this deal to save all of reality as we know it and some other stuff we don't know, they would be facing, imo, a choice: 1) Do it, and know that you gave all that you held dear to stop this fiendish plan. Of course, there is more to it than just this... 2) Don't do it, be stripped of paladinhood, and then realize that it doesn't matter as the campaign multiverse just came crashing down. Either way, there is no paladin. Anyway, it is absurd to think that a demon that held the soul of a paladin would be interested in said paladin roaming the world and righting wrongs... They would probably have them give said demon, and perhaps a number of other demons the original demon is trying to impress, tongue-baths on a regular schedule. Yeah, this sort of comes down to the age-old debate of "The paladin has to murder a baby to save the world, does he lose his paladin abilities?" First, many will agree that a DM who puts the paladin in that situation, where there's absolutely no way to save the world except for him to personally murder the baby, might be an *******. But second, I would say that yes, the paladin does lose his abilities, even though he's doing it for the greater good. In my view, it would fit in with the mindset of the paladin. Being forced to kill a baby or sell his soul or whatever would be like a sudden slap in the face; he suddenly realizes that the world is an awful place and that the world is ultimately cruel and uncaring. He sinks into bitterness, nihilism, self-loathing, and maybe eventually becomes a blackguard. I think in order to really remain a classic mentality paladin, you sort of need to have this unrealistic view of the world. If you have to face too many things that prove that your black-and-white, religious, spoonfed fairy tale vision of the world is actually false, you're going to lose your faith, and with it, your abilities. It's a common thing in the real world, where if formerly religious people are subjected to enough scenes of violence and evil, they will gradually stop believing the whole "God works in mysterious ways" excuse and start to think "God doesn't care" or "There is no God". While losing your faith and becoming more of a realist or nihilist wouldn't necessarily make you any less good, it would make you lose any abilities powered by your faith.
SephDragoon 12-07-06, 01:19 AM	Actually, nothing says he loses his powers for making the deal. It's a conundrum: Let her own moral principles go before the innocents he's supposed to save or let the Demon take his soul and save the innocents. This is why 99% of people out there can't play a paladin... There is NO conundrum. His choice is clear, he has to pray or fight, he cannot make that deal. If he made the deal, he would lose paladinship, but then again, perhaps that is the meaning of sacrifice. He chose his path, and must deal with it. If he sells his soul to save someone, then he's done good perhaps, but he sacrificed his right to be a paladin. That doesn't mean that he can't continue to obey his paladin code, but he would still lose everything that made him a true paladin, he would be fallen.
Sae Cael Oanar 12-07-06, 01:32 AM	selling your soul to save the world is different than killing a baby to save the world. killing a baby isnt self-sacrifice.
nick012000 12-07-06, 01:42 AM	I'll point out that there are (non-Evil) rituals in Savage Species that change a character's race, and there is a bunch of articles on the WotC website about gaining templates gradually. The one dealing with half-feinds is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031010a).
Sunrider 12-07-06, 01:53 AM	Note that there is nothing in the rules stopping a demon from being non-evil, or a non-evil demon from being a paladin. Or for that matter, anything stopping an archon from being Chaotic Evil and becoming a Paladin of Slaughter. It's just not very common...
Sphyre 12-07-06, 01:53 AM	This is from the SRD: "Half-fiend" is an inherited template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature with an Intelligence score of 4 or more and nongood alignment (referred to hereafter as the base creature). Now I really do hate myself for saying this, because I have a feeling i'm going to get flamed, but I've read over a dozen other threads emphasizing alignment in DnD. Evil is not an opinion, its black and white. A demon is evil, always. The rules say paladins must be lawful good. So the answer is officiall no. If your DM wants a more open view on alignment, and to change the rules, than by all means its fair. Yes, mechanically wise it would work only one way. Templates do not change if you lose your powers, esspecially if inherited. You could be born as a non-good alignment, and then find your calling into paladinhood changing to Lawful Good. You would retain your template because you cannot lose it, and since you are lawful good you would not lose your paladin abilities. As for the moral debates and the plethora of a billion opinions how far that stick is up the paladin's stick up their ass, you guys can debate that all you want... But we do all agree that it's a class feature (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) of the paladin, right? :tongue:
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 02:10 AM	selling your soul to save the world is different than killing a baby to save the world. killing a baby isnt self-sacrifice. Well, I guess it would depend on what "selling your soul" actually does, since there's no rule for it. I was assuming it to mean something like after you die, you are eternally enslaved to the demon, either becoming a dretch or something in his service, after which you'll be killing plenty of babies or whatever the demon wants you to do, or the demon somehow eats your soul and gains power from it so that his baby-killing per hour rating goes up by quite a bit. Either way, your soul-selling is going to hurt a lot more people than yourself. If selling your soul literally did absolutely nothing except ensure that you'd have a miserable afterlife, and the demons didn't actually get anything out of it, then I guess it would be a different story.
TheDarkLord 12-07-06, 02:22 AM	Yes a Paladin can become a half-fiend after he was born. 1. Not all Fiends are Evil. 2. No where does it say you Have to sell your soul to become a half-fiend. 3. There is absolutely no difference between recieving a Power (half-celestial) template from a solar that is LG than recieving Power (half-fiend) from a Balor that is LG. If a DM is going to allow you to have a template then he should not just toss this out for the simple fact that it "sounds stupid" But the RP opportunities of playing a LG Half-fiend or a CE half-celestial should be great. And yes, in this instance, I think the RAW are a load of crap.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 08:34 AM	would prove otherwise. I'm fairly sure that pledging an eternal afterlife of servitude to a personification of evil incarnate more than counts as "associating with". That's not a part of his Code of Conduct. This is why 99% of people out there can't play a paladin... There is NO conundrum. His choice is clear, he has to pray or fight, he cannot make that deal. Of course he can make that deal. It doesn't break any rules in his Code of Conduct, and since the forces of Good are not as high on principles as Law, he'd immediately be forgiven, if they feel he has transgressed at all. At any rate, the forces of Good failed the Paladin for letting him deal with this situation alone. but he sacrificed his right to be a paladin. That doesn't mean that he can't continue to obey his paladin code, but he would still lose everything that made him a true paladin, he would be fallen. Not true.
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 09:05 AM	That's not a part of his Code of Conduct. I guess you're arguing it's not because it comes in the paragraph after code of conduct. Well, if you do take it to be a completely separate thing from code of conduct, then you have to take it as a literal rule. A paladin CAN'T associate with evil. Which means if the player tries to ever associate with evil, the DM tells him he physically can't do it. Most people will obviously agree that this is not the intention, that the "Associates" rule is supposed to be part of the Code of Conduct.
Stormbrand 12-07-06, 10:00 AM	That's not a part of his Code of Conduct. Of course he can make that deal. It doesn't break any rules in his Code of Conduct, and since the forces of Good are not as high on principles as Law, he'd immediately be forgiven, if they feel he has transgressed at all. Yes it is, you have even been shown the quote. By making the deal of selling his soul he is grossly violating his code of conduct on multiple counts because A) fiends are very extreme examples of evil that he associates with by making the deal. B) Giving them his soul is a very profound form of association. C) By accepting the transformation he is willingly becoming something more evil by nature - a half-fiend is evil by nature, non-evil half-fiends are merely fighting their nature. You can argue that a paladin could accept the transformation and then fight his now evil nature, but he chose to take a more evil nature for the sake of power, and he doesn't get to do that. Yes a Paladin can become a half-fiend after he was born. 1. Not all Fiends are Evil. 2. No where does it say you Have to sell your soul to become a half-fiend. 3. There is absolutely no difference between recieving a Power (half-celestial) template from a solar that is LG than recieving Power (half-fiend) from a Balor that is LG. If a DM is going to allow you to have a template then he should not just toss this out for the simple fact that it "sounds stupid" But the RP opportunities of playing a LG Half-fiend or a CE half-celestial should be great. And yes, in this instance, I think the RAW are a load of crap. I have to disagree on nearly every level. 1. Fiends are the incarnations of evil. They are evil given form. Exceptions such as Lady Despina's Virtue are exceptions to the extent that for the fiend to be non-evil this would have to be a completely seperate discussion. In simpler terms, you say "Not all fiends are Evil", this one is. 2. In the context provided, yes you do. Becoming half-fiend through other means takes away SOME of the moral issue, but you are still becoming a creature of evil. 3. Yes there is. Most of the half-fiend abilities and spells have the evil subtype, half-fiends have an innate alignment tendancy towards evil which even if resisted, was still willingly accepted by the now-ex-paladin. In effect, bargaining with fiends, selling one's soul and becoming half-fiend are 3 SEPERATE crimes against the paladin code. Actually, nothing says he loses his powers for making the deal. It's a conundrum: Let her own moral principles go before the innocents he's supposed to save or let the Demon take his soul and save the innocents. If I were that Paladin, I'd pray for divine intervention. Because the forces of Good are, well, Good (!), they will have to come and save those innocents. Otherwise, the DM is just being a jackass and should be killed. Say you, but this is an actual conundrum which no good can come off. Some Paladins choose to sell their souls, others will fight the invasion. Still others will pray for divine intervention, and they WILL get it. Praying and fighting hard are what a paladin should do. I agree that only a poor DM would put a paladin in that position and that the forces of Good are not that apathetic. We disagree on what selling a soul actually means. I take it to be a very big price. At the very least, the demon gets something out of it, which in itself is reason not to give away your soul.
Millennium 12-07-06, 10:02 AM	That's not a part of his Code of Conduct. Are you trying to say that pledging eternal servitude to an Evil being in exchange for turning into a creature that literally has Evil in its blood is somehow not in violation of the "Do no Evil" part of the paladin's code? What universe are you on? Of course he can make that deal. It doesn't break any rules in his Code of Conduct... Where can I get some of whatever you're smoking? That must be some really good stuff. ...and since the forces of Good are not as high on principles as Law, he'd immediately be forgiven, if they feel he has transgressed at all. If the forces of Good can forgive that, then they may as well forgive everything: there is no point in having a code of conduct at all. At any rate, the forces of Good failed the Paladin for letting him deal with this situation alone. Then they failed him. That happens sometimes. Good isn't always pleasant.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 10:18 AM	A paladin CAN'T associate with evil. Yea he can. The book says they never do, but hell, never doesn't even mean never in most cases. Yes it is, you have even been shown the quote. By making the deal of selling his soul he is grossly violating his code of conduct on multiple counts because The quote doesn't work by RAW. It is not part of his CoC. A) fiends are very extreme examples of evil that he associates with by making the deal. And? The forces of Good clearly aren't coming to help him, so he's doing what he can to get aid. If Good doesn't forgive that and let him stay as a Paladin, then they're actually more Evil than Evil. B) Giving them his soul is a very profound form of association. He's giving them an intangible object that is his to give. He can redeem it later, but right now, there are other things that are more important. C) By accepting the transformation he is willingly becoming something more evil by nature - a half-fiend is evil by nature, non-evil half-fiends are merely fighting their nature. You can argue that a paladin could accept the transformation and then fight his now evil nature, but he chose to take a more evil nature for the sake of power, and he doesn't get to do that. Half-Fiends lean away from Good by nature, but that doesn't make them Evil. We disagree on what selling a soul actually means. I take it to be a very big price. At the very least, the demon gets something out of it, which in itself is reason not to give away your soul. There are rules for using souls in the BoVD. They are bascially currency and aren't worth a damn thing to the Fiends except in large quantities. The Demon is actually losing out on this deal, as the Paladin can kill him later, take his soul back (they're kept in gems) and keep the template. Are you trying to say that pledging eternal servitude to an Evil being in exchange for turning into a creature that literally has Evil in its blood is somehow not in violation of the "Do no Evil" part of the paladin's code? Yes. Doing Evil in D&D requires you to actually hurt someone or advance the cause of Evil. You giving your soul to the fiend is like giving a dollar to a hobo. He can use it, but it's not worth much. What universe are you on? The RAW D&D Multiverse. Where can I get some of whatever you're smoking? That must be some really good stuff. If you have to ask, then you clearly don't know your drugs well enough. Get some experience and try again later (Sidequest gained: Gain 4 more levels to score drugs from V_T's stash). If the forces of Good can forgive that, then they may as well forgive everything: there is no point in having a code of conduct at all. So you fail to see the incredibly noble purpose the Paladin committed this deed for? And you also fail to see how the forces of Good have utterly failed him. He should be the one to forgive them, not the other way around. Since he remains Good-aligned, I'm sure he will. Then they failed him. That happens sometimes. Good isn't always pleasant. No, but Good is also Good. They are just as subject to alignment change as the Paladin is. By not coming to his aid, they committed an Evil act. They are bound by their own morals to aid him.
High Octane 12-07-06, 10:53 AM	All I have to say is, this SOUNDS like a joke when one has to say "NO your paladin may NOT sell his soul to become a half demon 'FOR THE GREATER GOOD' and keep his paladinhood!"
SephDragoon 12-07-06, 01:43 PM	All I have to say is, this SOUNDS like a joke when one has to say "NO your paladin may NOT sell his soul to become a half demon 'FOR THE GREATER GOOD' and keep his paladinhood!" I have to agree, this is completely ludicrous. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION FO ALIGNMENT FFS! Christ man, it is his inability to make deals with evil creatures. It is like saying that the US government won't make deals with terrorists. They can, but loose their credability right off the bat (this goes for other governments with the same rules). It is not that saving people isn't a good thing, it is a matter of principle. If the paladin can be manipulated, then he has lost all rights to be a paladin. The paladin must stick by his code, it is what makes him a paladin. Now, if you want to go splitting hairs over where it is said that he can't, then fine, go for it. You shouldn't be allowed in any game with a sane DM, because you are going to cause problems like that, and turn your sane DM insane. "But it doesn't say that once I drop below -10 I can't keep fighting." Does that sound familiar? I stick by what I said, this is why people can't play paladins. Heck my duskblade makes a better paladin than most paladins from what I am hearing (aside from the celebacy thing ^_^).
alder_zeal 12-07-06, 02:07 PM	Any Half-Fiend can become a Paladin as long as their alignment beomes Lawful Good. In BoED, there is a section on redeeming Evil. So yes an inherently evil creature can become good and become a Paladin. If a DM allows such a task then it should only be allowed if it does not overly affect game time.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 02:08 PM	It is not that saving people isn't a good thing, it is a matter of principle. Actually, it's the other way around. The principle goes second in the face of innocents being hurt. THIS is what his "master" has reduced him to. The Paladin now stands alone and must take whatever help he can get, and he's not going to get it from the celestials, that's for sure. The forces of Good cannot put him in this situation. They also cannot leave him. It is treachery of the highest order, even more so than a Paladin falling. If the Paladin has been abandoned by his "benevolent" master, he has a choice: Fight a losing battle to save innocents that the celestials are not saving (an Evil act by the celestials; enough to make them fall immediately, making the Paladin the sole force of Good in the multiverse), or make the deal (which he can take back later) to stand a fighting chance, possibly saving all the innocents. If Good does not forgive this, then Good is not only hypocritical, but - dare I say it - Evil! You shouldn't be allowed in any game with a sane DM, because you are going to cause problems like that, and turn your sane DM insane. "But it doesn't say that once I drop below -10 I can't keep fighting." Does that sound familiar? Ad. Hominem. Followed by a Straw. Man. Totally irrelevant.
High Octane 12-07-06, 02:18 PM	Actually, it's the other way around. The principle goes second in the face of innocents being hurt. THIS is what his "master" has reduced him to. The Paladin now stands alone and must take whatever help he can get, and he's not going to get it from the celestials, that's for sure. The forces of Good cannot put him in this situation. They also cannot leave him. It is treachery of the highest order, even more so than a Paladin falling. If the Paladin has been abandoned by his "benevolent" master, he has a choice: Fight a losing battle to save innocents that the celestials are not saving (an Evil act by the celestials; enough to make them fall immediately, making the Paladin the sole force of Good in the multiverse), or make the deal (which he can take back later) to stand a fighting chance, possibly saving all the innocents. If Good does not forgive this, then Good is not only hypocritical, but - dare I say it - Evil! Holy Crap, its like listening to Lucifer talk!
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 02:21 PM	Holy Crap, its like listening to Lucifer talk! *Sigs*
High Octane 12-07-06, 02:27 PM	*Sigs* That wasnt REALLY meant to be a compliment....but okay. I just thought that would be exactly how the devil would try to convince an angel to fall.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 02:33 PM	I just thought that would be exactly how the devil would try to convince an angel to fall. Yeah, maybe, but as a Demon, I couldn't in good (oh, the irony) conscience (irony again) take the Paladin under my wing to serve me. His devotion to Goodness is apparently stronger than Good itself. EDIT: I sometimes use this speech (or a variation thereof) to get people to do what I want.
Khael 12-07-06, 02:40 PM	If Good does not forgive this, then Good is not only hypocritical, but - dare I say it - Evil! So therefore your character is automatically fallen as he does not serve the forces of good, and has been associating with evil, QED. Interesting
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 02:43 PM	So therefore your character is automatically fallen as he does not serve the forces of good, and has been associating with evil, QED. Interesting Oh, no you don't. It's the single most large-scale fall from grace to ever happen in the history of the multiverse. Good essentially single-handedly eliminated itself. It's too good (no pun intended) to pass up. Good luck, Paladin. You're going to need it.
Khael 12-07-06, 02:50 PM	Oh, no you don't. It's the single most large-scale fall from grace to ever happen in the history of the multiverse. Good essentially single-handedly eliminated itself. It's too good (no pun intended) to pass up. Good luck, Paladin. You're going to need it. Yes, he will, since he follows some of the same creeds as other mortals telling them what is good, and so if all of good has fallen it is no longer 'good' meaning he cannot be lawful good, a prequisite of being a paladin causing the PC to either drop down to commoner since his class does not exist, or suddenly being a member of a different class while good is at the same time fallen and 'up on high' causing a freak explosion in reality. Either way you cannot be a paladin and receive the half-fiend template by selling your soul for the 'greater good'. Congratuations Gentlemen (and any girls present) we have succesfully destroyed the paladin class...
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 03:02 PM	Yes, he will, since he follows some of the same creeds as other mortals telling them what is good, and so if all of good has fallen it is no longer 'good' meaning he cannot be lawful good, a prequisite of being a paladin causing the PC to either drop down to commoner since his class does not exist, or suddenly being a member of a different class while good is at the same time fallen and 'up on high' causing a freak explosion in reality. Look at it this way: The force of Good has fallen, but the Paladin remains as a last spark of Good that retains his power based on his own conviction. He can still be opposed to Evil and fight it. However, if he dies, the last Good force dies, and so the multiverse dissolves. Either way you cannot be a paladin and receive the half-fiend template by selling your soul for the 'greater good'. Actually, yes you can. RAW even supports this. Congratuations Gentlemen (and any girls present) we have succesfully destroyed the paladin class... Along with the multiverse in its entirety.
Khael 12-07-06, 03:15 PM	Look at it this way: The force of Good has fallen, but the Paladin remains as a last spark of Good that retains his power based on his own conviction. He can still be opposed to Evil and fight it. BUT, his alignment is based on the conception of good, and so if good is fallen (and so no longer good), the system he is considered good by is no longer good, thus the paladin cannot be lawful good, and so cannot be a paladin. Being the last spark of good is meaningless, since CG exists, a sense of good based entirely on ones own view, as opposed to LE which is by definition of title in part system based, that system being the laws of good. Which are not good as proven here. However, if he dies, the last Good force dies, and so the multiverse dissolves. No, it was already doomed, unless it reverts to a save point wherein that paladin is not was not, and never will have been a paladin. I assume this is why all D&D worlds still exist. Actually, yes you can. RAW even supports this. RAW says you must be LG. See above (I assume things like paladins of freedom aren't being accounted for...) Along with the multiverse in its entirety. Can't make an ommelette without breaking a few eggs. Or one big one in this case (but of course who am I to say how big the multiverse in question is relative? Oh yes. Me.)
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 03:23 PM	BUT, his alignment is based on the conception of good, and so if good is fallen (and so no longer good), the system he is considered good by is no longer good, thus the paladin cannot be lawful good, and so cannot be a paladin. Being the last spark of good is meaningless, since CG exists, a sense of good based entirely on ones own view, as opposed to LE which is by definition of title in part system based, that system being the laws of good. Which are not good as proven here. The Paladin is not a unit that exists outside of Good. He is a part of it, and as long as he is still alive, he remains a Paladin and a source of Good. And CG and NG don't exist anymore. They didn't come to aid him or save the innocents, so they fall, too. No, it was already doomed, unless it reverts to a save point wherein that paladin is not was not, and never will have been a paladin. I assume this is why all D&D worlds still exist. Or where the Paladin gets killed before having to make the choice. RAW says you must be LG. See above (I assume things like paladins of freedom aren't being accounted for...) RAW says you must be LG, yes, but you don't change alignments. You aren't even committing an Evil act. If it was an Evil act, you'd have every right to become a savagely powerful Blackguard and slaughter the forces of Good yourself in a massive bloodbath. They failed you, and then go on to put you in a situation like this? Yeah, they wouldn't be Good anymore, and neither would you. Bascially, the multiverse would be destroyed instantly. The blue text denotes a hypothetical situation where the act was an Evil one.
Khael 12-07-06, 03:35 PM	The Paladin is not a unit that exists outside of Good. He is a part of it, and as long as he is still alive, he remains a Paladin and a source of Good. And CG and NG don't exist anymore. They didn't come to aid him or save the innocents, so they fall, too. RAW says you must be LG, yes, but you don't change alignments. You aren't even committing an Evil act. You're both missing my point and getting it at the same time here: The paladin cannot be good if the forces of good have fallen, because if they are fallen there is no good anymore, the only way he can be good in by his own belief, BUT the same goes for the rest, if he can remind at the soel beacon of good because of his 'goodness and virtue' so are the rest. They believe they are just as good (or if you're a cocky celestial, more so) and so by your argument either they are good and good has not fallen, or the paladin is not good, and so either has himself fallen, or cannot exist resulting in the multiverse explsion/save point effect. And RAW says you must be LG, but if good has fallen you didn't change alignment. You never were LG as you are a part of 'good', which is not good, hence reality collapsing, as you cannot be a paladin without a LG alignment. If it was an Evil act, you'd have every right to become a savagely powerful Blackguard and slaughter the forces of Good yourself in a massive bloodbath. They failed you, and then go on to put you in a situation like this? Yeah, they wouldn't be Good anymore, and neither would you. Bascially, the multiverse would be destroyed instantly. Nope, becasue you aren't a non-LG paladin here, you are a blackguard. It just means the multiverse will die in a much longer messily way...
Ocalus 12-07-06, 04:20 PM	but the question is would this ever be possible? The depend entirely on how gullible your DM is. PLEASE tell me that this "half-demon paladin" is not going to wear a red coat and call himself Dante.
Prime32 12-07-06, 04:44 PM	Along with the multiverse in its entirety. I TOLD you not to play with the Zero Point Amplifier, Meredith! :mad: Here's a thought - could a half-fiend who becomes a paladin later transform into a half-celestial? Maybe he pretends to be one (not hard for half-erinyes). Maybe a paladin who undergoes a fiendish transformation becomes a blackguard while retaining his LG alignment? Not RAW, I know, but it's an interesting concept... Aribeth the paladin/blackguard/paladin again in Neverwinter Nights was pretty good.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-07-06, 08:05 PM	That's not a part of his Code of Conduct. Of course he can make that deal. It doesn't break any rules in his Code of Conduct, and since the forces of Good are not as high on principles as Law, he'd immediately be forgiven, if they feel he has transgressed at all. What did you smoke today? That is a basic part of the code of conduct of a Paladin. And because it is a part of the code it means you cannot make deals with demons of fiends in this case.
makeshiftwings 12-07-06, 08:08 PM	Yea he can. The book says they never do, but hell, never doesn't even mean never in most cases. The quote doesn't work by RAW. It is not part of his CoC. No, you can't have it both ways. Either the rule of not associating with evil is supposed to be part of the Code of Conduct, or it is a separate self-contained rule, in which case "never" does mean "never". Just like how a cleric can "never" cast spells with an alignment opposed to his deity. Generally, you are supposed to interpret the rules as written in English, not by making up your own definition for words like "never".
Thunder Dragonbane 12-07-06, 08:28 PM	It is quite obvious that V T is talking out of his ass. The Paladin class may by the rules in the PHB on page # 44 never willingly associate with evil. What part of fiends are evil does this person not understand?:nonono: I can't believe that this thread has gone on for 3 pages for a simple yes / no question. The answer is still no by the way.:censored: :nonono:
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 08:30 PM	It is quite obvious that V T is talking out of his ass. The Paladin class may by the rules in the PHB on page # 44 never willingly associate with evil. What part of fiends are evil does this person not understand?:nonono: They may, but they apparently never do. And by association, do they mean making business deals? The answer is still no by the way.:censored: :nonono: Not really.
High Octane 12-07-06, 08:33 PM	They may, but they apparently never do. And by association, do they mean making business deals? No they can't, and YES making business deals counts as association.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-07-06, 08:35 PM	No they can't, and YES making business deals counts as association. They are not breaking their CoC by associating with Evil creatures. It may have been intended, but this is a discussion of rules. The rules are clear on what you can and can't do.
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 10:27 PM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Now he would be come a half demon by selling his soul to a demon, ( and what if this demon wasn't bad, in the sense that we was working againt other demons.) or we was tricked into it. Or wanted the power so that he could combat a greater evil. ( and i know what your thinking hear as a paladin the light should over come all, but some times you need to get down in the mud to get the job done.) I mean this might come off as hell no this couldn't be, but the question is would this ever be possible? And on that note say it was possible would he be able to use his powers that he gains form becoming part demon. Maybe im fishing here for an answer.... or maybe i'll get an answer i like :rolleyes: No, because all cases of paladins are mentioned as being 100% Human only. Always has been and forseeably always will be, Now.. if they are put under a spell and made to do an evil act, they instantly lose their paladin status and are bumped down to ranger ( I think was what it was ) until they recieve an atonement by a cleric of xxx level. then they regain their status, but if they cannot atone they never regain it. They cannot be half elf, half dwarf, half anything really. which means no half demon (by birth). Now if the aforementioned paladin makes a pact with a dark being "soul selling" for whatever reason, they are IMMEDIATELY stripped of their status by whichever deity they serve, regardless of the reason. You cant exactly have your priests, clerics and soldiers running around in enemy colors right? So as cool as it may sound... No = impossible. Now, you can have an ANTI paladin, to use the dark equiv of paladin like powers, but... thats the closest your going to get to paladin status with any sort of darkness
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 10:38 PM	Those are good points. But a lawful good deity, Paladine for example.. He wouldnt employ someone in his service who had an innate tie to the darkness he swears daily to erradicate. One..its hard to find a demon that is not some form of evil alignment.. be it lawful or chaotic. Two.. Its even more unheard of to hear of one that is even neutral in any sense let alone good. There are plenty of full human specimens for deities to chose from in their paladin selector that they wouldnt need to turn to their hates enemies brood. Ultimately yes, people can do whatever they want, its their own character and their own game ... But Paladins by requirement are to be lawful good, have no association with evil in any form and they are to be pure of heart and spirit. A demon could never do that because it always has a tie to darkness, tie in its blood which is often stronger than loyalty of the will. Too improbable ultimately
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 10:55 PM	Your soul has nothing to do with your free will. That's your mind. Then why dont angels have free will? They have a mind but no soul... the thing that distinguishes them from mankind is a soul and free will ;)
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 10:57 PM	okay, sorry for making it the mom, although you all should have just seen that it could just as easily be something more important. every church and follower of his diety will be destroyed tomorrow unless the attack is called off, and the only way for him to save all of them is to sell his soul. he sells his soul, and an evil diety calls off the oncoming purge. it would be selfish not to sell the soul at this point. as far as a dm thinking this up and that being terrible, it could be thought up in collaboration with the player who wants to become half-demon and wants a way for this to happen. = he would still lose his soul and no longer be a paladin..
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:01 PM	right. Except that it says specifically PALADINS CANNOT ASSOCIATE WITH EVIL IN ANY FORM AND MUST COMBAT IT WHENEVER IT PRESENTS ITSELF.. they cant even travel with people that are less than lawful good ( or was it lawful neutral) alignment without losing their status.. I find it hard to believe that the rules are that strict on your roadside company but it wouldnt matter on what you do with the soul that you are suppose to have pledged to a deity of GOOD... How many people here have actually read the book of paladins, or the descriptions on their requirements in the handbooks? Come on! this many pages of this , this many people saying heck no and people are still asking?
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:06 PM	selling your soul to save the world is different than killing a baby to save the world. killing a baby isnt self-sacrifice. dude.. NO, it cant happen, nomatter how you justify it, reword it, change it around and try to explain it. No, Nein, Nyet. Finit
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:08 PM	Note that there is nothing in the rules stopping a demon from being non-evil, or a non-evil demon from being a paladin. Or for that matter, anything stopping an archon from being Chaotic Evil and becoming a Paladin of Slaughter. It's just not very common... except that paladin status is granted to you by a deity of lawful good and a lawful good power would not give its blessings to a demon...
TheDarkLord 12-07-06, 11:15 PM	While I'm not going to further the discussion, EntropyDawn, prepare to get flamed :D.
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:19 PM	Yea he can. The book says they never do, but hell, never doesn't even mean never in most cases. The quote doesn't work by RAW. It is not part of his CoC. And? The forces of Good clearly aren't coming to help him, so he's doing what he can to get aid. If Good doesn't forgive that and let him stay as a Paladin, then they're actually more Evil than Evil. He's giving them an intangible object that is his to give. He can redeem it later, but right now, there are other things that are more important. Half-Fiends lean away from Good by nature, but that doesn't make them Evil. There are rules for using souls in the BoVD. They are bascially currency and aren't worth a damn thing to the Fiends except in large quantities. The Demon is actually losing out on this deal, as the Paladin can kill him later, take his soul back (they're kept in gems) and keep the template. Yes. Doing Evil in D&D requires you to actually hurt someone or advance the cause of Evil. You giving your soul to the fiend is like giving a dollar to a hobo. He can use it, but it's not worth much. The RAW D&D Multiverse. If you have to ask, then you clearly don't know your drugs well enough. Get some experience and try again later (Sidequest gained: Gain 4 more levels to score drugs from V_T's stash). So you fail to see the incredibly noble purpose the Paladin committed this deed for? And you also fail to see how the forces of Good have utterly failed him. He should be the one to forgive them, not the other way around. Since he remains Good-aligned, I'm sure he will. No, but Good is also Good. They are just as subject to alignment change as the Paladin is. By not coming to his aid, they committed an Evil act. They are bound by their own morals to aid him. Being a paladin has to do with your own choices made, it has nothing to do with what your deity is doing. your pledging your allegiance to the deity..and the rules he sets down for his followers, not the other way around. Just because you think they abandoned you doesnt mean you are free to take the backroad and do things on your own. Thats a vigilante not a paladin. And sorry but umm.. if you EVER read anything about paladins it has a clear definition of what they can and cannot do. And Selling your soul is kinda against all of that. It doesnt matter if its your last gold piece or something intangible, you are freely giving something of yours to something that you should be killing, not helping out. And the greater good doesnt even enter into it, you are responsible for your own actions. Take Lord Soth for example, if he was a paladin. if his choices were to sell his soul to Chemosh in order to save a town or kill the bad guy trying to take over a town and die trying? You know what? they would reward him for dying in the line of duty instead of resorting to something that could be considered traitor ish. They would never allow you to sell your soul to accomplish an act of good. I know the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions and well. Thats true, you can sell it in the hopes for good, but it doesnt work that way. You lose your paladin status no ifs ands or buts about it. You dont defeat evil by associating with it . Buy the paladin handbook, look it up in the players and dm handbook, read it and then come back to the post.. please
Sunrider 12-07-06, 11:21 PM	except that paladin status is granted to you by a deity of lawful good Show me where this is the case in generic-setting RAW (i.e. not specific settings where this may or may not be the case). and a lawful good power would not give its blessings to a demon... Depends totally on the deity's personality, irrespective of alignment. Torm or Tyr may baulk at it, but I'm sure Mystra or Sune would welcome a LG demon paladin (or CG demon Paladin of Freedom). One..its hard to find a demon that is not some form of evil alignment.. be it lawful or chaotic. Two.. Its even more unheard of to hear of one that is even neutral in any sense let alone good. Four words: Helm of Opposite Alignment. Besides, isn't there a Succubus paladin somewhere on the Wizards site?
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:37 PM	Just a post to apologize about the number of replies here. It was my intention to reply to the posts individually as I came across them, then copy/paste them all into one post instead of half a dozen single posts. However, it isnt letting me delete them and clean up the area here after I get everthing into just one box of replies like I wanted to.. I deeply apologize for the annoyance factor here. It bugs me as well and if someone can help me fix it I will be more than willing to get it cleared up ASAP:)
EntropyDawn 12-07-06, 11:44 PM	Show me where this is the case in generic-setting RAW (i.e. not specific settings where this may or may not be the case). Depends totally on the deity's personality, irrespective of alignment. Torm or Tyr may baulk at it, but I'm sure Mystra or Sune would welcome a LG demon paladin (or CG demon Paladin of Freedom). Four words: Helm of Opposite Alignment. Besides, isn't there a Succubus paladin somewhere on the Wizards site? in the players handbook it talks about them serving deities and thats where they get their status and powers from just like clerics. Depends, what are mystra and sunes alignments? Doesnt a paladin have to serve only lawful good forces? As for the helm, its a good idea, but arent fiends really resistant to magic like that? since it is kind of a mind control? ( could be entirely wrong though ) But the chances of one wearing such a fashionable item are pretty slim. Not to mention that a deity wouldnt want to chance things on a variable like that. You can always remove the helm or someone can remove it ( or is the change permanent.. I dont remember =( ) As for the succubus paladin.. thats because you can be anything you want on here, whether or not it would work in a game is a different matter. I could say I was a pit fiend paladin.. but it just doesnt work in game terms I wouldnt think. Although I will admit there are cases of extreme freak of nature, like I read a book about a lawful good lich.. poor guy got turned into one. But thats still a little different than a demon paladin I think
OneWinged4ngel 12-08-06, 03:13 AM	well like the topic says, can a paladin be a half demon. Yes. The rules say so. To paraphrase, it says "Even a creature with an "Always" alignment label is subject to exceptions." Anyways, all that's required to be a paladin is a Lawful Good alignment. If he's Lawful Good, he can be a paladin. Done and done. Of course, Rule Zero can change all that, but by RAW... he can be a paladin.
High Octane 12-08-06, 04:56 AM	I agree that a half demon could be a paladin. He would be a REAL odd man out, fighting half of his heritage, but yeah of course its possible. Whats not possible is the paladin selling his ******* soul to a high ranking demon in exchange for becoming a half-demon and still remaining a paladin.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 09:22 AM	Then why dont angels have free will? They do. They have a mind but no soul... the thing that distinguishes them from mankind is a soul and free will ;) Angels have free wills and souls. Their souls are indistinguishable from their bodies (the reason they can't normally be resurrected). = he would still lose his soul and no longer be a paladin.. You don't have to have a soul to be a Paladin. Argument: Undead can be Paladins. Except that it says specifically PALADINS CANNOT ASSOCIATE WITH EVIL IN ANY FORM AND MUST COMBAT IT WHENEVER IT PRESENTS ITSELF.. It specifically says no such thing. they cant even travel with people that are less than lawful good ( or was it lawful neutral) alignment without losing their status.. Uh... what? That's an outright lie. you are suppose to have pledged to a deity of GOOD... You are supposed to have pledged yourself to the cause of Good. Deities have nothing to do with it, unless you decide that it's your character. Hell, you could even make a case for a Paladin being able to power himself with his conviction (alignment shift meaning, he starts to doubt what he stands for). How many people here have actually read the book of paladins, or the descriptions on their requirements in the handbooks? You mean books WotC didn't write? I haven't read a sinlge one. I prefer to base my arguments on actual, official material written by WotC than 3rd party products that sometimes don't even consider WotC's stance on the matter. Come on! this many pages of this , this many people saying heck no and people are still asking? Yeah, because page count doesn't matter, nor does the number of posts. And using the number of people agreeing is a total logical fallacy. It doesn't work as an argument. except that paladin status is granted to you by a deity of lawful good and a lawful good power would not give its blessings to a demon... It's granted to the Paladin by whatever the player says is granting it to him. In this case, let's assume it is the power of Good that's granting him power. Good abandoned the Paladin. The Paladin is standing alone in this mess while Good is off somewhere jacking off and slowly turning Evil. Even if selling his soul was an Evil act (and it isn't), Good does not get to judge him, or take away his power (well, they could but they won't, because Good doesn't like being called hypocritical, even though it very often is). Again, Good abandoned him, so he makes the decisions now on what to do with his power (being the sole source of Good in the multiverse now). He feels he has to do this, so he does. It would be incredibly Evil of Good to strip him of his power. Seriously, that would be, like, material for the Book of Vile Darkness II (which hopefully won't get written). Just because you think they abandoned you doesnt mean you are free to take the backroad and do things on your own. Thats a vigilante not a paladin. He doesn't think he was abandoned. He was abandoned. Good is no longer Good, but he is, so he makes the decisions on what's Good now. And sorry but umm.. if you EVER read anything about paladins it has a clear definition of what they can and cannot do. It has a clear definitions on what they may not do. And Selling your soul is kinda against all of that. Not really. His soul is his soul. He decides what to do with it. He decided to pay a minor price to get something that could aid him in saving every single innocent there is in the entire multiverse (Good can't even be bothered to try). Besides, who's to say the Paladin isn't tricking the Demon, later coming to slaughter it and take his soul back? I mean, Paladins are charismatic people. It doesnt matter if its your last gold piece or something intangible, you are freely giving something of yours to something that you should be killing, not helping out. And Good gets to say this... why? They're not even helping him. They are actually aiding a great Evil power in destroying the multiverse. Yeah... no. The Paladin is now the sole definition of Good. Take Lord Soth for example, if he was a paladin. if his choices were to sell his soul to Chemosh in order to save a town or kill the bad guy trying to take over a town and die trying? You know what? they would reward him for dying in the line of duty instead of resorting to something that could be considered traitor ish. That's Dragonlance material if I'm not mistaken. I don't care what Dragonlance has to say about anything. They would never allow you to sell your soul to accomplish an act of good. They are now the very thing you're out to destroy. Why should you listen to them? I know the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions and well. Everyone in D&D has good intentions, just not always Good intentions. The Paladin has the intention of keeping the multiverse in existence and save a crapload of innocents. The Demon probably wants to stay alive, too, but he sees a chance to profit. No Paladin is ever dumb enough (and neither is the poer of Good Evil) to let their hatred of Evil come before saving innocents, especially when those same innocents are in grave danger, and especially since he is now the sole power of his own convictions and this is his only fighting chance. TYou lose your paladin status no ifs ands or buts about it. Nope. And I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your position. You dont defeat evil by associating with it. This is not about fighting Evil anymore. It is now about saving the world and he needs all the help he can get. No matter how much he hates the Demon, he has to take what he's given so he can save the poor people about to die. Buy the paladin handbook, look it up in the players and dm handbook, read it and then come back to the post.. please I did, you didn't.
Millennium 12-08-06, 10:41 AM	Depends, what are mystra and sunes alignments? Doesnt a paladin have to serve only lawful good forces? Mystra is NG and Sune is CG, but both of these deities are very unusual cases. Mystra continues to sponsor clerics of her previous incarnation, who was LN (she probably wouldn't accept new LN or LE clerics, though the rules don't mention this either). while Sune is explicitly stated to sponsor paladins even though she's CG (she finds the idea very romantic). The rules are actually silent on what powers a paladin can serve, as long as the paladin himself is LG. It is canon, for example, that both Helm and Saint Cuthbert sponsor paladins, even though these deities are not good and don't even have paladin levels of their own. Generally speaking, however, it would make little sense for a deity to sponsor paladins if it didn't also sponsor LG clerics. Sune is an exception -she sponsors paladins but not LG clerics- but even her own profile says that it's unusual for a deity to do this. As for the succubus paladin.. thats because you can be anything you want on here, whether or not it would work in a game is a different matter. I could say I was a pit fiend paladin.. but it just doesnt work in game terms I wouldnt think. Although I will admit there are cases of extreme freak of nature, like I read a book about a lawful good lich.. poor guy got turned into one. But thats still a little different than a demon paladin I think Eludecia the succubus paladin (http://64.223.12.31/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) has been statted out officially. This isn't just some fan trying out a concept on the boards: this is a character that Wizards has "blessed," as it were.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 10:55 AM	Mystra is NG and Sune is CG, but both of these deities are very unusual cases. Mystra continues to sponsor clerics of her previous incarnation, who was LN (she probably wouldn't accept new LN or LE clerics, though the rules don't mention this either). while Sune is explicitly stated to sponsor paladins even though she's CG (she finds the idea very romantic). The rules are actually silent on what powers a paladin can serve, as long as the paladin himself is LG. It is canon, for example, that both Helm and Saint Cuthbert sponsor paladins, even though these deities are not good and don't even have paladin levels of their own. Generally speaking, however, it would make little sense for a deity to sponsor paladins if it didn't also sponsor LG clerics. Sune is an exception -she sponsors paladins but not LG clerics- but even her own profile says that it's unusual for a deity to do this. Eludecia the succubus paladin (http://64.223.12.31/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) has been statted out officially. This isn't just some fan trying out a concept on the boards: this is a character that Wizards has "blessed," as it were. Well, then theoretically, the question was answered from the beginning right? that there can (through some freak twist of the laws of nature and magic governing the planes) be a paladin with an infernal tint. It must be like the lawful good lich or the half vampire paladin or something extreme. I personally never thought it was possible because the paladin would see itself as an abomination or blasphemy to its faith. It couldnt resist the urge to kill itself because it would always see the demon as well.... a demon and want to destroy it. But then again there are stories of demons rebelling against darkness and turning to a life of well... less than evil. I just always thought with the paladins strict rules about associations with evil that it would be kinda impossible to do. Isnt it a deity that gives them their powers or takes away their powers? If its not what is there to stop anyone walking down the street from saying "I am a paladin!" and getting all the holy powers attributed to them. Surely it isnt just them being a good guy that does it. And that making a mistake automatically takes it away.... Some divine influence has to have a hand in it. But if the entity practiced only good and never turned to its dark heritage... I guess there is a one in a hundred billion chance it could happen.. Just never really thought it would be possible. cause demons dont hang out with good and good doesnt hang out with evil. But stranger things have happend apparently lol. :D (after reading about the succubus I noticed that it lost the struggle against the evil in iteself. just like the vampiric paladin mentioned before, and I think like the good lich mentioned in an old TSR book. So it definitely must be a hard struggle)
Stormbrand 12-08-06, 12:36 PM	While trying to avoid flaming, I must say VT is taking the "because I said so" approach - claiming the forces of Good are now evil for de-powering the paladin or casting judgement, Effectively, this is saying "prove it" and denying the existance of all proof presented. Being a half-fiend is not an evil act in and of itself, because it isn't an act. Becoming a half-fiend, however, is becoming something which has an inherent inclination towards evil, which makes the paladin a potential and likely risk to innocents. Therefore accepting the transformation puts innocents lives in danger for the sake of personal gain. In my eyes that is evil. Under the paladin code it states that paladins never willingly associates with evil. I have heard some bizarre assertions that this does not mean the paladin cannot. Well, if paladins never willingly associate with evil then anyone willingly associating with evil is not a paladin. Associating with evil (such as giving a fiend your soul) is dangerous on the grounds that the benefit for evil could easily hurt someone. The analagy I use is that it is like giving a criminal the parts to make a weapon with. Effectively gives evil power which it can use to hurt someone. Some quotes I have read come from 2nd Ed, and are inapplicable to 3E or 3.5. Non-evil fiends are a special case, and with respect, are generally irrelevant when discussing fiends. I can't accept the premise that the embodyment/incarnation of evil may not be evil as valid. In fact, many demon lords/archdevils are fallen celestials. So angels turned evil become fiends. So equally fiends turned good should become angels. further, another assumption made is that the forces of Good have abandoned the paladin, and this justifies the paladins actions. I would say the mere presence of the paladin in the dire situation is the hand of the forces of Good. Why is Good obligated to supply armies of angels by default? Sure the situation may demand it but that only applies to one specific situation.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 01:30 PM	While trying to avoid flaming, I must say VT is taking the "because I said so" approach - claiming the forces of Good are now evil for de-powering the paladin or casting judgement, What I'm really saying is that Good isn't Good anymore, so it has no more ability to strip the Paladin of his powers than the Demon does. Passing judgement, maybe. Effectively, this is saying "prove it" and denying the existance of all proof presented. Not denying the existence thereof, as much as making counterpoints. Some "evidence" is downright deniable, though. Becoming a half-fiend, however, is becoming something which has an inherent inclination towards evil, which makes the paladin a potential and likely risk to innocents. Therefore accepting the transformation puts innocents lives in danger for the sake of personal gain. In my eyes that is evil. Ah, but you have to actually hurt somebody for the act to be Evil. That or further the cause of Evil. The deal implies only a physical change, heightened mental faculties, and gaining some special abilities that may aid the Paladin. Nothing about it implies anything about a change of attitude. Under the paladin code it states that paladins never willingly associates with evil. I have heard some bizarre assertions that this does not mean the paladin cannot. Well, if paladins never willingly associate with evil then anyone willingly associating with evil is not a paladin. The book says they never do, but it does not prohibit them to do so. In addition, it is clearly allowed for him to associate with the Demon in that campaign. Associating with evil (such as giving a fiend your soul) is dangerous on the grounds that the benefit for evil could easily hurt someone. The analagy I use is that it is like giving a criminal the parts to make a weapon with. Effectively gives evil power which it can use to hurt someone. You can come back later and claim your soul by force, using your fiendish power to aid you. Non-evil fiends are a special case, and with respect, are generally irrelevant when discussing fiends. I can't accept the premise that the embodyment/incarnation of evil may not be evil as valid. I argue on the assumption that the Demon is Evil. In fact, many demon lords/archdevils are fallen celestials. So angels turned evil become fiends. So equally fiends turned good should become angels. Not really. With time, they might change, though. I would say the mere presence of the paladin in the dire situation is the hand of the forces of Good. Yeah, the only hand of Good left: the Paladin. Why is Good obligated to supply armies of angels by default? Sure the situation may demand it but that only applies to one specific situation. This is a time where Good is not only needed, but everyone. When I say everyone, I mean that Demons and Archons should be fighting side-by-side (metaphorically; not on the same battlefield, too confusing and their instincts might kick in) against this threat. This situation could be best described as everyone having become Neutral wussy-ass Rilmani (Neutral Outsiders obsessed with balance) (except Good, which has chosen to become a Blackguard). Everyone's giving up on the innocents but the Paladin. The Slaadi aren't even looting! What is it with this world you're playing in, knightofvoid?! Rilmani: "They is destroying our Multiverse, moderately superior one." Moderately Superior One: "Yes." Rilmani: "What shall we do?" Moderately Superior One: "Balance will come in our deaths." Rilmani: "Indeed it shall. Let us now eat supper." I also have to ask why Good would be so hung up on principle as to let the Paladin die a horrible agonizing death for making this deal (losing his powers would immediately get him killed in the battle, Half-Fiend template or no), and still lend no helping hand. This is an active campaign to destroy innocent life, the hallmark of Evil.
High Octane 12-08-06, 02:04 PM	Ah, but you have to actually hurt somebody for the act to be Evil. So juggling babies is not evil if you dont drop them? Right.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 02:10 PM	While you may have to cause harm in one form or another to have the action deemed "evil" regardless of whether you hurt something or not doesnt change the fact that preforming the act is in itself "less than good" and against his Morals which = bad Because a paladin is what he is because of several reasons. Principle being one of them. He set about to follow a strict code of conduct in exchange for the paladin status. He knows going into the deal that if he falters or betrays his morals and beliefs he falls. And he accepts that as part of his initiation. No DM should ever force a paladin into a situation of ultimate damnation nomatter what he does. Ie: either sell his soul and be damned or dont do it and be damned. Thats basically making him screwed from the beginning and not letting him have any chance nomatter what and is really wrong. The paladin is a unique individual in the fact that he ALWAYS adheres to his principles. He knows that he has the option to not do it and that is a temptation he deals with constantly.. But its his refusal to accept dark assistance, traffic with evil or associate with it in any way, that shows his purity and the power of his faith and virtue. Its like the Knights of Solamnia.. They are reported to never use sorcery because it is a violation of their code. even if it saves their life or the life of someone else. Granted they will let someone else use it, but they themselves never do. So why should a paladin that has 100x more rigid standards be able to go against their code? And yes the wording in the books is "Never"associates with it (and your argument is that just because they dont doesnt mean they cant) but that doesnt always work, and here is one example of it. Dont you think that 500 paladins roaming the plains and having the chance to do it but never taking advantage of it is a little more than coincidence? That there may be some deeper reason as to why they dont other than " I just dont feel like it"? There has to be some reason that none of them ever do other than because its the right thing to do. Like something that prevents them from doing it. There is, its called an ultimatum (sp?) Either stick by your virtues and do not be a vessel of evil in any form and remain able to claim paladin status, or fall into temptation and give yourself over to darkness and lose your status and become a blackguard etc. There HAS To be some motivation/incentive etc that keeps them from doing it.. it cant all be just coincidence. A paladin is a holy vessel and they pledge themselves to good and their faith in it. In doing so they exhalt themselves above others in that they rely on their faith and virtue and honor to give them strength. That is their driving force, what gives them the will to go on and continue in the service of the lawful good powers and or their patron deity. That is their arsenal, Faith, Virtue, Honor and dignity and the service to the ideals and principles they pledged to obey. They dont resort to using tools outside of good which is what sets them apart from others. They lead by example. Theoretically you could play a chaotic evil Solar, but in practicality it doesnt happen, and the whole just because it hasnt happened doesnt mean it cant thing isnt totally a valid argument. So while this is up to the DM and the player that conned the people into letting them use the character ultimately.. The likelihood of it happening are next to nothing if not 0 completely And as to the comment of "What I'm really saying is that Good isn't Good anymore, so it has no more ability to strip the Paladin of his powers than the Demon does. Passing judgement, maybe." <-- thats not entirely true because it doesnt matter if the deity that gave the paladin his powers has a change of heart or not. if he gave them to the paladin he has the ability to take them away unless the paladin becomes a deity himself or his powers are preserved by another patron. Either that or they just fade away since the force that gave them to him no longer supplies his power. Just like in the movie Spawn. He and his patron entity ended up going seperate ways and since he no longer had a channel to a power source it wilted away (well, till he killed the thing and took its place but still)
High Octane 12-08-06, 02:33 PM	While you may have to cause harm in one form or another to have the action deemed "evil" regardless of whether you hurt something or not doesnt change the fact that preforming the act is in itself "less than good" and against his Morals which = bad Because a paladin is what he is because of several reasons. Principle being one of them. He set about to follow a strict code of conduct in exchange for the paladin status. He knows going into the deal that if he falters or betrays his morals and beliefs he falls. And he accepts that as part of his initiation. No DM should ever force a paladin into a situation of ultimate damnation nomatter what he does. Ie: either sell his soul and be damned or dont do it and be damned. Thats basically making him screwed from the beginning and not letting him have any chance nomatter what and is really wrong. The paladin is a unique individual in the fact that he ALWAYS adheres to his principles. He knows that he has the option to not do it and that is a temptation he deals with constantly.. But its his refusal to accept dark assistance, traffic with evil or associate with it in any way, that shows his purity and the power of his faith and virtue. Its like the Knights of Solamnia.. They are reported to never use sorcery because it is a violation of their code. even if it saves their life or the life of someone else. Granted they will let someone else use it, but they themselves never do. So why should a paladin that has 100x more rigid standards be able to go against their code? And yes the wording in the books is "Never"associates with it (and your argument is that just because they dont doesnt mean they cant) but that doesnt always work, and here is one example of it. Dont you think that 500 paladins roaming the plains and having the chance to do it but never taking advantage of it is a little more than coincidence? That there may be some deeper reason as to why they dont other than " I just dont feel like it"? There has to be some reason that none of them ever do other than because its the right thing to do. Like something that prevents them from doing it. There is, its called an ultimatum (sp?) Either stick by your virtues and do not be a vessel of evil in any form and remain able to claim paladin status, or fall into temptation and give yourself over to darkness and lose your status and become a blackguard etc. There HAS To be some motivation/incentive etc that keeps them from doing it.. it cant all be just coincidence. A paladin is a holy vessel and they pledge themselves to good and their faith in it. In doing so they exhalt themselves above others in that they rely on their faith and virtue and honor to give them strength. That is their driving force, what gives them the will to go on and continue in the service of the lawful good powers and or their patron deity. That is their arsenal, Faith, Virtue, Honor and dignity and the service to the ideals and principles they pledged to obey. They dont resort to using tools outside of good which is what sets them apart from others. They lead by example. Theoretically you could play a chaotic evil Solar, but in practicality it doesnt happen, and the whole just because it hasnt happened doesnt mean it cant thing isnt totally a valid argument. So while this is up to the DM and the player that conned the people into letting them use the character ultimately.. The likelihood of it happening are next to nothing if not 0 completely And as to the comment of "What I'm really saying is that Good isn't Good anymore, so it has no more ability to strip the Paladin of his powers than the Demon does. Passing judgement, maybe." <-- thats not entirely true because it doesnt matter if the deity that gave the paladin his powers has a change of heart or not. if he gave them to the paladin he has the ability to take them away unless the paladin becomes a deity himself or his powers are preserved by another patron. Either that or they just fade away since the force that gave them to him no longer supplies his power. Just like in the movie Spawn. He and his patron entity ended up going seperate ways and since he no longer had a channel to a power source it wilted away (well, till he killed the thing and took its place but still) Eloquently spoken, this is worthy of copying and sticking into some manual on paladins.
Stormbrand 12-08-06, 02:37 PM	Ah, but you have to actually hurt somebody for the act to be Evil. That or further the cause of Evil. The deal implies only a physical change, heightened mental faculties, and gaining some special abilities that may aid the Paladin. Nothing about it implies anything about a change of attitude. That assumes Evil = Success which I don't buy into. Attacking an unarmed stranger counts as Evil as far as I am concerned whether the stranger as DR20/- or not. It doesn't become more morally acceptable if the victim is tougher than he looks. Call it my interpretation, but becoming a creature with a more evil alignment (the monster entry describes half-fiends as either usually or always evil) would be reflected in evil impulses. You even comment on instincts later in your post. I argue on the assumption that the Demon is Evil. That was aimed at someone else. The book says they never do, but it does not prohibit them to do so. The "paladins never willingly associates with evil" clause is under the Code of Conduct section on the list of Class Features so that itself is reason to believe it is part of CoC. You can come back later and claim your soul by force, using your fiendish power to aid you. Argueably an act of atonement if done in the right context, but that doesn't apply until "later." I also have to ask why Good would be so hung up on principle as to let the Paladin die a horrible agonizing death for making this deal (losing his powers would immediately get him killed in the battle, Half-Fiend template or no), and still lend no helping hand. This is an active campaign to destroy innocent life, the hallmark of Evil. His powers are the helping hand. I agree that in the context provided, Good WOULD aid further in some other way. Maybe in that same context Good doesn't have the resources to commit (using them defending other critical points?) I am against do-this-evil-or-the-world-ends scenarios on principle. the context you provide suspends every other rule so discussing this one in that context is pointless. What I'm really saying is that Good isn't Good anymore, so it has no more ability to strip the Paladin of his powers than the Demon does. Passing judgement, maybe. If you tell me the diety has changed alignment, then you'll have a point. However, Good in this context is immutable. It is also an abstract concept and not an entity, thus cannot be held accountable.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 02:47 PM	To keep this all in one post a little cleaner, I added my replies with a <--- indentation next to the individual comments:) They do. Angels have free wills and souls. Their souls are indistinguishable from their bodies (the reason they can't normally be resurrected). <-- no they dont. Which is why in multitudes of religious references it says they are bound to the will of the creator and to serve his commands. He says jump they say how high, they dont have a choice in it. And if they somehow manage to aquire a free will and rebel ( as did lucifer etc.. ) they are no longer angels (evident by the fact that they were kicked out of heaven) You don't have to have a soul to be a Paladin. Argument: Undead can be Paladins. <--- what? do you even know what an undead is? its a soul less creature and evil. it can be easily manipulated by evil. and therefore would never make it as a paladin It specifically says no such thing. Uh... what? That's an outright lie. You are supposed to have pledged yourself to the cause of Good. Deities have nothing to do with it, unless you decide that it's your character. Hell, you could even make a case for a Paladin being able to power himself with his conviction (alignment shift meaning, he starts to doubt what he stands for). You mean books WotC didn't write? I haven't read a sinlge one. I prefer to base my arguments on actual, official material written by WotC than 3rd party products that sometimes don't even consider WotC's stance on the matter. <-- No, I am talking about TSR, you know... the people that did D&D for how many years? D&D being started by gary gygax? which predated WoTC. Just because they were written by the guy that made the game and published by TSR doesnt mean they arent "official material" if you cant accept the rules that the guy who invented the game made who can you trust? I never referenced 3rd party things. that was your own assumption. Yeah, because page count doesn't matter, nor does the number of posts. And using the number of people agreeing is a total logical fallacy. It doesn't work as an argument. <-- your right. But it does prove that when 99% of the people are telling you that your wrong and you are the only one saying your right.... there may be something to it It's granted to the Paladin by whatever the player says is granting it to him.<-- so he is immune to disease, able to heal, protect from evil and wield a holy avenger because he says his pet rock tell him he can?.. not quite In this case, let's assume it is the power of Good that's granting him power. Good abandoned the Paladin. The Paladin is standing alone in this mess while Good is off somewhere jacking off and slowly turning Evil. Even if selling his soul was an Evil act (and it isn't), Good does not get to judge him, or take away his power (well, they could but they won't, because Good doesn't like being called hypocritical, even though it very often is). Again, Good abandoned him, so he makes the decisions now on what to do with his power (being the sole source of Good in the multiverse now). He feels he has to do this, so he does. It would be incredibly Evil of Good to strip him of his power. Seriously, that would be, like, material for the Book of Vile Darkness II (which hopefully won't get written).<-- right, it isnt evil. thats why you go to the 9 hells or the abyss and suffer a life of servitude for it. And why you had to give it in exchange for some power. Which if you remember, paladins dont have a lust for power, thats an evil vice they are suppose to ignore He doesn't think he was abandoned. He was abandoned. Good is no longer Good, but he is, so he makes the decisions on what's Good now.<--- doesnt matter if he thinks he was or he was.. it isnt multiple choice and make it up as you go. What made him a paladin is his beliefs, if he changes them then they are no longer paladin beliefs but his own. and in abandoning the paladins beliefs he is no longer a paladin It has a clear definitions on what they may not do. Not really. His soul is his soul. He decides what to do with it. He decided to pay a minor price to get something that could aid him in saving every single innocent there is in the entire multiverse (Good can't even be bothered to try). Besides, who's to say the Paladin isn't tricking the Demon, later coming to slaughter it and take his soul back? I mean, Paladins are charismatic people.<-- true, but paladins arent liars, and they dont rely on dishonesty which is something evil does. One soul would not save every life in the multi verse... if something was that cataclysmic in importance the deities and pantheons would not leave it to the hands of one man to solve.. and if they did that is kind of an evil act on their part for their inaction And Good gets to say this... why? They're not even helping him. They are actually aiding a great Evil power in destroying the multiverse. Yeah... no. The Paladin is now the sole definition of Good.<--- still not multiple choice or make it up as you go along and stay paladin That's Dragonlance material if I'm not mistaken. I don't care what Dragonlance has to say about anything.<-- why not? isnt that an official resource too? They are now the very thing you're out to destroy. Why should you listen to them?<--- I dont know, you seem to think giving your soul to a demon is ok and thats something you should be out to destroy instead of listening to... Everyone in D&D has good intentions, just not always Good intentions. The Paladin has the intention of keeping the multiverse in existence and save a crapload of innocents. The Demon probably wants to stay alive, too, but he sees a chance to profit. No Paladin is ever dumb enough (and neither is the poer of Good Evil) to let their hatred of Evil come before saving innocents, especially when those same innocents are in grave danger, and especially since he is now the sole power of his own convictions and this is his only fighting chance.<-- a paladin accepts that sometimes you have to die to uphold your convictions. You know that whole fight to the death or die trying to save your comrades? its what makes a paladin unique Nope. And I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support your position.<-- thats because you need to look first before responding This is not about fighting Evil anymore. It is now about saving the world and he needs all the help he can get. No matter how much he hates the Demon, he has to take what he's given so he can save the poor people about to die.<--- sure why not, what better way to eliminate your enemy than to give them power over you and help them out:rolleyes: I did, you didn't. Actually, yes I have read it, several times. And in the very beginnings of the paladin being a player class where it lists their pre requisites and requirements it says a full list of their ablities. being the mount, the healing, the protection from evil etc.. and it also says they cannot travel with people who have alignments that are less than good. I dont remember the exact alignment but its either that they cannot travel in a party with people that are less than lawful good or people that are less than neutral good etc. After all, it wouldnt do to have a paladin running around with thieves and murderers. because it means he is willingly allowing himself to associate with evil. And just because a deity or the powers of good are changed (potentially) doesnt mean that the paladin can start making the rules up as he goes.. he has to uphold his code or he doesnt have anything to uphold anymore
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 03:05 PM	So juggling babies is not evil if you dont drop them? Well, this is a straw man, but not really. It leans heavily towards Evil and is not Good, since you're willingly endangering them. Because a paladin is what he is because of several reasons. Principle being one of them. He set about to follow a strict code of conduct in exchange for the paladin status. He knows going into the deal that if he falters or betrays his morals and beliefs he falls. And he accepts that as part of his initiation. So he should rather let the innocents die because of his rigid, uncompromising principles? Not even the forces of Good are idiotic enough to let him do this, as it is selfishness of the highest degree (I could see Law do this, but not Good). No. A Paladin is Good first and Lawful second. He cannot put his faith in his principles knowing that inncoents will be harmed. That is an Evil act, and he would lose his Paladinhood. No DM should ever force a paladin into a situation of ultimate damnation nomatter what he does. Ie: either sell his soul and be damned or dont do it and be damned. Thats basically making him screwed from the beginning and not letting him have any chance nomatter what and is really wrong. There I agree. Only extraordinarily poor DMs would put PCs into this situation. But this situation is already going on and needs to be resolved. And yes the wording in the books is "Never"associates with it (and your argument is that just because they dont doesnt mean they cant) but that doesnt always work, and here is one example of it. Dont you think that 500 paladins roaming the plains and having the chance to do it but never taking advantage of it is a little more than coincidence? This is clearly a situation where he is given a chance to do it. The DM is letting him make the deal with the Demon, and the DM overrules the book, making all arguments based on this moot (including my own, good as it may be /self-compliment). There is, its called an ultimatum (sp?) Either stick by your virtues and do not be a vessel of evil in any form and remain able to claim paladin status, or fall into temptation and give yourself over to darkness and lose your status and become a blackguard etc. There HAS To be some motivation/incentive etc that keeps them from doing it.. it cant all be just coincidence. No, you give your soul (small potatoes which can be reclaimed) for a lot of immediate power which you need to save an infinite number of innocents. Yeah... it's definitely a Good act. A paladin is a holy vessel and they pledge themselves to good and their faith in it. Yes, and you aren't pledging yourself or your allegiance to the fiend. You're paying the currency that is souls, specifically you own. IIRC, that's worth about 200 gp. He can later track it down and take it by force, so this issue is moot. And as to the comment of "What I'm really saying is that Good isn't Good anymore, so it has no more ability to strip the Paladin of his powers than the Demon does. Passing judgement, maybe." <-- thats not entirely true because it doesnt matter if the deity that gave the paladin his powers has a change of heart or not. Okay I'll say this: The Paladin gave himself to a collective whole and in turn gained power from it. The collective whole disappears except for a small part of it: the Paladin himself. He is now effectively a divine force in his own right (not necessarily a powerful one (about the same as before)), driven by his own conviction. if he gave them to the paladin he has the ability to take them away unless the paladin becomes a deity himself or his powers are preserved by another patron. Either that or they just fade away since the force that gave them to him no longer supplies his power. No, he still remains, and therefore a small part of Good remains. Basically, he gives his allegiance, which is transformed into divine energy and is then diverted back to him (kind of inefficient, though). It makes sense. It only takes one man for Good not to die, and this proves it.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 03:49 PM	no they dont. Which is why in multitudes of religious references it says they are bound to the will of the creator and to serve his commands. He says jump they say how high, they dont have a choice in it. And if they somehow manage to aquire a free will and rebel ( as did lucifer etc.. ) they are no longer angels (evident by the fact that they were kicked out of heaven) If I remember correctly, Outsiders spawn spontaneously from planar essence and are not created by Gods. Just to clarify, Gods are just powerful beings and have no more ability to control Good then Solars or Paladins. what? do you even know what an undead is? its a soul less creature and evil. it can be easily manipulated by evil. and therefore would never make it as a paladin Z.A.P.L.E.R.! Zombies Against Pro-Living Engrained Racism! It seems I have found a fun topic, eh? Which argument for undead to use...? FACT: Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. FACT: Negative energy is a destructive force. FACT: Negative energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Positive energy is a constructive force. FACT: Positive energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Constructing something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are constructing. FACT: Destroying something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are destroying. OPINION: Some people think that if you put negative energy into a reality you are harming it. I have never seen this supported by rules. This opinion has further ramifications, such as healing a blackguard being a good act and possibly even killing a blackguard being an evil act... FACT: Living creatures are fuelled by positive energy. FACT (added by V_T): Trillochs and Xeg-Yi are the exceptions to this. FACT: Unliving creatures are fuelled by positive energy. FACT (added by V_T): Deathless are the exceptions to this (note that I hate to bring this creature type up, but it bore mentioning). FACT: The morality of a creature is determined by it's actions. FACT: All carnivorous entities must kill to survive. Murder is not evil inherently, or smite evil could not exist as a paladin ability (except perhaps to mock the pallys). OPINION: Undead are evil because they must kill the living to survive. See above FACT. STATEMENT: There is no evidence to support negative energy, and thus undead, being evil except the arbitrary statement (which is contradicted at other points) "Undead are evil, negative energy is evil." No evidence is offered, and evidence to the contrary is offered. CONCLUSION: Undead are evil or good dependant on their actions, just like their positive-energy-fuelled counterparts, the living beings. REQUEST: Prove me wrong. Prove him wrong. BTW, these are all indesputable facts, taken directly from Core RAW. Undead are not necessarily Evil. No, I am talking about TSR, you know... the people that did D&D for how many years? D&D being started by gary gygax? which predated WoTC. Just because they were written by the guy that made the game and published by TSR doesnt mean they arent "official material" if you cant accept the rules that the guy who invented the game made who can you trust? I never referenced 3rd party things. that was your own assumption. TSR, as in the guys who aren't writing D&D. Contemporize, man. 3.5 overrules 2nd Ed. Also, what was written by TSR is official in 2nd Ed. and in material products made by TSR, not by WotC. your right. But it does prove that when 99% of the people are telling you that your wrong and you are the only one saying your right.... there may be something to it My first impression when people disagree with me is "Buncha god damned idiots!" so he is immune to disease, able to heal, protect from evil and wield a holy avenger because he says his pet rock tell him he can?.. not quite That's not what I meant. Could people please stop using straw men. It's annoying. right, it isnt evil. thats why you go to the 9 hells or the abyss and suffer a life of servitude for it. Your soul suffers servitude. In a glass vial worth 200 gp. Yeah, dude, that's what souls are worth in D&D. Wonderful isn't it (I'm not kidding)? And why you had to give it in exchange for some power. Which if you remember, paladins dont have a lust for power, thats an evil vice they are suppose to ignore Lust for power isn't Evil. Acting on it is. This also wouldn't constitute lust. What made him a paladin is his beliefs, if he changes them then they are no longer paladin beliefs but his own. and in abandoning the paladins beliefs he is no longer a paladin No, what made him a Paladin was swearing an oath. He is now the President of Good and can change those oaths as needed. true, but paladins arent liars, and they dont rely on dishonesty which is something evil does. Dishonesty and deceit are nonaligned acts. There is also the factor of fiends being Evil. Basically, whatever is an Evil act to do to innocents is a Good act when done to fiends. One soul would not save every life in the multi verse... if something was that cataclysmic in importance the deities and pantheons would not leave it to the hands of one man to solve.. and if they did that is kind of an evil act on their part for their inaction Exactly. If this is a mistake made by the DM, then he should correct it immediately. If not, then the Paladin is the sole source of Good in the multiverse. why not? isnt that an official resource too? It's an official, campaign-specific resource. Campaign-specific material often contradicts other campaign-specific material, or even Core material, and should be ignore except for the purposes of making arguments based on the campaign world itself. I dont know, you seem to think giving your soul to a demon is ok and thats something you should be out to destroy instead of listening to... This is a guy trying to give you help. Expensive help, but help nonetheless. a paladin accepts that sometimes you have to die to uphold your convictions. You know that whole fight to the death or die trying to save your comrades? its what makes a paladin unique But a smart Paladin realizes that the fight against Evil is not worth letting every innocent person in the multiverse die for. The innocents should have a say in it too. thats because you need to look first before responding Okay, I haven't seen a shred of undeniable evidence. sure why not, what better way to eliminate your enemy than to give them power over you and help them out You're giving them an item worth 200 gp. An item, if dear to the Paladin, he can reclaim (Jesus condemned himself in the name of the innocents he cared about (I'm not religious, so I don't know the specifics, but that's how I think it went down), why can't the Paladin?). nd it also says they cannot travel with people who have alignments that are less than good. I dont remember the exact alignment but its either that they cannot travel in a party with people that are less than lawful good or people that are less than neutral good etc. After all, it wouldnt do to have a paladin running around with thieves and murderers. because it means he is willingly allowing himself to associate with evil. That's a downright lie. Paladins could hang out with a Chaotic Neutral Rogue that steals everything he can lift if he wanted to. And just because a deity or the powers of good are changed (potentially) doesnt mean that the paladin can start making the rules up as he goes.. he has to uphold his code or he doesnt have anything to uphold anymore He upholds the cause of Good, a cause he is now the sole possessor of. If he is wise, he will not abuse his power, but he needs to bend the rules now (assuming he needs to bend them, as there's nothing prohibiting him from making the deal). That assumes Evil = Success which I don't buy into. Attacking an unarmed stranger counts as Evil as far as I am concerned whether the stranger as DR20/- or not. It doesn't become more morally acceptable if the victim is tougher than he looks. Let me change my stance. Intent sometimes counts. Killing is an example of intent counting (in fact the intent is all that counts). But, juggling those babies can never be a Good act. Even if you're a God of Juggling that can never fail juggling checks, you are still traumatizing them. The "paladins never willingly associates with evil" clause is under the Code of Conduct section on the list of Class Features so that itself is reason to believe it is part of CoC. Already a moot point, since the DM in this case is letting the Paladin go through with the deal. I still disagree. Argueably an act of atonement if done in the right context, but that doesn't apply until "later." But if you take into account that intent does matter, wouldn't the alignment of the act be resolved after the Paladin either succeeds or fails in retrieving it. His powers are the helping hand. I agree that in the context provided, Good WOULD aid further in some other way. Maybe in that same context Good doesn't have the resources to commit (using them defending other critical points?) The Planes are all infinite in size, making the numbers of Outsider on each side theoretically infinite. I'm sure they could squeeze out a few more legions to aid the Paladin. If you tell me the diety has changed alignment, then you'll have a point. However, Good in this context is immutable. It is also an abstract concept and not an entity, thus cannot be held accountable. Good is an objective and tangible force, not an abstract concept. It can and will be held accountable if it lets all those innocents die.
High Octane 12-08-06, 03:57 PM	Well, this is a straw man, but not really. It leans heavily towards Evil and is not Good, since you're willingly endangering them. And you are willingly endangering LOTS of people when you willingly turn half-demon. Demons are malicious and unpredictable and to mix yourself with them results in you very possibly losing control of yourself.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 04:03 PM	And you are willingly endangering LOTS of people when you willingly turn half-demon. Demons are malicious and unpredictable and to mix yourself with them results in you very possibly losing control of yourself. Which would you rather do, throw a small child through a fiery doorway in hopes of saving it, or let it burn? The Paladin is potentially putting some people in danger. As long as he stays Lawful Good, and has that Charisma bonus to his Will save, chances are he'll do fine. If the template causes more problems than he can handle, he can probably undertake some ritual in Savage Species to remove it. But mostly, there are no mechanical rules for Evil whispers. It's effectively up to the player whether the Paladin ultimately falls.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 04:34 PM	Is it just me or is someone still missing about paladins that is in every player handbook, dm guide and acessory to date pretty much.. Paladins are class exceptional to human race. Sure elves can multi class, but only humans can be paladins. Being half demon would negate the human only thing. because then you arent fully human. No half orc paladins, no ogre human paladins, no dwarf/elf humans etc. Paladins are humans only. And That is in all the players handbooks pretty much ever printed since I started playing in what.. ooooh 1988? and has remained pretty much a constant since. But I guess what does that matter right? Which would you rather do, throw a small child through a fiery doorway in hopes of saving it, or let it burn? The Paladin is potentially putting some people in danger. As long as he stays Lawful Good, and has that Charisma bonus to his Will save, chances are he'll do fine. If the template causes more problems than he can handle, he can probably undertake some ritual in Savage Species to remove it. But mostly, there are no mechanical rules for Evil whispers. It's effectively up to the player whether the Paladin ultimately falls. But isnt him putting people in danger either directly or potentially going against his code of ethics? Charisma doesnt make something more or less evil. Either way this is a sticky subject apparently :D
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 04:38 PM	Is it just me or is someone still missing about paladins that is in every player handbook, dm guide and acessory to date pretty much.. Paladins are class exceptional to human race. Sure elves can multi class, but only humans can be paladins. Being half demon would negate the human only thing. because then you arent fully human. No half orc paladins, no ogre human paladins, no dwarf/elf humans etc. Paladins are humans only. And That is in all the players handbooks pretty much ever printed since I started playing in what.. ooooh 1988? and has remained pretty much a constant since. But I guess what does that matter right? Are you sure you're playing D&D. 'Cause there's no racial restriction on the class. But isnt him putting people in danger either directly or potentially going against his code of ethics? He would have to consult them, or at least hope they'd theoretically consent. Anyways, if he has to make the choice, he has to take the least dangerous path for everyone. Charisma doesnt make something more or less evil. No, it makes them more Evil. Ever heard of the expression "handsome devil"? /end joke Either way this is a sticky subject apparently :D Incredibly.
Stormbrand 12-08-06, 04:47 PM	Is it just me or is someone still missing about paladins that is in every player handbook, dm guide and acessory to date pretty much.. Paladins are class exceptional to human race. Sure elves can multi class, but only humans can be paladins. Being half demon would negate the human only thing. because then you arent fully human. No half orc paladins, no ogre human paladins, no dwarf/elf humans etc. Paladins are humans only. And That is in all the players handbooks pretty much ever printed since I started playing in what.. ooooh 1988? and has remained pretty much a constant since. But I guess what does that matter right? 1st Edition and 2nd Edition only. It was recognised as a stupid rule and was changed in 3rd Edition. Any race can multi-class. Any race can be a paladin. There are new types of spellcasters called Sorcerers which are slightly different to Wizards. Clerics use a Domain system. Fighters get bonus feats which Paladins and Rangers don't. And get lots of them. You are using outdated info.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 04:59 PM	Ok, that explains it, I was thinkinf of it in terms of 1st and 2nd edition rules. That was the last time I played it, but yes VT that is still D&D lol. Shows what ya find out by looking at the history of the game not just the present. So apologies for any misrepresentations then IF the person is talking about 3rd edition gaming etc. IF so then you could possibly be right about it happening and I will admit that. If not and its beign played in 2nd edition or so.. then I am right, = human only . so we all win here :cool: Thank you for Clarifying this storm. it totally got rid of my headache! If I remember correctly, Outsiders spawn spontaneously from planar essence and are not created by Gods. Just to clarify, Gods are just powerful beings and have no more ability to control Good then Solars or Paladins. Prove him wrong. BTW, these are all indesputable facts, taken directly from Core RAW. Undead are not necessarily Evil. <-- no, just 99.999% of the time TSR, as in the guys who aren't writing D&D. Contemporize, man. 3.5 overrules 2nd Ed. Also, what was written by TSR is official in 2nd Ed. and in material products made by TSR, not by WotC. <-- Nobody said what edition this was for a game in... soo it could be 2nd edition. Nobody found out about that before jumping to conclusions <-- ok, but TSR started D&D originally, and it seems WotC took over, that doesnt mean that TSR is instantly irrelevant, alot of the same rules apply still My first impression when people disagree with me is "Buncha god damned idiots!" That's not what I meant. Could people please stop using straw men. It's annoying. Your soul suffers servitude. In a glass vial worth 200 gp. Yeah, dude, that's what souls are worth in D&D. Wonderful isn't it (I'm not kidding)? Lust for power isn't Evil. Acting on it is. This also wouldn't constitute lust. <-- says who? What do you think seperates good from evil? Greed, cruelty,. etc etc. And yes... acting on it, the act of selling your soul is acting on it. No, what made him a Paladin was swearing an oath. He is now the President of Good and can change those oaths as needed. <-- But its no longer the paladin code, its his code. so he adapted into something different now Dishonesty and deceit are nonaligned acts. Soo why do you never see Aasimon or good planear beings lying then? Only the evil ones? There is also the factor of fiends being Evil. Basically, whatever is an Evil act to do to innocents is a Good act when done to fiends. Right, Killing them. Not bartering with them Exactly. If this is a mistake made by the DM, then he should correct it immediately. If not, then the Paladin is the sole source of Good in the multiverse. of his ideal of good more specifically It's an official, campaign-specific resource. Campaign-specific material often contradicts other campaign-specific material, or even Core material, and should be ignore except for the purposes of making arguments based on the campaign world itself. either way, its from your set in stone WoTC source so its still valid in consideration by your definition This is a guy trying to give you help. Expensive help, but help nonetheless... No, this is a guy tempting you to fall from grace and apparently your head of the line But a smart Paladin realizes that the fight against Evil is not worth letting every innocent person in the multiverse die for. The innocents should have a say in it too. Then what makes him a paladin if not to fight evil? And I still dont think anything so cosmically cataclysmic will depend on just one solitary paladin Okay, I haven't seen a shred of undeniable evidence. thats because your not being open minded to anything but your own opinion regardless of what is in the rulebooks. But yes they do say they are there to be a guideline and give you ideas, its your game though so do what you want to You're giving them an item worth 200 gp. An item, if dear to the Paladin, he can reclaim (Jesus condemned himself in the name of the innocents he cared about (I'm not religious, so I don't know the specifics, but that's how I think it went down), why can't the Paladin?). Your still bartering with them and doing everything but trying to kill them and in physical value it may be at the asanine ammt of 200gp but its much more valuable to the demon that can enslave you now That's a downright lie. Paladins could hang out with a Chaotic Neutral Rogue that steals everything he can lift if he wanted to.<-- no it isnt, because the paladin by nature is honest, he would constantly be trying to prevent the rogue from stealing from an innocent person. That counts as challenging his moral convictions. and as I said I dont remember exactly how far away from their alignment it is, but they cannot party with people that are evil He upholds the cause of Good, a cause he is now the sole possessor of. If he is wise, he will not abuse his power, but he needs to bend the rules now (assuming he needs to bend them, as there's nothing prohibiting him from making the deal).<-- his moral code that tells him not to associate with beings of evil? Do me a favor, copy and paste the code of conduct.. and highlight in big pretty letters where it says they never willingly associate with evil ( which would include but is not limited to: going to concerts, hanging out at christmas dinner, going valentines day shopping with them OR making business deals with them) Let me change my stance. Intent sometimes counts. Killing is an example of intent counting (in fact the intent is all that counts). But, juggling those babies can never be a Good act. Even if you're a God of Juggling that can never fail juggling checks, you are still traumatizing them. Already a moot point, since the DM in this case is letting the Paladin go through with the deal. no, he asked if it was possible, didnt say it was ok I still disagree. But if you take into account that intent does matter, wouldn't the alignment of the act be resolved after the Paladin either succeeds or fails in retrieving it. maybe.. but probably not because there are plenty of good powers to ask for help instead of looking upon your enemies numbers. The Planes are all infinite in size, making the numbers of Outsider on each side theoretically infinite. I'm sure they could squeeze out a few more legions to aid the Paladin. Good is an objective and tangible force, not an abstract concept. It can and will be held accountable if it lets all those innocents die. Right, an objective force, not abstract. it CAN and will be held accountable, but the paladin will be much more likely to be redeemed if he tried and failed than if he succeeded but helped demonkind in the process
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 05:41 PM	no, just 99.999% of the time If that much. Actions dictate alignment, so an Undead with free will can be whatever alignment it wants to be. ok, but TSR started D&D originally, and it seems WotC took over, that doesnt mean that TSR is instantly irrelevant, alot of the same rules apply still No, it's just irrelevant on matters that contradict what WotC has written. says who? What do you think seperates good from evil? Greed, cruelty,. etc etc. And yes... acting on it, the act of selling your soul is acting on it. D&D isn't about thought-fascism. Greed, sadism (motive for cruelty), racism, altruism and hunger are all motives. Motives are unaligned but they dictate the alignment of certain acts. Killing, for example: If you kill because you want his $20, that's Evil. If you kill to defend yourself, that's Neutral. If you kill to defend others, that's Good. But its no longer the paladin code, its his code. so he adapted into something different now He can still grant himself the power. Soo why do you never see Aasimon or good planear beings lying then? Only the evil ones? Eladrin (CG celestials) would lie to further their goals. There are also such things as LG Rogues that lie to and steal from Evil beings. Right, Killing them. Not bartering with them Bartering isn't a Good or Evil act. It's not even Neutral. It has no alignment. of his ideal of good more specifically Which is, as of now, the only Good there is. Since Paladins gain power from Good, and this Paladin controls Good, he can just grant it to himself. either way, its from your set in stone WoTC source so its still valid in consideration by your definition By any definition it is valid only in Dragonlance. .. No, this is a guy tempting you to fall from grace and apparently your head of the line But he may not succeed. Then what makes him a paladin if not to fight evil? Save innocents. Which actually comes before killing Demons. What's the use in killing Demons if the same Demons have no one to hurt? And I still dont think anything so cosmically cataclysmic will depend on just one solitary paladin I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are. But yes they do say they are there to be a guideline and give you ideas, its your game though so do what you want to For the purposes of this discussion, they're hard-and-fast rules. It's the only way to have common ground. Otherwise I could just say "Torturing is a incredibly Good act when you're doing it to innocents. That's the way it is in my campaign." Would you want me to say that? but its much more valuable to the demon that can enslave you now Umm... no. The Demon, unless he's a spellcaster can't do anything with it. See, souls are used as optional components in spells (added into the spellcasting process for an enhanced effect). This is only another point in the group of many reasons why the Demon is a total idiot. no it isnt, because the paladin by nature is honest, he would constantly be trying to prevent the rogue from stealing from an innocent person. That counts as challenging his moral convictions. and as I said I dont remember exactly how far away from their alignment it is Okay, so he would probably leave if that Rogue stayed, but if any other CN Rogue that didn't constantly offend him was there, he probably wouldn't mind. but they cannot party with people that are evil That depends on how drunk they are. :P But seriously, the point is moot, because the DM isn't explicitly banning it, and it isn't really relevant to this discussion who he can party with. no, he asked if it was possible, didnt say it was ok Okay, I move for it being okay. maybe.. but probably not because there are plenty of good powers to ask for help instead of looking upon your enemies numbers. Assuming there is someone who will help him, then I bet he'd rather pray. Right, an objective force, not abstract. it CAN and will be held accountable, but the paladin will be much more likely to be redeemed if he tried and failed than if he succeeded but helped demonkind in the process You mean rewarded, right? But yes, the Paladin has earned the right to go primal on Good's ass with a paddle for leaving him in this situation.
SephDragoon 12-08-06, 06:25 PM	My head is going to ****ing explode... It can't take any more ******** being shoveled into it! First off, the forces of good would not implode over this. If they were unable to help then they can't be held responsible (and a demon would have to find some way to make that possible before this situation would ever arise, in which case, the paladin never stood a chance). Next, Paladins can be any race they want, because while they only show humans as sample paladins, this is a throwback to 2nd ed where you still had racial restrictions on classes, not a representation of game rules in 3.0 and 3.5. If a class does have a racial restriction, it shows upunder the entry for races or their prerequisits (same as alignment restrictions). Lastly, and lets put caps lock on so you can see it, SAYING SOMETHING IS SO DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT IT ISN'T IN THE CODE OF CONDUCT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUEMENT VALID, BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG. LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT, YOU ARE WRONG, IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. Now, I am done venting. Even the OP seems to have accepted the facts, the VT can't seem to. So VT, I hope no DM ever lets you in his game, you have no clue what you are talking about.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 06:36 PM	With respect to This quote here: Originally Posted by blood_of_the_ancient Z.A.P.L.E.R.! Zombies Against Pro-Living Engrained Racism! It seems I have found a fun topic, eh? Which argument for undead to use...? FACT: Negative energy is the opposite of positive energy. FACT: Negative energy is a destructive force. FACT: Negative energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Positive energy is a constructive force. FACT: Positive energy is a natural part of reality. FACT: Constructing something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are constructing. FACT: Destroying something is a non-moral act. The morality of the action depends on what you are destroying. OPINION: Some people think that if you put negative energy into a reality you are harming it. I have never seen this supported by rules. This opinion has further ramifications, such as healing a blackguard being a good act and possibly even killing a blackguard being an evil act... FACT: Living creatures are fuelled by positive energy. FACT (added by V_T): Trillochs and Xeg-Yi are the exceptions to this. FACT: Unliving creatures are fuelled by positive energy. FACT (added by V_T): Deathless are the exceptions to this (note that I hate to bring this creature type up, but it bore mentioning). FACT: The morality of a creature is determined by it's actions. FACT: All carnivorous entities must kill to survive. Murder is not evil inherently, or smite evil could not exist as a paladin ability (except perhaps to mock the pallys). OPINION: Undead are evil because they must kill the living to survive. See above FACT. STATEMENT: There is no evidence to support negative energy, and thus undead, being evil except the arbitrary statement (which is contradicted at other points) "Undead are evil, negative energy is evil." No evidence is offered, and evidence to the contrary is offered. CONCLUSION: Undead are evil or good dependant on their actions, just like their positive-energy-fuelled counterparts, the living beings. REQUEST: Prove me wrong. Prove him wrong. BTW, these are all indesputable facts, taken directly from Core RAW. ------------------- Question though. Undead are made by evil or unholy acts. They arent created the same way for example that humans or elves or dwarves give birth. they are made through necromancy which is more often than not sterotyped as evil. And there are alot of undead that draw power from negative planes of energy or negative demi planes of energy (such as ravenloft for example) So they are fueled in some respect by a tie to a dark source. I know eating is eating, but I think there is a little difference between me killing a bear to feed my family and clothe us and make supplies ... than something coming up and sucking my life force out of me (or gnawing my limbs to pieces and then eating my brain) when even though it may be of good alignment it in itself is kind of an unholy being. Which I think is why in the majority if not all of manuals talkign about undead etc they are some variation of evil. With the few and far between exception of a strong willed being with the abilty to consciously change their alignment to something more good oriented. This depends on the demon though. There are 2 kinds, peons and masters (figuratively speaking).. While you could give your soul to a peon demon and probably not have much to worry about since its too dumb to do anything with it.. the meager demon wouldnt also have the power to save mankind through you giving it your soul. You would have to go to a demon lord for that right? and one to have that kind of power? he would have to be something special.. soo chances are if he can avert realities demise.. he can make you a hand puppet Alot of demons are spellcasters or know powerful spell casters though. So bending the persons spirit to do their will isnt too inconcievable. Nor is them offering the soul to a dark deity in exchange for some favor or recognition. and through careful manipulation of the soul the demon could turn you into a number of nasty things: ghosts, wights, spectres,vampires or even a lich. But also, wouldnt it kind of cut out the benefits of why you chose the class? for example: if you wanted to be a demon.. its cause of the cool powers right? or a elven paladin.. you want to be able to benefit from the best of both worlds. the paladins holy defenses and the elves neat toys too. But as lets say a lich paladin. that kind of defeats the purpose because you cant use your lich powers in the name of goodness, every holy person wants to kill you on sight.. and your detect evil or protection from undead spells would drive yourself nuts! Its like the poor Chimera, how does it resist mauling itself to death when its hungry????:confused:
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 06:36 PM	Now, I am done venting. Even the OP seems to have accepted the facts, the VT can't seem to. I have a case and you denying it won't make it go away. So VT, I hope no DM ever lets you in his game, you have no clue what you are talking about. You'll probably crap yourself, but I am the DM. I wouldn't put a Paladins (or anyone) into this situation, but as a hypothetical though exercise, my argument works. It's fallacy-free, based on RAW and it's alpine fresh.
High Octane 12-08-06, 06:39 PM	You'll probably crap yourself, but I am the DM. I wouldn't put a Paladins (or anyone) into this situation, but as a hypothetical though exercise, my argument works. It's fallacy-free, based on RAW and it's alpine fresh. No it isnt.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 06:43 PM	No it isnt. It is alpine fresh, High Octane.
High Octane 12-08-06, 06:44 PM	It is alpine fresh, High Octane. What part of selling your soul to a demon is not willingly associating with evil?
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 06:48 PM	What part of selling your soul to a demon is not willingly associating with evil? That apparently he is arguing there is just as much if not more importance on the motivations for the action than the action itself. well.. and that the soul is essentially worthless and I could buy it from you for a loaf of bread and a good ale :P
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 06:53 PM	That apparently he is arguing there is just as much if not more importance on the motivations for the action than the action itself. well.. and that the soul is essentially worthless and I could buy it from you for a loaf of bread and a good ale :P As unfavorably as you put it... yes. That's what I'm saying.
makeshiftwings 12-08-06, 07:35 PM	As unfavorably as you put it... yes. That's what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point, but you still seem to be ignoring my posts where I have pointed out that by the RULES, it is not allowed. If you want to house rule that the "Associating with Evil" rule is neither a Code of Conduct nor a Rule, and that it's just a vague guideline, then that's fine. If you want to house rule that half-demon, which can only be applied to an evil creature, can also be applied to a lawful good one, then that's also fine. There are no rules about souls, except that they go to an outer plane when you die and come back when you cast Raise Dead, but if you want to claim that souls are worthless and that selling your soul doesn't actually have any effect on anything, then you can rule that too, though it would make me wonder why any demon would want to buy someone's soul if it has no affect on anything. But the OP seemed pretty clear that in his game, selling one's soul does something, apparently something bad, like spontaneously turn you into a half-demon or bind you in eternal servitude to whoever you sold it to.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 08:19 PM	I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point, but you still seem to be ignoring my posts where I have pointed out that by the RULES, it is not allowed. I have pointed out in the rules where this is allowed. I have also pointed out that the DM seems open to the idea of allowing it. And no, I'm not trolling. If you want to house rule that the "Associating with Evil" rule is neither a Code of Conduct nor a Rule, and that it's just a vague guideline, then that's fine. It wouldn't be a houserule as much as a different interpretation from yours. If you want to house rule that half-demon, which can only be applied to an evil creature, can also be applied to a lawful good one, then that's also fine. If the DM is allowing it, I'm just going by that houserule. There are no rules about souls, except that they go to an outer plane when you die and come back when you cast Raise Dead, but if you want to claim that souls are worthless and that selling your soul doesn't actually have any effect on anything, then you can rule that too, though it would make me wonder why any demon would want to buy someone's soul if it has no affect on anything. ... Soul in receptable - 200 gp ... Soul in Receptable: A spell that this component is applied to gains a +10 profane bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance. Souls in receptables normally result from the use of spells such as soul bind and trap the soul. No use for the soul, eh? You can see why it has such a low intrinsic value. It has a much higher perceived value, though. Normally, I wouldn't recommend using BoVD in moral debates (since it's dead wrong on a number concepts), but in this case, it's mechanics that are used to provide a case for souls being worth 200 gp. But the OP seemed pretty clear that in his game, selling one's soul does something, apparently something bad, like spontaneously turn you into a half-demon or bind you in eternal servitude to whoever you sold it to. If it binds him to eternal servitude, I suggest the Paladin get a whip instead and drag the entire celestial armada on its tail into battle. Kind of a funny mental picture: Paladin: "Hey! Don't tell me you're trying to run away from the battle." Solar: *ashamed* No sir.
Izzak 12-08-06, 08:26 PM	I would say yes.Evil Turning away from the darkness to bathe in the light. I smell a redemption campaign a brewing.
General_Ridley 12-08-06, 08:47 PM	I would say yes.Evil Turning away from the darkness to bathe in the light. I smell a redemption campaign a brewing. if he's born a half-demon, sure. but selling his soul to a demon? Not a chance in the Hells would this fly in any campaign that doesn't completely reject alignment as it is defined in the DMG. Demons (and Devils and Yugoloths) are the epitomes of Chaotic, Lawful, and Neutral Evil. To sell your eternal soul, which carries with it untold horrors for your final fate (you will manifest in the Abyss, Nine Hells, or Hades as a larva and one of the following will occur: you will be a larva, and be devoured by an archfiend/other fiend, you will manifest as yourself a weak fiend with a burning evil in your heart, or you will manifest as a more powerful fiend because you were depraved enough to sell your soul), to such a power is an undeniably evil act in any standard campaign. IMO, any Paladin who does this has completely lost his way and is simply making taking the final step in his fall that will lead to his re-emergence as a Blackguard. He may even gain a bonus feat (Thrall to Demon, Disciple of Darkness, or Scion of Sorrow) for his truest comittment to evil. At this point, there is probably no turning back to his old life. He can never return to the lifestyle of a Paladin, having done something like this. No god (or any being in Celestia) would sponsor him. He has ended his existence as a good guy. Again, a half-demon by birth would be perfectly capable and acceptable, provided it is lawful good and all. But doing this crosses the line for a Paladin in so many ways it truely makes my head spin.
TheDarkLord 12-08-06, 10:03 PM	Once again, TELL me in the Core RAW where you Have to sell your soul to become a half-fiend after you are already born. Please.
General_Ridley 12-08-06, 10:06 PM	Once again, TELL me in the Core RAW where you Have to sell your soul to become a half-fiend after you are already born. Please. there's no where in the Core RAW where you can become a half-fiend after birth.
TheDarkLord 12-08-06, 10:09 PM	there's no where in the Core RAW where you can become a half-fiend after birth. So you cannot barter to become a Half-fiend after you are born, without selling your soul?
General_Ridley 12-08-06, 10:10 PM	So you cannot barter to become a Half-fiend after you are born, without selling your soul? only by house rule (selling your soul makes a good example) or published prestige class can you obtain the half-fiend template after birth (example of prestige class: Disciple of Ashardalon, from the Draconomicon)
TheDarkLord 12-08-06, 10:21 PM	only by house rule (selling your soul makes a good example) or published prestige class can you obtain the half-fiend template after birth (example of prestige class: Disciple of Ashardalon, from the Draconomicon) So... 1. This argument is over a house-rule because RAW you cannot become a half-fiend after you are born. Even though RAW not all Fiends are evil. 2. But if you are born a half-fiend you can become a paladin. Yeah, I think i'm going to go ahead and duck out of this thread.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-08-06, 10:52 PM	Ok By WotC saying that never actually means very rarely they are saying that you can do whatever you ******* want to do with somthings alignment. As far as I am concerned that should be a chance of .01% of a FIEND being good. Now V T. I am going to say this again. Go read the PHB page 44. How about this for a concept. You are saying that the ends justify the meanes. The reast of the people here are actually saying for a PALADIN the ends NEVER justify the means. DO YOU GET IT YET??????????????????????????
makeshiftwings 12-08-06, 11:03 PM	I have pointed out in the rules where this is allowed. All you pointed out was that where it says "A paladin may never associate with evil", that you could interpret "never" as meaning "usually not", which is not an interpretation at all, but a deliberate ignoring of the rule, AKA, a house rule. If you're going to claim "never = usually not" to be an interpretation, then I could "interpret" the RAW to mean that arcane spell failure only usually happens when a wizard wears armor, but not on my wizard, and that when it says a level 4 fighter has a BAB of +4, that's only usually, and that mine actually has +100. And if you're going to trot out the BoVD for excuses, then one could easily bring out the BoED for a whole bunch of new rules on what paladins can't do. I prefer to pretend that those two books don't even exist.
Millennium 12-08-06, 11:03 PM	That apparently he is arguing there is just as much if not more importance on the motivations for the action than the action itself. The problem is that he has forgotten that morality is both about what you want and what you're willing to do to get what you want. Especially for a paladin, there are some things which are simply not an option, and sacrificing your purity is one of them. That kind of sacrifice might be made by others, but it's not a road that is open to paladins.
EntropyDawn 12-08-06, 11:08 PM	ok, honest question here. IF according to newer rulings, a paladin can be of any race right? And we know there are demons that repent and become good in some fashion or another, There is a possibility then that someone who was a demon from birth and forsake their infernal heritage for a life of lawful goodness, they could become a demon paladin? Because from what I have read in these multiple pages is Now with newer rulings any race can be a paladin (even demons as evident by that alone and the succubus paladin) All it takes for somethign to be a paladin is for it to be lawful good (so if a demon became lawful good somehow he could theoretically be a paladin so long as he never used a soul drain or some other form of its demon heritage power that has evil alignment overtones) And now the issue isnt so much if it can be a paladin here, because the majority are saying if its born half demon it can.. the issue at the momment is if the paladin down the line becomes half demon somehow right?:confused: By the way Millenium "The problem is that he has forgotten that morality is both about what you want and what you're willing to do to get what you want. Especially for a paladin, there are some things which are simply not an option, and sacrificing your purity is one of them. That kind of sacrifice might be made by others, but it's not a road that is open to paladins." Very nicely said, thats the point ALOT of people are trying to emphasize here, anyone else in all the realms could do it with no moral reprocussion, but thats why they arent all paladins;) very nice indeed
Vestigial_Thumb 12-08-06, 11:23 PM	"A paladin may never associate with evil" This is a misquotation. It says "Paladins never associate with evil creatures" or something like that. It does no say they may not do it. And again, the point looks moot, since the DM seemed ready to allow it. As always, DM overrules RAW. And if you're going to trot out the BoVD for excuses, then one could easily bring out the BoED for a whole bunch of new rules on what paladins can't do. I prefer to pretend that those two books don't even exist. Never use those books to prove a moral point. Seriously, I never do it, and it's just a bad idea that makes you go to Hell. However, using mechanics is valid in these discussions (Hypocrisy, you say? I don't care). You are saying that the ends justify the meanes. No, I'm saying these ends (incredibly Good-aligned, which you people seem to be forgetting) justify these means (minor Evil, if even that (bartering is an unaligned act)). Not in general, as that's a totally Lawful Evil concept. The problem is that he has forgotten that morality is both about what you want and what you're willing to do to get what you want. It's not just about what the Paladin wants, it's about what the innocents want. It's about what everyone wants. Especially for a paladin, there are some things which are simply not an option, and sacrificing your purity is one of them. The Paladin is giving the Demon a small gem conatining his soul. This soul is used as an optional component in spellcasting. That's all there is to it. He can even reclaim it later. Point is, his purity doesn't lie completely in his soul. It lies in his body, his mind and, most importantly, his heart. That kind of sacrifice might be made by others, but it's not a road that is open to paladins. Let's assume selling his soul was an Evil act: He has to choose between: A. Not selling it and not gaining the power, chargin into the fray, knowing he'll get the squashed and a lot of innocents killed. Trust me, the innocents' blood will be on his hands as much as those of the jerks that killed them because he knowingly put their lives on the line, knowing they would get killed. This is incredibly selfish, self-righteous, arrogant, and, let's face it, horribly Evil. B. He sells his soul, gains the fiendish power. It might play some tricks on his mind, but most likely he'll get through it. This poses a significantly smaller risk to the innocents, a significantly greater chance of defeating the jerks. It may not be completely Good, but it's definitely not Evil. It was altruistic, selfless, humble, and overall a really Good act. The case doesn't hold water without the forces of Good falling from grace en masse.
makeshiftwings 12-09-06, 03:45 AM	This is a misquotation. It says "Paladins never associate with evil creatures" or something like that. It does no say they may not do it. It says "will not" instead of "may not", but that doesn't matter. "Will" is actually the stronger verb. The only difference linguistically is that "may not" implies some outside force stopping him from doing it, whereas "will not" implies that the force stopping him is his own. "Will not" does not mean "usually will not". That's why the word "usually" exists.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-09-06, 08:16 AM	No, I'm saying these ends (incredibly Good-aligned, which you people seem to be forgetting) justify these means (minor Evil, if even that (bartering is an unaligned act)). Not in general, as that's a totally Lawful Evil concept.[QUOTE] Your right the ends only justify the means if you are LE(!!!!!) not a LG Paladin. [QUOTE=Vestigial_Thumb;10863177] It's not just about what the Paladin wants, it's about what the innocents want. It's about what everyone wants. The Paladin is giving the Demon a small gem conatining his soul. This soul is used as an optional component in spellcasting. That's all there is to it. He can even reclaim it later. Point is, his purity doesn't lie completely in his soul. It lies in his body, his mind and, most importantly, his heart. Let's assume selling his soul was an Evil act: He has to choose between: A. Not selling it and not gaining the power, chargin into the fray, knowing he'll get the squashed and a lot of innocents killed. Trust me, the innocents' blood will be on his hands as much as those of the jerks that killed them because he knowingly put their lives on the line, knowing they would get killed. This is incredibly selfish, self-righteous, arrogant, and, let's face it, horribly Evil. B. He sells his soul, gains the fiendish power. It might play some tricks on his mind, but most likely he'll get through it. This poses a significantly smaller risk to the innocents, a significantly greater chance of defeating the jerks. It may not be completely Good, but it's definitely not Evil. It was altruistic, selfless, humble, and overall a really Good act. The case doesn't hold water without the forces of Good falling from grace en masse. Every person here with the obvious exception of you will choose A. Why do you ask? Because it is what Paladins do. They do not make back alley deals with devils they hunt and distroy devils. Becides, the Paladin will also know that devils are EVIL and liers so there is no reason to have entered into the conversation in the first place because his COC calls for him to never assiciate with evil. IF YOU CHOOSE B YOU BECOME A BLACKGAURD. THAT IS ONE OF THE PRE-REQS. DMG PAGE # 181! No the forces of good will never fall because a single Paladin got himself into this position. Why do you ask? How about this. If he was stupid enough to grossly violate his COC by even talking to the demon and then going even further and being talked into this deal he is not a Paladin he is a FALLEN-PALADIN. DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? HAVE YOU READ THAT ******* PHB PAGE YET?????? why are we still feeding the trolls.:nonono: :nonono: :nonono:
Vestigial_Thumb 12-09-06, 10:01 AM	Your right the ends only justify the means if you are LE(!!!!!) not a LG Paladin. Sometimes the ends justify the means. Especially when you use an unaligned act (bartering) to further the cause of Good. Every person here with the obvious exception of you will choose A. Why do you ask? Because it is what Paladins do. They do not make back alley deals with devils they hunt and distroy devils. Becides, the Paladin will also know that devils are EVIL and liers so there is no reason to have entered into the conversation in the first place because his COC calls for him to never assiciate with evil. So basically what you're saying is that Paladins as a whole are hypocritical, idiotic zealots that would rather kill billions of innocents that make a minor business deal with Evil? IF YOU CHOOSE B YOU BECOME A BLACKGAURD. THAT IS ONE OF THE PRE-REQS. DMG PAGE # 181! It also requires 5 ranks in Hide. No the forces of good will never fall because a single Paladin got himself into this position. Good actually put him in this situation and abanoned him. This is tantamount to them abandoning the innocents, which is again tantamount to at least Neutrality, but this is definitely Evil. Let me put it this way: If someone did what the forces of Good did, I would gladly hire them. Why? They betrayed someone they were supposed to protect with their lives. If he was stupid enough to grossly violate his COC by even talking to the demon and then going even further and being talked into this deal he is not a Paladin he is a FALLEN-PALADIN. He isn't even touching his CoC. There comes the CoC. Then comes the Associates clause, where it says that he will not. Well, he is, so there must be a first time for everything, like with every broad generalization there ever was. This actually smacks of houserule. I don't even know why we're arguing this point. [/QUOTE]DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?[/QUOTE] YES, AND I ALSO REALIZE THAT THE PALADIN WON'T FALL BY TALKING TO THE DEMON. HAVE YOU READ THAT ******* PHB PAGE YET?????? I have. why are we still feeding the trolls.:nonono: :nonono: :nonono: Trolls? No, dude. You, on the other hand, are on a slippery slope that will end in flaming. It won't actually end there. I'll report you and you'll get either warnings or the thread closed. I don't want this thread closed so think twice before flaming me. BTW, calling me a troll is baiting. I suggest you remove it and pretend it didn't happen.
EntropyDawn 12-09-06, 10:09 AM	First.. I think the question of a half demon paladin has kind of been resolved. We seem to be bickering back and forth about a more philosophical issue now than the original topic. Which means this thread has kind of been hijacked by personal beliefs instead of factual data. Secondly: Taken Directly from the WotC site in the category of paladins (playing a classy paladin was the title.. from the guy that made the succubus paladin) Paladin Weaknesses The paladin's many advantages come at a price. Here are a few of the disadvantages you should keep in mind if you're considering a paladin character. Poor Reflex and Will Saves: Paladins have the worst progression in the game for Reflex and Will saves (see Table 3-1 in the Player's Handbook). Thus, they aren't so great at getting out of the way when the situation gets rough, nor can they easily shake off assaults on their minds, although the divine grace ability makes up for this weakness to some extent. Low Mobility: A paladin's reliance on heavy armor makes her a slow mover on the battlefield. Code of Conduct: A paladin must maintain a lawful good alignment and vow never to commit an act of evil. Furthermore, she must always respect legitimate authority, act honorably, help people in need, and punish those who harm or threaten innocents. In short, the paladin lives by rules when most of her enemies do not. True, Bartering in itself has no alignment or else every time you went to the market you would get a year in the 9 hells. BUT!!!! What your bartering and who your bartering with DOES have an aligmnent issue. If your buying a loaf of bread from teh town baker fine, no biggie right? Now.... if your buying the corpse of a murder victim from the person that killed them?... thats a little shady.. And regardless of how you want to justify the intentions or the price of tea in china.. They are not allowed to commit an act of evil (deliberately entering into a pact is considered one, which is why they have to atone for it. Atonement is only when you do something wrong, if what he did was good he wouldnt have to make ammends for it now would he?) Plus, in order for him to make this diabolical pact with a demon he would have to traffic with it. And their codes prohibit them from associating themselves with evil (else what seperates them from everyone who isnt a paladin?) So right there, he would have to willingly talk to this fiend. As well as agree to give part of himself to the being for all eternity (or until a miracle happens and he gets it back... which, if the paladin is strong enough to defeat the demon and regain his soul... why doesnt he just force the demon to aid him at the threat of death instead of bartering part of himself in the process?) Also if nothing else, it would shake his faith and make him lose his virtue in some regards, knowing that everythign he believed in and that made him what he was... was essentially not strong enough to save himself or others. His strength of will and spirit are suppose to be all he needs which is why he is not some arch magi or Grand Druid.. He is is own weapon, he doesnt need to rely on the tools of others. So if he isnt strong enough to avert the danger himself and he has to turn to his enemies for help? Thats at least going to buy him some therapy and time in a confession booth (slightly off subject, but if tiefling are the infernal planetouched.. what was the name of the celestial planetouched?.. I forgot =( )
High Octane 12-09-06, 10:22 AM	Good actually put him in this situation and abanoned him. This is tantamount to them abandoning the innocents, which is again tantamount to at least Neutrality, but this is definitely Evil. What are you talking about "Put him in this situation"? You mean "Unable to fully protect him"? The forces of good are not omnipotent, they arent invincible, and they can't be everywhere every day. Its easy to put someone at fault if you make up what they did yourself.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-09-06, 10:34 AM	What are you talking about "Put him in this situation"? You mean "Unable to fully protect him"? But you also forget that this is the most important moment in the history of the multiverse.
Stormbrand 12-09-06, 11:43 AM	But you also forget that this is the most important moment in the history of the multiverse. The context itself is flawed, in my opinion. However, I'm going to answer this dilemma anyway. It would not be a gross violation of CoC purely due to the extent of the necessity. The paladin would however have to resolve the consequences of the decision. So first of all, he would have to treat the Half-Fiend transformation as a temporary measure, since this is an instance where the principle does not apply as designed to but is no longer excusable after the situation (and about potential risk to innocents, he is obligated to remove the threat he now represents by undoing the transformation). Second of all, he must have made significant efforts towards other options (which is also more efficient, half-celestial would work much better than half-fiend unless fighting a balance incarnation which needs both Good and Evil to slay). Thirdly, this would only apply due to the extremeness and absurdity (ie: normal rules don't apply) of the context. I would also point out that our interpretations differ on soul transactions - I assume that placing a soul in a gem requires some method such as Trap the Soul or Soul Bind which generally incapacitates the entity in question. I would also consider a soulless body a puppet. And I would also expect the demon to somehow exploit the paladin's soullessness against him (at the very least, he would have no resistance to possession). SIDE NOTE: I have played a paladin whose soul was bound by a Chaotic Evil goddess from before he was a paladin. The soul was still in the paladin, but he was condemned to the afterlife of the dark goddess. No matter how much good he had done in his life. This goddess was also spite incarnate and had a very special and dramatic reason to hold a grudge against this paladin. People who learned of this often wondered why the paladin still fought so hard to do the right thing.
High Octane 12-09-06, 11:58 AM	But you also forget that this is the most important moment in the history of the multiverse. You would call the sky green just to be contradictory wouldn't you?
General_Ridley 12-09-06, 12:08 PM	just yo pop some info regarding "selling soul = evil": the Fiendish Codex I has a feat called Abyss-bound soul, which states that you have sold out your immortal soul to a Demon Lord (it's still a demon). this feat is categorised as Vile. The evilest of the evil.
zvbxrpl 12-09-06, 12:14 PM	Wait, wait, wait. The context of this discussion is that a PALADIN wants to SELL HIS SOUL to a DEMON for PERSONAL GAIN. :uh-huh: There is no amount of tortured sophistry that could make him not fall. How is this not crystal clear?
High Octane 12-09-06, 01:01 PM	Wait, wait, wait. The context of this discussion is that a PALADIN wants to SELL HIS SOUL to a DEMON for PERSONAL GAIN. :uh-huh: There is no amount of tortured sophistry that could make him not fall. How is this not crystal clear? Because some people have an innate desire to argue points they know are invalid just because they can.
Stormbrand 12-09-06, 01:09 PM	In effect, the scenario being given is a deliberate "no choice" scenario and so can only be applied in a hypothetical context.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-09-06, 04:43 PM	Wait, wait, wait. The context of this discussion is that a PALADIN wants to SELL HIS SOUL to a DEMON for PERSONAL GAIN. :uh-huh: There is no amount of tortured sophistry that could make him not fall. How is this not crystal clear? Because the one person who is disagreeing is basicly ignoring the wording in the PHB and saying that because the "no evil" clause is under assiciates not the 1 sentice CoC the Paladin can do whatever he damn well wants.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-09-06, 06:56 PM	It would not be a gross violation of CoC purely due to the extent of the necessity. The paladin would however have to resolve the consequences of the decision. So first of all, he would have to treat the Half-Fiend transformation as a temporary measure, since this is an instance where the principle does not apply as designed to but is no longer excusable after the situation (and about potential risk to innocents, he is obligated to remove the threat he now represents by undoing the transformation). Second of all, he must have made significant efforts towards other options (which is also more efficient, half-celestial would work much better than half-fiend unless fighting a balance incarnation which needs both Good and Evil to slay). Thirdly, this would only apply due to the extremeness and absurdity (ie: normal rules don't apply) of the context. These are all points I agree on. It's such an extremely absurd situations that rules can't even be applied without ****ing everything up. I sincerely doubt Good would rather kill a Demon it can kill later than save the countless innocents' lives. Good is stupid (personal opinion), but it's not that stupid. This is one of those situations where the campaign against Evil must be put on hold for a short while, for the sake of saving existence itself. You would call the sky green just to be contradictory wouldn't you? I don't need to. Here's a thought for you: How do we know I don't perceive the sky as the color you would call "green", but I call it blue? the Fiendish Codex I has a feat called Abyss-bound soul, which states that you have sold out your immortal soul to a Demon Lord (it's still a demon). this feat is categorised as Vile. The evilest of the evil. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's Evil to sell your soul to the Demon. I'd say the alignment of the deal has to be resolved after you save the world. If you manage to reclaim it, no harm is done, if you don't, you'll spend an eternity as a Good-aligned soul in the Abyss. Now THAT'S what I call self-sacrifice! Wait, wait, wait. The context of this discussion is that a PALADIN wants to SELL HIS SOUL to a DEMON for PERSONAL GAIN. :uh-huh: For personal gain? Not really. He gains the powers for himself, but he does not use them as such. He uses them in the interest of Good, and as Stormbrand said, he should give them back when he's done lest he fall. There is no amount of tortured sophistry that could make him not fall. How is this not crystal clear? I think I'm doing quite well, thank you. Because some people have an innate desire to argue points they know are invalid just because they can. Serisously, dude. When I'm joking, even if it's a cruel joke, I don't usually go this far. You can consider me 100% serious. In effect, the scenario being given is a deliberate "no choice" scenario and so can only be applied in a hypothetical context. Exactly, this is only a thought exercise. A ridiculously absurd thought exercise, but a thought exercise nonetheless. I think people are taking the discussion a little too seriously. Because the one person who is disagreeing is basicly ignoring the wording in the PHB and saying that because the "no evil" clause is under assiciates not the 1 sentice CoC the Paladin can do whatever he damn well wants. The "Code of Conduct" paragraph is a separate paragraph from the "Associates". Both paragraphs have different names. And even though it says "never", exceptions always, I say always exist. This Paladin is one of them.
makeshiftwings 12-10-06, 04:32 AM	And even though it says "never", exceptions always, I say always exist. This Paladin is one of them. Well, you know how you probably think you can "never" be wrong? This is one of those exceptions. If an exception can exist to this very clear and not at all linguistically twistable no matter how hard you try rule, then an exception could exist for every rule, and you would have people arguing that RAW states that their monk can use his abilities in full plate, because it doesn't specifically say a monk may not keep his abilities when he's in full plate. You could even say a longsword can do 1d100 damage because it doesn't specifically say longswords may not do 1d100 damage. I don't care if you want to try to justify morally whether the paladin can do it in a house ruled game. But please stop trying to claim that the RAW are on your side, because they are not. Sorry, let me make that clearer for you: you may not claim that the RAW are on your side.
High Octane 12-10-06, 08:04 AM	Here's a thought for you: How do we know I don't perceive the sky as the color you would call "green", but I call it blue? The defense rests.
Stormbrand 12-10-06, 08:49 AM	These are all points I agree on. It's such an extremely absurd situations that rules can't even be applied without ****ing everything up. I sincerely doubt Good would rather kill a Demon it can kill later than save the countless innocents' lives. Good is stupid (personal opinion), but it's not that stupid. This is one of those situations where the campaign against Evil must be put on hold for a short while, for the sake of saving existence itself. ------------------------------ Exactly, this is only a thought exercise. A ridiculously absurd thought exercise, but a thought exercise nonetheless. I think people are taking the discussion a little too seriously. I levelled up in paladin recently and put skill points in Diplomacy.:P I think I'm doing quite well, thank you. So you admit this is tortured sophistry? (I also put skill ranks in Sense Motive :D )
Vestigial_Thumb 12-10-06, 09:10 AM	Well, you know how you probably think you can "never" be wrong? This is one of those exceptions. Prove it. If an exception can exist to this very clear and not at all linguistically twistable no matter how hard you try rule, then an exception could exist for every rule, and you would have people arguing that RAW states that their monk can use his abilities in full plate, because it doesn't specifically say a monk may not keep his abilities when he's in full plate. You could even say a longsword can do 1d100 damage because it doesn't specifically say longswords may not do 1d100 damage. Except this isn't a rule. It's flavor text. About the rest of your argument, if the rules don't say you can, then you can't. I don't care if you want to try to justify morally whether the paladin can do it in a house ruled game. But please stop trying to claim that the RAW are on your side, because they are not. Sorry, let me make that clearer for you: you may not claim that the RAW are on your side. I can and I did. The defense rests. I don't know whether to call this an ad hominem or weird joke.
Fara 12-10-06, 11:34 AM	Not sure if this option's been mentioned before (long thread) but another way to get a paladin half-demon, is if the paladin sacrificed himself to sort of 'contain' the demon essence. (Think Tal-Rasha from Diablo2 and the Hero from Diablo1) It'd be a very exalted move for a paladin. The end-effect of course (wether your paladin stays exalted, is then corrupted by the demon, whatever) is up to you and your DM.
Khael 12-10-06, 11:49 AM	Not sure if this option's been mentioned before (long thread) but another way to get a paladin half-demon, is if the paladin sacrificed himself to sort of 'contain' the demon essence. (Think Tal-Rasha from Diablo2 and the Hero from Diablo1) It'd be a very exalted move for a paladin. The end-effect of course (wether your paladin stays exalted, is then corrupted by the demon, whatever) is up to you and your DM. It hasn't yet, and is a fairly good sounding way but for the fact the paladin in question is then open to possession, or is out of action fort he rest of his life in order to contain the fiend. That and the fiend would only grant those changes while taking control (if ever). By RAW I still think short of PrCs (which apparently exist for this), the best way is to be in ground zero of a 'event of great evil' as listed in the BOVD. The likely side effect of constant insanity though...means at the very least you will not have signed away anything so are still a paladin. Technically, or at least 'til you kebab someone believing them to be a demon or something (DISCLAIMER: You will still be a paladin If they are actually a demon. Well, about 99% likely to still be one.)
makeshiftwings 12-10-06, 05:09 PM	Prove it. Well, you're wrong now, so logically, you are sometimes wrong. It's more or less a tautology. Except this isn't a rule. It's flavor text. About the rest of your argument, if the rules don't say you can, then you can't. Anything in the SRD is a rule, not flavor text. In addition, it's in the "Game Rule Information: Class Features" section, not the flavor text. Again, if you decide that you're allowed to claim that this particular rule is flavor text, then anybody could claim any rule they don't like is flavor text. I can and I did. No, you didn't. You think you did, but that post was just flavor text.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-10-06, 05:52 PM	Well, you're wrong now, so logically, you are sometimes wrong. It's more or less a tautology. I asked you to prove that I'm wrong now. Anything in the SRD is a rule, not flavor text. In addition, it's in the "Game Rule Information: Class Features" section, not the flavor text. Again, if you decide that you're allowed to claim that this particular rule is flavor text, then anybody could claim any rule they don't like is flavor text. Okay, let's look at it: Code of Conduct 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. This paragraph, called "Code of Conduct," explains how the Paladin should behave and what can make him lose his class features. It has now ended, telling you that what follows will not be descriptions of how he should behave and what can make him lose his class features. Associates While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good. This paragraph bears a different name and is separate from the paragraph "Code of Conduct." It does not tell you that the Paladin loses his class features if he associates with Evil. So if the Paladin makes the deal with the Demon, he just shows that the book is clearly wrong in this campaign. No, you didn't. You think you did, but that post was just flavor text. I did claim RAW was on my side. I also supported that claim. Are my claims bulletproof? Not if you shoot them down, something you haven't done yet, considering that I haven't conceded (I'm not a stubborn guy).
makeshiftwings 12-10-06, 07:41 PM	This paragraph bears a different name and is separate from the paragraph "Code of Conduct." It does not tell you that the Paladin loses his class features if he associates with Evil. But as I already said earlier, if you are claiming that it is a stand-alone complete rule, then it means it is physically impossible for the paladin to associate with evil. So if the Paladin makes the deal with the Demon, he just shows that the book is clearly wrong in this campaign. The book can not be "wrong". It defines what the rules are. Saying "Well, in my game I let a paladin associate with evil, therefore the book is wrong" does not constitute a proof, it only shows that you're playing the game incorrectly. To use my same example, I could say "In my game, longswords do 1d100 damage, so this proves that the rule in the book that says longswords do 1d8 damage is wrong." I did claim RAW was on my side. I also supported that claim. Are my claims bulletproof? Not if you shoot them down, something you haven't done yet, considering that I haven't conceded (I'm not a stubborn guy). I have shot them down. There is nothing one needs to do to shoot them down other than showing you the rule that says you are wrong. You're attempting to use linguistic sophistry to prove you're right by saying "rules aren't really rules". You can keep repeating that yourself, but it doesn't mean you're right.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-10-06, 08:05 PM	But as I already said earlier, if you are claiming that it is a stand-alone complete rule, then it means it is physically impossible for the paladin to associate with evil. It's not a rule, as it does not tell him what he can or cannot do. It also does not prohibit him from associating with Evil. The book can not be "wrong". It defines what the rules are. Saying "Well, in my game I let a paladin associate with evil, therefore the book is wrong" does not constitute a proof, it only shows that you're playing the game incorrectly. It shows that he's houseruling. We are arguing in terms of his campaign, are we not? And even if we weren't, Paladins are still not prohibited from associating with Evil. To use my same example, I could say "In my game, longswords do 1d100 damage, so this proves that the rule in the book that says longswords do 1d8 damage is wrong." That's not the issue here. D&D rules state what you can or may do. If it bears mentioning, then they will say what you can't or may not do. These are exceptions, though, as it is generally assumed that people know this. I have shot them down. There is nothing one needs to do to shoot them down other than showing you the rule that says you are wrong. You haven't showed me a rule. You showed me a generalization that can easily be refuted with one simple example: A Paladin that makes a deal with a Demon and doesn't lose his abilities. You're attempting to use linguistic sophistry to prove you're right by saying "rules aren't really rules". I'm saying that paragraph isn't a rule. It isn't, as it does prohibit the Paladin from nor allow him to associate with Evil. You can keep repeating that yourself, but it doesn't mean you're right. No, the fact that I'm showing you evidence that you can't refute means I'm right (for all intents and purposes) until I am shown evidence to counter it.
makeshiftwings 12-11-06, 03:55 AM	It's not a rule, as it does not tell him what he can or cannot do. It also does not prohibit him from associating with Evil. No, something does not need to tell a character what he may do in order to be a rule. D&D is a game; by "rule", we mean a rule telling the players how to play the game. Using my example yet again, saying "A long sword does 1d8 damage" isn't telling a character what he can or can't do, so by your logic, it wouldn't be a rule. You are wrong about this. We are discussing rules of the game. It shows that he's houseruling. We are arguing in terms of his campaign, are we not? Right, he is houseruling. I thought you were trying to say he wasn't houseruling? Houseruling means you are changing a rule. And even if we weren't, Paladins are still not prohibited from associating with Evil. And longswords are not prohibited from doing 1d100. That's not the issue here. D&D rules state what you can or may do. If it bears mentioning, then they will say what you can't or may not do. These are exceptions, though, as it is generally assumed that people know this. Actually it's exactly the issue here. How is your claiming that this rule is not a rule any different from me claiming that any rule is not a rule? This is more or less the center of your weak argument, so if you're unable to address that point, then you have no foundation to stand on. And no, it is not generally assumed that you are supposed to make up exceptions to rules; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have never actually played a game or lived in a country with laws or been subjected to physics. So I will briefly explain: a "rule" is basically defined by the fact that it is not a "guideline". Just in case you are planning on trying to play chess by moving your rooks diagonally or play pool by picking up the balls and dropping them in the holes, I'll save you the trouble and tell you now that your opponents are not going to be nearly as patient as the internet when you try to tell them that rules aren't really rules, and that it's implied that you're allowed to make up exceptions to them whenever you feel like it. You haven't showed me a rule. You showed me a generalization that can easily be refuted with one simple example: A Paladin that makes a deal with a Demon and doesn't lose his abilities. So cutting and pasting rules directly from the SRD no longer counts as showing rules, hmm? Please tell me, how is anyone supposed to have a rules discussion on the board if the SRD is incorrect? What exactly does "Rules as written" mean if the written rules are incorrect and only you know what the real rules are? I'm saying that paragraph isn't a rule. It isn't, as it does prohibit the Paladin from nor allow him to associate with Evil. Why exactly is it not a rule? There is nothing saying "This is not a rule" in the rule. Isn't it a little questionable that they would put this single non-rule in a big book of rules, without any explanation? And how come you're the only one who knows it's not a rule? Did WotC email you after they printed up the SRD to tell you they secretly slipped one fake rule in with all the other real rules? No, the fact that I'm showing you evidence that you can't refute means I'm right (for all intents and purposes) until I am shown evidence to counter it. Evidence? Where was that exactly? You mean the part where you say "It's not a rule"? If you'd really like, I could post "It is a rule" twenty times, and then my "evidence" would outweigh yours. But I'd really rather not.
sinrae_kinesti 12-11-06, 04:01 AM	Aight listen folks. i hate it when someone points this out to me cause im a rules monger just like the rest of you so i think you should be well aware that it clearly states in the core rule books that the rules provided in them are not rules at all. they are guidelines to bend twist or disregard at your pleasure. so if the DM says yeah your paladin of Pelor can associate with Asmodeus and have tea and crumpets with him every night. congratulations mr Paladin you and asmo are best friends and you play golf on saturdays instead of fighting to the paladins ultimate death. another thing i should metion here my dear rules mongers YES A PALADIN CAN BE EVIL. and he doesnt even have to be a blackguard. have any of you looked in the unearthed arcana supplement at the paladin of slaughter, and the paladin of tyranny? their requirements are must be chaotic evil and must be lawful evil. so the question was can a paladin be a half demon. the answer my friends is blowing in the wind and it is YES. in fact a paladin can be a full demon. and doesnt have to be a redeemed villian becuase of the Paladin variants i have just mentioned. Thank you and have a nice day
Khael 12-11-06, 05:00 AM	Aight listen folks. i hate it when someone points this out to me cause im a rules monger just like the rest of you so i think you should be well aware that it clearly states in the core rule books that the rules provided in them are not rules at all. they are guidelines to bend twist or disregard at your pleasure. so if the DM says yeah your paladin of Pelor can associate with Asmodeus and have tea and crumpets with him every night. congratulations mr Paladin you and asmo are best friends and you play golf on saturdays instead of fighting to the paladins ultimate death. another thing i should metion here my dear rules mongers YES A PALADIN CAN BE EVIL. and he doesnt even have to be a blackguard. have any of you looked in the unearthed arcana supplement at the paladin of slaughter, and the paladin of tyranny? their requirements are must be chaotic evil and must be lawful evil. so the question was can a paladin be a half demon. the answer my friends is blowing in the wind and it is YES. in fact a paladin can be a full demon. and doesnt have to be a redeemed villian becuase of the Paladin variants i have just mentioned. Thank you and have a nice day You realise you ignored numerous board points here: 1) Rule Zero should not be pointed out, on the board. It is an answer to anything, so pointing it out solves nothing about the rules, which is what the argument is about, the RAW. 2) This argument is about the core paladin RAW specifically, not any variants, since otherwise I can just make up a paladin class that involves turning into a half-fiend. And that'd be just as legal rules-wise as an unearthed arcana paladin, given the thing about anything non-core (and if house rules are invovled some of core itself) is subject to DM approval, and the OP wanted to know for a game he is in. So you've failed to address any points of the OP's question.
sinrae_kinesti 12-11-06, 05:42 AM	Khael I care little for what is currently being addressed on this board. i answered the question posted. and if there is going to be a discussion on rules should they not all be addressed? rule zero is by far the most important rule of the game. do not speak to me condescendingly, as if i am some child who has no understanding of the game. the point of this game is to have fun just like every other game. if people wish to by pass every other rule they are playing the game correctly so long as they are having fun.
Khael 12-11-06, 05:59 AM	Khael I care little for what is currently being addressed on this board. i answered the question posted. and if there is going to be a discussion on rules should they not all be addressed? rule zero is by far the most important rule of the game. do not speak to me condescendingly, as if i am some child who has no understanding of the game. the point of this game is to have fun just like every other game. if people wish to by pass every other rule they are playing the game correctly so long as they are having fun. Rule zero is important but not here. I'm sorry if I came as condescending, that was not my intention. However you have to understand this: When people argue here on the rules, they argue on what is in front of them, in this case can you have a paladin (core class, unless specified, since this is an existing character not a theory) become a half-fiend out of selling his soul to a demon, while retaining his soul? And how would being born a hafl-fiend be different? Since we're not his DM however we can only say what the RAW will or won't allow. Under rule zero... there is no front. And if you go by rule zero as being most important, you're hardly a rules-monger, if you'll pardon my definition...
Thunder Dragonbane 12-11-06, 08:09 AM	Evidence? Where was that exactly? You mean the part where you say "It's not a rule"? If you'd really like, I could post "It is a rule" twenty times, and then my "evidence" would outweigh yours. But I'd really rather not. We have already shown V T more than 20 times that the PHB is correct, and he is still thinking he is. Why don't we just stop. Basicly he will say anything to be contradictary at this point. As for the guy claming to be the "rules-monger" being one of those means knowing the rules backwards and forwards and being able to give page numbers for proof. Quoting rule 0 is not going to help in any fassion. We are not discussing rule 0, we are discussing the PHB Paladin.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 08:53 AM	No, something does not need to tell a character what he may do in order to be a rule. Okay, so this is a rule. I'll concede to that. But the Paladin is in no way penalized if he breaks it. Using my example yet again, saying "A long sword does 1d8 damage" isn't telling a character what he can or can't do, so by your logic, it wouldn't be a rule. You are wrong about this. We are discussing rules of the game. The longsword damage is a value that alters between 1 and 8. A value higher than that is not given on the table, and it doesn't say you can deal 1d100 damage, so you can't. I've already conceded that the Association clause is a rule, so now show me what happens if the Paladin breaks it. I thought you were trying to say he wasn't houseruling? I'm saying he isn't. Though the rule tells the Paladin that he will not associate himself with Evil, the Paladin still does it. It's like an old lady nagging at a five-year-old not to walk on her lawn, yet the five-year-old still does it (this assumes the old lady has no phone and can't call the police). And longswords are not prohibited from doing 1d100. Yes, they are, by the reasoning that the rules don't say they can. How is your claiming that this rule is not a rule any different from me claiming that any rule is not a rule? Because this rule can be broken with absolutely no consequences, as per RAW. This is more or less the center of your weak argument, so if you're unable to address that point, then you have no foundation to stand on. I addressed it, conceded on a few points and now my argument, I must say, is a bit stronger than before. And no, it is not generally assumed that you are supposed to make up exceptions to rules; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have never actually played a game or lived in a country with laws or been subjected to physics. So I will briefly explain: a "rule" is basically defined by the fact that it is not a "guideline". Just in case you are planning on trying to play chess by moving your rooks diagonally or play pool by picking up the balls and dropping them in the holes, I'll save you the trouble and tell you now that your opponents are not going to be nearly as patient as the internet when you try to tell them that rules aren't really rules, and that it's implied that you're allowed to make up exceptions to them whenever you feel like it. Ad hominem. So cutting and pasting rules directly from the SRD no longer counts as showing rules, hmm? Please tell me, how is anyone supposed to have a rules discussion on the board if the SRD is incorrect? What exactly does "Rules as written" mean if the written rules are incorrect and only you know what the real rules are? Why exactly is it not a rule? There is nothing saying "This is not a rule" in the rule. Isn't it a little questionable that they would put this single non-rule in a big book of rules, without any explanation? And how come you're the only one who knows it's not a rule? Did WotC email you after they printed up the SRD to tell you they secretly slipped one fake rule in with all the other real rules? Also ad hominem. Evidence? Where was that exactly? You mean the part where you say "It's not a rule"? If you'd really like, I could post "It is a rule" twenty times, and then my "evidence" would outweigh yours. But I'd really rather not. Also ad hominem. Please attack my points and refrain from actually taking shots at me as a person.
makeshiftwings 12-11-06, 06:35 PM	Ok, first let me state that I, and most people, and probably you, know that the "Associates" clause is actually part of the Code of Conduct. That's the normal interpretation. For the sake of argument, I'm letting you say that the Associates clause is a standalone rule, so everything I'm saying is tied to that. Okay, so this is a rule. I'll concede to that. But the Paladin is in no way penalized if he breaks it. He can't break it, if it is a standalone rule. The longsword damage is a value that alters between 1 and 8. A value higher than that is not given on the table, and it doesn't say you can deal 1d100 damage, so you can't. I've already conceded that the Association clause is a rule, so now show me what happens if the Paladin breaks it. The same thing that happens if you break the rule saying that a long sword does 1d8, and start rolling 1d100. The DM smacks you and tells you to stop, and to play by the rules instead. I'm saying he isn't. Though the rule tells the Paladin that he will not associate himself with Evil, the Paladin still does it. It's like an old lady nagging at a five-year-old not to walk on her lawn, yet the five-year-old still does it (this assumes the old lady has no phone and can't call the police). The paladin can't do it, if it is a standalone rule. If the paladin does it, then the player has broken a rule of the game. Asking what happens is like asking what happens if a fighter casts Fireball. A fighter can't cast fireball, so you don't need to come up with an in-game punishment to deal with it. You just tell the player to stop breaking the rules. Yes, they are, by the reasoning that the rules don't say they can. The rules don't say a paladin can associate with evil. In fact, they say a paladin can't associate with evil. Because this rule can be broken with absolutely no consequences, as per RAW. Any rule can be broken without consequences. Where is the "consequences" clause of what happens to you if you roll 1d100 for your longsword damage? As I said, the only consequence is that your DM might kick you in the shins. I addressed it, conceded on a few points and now my argument, I must say, is a bit stronger than before. No. You're now claiming it's a rule, but that you're allowed to break it, but it doesn't have consequences so nothing happens. All rules in the SRD are rules, none of them say specifically that you can't break them, and none of them have consequences. So there is no difference between this rule and all the others.
makeshiftwings 12-11-06, 06:36 PM	We have already shown V T more than 20 times that the PHB is correct, and he is still thinking he is. Why don't we just stop. Basicly he will say anything to be contradictary at this point. As for the guy claming to be the "rules-monger" being one of those means knowing the rules backwards and forwards and being able to give page numbers for proof. Quoting rule 0 is not going to help in any fassion. We are not discussing rule 0, we are discussing the PHB Paladin. Yeah, but I really am this bored. I like to think of D&D arguments on the internet as practice for arguments with religious fundamentalists in real life. ;)
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 06:55 PM	That's the normal interpretation. But not necessarily the right interpretation. He can't break it, if it is a standalone rule. But look at the wording. The "rule" isn't authoritative enough. It just tries to predict what the Paladin will do. The Paladin didn't. If you break this rule, you DM might attack you (I, as a DM, wouldn't in under these circumstances), but there are no mechanical consequences. The same thing that happens if you break the rule saying that a long sword does 1d8, and start rolling 1d100. The DM smacks you and tells you to stop, and to play by the rules instead. That rule isn't as breakable as the Associates clause. The rule about longsword damage gives that specific value, the other one just tries to predict your behavior. The paladin can't do it, if it is a standalone rule. If the paladin does it, then the player has broken a rule of the game. There aren't any consequences from breaking it. Asking what happens is like asking what happens if a fighter casts Fireball. A fighter can't cast fireball, so you don't need to come up with an in-game punishment to deal with it. The rules don't say the Fighter can cast Fireball, and therefore it should be assumed he can't. The rules don't say a paladin can associate with evil. In fact, they say a paladin can't associate with evil. They say nothing about him associating with Evil; they just say he won't. It's just a predictor, nearly meaningless. I don't care whether it's in the SRD, it has no mechanical consequences for being broken and is usually a logical form of roleplaying. It's under these circumstances that the "rule" comes into question, and what do we find? The "rule" is about as meaningful as flavor text. It could just as well have been placed under the "Alignment" section. There's also the fact that characters are not prohibited from committing any acts that they aren't physically restrained from doing. Nothing in the Associates clause suggests that the Paladin is physically unable to associate himself with Evil. Any rule can be broken without consequences. Where is the "consequences" clause of what happens to you if you roll 1d100 for your longsword damage? Your DM might suspect something's fishy when you roll higher than 8. As I said, the only consequence is that your DM might kick you in the shins. If he notices. I'm not condoning cheating, though. No. You're now claiming it's a rule, but that you're allowed to break it, but it doesn't have consequences so nothing happens. All rules in the SRD are rules, none of them say specifically that you can't break them, and none of them have consequences. So there is no difference between this rule and all the others. There is a difference, namely that it isn't authoritative enough, it doesn't specifically prohibit, nor allow anything, and there are absolutely no consequences for it being broken. The others aren't an issue, because they are authoritative enough and matter with respect to mechanics (meaning that you alter the game balance by breaking them).
Danvac 12-11-06, 07:02 PM	I've got a Paladin who became 20th level and put on a helm of opposing alignment (I had to start over) Anyways, he's a great evil character, so a half fiend fallen Paladin Blackguard could be interesting. ANd its fun to play someone evil:evillaugh !
makeshiftwings 12-11-06, 07:26 PM	But look at the wording. The "rule" isn't authoritative enough. It just tries to predict what the Paladin will do. The Paladin didn't. If you break this rule, you DM might attack you (I, as a DM, wouldn't in under these circumstances), but there are no mechanical consequences. The rules don't predict; they tell you what can or can not happen. They are saying a paladin WILL NOT do it. To flip it around again, if you're saying that this is only a "prediction" now (I thought we agreed it was a rule?), then every other rule could also be a "prediction". The idea that a longsword would only do 1d8 is now a prediction, so I could roll 1d100 and say that the rules simply predicted the value incorrectly. That rule isn't as breakable as the Associates clause. The rule about longsword damage gives that specific value, the other one just tries to predict your behavior. If there's nothing that says a rule is "more breakable" than another rule, then you can't just make it up whenever you feel like it. The burden of proof is on you to show why this particular rule is more breakable than any other rule. As I said, simply saying "I can play and make my paladin break it, therefore it's breakable" is not a proof since I could also roll 1d100 for the longsword. There aren't any consequences from breaking it. I already said this; there aren't any consequences for breaking ANY rule, except annoying the other players. Just like there aren't in-game consequences for eating the other player's pieces on a chessboard. It's assumed that both players will play by the rules. That's why they are rules. A game that has a built-in penalty for something means that the act in question wasn't really a rule to begin with. For example, hitting a foul ball in baseball will have a consequence. But you're not breaking a rule by hitting a foul ball. You are breaking a rule in baseball by running the bases backwards or grabbing the ball and running to your car to drive away with it. There are no penalties built in to cover these situations because it's assumed that no one will do it when they play. The rules don't say the Fighter can cast Fireball, and therefore it should be assumed he can't. The rules don't say a paladin can associate with evil, and therefore it should be assumed he can't. They say nothing about him associating with Evil; they just say he won't. Come again? It's just a predictor, nearly meaningless. I don't care whether it's in the SRD, The SRD is the "RAW", so disregarding it means that you're incorrect. it has no mechanical consequences for being broken Just like every other rule. and is usually a logical form of roleplaying. Not for a paladin. It's under these circumstances that the "rule" comes into question, and what do we find? The "rule" is about as meaningful as flavor text. It could just as well have been placed under the "Alignment" section. This is merely your opinion. If I declared that the rule of longswords doing 1d8 was merely flavor text and should be in the alignment section, it doesn't mean it's true. There's also the fact that characters are not prohibited from committing any acts that they aren't physically restrained from doing. If the rule is a standalone rule, he IS physically restrained from doing it. Just like an evil cleric is physically restrained from spontaneously casting Cure spells or turning undead or casting spells with the Good descriptor. Or a fighter with a low Reflex save is physically restrained from dodging out of the way of a fireball. There is a difference, namely that it isn't authoritative enough, it doesn't specifically prohibit, nor allow anything, and there are absolutely no consequences for it being broken. The others aren't an issue, because they are authoritative enough and matter with respect to mechanics (meaning that you alter the game balance by breaking them). Like I said, the burden of proof to show that it's "not authoritative" and "not really a rule" are on you. None of the rules in the SRD specifically say "I'm authoritative!" or "I matter with respect to mechanics!" or "I alter game balance!". So like I said, unless you got a letter from WotC telling you that this specific rule is actually a fake rule, then you can't just claim that it's not authoritative or not a real rule.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 07:48 PM	The rules don't predict; they tell you what can or can not happen. They are saying a paladin WILL NOT do it. To flip it around again, if you're saying that this is only a "prediction" now (I thought we agreed it was a rule?) Yeah, my concession was flawed. Consider it withdrawn. then every other rule could also be a "prediction". No, because they don't include the word "will". The idea that a longsword would only do 1d8 is now a prediction, so I could roll 1d100 and say that the rules simply predicted the value incorrectly. Rules are for maintaining game balance (or so they say), not to restrict actions. If there's nothing that says a rule is "more breakable" than another rule, then you can't just make it up whenever you feel like it. I withdrew my concession. As I said, simply saying "I can play and make my paladin break it, therefore it's breakable" is not a proof since I could also roll 1d100 for the longsword. The Associates clause in the Paladin entry has no mechanical value and, thus, is not a rule. I already said this; there aren't any consequences for breaking ANY rule, except annoying the other players. And ripping the game in two. Just like there aren't in-game consequences for eating the other player's pieces on a chessboard. Yes, there are. He now has fewer pieces to move and is at a disadvantage. For example, hitting a foul ball in baseball will have a consequence. But you're not breaking a rule by hitting a foul ball. You are breaking a rule in baseball by running the bases backwards or grabbing the ball and running to your car to drive away with it. There are no penalties built in to cover these situations because it's assumed that no one will do it when they play. But this Paladin is doing it. The rules don't say a paladin can associate with evil, and therefore it should be assumed he can't. Rules are mechanical in nature. Come again? It's like telling someone "you won't hit a foul ball". But what if he does? The SRD is the "RAW", so disregarding it means that you're incorrect. But this is just misplaced flavor text. Just like every other rule. No. Rolling 1d100 for a longsword has huge mechanical implications. Not for a paladin. Uh, wait. They're champions of Good and generally hate Evil with all their hearts. Only under extreme circumstance would I imagine a Paladin associating with Evil. This is merely your opinion. If I declared that the rule of longswords doing 1d8 was merely flavor text and should be in the alignment section, it doesn't mean it's true. This is a straw man, you know. Just like an evil cleric is physically restrained from spontaneously casting Cure spells or turning undead or casting spells with the Good descriptor. The Cleric is mystically unable to cast them (meaning he can't tap their source) because his god or ideal can't (and probably wouldn't) grant him the power of something antithetical to them. In this case it's also mechanical. Or a fighter with a low Reflex save is physically restrained from dodging out of the way of a fireball. Purely mechanical in nature. None of the rules in the SRD specifically say "I'm authoritative!" or "I matter with respect to mechanics!" or "I alter game balance!". But you can see which do matter mechanically (unless you're a total idiot; I'm assuming you're not). These are the rules. Everything else is flavor text. So like I said, unless you got a letter from WotC telling you that this specific rule is actually a fake rule, then you can't just claim that it's not authoritative or not a real rule. It's not a rule. Period. That's my claim.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 07:51 PM	BTW, have you actually considered what you're arguing?
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 08:13 PM	Hmmm...maybe I'm jumping in late here, but a paladin associating with evil would likely be wrong. Even if there isn't any mechanical reason for it, does it really make sense? D&D isn't about meeting together and following some sacred rule-book: even the designers discourage this kind of thinking (it's all in DMing for Dummies). Example: under the alignment description in the Players Handbook (or the SRD if you prefer), whether torture is evil or good remains undefined. Torture is not mentioned once throughout the entire section. Therefore, there is no mechanical justification (within the three core books, all supplements suspended as they are not necessary for the game itself, hence: supplement) for causing a paladin to fall if he chooses to torture people, so long as he doesn't kill them. You may wish to think about this question: what kind of game would we really have if all we did was follow RAW?
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 08:29 PM	Example: under the alignment description in the Players Handbook (or the SRD if you prefer), whether torture is evil or good remains undefined. Torture is not mentioned once throughout the entire section. Therefore, there is no mechanical justification (within the three core books, all supplements suspended as they are not necessary for the game itself, hence: supplement) for causing a paladin to fall if he chooses to torture people, so long as he doesn't kill them. Let's look at the definitions of Evil: Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "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. It is easily deductible that torture is Evil from the text.
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 09:35 PM	It is easily deductible that torture is Evil from the text. But not explicitly stated. Thus, common sense and a few braincells are, in fact, needed to play D&D. We could also easily (read: stupidly) deduce that any paladin that hurts another living being should lose all their powers. Again, this is where we add brain cells.
EntropyDawn 12-11-06, 10:02 PM	Aight listen folks. i hate it when someone points this out to me cause im a rules monger just like the rest of you so i think you should be well aware that it clearly states in the core rule books that the rules provided in them are not rules at all. they are guidelines to bend twist or disregard at your pleasure. so if the DM says yeah your paladin of Pelor can associate with Asmodeus and have tea and crumpets with him every night. congratulations mr Paladin you and asmo are best friends and you play golf on saturdays instead of fighting to the paladins ultimate death. another thing i should metion here my dear rules mongers YES A PALADIN CAN BE EVIL. and he doesnt even have to be a blackguard. have any of you looked in the unearthed arcana supplement at the paladin of slaughter, and the paladin of tyranny? their requirements are must be chaotic evil and must be lawful evil. so the question was can a paladin be a half demon. the answer my friends is blowing in the wind and it is YES. in fact a paladin can be a full demon. and doesnt have to be a redeemed villian becuase of the Paladin variants i have just mentioned. Thank you and have a nice day Except that every book from the pamphlets of D&D beginnings to the newest books coming off the shelves right now say that in order to be a paladin you have to be lawful good... The paladins you cited are called paladin only to mock the true order of them. Its more "anti Paladin". they cannot have holy powers if they are tyrranous (sp) or Homicidal maniacs, they lose their status in a new york minute
Tobek 12-11-06, 10:03 PM	Well, VT if you were looking for rules concerning soul selling General Ridley about 1 page ago posted a rule from Fiendish Codex. the Fiendish Codex I has a feat called Abyss-bound soul, which states that you have sold out your immortal soul to a Demon Lord (it's still a demon). this feat is categorised as Vile. The evilest of the evil. And incase you want to argue the what exactly the word vile means Marriam Webster states online that in the english language Vile means: Main Entry: vile Pronunciation: 'vI(-&)l Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): vil·er /'vI-l&r/; vil·est /-l&st/ Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French vil, from Latin vilis 1 a : morally despicable or abhorrent <nothing is so vile as intellectual dishonesty> b : physically repulsive : FOUL <a vile slum> 2 : of little worth or account : COMMON; also : MEAN 3 : tending to degrade <vile employments> 4 : disgustingly or utterly bad : OBNOXIOUS, CONTEMPTIBLE <vile weather> <had a vile temper> In our case we would go with definition #4. In which case the rules state that a Paladin who willingly commits an evil act (evil=discustingly or utterly bad, or a Vile act if you will) loses their Paladin status and would have to atone. As we are using sources outside the core 3 rule books (you site BoVD, then the Fiendish Codex is fair game)
Vestigial_Thumb 12-11-06, 10:26 PM	In our case we would go with definition #4. In which case the rules state that a Paladin who willingly commits an evil act (evil=discustingly or utterly bad, or a Vile act if you will) loses their Paladin status and would have to atone. Did you also read where I said that this is not enough to prove it? One, you have to be Evil already before taking the feat, two, you have to sell your soul to THAT Demon Prince to gain the benefit. The only thing that normal Demon can do is use it for optional components. If you instead pledge him your soul, it's enough to simply kill him later (He's a Demon. Anything you do to him is fair game). As we are using sources outside the core 3 rule books (you site BoVD, then the Fiendish Codex is fair game) Of course. Personally, I find distasteful to cite the BoVD (considering how many flaws it has), but I choose to just refute material from it individually.
sinrae_kinesti 12-12-06, 02:44 AM	Entropy I do agree with you when you say the Paladins i quoted are a perversion to mock the true order. but that is what evil does. it mocks twists and perverts good, to decieve the weak of heart into thinking it would be "ok" to follow the codes and traditions they provide. i also agree with you when you say every publication says a Paladin must be good. but these unholy "paladins" that i have stated are still considered paladins by their wicked and perverse gods. they are champions of evil just as a true paladin is a champion of good. but never did i claim that they would have holy powers. an no they would not lose their unholy power for following their wicked god's perverse edicts for being tyrannical or homicidal. why would hextor deny his champion aid, if he emulated his god? why would Erythnul stop giving his follower power for slaughtering a village of elves?
makeshiftwings 12-12-06, 05:02 AM	Yeah, my concession was flawed. Consider it withdrawn. Back to square one? Rather than retype everything, I'll just refer you back to my earlier post which made you concede that it was a rule. No, because they don't include the word "will". Ok, change my example to "A fighter with a low Will save..." Sophistry for the win! No, verb tense does not make a difference. Most rules are written in present tense, but some are in future. "You can specify what type of damage your unarmed strike will deal", "A trained animal will attack the target you point to", etc. Rules are for maintaining game balance (or so they say), not to restrict actions. Not letting my 1st level fighter cast Meteor Swarm at will is restricting my actions. The Associates clause in the Paladin entry has no mechanical value and, thus, is not a rule. You don't get to decide what has no mechanical value, WotC does. And they put everything of mechanical value into the SRD. Yes, there are. He now has fewer pieces to move and is at a disadvantage. Not if he eats your pieces too. But this Paladin is doing it. And my fighter is casting Meteor Swarm at will. What's your point? Rules are mechanical in nature. It is a mechanic; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be in the SRD. It's like telling someone "you won't hit a foul ball". But what if he does? If he did it on purpose, then you would stop playing with him, because he's breaking the rules of the game. But this is just misplaced flavor text. Just like the part about long swords doing 1d8! This is a straw man, you know. Your entire argument is a straw man, since we obviously both know that in reality the Associates clause is part of the Code of Conduct. The Cleric is mystically unable to cast them (meaning he can't tap their source) because his god or ideal can't (and probably wouldn't) grant him the power of something antithetical to them. Fine, the paladin is mystically unable to associate with Evil, because his god or ideal won't let him do something antithetical to them. But you can see which do matter mechanically (unless you're a total idiot; I'm assuming you're not). These are the rules. Everything else is flavor text. Well, I guess everyone including WotC are idiots, since the SRD is pure mechanics, yet the paladin's rules are in there. It's not a rule. Period. That's my claim. Well, until the next time you post.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 09:05 AM	Main Entry: vile Pronunciation: 'vI(-&)l Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): vil·er /'vI-l&r/; vil·est /-l&st/ Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French vil, from Latin vilis 1 a : morally despicable or abhorrent <nothing is so vile as intellectual dishonesty> b : physically repulsive : FOUL <a vile slum> 2 : of little worth or account : COMMON; also : MEAN 3 : tending to degrade <vile employments> 4 : disgustingly or utterly bad : OBNOXIOUS, CONTEMPTIBLE <vile weather> <had a vile temper Just to note, I can actually twist that definition in my favor. Back to square one? Rather than retype everything, I'll just refer you back to my earlier post which made you concede that it was a rule. That no longer works, since rules are aimed to keep game balance. Anything else isn't a rule. Ok, change my example to "A fighter with a low Will save..." Sophistry for the win! You're the one using sophistry. The case you're arguing has no logical foundation and now you're just trying to accuse me of twisting words. Admittedly I am twisting definitions, but not in an illogical fashion. The conclusions I come to are more logical than yours (one of my conclusions being that Good =/= Evil). No, verb tense does not make a difference. Most rules are written in present tense, but some are in future. That's a noun, not a verb, and as such describes nothing. You just said "A Fighter with a low Will save..." and expect me to buy it? I'm starting to question your train of thought in this discussion. For purposes of this discussion, are you following Rules as Written or Rules as Written (first definition that comes to mind, no questioning, no discussion)? You actually have to apply common sense (though it may differ between individuals) to the rules if you're going to come to any type of logical conclusion. "You can specify what type of damage your unarmed strike will deal", "A trained animal will attack the target you point to", etc. Thing is, you control the animal's actions. Saying your Druid points to his Wolf to attack an Orc and then saying the Wolf goes to attack an Ogre is allowed by the rules. Not letting my 1st level fighter cast Meteor Swarm at will is restricting my actions. Well, that's an unfortunate side effect for you. Rules are not made for the express purpose of restricting actions, but they do if they have to. Fun fact: That was also sophistry. You don't get to decide what has no mechanical value, WotC does. And they put everything of mechanical value into the SRD. I can see what has mechanical value. You could too if you actually read the paragraphs and see how if the Associates clause was actually a part of the Code of Conduct, then they wouldn't have actually made it a separate paragraph with a different name, suggesting that the Code of Conduct is over. That'd be idiocy. And don't plead poor editing, that's a coward's way out. Not if he eats your pieces too. No, but he is still ruining the game. And my fighter is casting Meteor Swarm at will. What's your point? Your Fighter is destroying game balance. It is a mechanic; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be in the SRD. Do you know what a mechanic is (do not twist this or I'll lose all respect for you as a human being). If he did it on purpose, then you would stop playing with him, because he's breaking the rules of the game. In baseball, yes, but if an honestly dire situation like the one we're talking about arose, I wouldn't even consider stopping the Paladin from selling his soul. Just like the part about long swords doing 1d8! No, not like the longsword doing 1d8. You seriously need to learn to separate mechanics from flavor text. Mechanics are things that maintain game balance. Flavor text is the explanation for those mechanics. Your entire argument is a straw man, since we obviously both know that in reality the Associates clause is part of the Code of Conduct. I know it isn't. Fine, the paladin is mystically unable to associate with Evil, because his god or ideal won't let him do something antithetical to them. Sophistry. 'Mystically' basically means magically in D&D. A Good Cleric can't manipulate the energies needed to cast Evil spells. A Paladin can sure as hell manipulate his own body and voice (just like everybody else). He is very much able. Well, I guess everyone including WotC are idiots, since the SRD is pure mechanics, yet the paladin's rules are in there. No, people who take everyhting there this seriously are idiots. Screaming "This are in SRD, so this are rule", no matter what is idiocy, especually considering that game rules, nearly by definition are meant to keep things fair. [/QUOTE]Well, until the next time you post.[/QUOTE] If we assume it's a rule: rule /rul/ [rool] noun, verb, ruled, rul·ing. –noun 1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess. 2. the code of regulations observed by a religious order or congregation: the Franciscan rule. 3. the customary or normal circumstance, occurrence, manner, practice, quality, etc.: the rule rather than the exception. 4. control, government, or dominion: under the rule of a dictator. ... (it goes on, up to 24 definitions) How do we know this isn't what they meant? It would make sense, considering that using any other definition wouldn't work, since it doesn't affect game balance. This is not a concession.
EntropyDawn 12-12-06, 10:07 AM	Wow, This thread is still going? Lol. Dang Question though VT, If your arguing a paladin can do it specifically because "there isn't somewhere that says he CANT" It only says will not or never .(which I thought never was a pretty strong word) it leaves a small margin of probability right? So in that light, what is there from changing every rule around to cater to the person on a moment to moment basis, because there are very few rules that say specifically "cannot,isn't able to/is impossible" (course this is also a game that tells you "its your game, if you need to change something around go ahead, enjoy it etc" Now, since the longsword thing is done to death. a newer example. Lets say magic missile does 1d4 pts of dmg. It says something akin to "will do 1d4" etc however, it never specifically states "Magic missile cannot do 1,000 pts of dmg" So because it never says specifically cannot, you can assume its able to. Just like since it doesn't say "cannot" with the paladin thing (unless the associates clause is or isn't part of it.. which by the way has anyone asked a ruling person to find out for sure?) its assumable by your argument that he can if need be. Personally, I think that willingly conversing with something that is your arch nemesis is bad. Moreover because he is giving something of himself to a fiend (which can or cannot be used to enslave him, or by the fiend as a gift to a darker more malevolent being) in order to get power that he doesn't have by his own virtue and strength (when he should... after all, thats what sets paladins apart, they have a moral code and virtue that grants them powers no one else does). Granted the motive for it may be noble, in which case I think he may still lose his paladin status for the act, but when the situations over and the powers of good realize WHY he did it, he does have a chance for being redeemed since it was an act of self sacrifice. Still though, the likelihood of this ever happening? More improbable than the situation itself.
EntropyDawn 12-12-06, 10:11 AM	Entropy I do agree with you when you say the Paladins i quoted are a perversion to mock the true order. but that is what evil does. it mocks twists and perverts good, to decieve the weak of heart into thinking it would be "ok" to follow the codes and traditions they provide. i also agree with you when you say every publication says a Paladin must be good. but these unholy "paladins" that i have stated are still considered paladins by their wicked and perverse gods. they are champions of evil just as a true paladin is a champion of good. but never did i claim that they would have holy powers. an no they would not lose their unholy power for following their wicked god's perverse edicts for being tyrannical or homicidal. why would hextor deny his champion aid, if he emulated his god? why would Erythnul stop giving his follower power for slaughtering a village of elves? Ah ok, after looking at the UA I understand it better now. They arent the "True/Traditional" paladins that people know if. Its the evil powers using that as a term to mock or discredit the normal paladins to further their cause in one manner or another. Sorry for the misunderstanding :) (but is the UA considered a supplement which is kind of like a campaign setting in the sense that it can override normal game rules? or is it part of them which shows that the paladin title would be kind of contradictory to a normal paladin who must maintain LG alignment or fall? I am asking only because I dont know for sure. not meaning to instigate in any way :confused: )
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 10:29 AM	Question though VT, If your arguing a paladin can do it specifically because "there isn't somewhere that says he CANT" It only says will not or never .(which I thought never was a pretty strong word) it leaves a small margin of probability right? So in that light, what is there from changing every rule around to cater to the person on a moment to moment basis, because there are very few rules that say specifically "cannot,isn't able to/is impossible" (course this is also a game that tells you "its your game, if you need to change something around go ahead, enjoy it etc" Because the Paladin clause does neither prohibit nor allow him to associate with Evil. What makeshiftwings is arguing is that a Paladin has a free will... except when he wants to associate with Evil. D&D does not disallow anyone from committing any acts (as long as they don't break rules; a Fighter can't kill a Demon if he wants to use Meteor Swarm to do it), but they must face the consequences for it, if any. By both the rules and the spirit of the game, the Paladin is allowed to associate with Evil, and suffers no consequences for it (though I would frown upon this behavior in any circumstances where this wasn't strictly necessary).
EntropyDawn 12-12-06, 02:06 PM	I still think that is kind of iffy, its like fraternizing with the enemy. Though, if there was any reason he would be allowed to do it, it would have to be an act of self sacrifice for the good of mankind. He could not of course do it just because he wants a cappucino. It should also depend on the circumstance of their encounter too I think. For example, Him summoning the fiend and making the diabolical pact is a little different than if he is charging to the rescue of a group of innocents and is halted by the demon who offers to let them all go in exchange for the paladins life force. This is seemingly getting to be more about a matter of perspective than actual content of rules. I think that the bottom line is..... everything is possible, you could kill a deity with a potato gun if the DM allowed you to, the probability of you having it in an encounter with a deity and it harming him however is probably Nil.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 02:58 PM	I still think that is kind of iffy, its like fraternizing with the enemy. Though, if there was any reason he would be allowed to do it, it would have to be an act of self sacrifice for the good of mankind. He could not of course do it just because he wants a cappucino. It should also depend on the circumstance of their encounter too I think. For example, Him summoning the fiend and making the diabolical pact is a little different than if he is charging to the rescue of a group of innocents and is halted by the demon who offers to let them all go in exchange for the paladins life force. This is self-sacrifice, a trait that has been specifically assigned to Good-aligned individuals, of which the Paladin is a paragon. Basically, the situations where I'd let this slide are the following: Small deals: Includes, like you said, buying capuccino. Of course, not from fiends; it's your duty to destroy them unless there's something bigger at stake. A Paladin might theoretically buy lemonade from two Orcs, even if they detect as Evil. He has not witnessed them doing anything Evil and must give them the benefit of the doubt (they might just be incredible assh*les). High-stakes deals: When an innocent's life is at risk, the Paladin should put his quest against Evil aside. If a fiend offers you aid for your soul, then that's self-sacrifice (remember, it's Good). In this particular situation, Good itself hasn't come to aid the Paladin and we have to assume this is a last resort, considering we're discussing it. The fiend may appear to be blackmailing the Paladin (that's pretty much what he's doing, and maybe his primary purpose too), but he's also helping in his own twisted little way (I'd be so glad to do what the fiend's doing). It would be incredibly selfish of the Paladin to set the innocents' lives aside based on his own principles. Not only selfish, but Evil too, because him killing a fiend, a Good-aligned act, followed by him causing the deaths of billions of innocents is a non-negiotiably Evil act. Instead, he could just commit an unaligned act which he is not forbidden to commit, and quite possibly saving all those innocents using that power, a decidedly Good act. Now, what makeshiftwings is arguing, basically, is the following: Good is another form of Evil. Paladins are stupid machines that lack the physical capability to think about the implications of their actions; OR, if they thought it through, then they're Evil. This is the side he's arguing for. I agree that Good is an idiotic concept (personal opinion), but for the purposes of this game, I assume it has a tiny speck of intelligence needed to realize that it is sometimes necessary to acknowledge your enemy as an ally in the face of a greater threat.
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 04:22 PM	Well, the associates clause, I don't think, is a part of the code of conduct, and therefore associating with evil does not break the pally's CoC. However, it does say that "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters", and I think we can conclude that if a person is associating with evil, then said person is not a paladin.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 04:27 PM	However, it does say that "a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters", and I think we can conclude that if a person is associating with evil, then said person is not a paladin. You could, but what happened if a Paladin DID associate with Evil? The sentence simply doesn't carry enough weight. A Paladin can go against it as he wishes with no mechanical or consequences. You could stop calling him a Paladin, though.
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 04:40 PM	You could, but what happened if a Paladin DID associate with Evil? The sentence simply doesn't carry enough weight. A Paladin can go against it as he wishes with no mechanical or consequences. You could stop calling him a Paladin, though. As a deity, I would stop calling him a paladin, and I would also likely stop granting him paladin powers, since he is, by rights, no longer a paladin, and is thus not entitled to the powers. RAW, though, you are right Thumb. BTW: Would you really allow a paladin to do this in your games? It just seems a little unusual that a paladin can't even use poison for a noble cause, but he sure can sell his soul to a demon.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 04:51 PM	As a deity, I would stop calling him a paladin, and I would also likely stop granting him paladin powers, since he is, by rights, no longer a paladin, and is thus not entitled to the powers. Miko from OOtS calls herself a Samurai, yet she has levels in the Paladin class. I'm saying there's the class, and there's the name. BTW: Would you really allow a paladin to do this in your games? It just seems a little unusual that a paladin can't even use poison for a noble cause, but he sure can sell his soul to a demon. I'd always allow him to do it. But only under certain circumstances would I not take away his powers. These circumstances are when no one profits (even trade) or when there are dire consequences for not doing it. After this situation is resolved, I would rule that the Paladin had to reclaim his soul. I'd give him aid in this quest, so as to not make it a living hell for the player just to remain a Paladin. The difference between a poison is that the poison risks harming or harms someone "dishonorably", whereas selling your soul doesn't directly or indirectly harm anyone (except maybe you). Personally, I'd allow the Paladin use anything he needed if the need was that dire, because he's Good first and foremost and should care more about the innocent's lives that he must save now rather than killing Demons he can kill later.
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 05:22 PM	Also, selling your soul is, while evil under most circumstances, quite honorable (or at least, not dishonorable). Edit: this means I'm agreeing with you. Second Edit: I removed this concession (see below).
makeshiftwings 12-12-06, 05:36 PM	That no longer works, since rules are aimed to keep game balance. Anything else isn't a rule. Fine, paladins have to be good "for game balance". Plenty of people believe that, you will find people agreeing with it all over the boards. Again, you can not just decide what is for game balance and what is just a "fake rule". And again, it seems highly improbable that the entire SRD is all "real rules" except for this one "fake rule" that somehow is the center of your entire argument. You're the one using sophistry. The case you're arguing has no logical foundation and now you're just trying to accuse me of twisting words. Admittedly I am twisting definitions, but not in an illogical fashion. The conclusions I come to are more logical than yours (one of my conclusions being that Good =/= Evil). That's a noun, not a verb, and as such describes nothing. You just said "A Fighter with a low Will save..." and expect me to buy it? I'm starting to question your train of thought in this discussion. For purposes of this discussion, are you following Rules as Written or Rules as Written (first definition that comes to mind, no questioning, no discussion)? You actually have to apply common sense (though it may differ between individuals) to the rules if you're going to come to any type of logical conclusion. The Will thing was just a joke. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of claiming that if a sentence has the word "will" in it, it stops being a rule. Thing is, you control the animal's actions. Saying your Druid points to his Wolf to attack an Orc and then saying the Wolf goes to attack an Ogre is allowed by the rules. But "what if the animal doesn't"? I thought your whole linguistic argument here was that the future verb tense ("will") actually means "might". So using your logic, agian, there are "no consequences" if your unarmed strike actually does do lethal damage when you declare it won't, or your animal companion bites you instead of the orc, so it's allowed. No, the entire point is that "will" means "will", just like "never" means "never", and "paladin" means "paladin". So, let's move on, and have you choose yet another word to tortuously try to twist meaning out of. How about "the"? Well, that's an unfortunate side effect for you. Rules are not made for the express purpose of restricting actions, but they do if they have to. Fun fact: That was also sophistry. Fine, then your paladin not getting to associate with evil is also just an unfortunate side affect. And again, you don't get to decide what is "for the good of the game" and what is not. Everything in the SRD is for the good of the game. I can see what has mechanical value. You could too if you actually read the paragraphs and see how if the Associates clause was actually a part of the Code of Conduct, then they wouldn't have actually made it a separate paragraph with a different name, suggesting that the Code of Conduct is over. That'd be idiocy. And don't plead poor editing, that's a coward's way out. But how does "Associates" mean "This is not a real rule"? It doesn't. Again, I could claim that the fact that they put all the weapons under a section called "Weapons" instead of under "Rules of Combat" means that the long sword damage is not a real rule. No, but he is still ruining the game. In your opinion; just like in WotC's opinion, letting paladins do whatever they want would ruin their game. Your Fighter is destroying game balance. Again, only in your opinion. And more importantly, I could use a more minimal example; say, my fighter can cast Prestidigitation once per week when he hits 20th level. That in no way "destroys game balance", but it's still against the rules. Do you know what a mechanic is (do not twist this or I'll lose all respect for you as a human being). Yes, do you? Alignment is a mechanic in D&D. As is the druid's inability to wear metal armor, the cleric's need to stay within a step of his deity's alignment, the paladin's Code of Conduct, AND the associates clause. No, not like the longsword doing 1d8. You seriously need to learn to separate mechanics from flavor text. The entire purpose of the SRD is that it is "the rules" with all the flavor text stripped out. That's part of the way Wizards gets people to still buy the books. If it is in the SRD, it is a rule, not flavor text. Sophistry. 'Mystically' basically means magically in D&D. A Good Cleric can't manipulate the energies needed to cast Evil spells. A Paladin can sure as hell manipulate his own body and voice (just like everybody else). He is very much able. Lol @ sophistry. Well, this is why we all know that the real intention of the associates clause is that it's part of the code of conduct. By arguing, I'm trying to show you the silliness of taking it to be its own stand-alone rule. You, however, are saying first 1) It must be a separate rule because it's in a new paragraph, and then 2) It can't be a separate rule because it's unfair. The logical thing to do would be to decide your original assumption was incorrect, not to decide that out of the entire SRD, this one single rule is somehow a special fake rule that is supposed to be ignored by everybody. Why would they have put it in there? No, people who take everyhting there this seriously are idiots. Screaming "This are in SRD, so this are rule", no matter what is idiocy, especually considering that game rules, nearly by definition are meant to keep things fair. I mean, I understand how you're trying to grasp for a weird new definition of "rule", since you're running out of words to try and redefine, but no, that is not the point of rules. Rules make up a game. The rules don't have to be fair, and an unfair rule is still a rule. Breaking the rules is still breaking the rules, even if everyone enjoys it. And the point of D&D was never to be some sort of balanced competition, it is a game with rules designed around enforcing certain roles and personality archetypes, of which the paladin is the strictest example. If we assume it's a rule: How do we know this isn't what they meant? It would make sense, considering that using any other definition wouldn't work, since it doesn't affect game balance. LOL. I should have read this part before I wrote the above part. No, I think by rule they mean: 7. printing line between printed columns: a thin strip or design used for borders or for separating columns of type So, therefore, since a paladin is not a printed column, no rules can apply to him! Again, no, the definition of rule they use is of course the primary one: 1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of D&D.
Tobek 12-12-06, 05:46 PM	I still state that the rule listed in fiendish codex sets a precedence for selling one's soul. Also as the character in question needs to be evil per the rule then it would be impossible for the LG palidin to sell his soul in the first place per the RAW. If you wish to house rule it then fine. But you try to say because the demon your dealing with is not a demon lord but a lower demon that it is ok. What kind of lower demon will have the power to give the palidin a fiendish template like this other than a demon lord. Moreover if it would be so easy for the palidin to just go back to the abyss and take back his soul from the demon how powerful is this creature to begin with? Along that same line of thinking a palidin is Lawful Good alignment. Refusing to abide by the contract he gave his word on and try to take back his soul would be a very chaotic act and probably even cause for an alignment shift to CG. Yes the Demon is an evil creature but the palidin gave his word that he would accept the terms of the contract and must live with that choice. So If the palidin makes the deal he loses his palidinhood (may still have a good alignment until this powerful demon forced the former palidin to do some nasty things) for making the deal, and he would lose his palidin advancement for going back on his word (a chaotic act). Either way he is unable to advance as a palidin or use any abilities until he atones. Bad things happen to good people all the time and the world does not end. A half-celestial template would be much better at fighting forces of evil as they get many abilites that combat evil. All a fiendish template would give you would be the ablity to smite good, cast some evil spells and ablities for fighting good. Why would a palidin actively pursue a path to be come half-fiendish? It would have to be against his will, or the palidin would have no other choice than to accept this and renouce his position as a paladin. The palidin is renouncing his postion as a palidin by accepting this deal, as he is say that his God/Goddess or Ideal (for no deity required settings) is not strong enough nor can he depend on them/it any longer and he has to look for outside answers to his problems. If that is not falling I do not know what is. Lastly, what kind of irresponsible paladin does not report to his superior and get reinforcements for this campaign when the fate of existence is at stake, and instead single-handedly tries to resolve something of this importance by himself? Also deities are aware of issues that will directly effect their followers/portfolios and i think the end of existence/death of all their followers shows up somewhere on their "radar" and is cause for direct intervention by an alliance of Gods and Goddesses with avatars and chosen in attendence. (maybe not the physical presence of said gods but definitely an avatar atleast) So as the situation you argue would never have taken place this arguement is a moot point. The paladin would never have been in this position to begin with as this very visible threat would have been removed long ago.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 06:23 PM	Fine, paladins have to be good "for game balance". Plenty of people believe that, you will find people agreeing with it all over the boards. So they think. But have you actually tried running an Evil Paladin that kept his abilities? Not much of a difference, mechanically speaking. I'm not disputing this because it clearly is a rule (Alignment: Lawful Good). Again, you can not just decide what is for game balance and what is just a "fake rule". And again, it seems highly improbable that the entire SRD is all "real rules" except for this one "fake rule" that somehow is the center of your entire argument. I'm saying that rule isn't a rule but misplaced flavor text. I don't even know why it is under the Game Rules Information, as it doesn't prohibit nor allow the Paladin to associate with Evil. Since it doesn't answer any questions, the Paladin can do it. The Will thing was just a joke. I was just trying to point out the absurdity of claiming that if a sentence has the word "will" in it, it stops being a rule. Absurd? No, my friend. To be a rule, it has to actually tell you what you can or cannot do. But "what if the animal doesn't"? I don't know. The player controls it. Ask him. Maybe he's roleplaying a disobedient animal. I thought your whole linguistic argument here was that the future verb tense ("will") actually means "might". Nope. So using your logic, agian, there are "no consequences" if your unarmed strike actually does do lethal damage when you declare it won't, or your animal companion bites you instead of the orc, so it's allowed. It declares that you were lying. Assuming you can deal lethal damage with your unarmed strike, saying you want to deal nonlethal and then switching to lethal at the last moment is probably just a weak attempt at being funny (though I sometimes find this kind of thing amusing). And you can actually say your character points to the Orc and have the animal attack you, because you control the actions of both. No, the entire point is that "will" means "will", just like "never" means "never", and "paladin" means "paladin". So, let's move on, and have you choose yet another word to tortuously try to twist meaning out of. How about "the"? The book can't tell the Paladin what to do. If he wants to associate with Evil, and there are no mechanical implications whatsoever, and the DM doesn't intervene (lousy stinking DM), the Paladin can do it. It's roleplaying, and the rules, no matter what you say, cannot restrict roleplaying. The Paladin can say whatever he wants, shake whatever hand he wants and have sex with anything he wants. If there are consequences he must face them. There aren't any consequences for associating with Evil, so what is everybody going to do? Fine, then your paladin not getting to associate with evil is also just an unfortunate side affect. No, that's like saying Sorcerer can't talk to that lady again. He can and if he wants to, he will. Only the DM has the power to restrict actions, and even then, he must face the consequences. And again, you don't get to decide what is "for the good of the game" and what is not. Everything in the SRD is for the good of the game. Not this clause. It does nothing except fill up space. But how does "Associates" mean "This is not a real rule"? It doesn't. Again, I could claim that the fact that they put all the weapons under a section called "Weapons" instead of under "Rules of Combat" means that the long sword damage is not a real rule. Because there is no section called "Weapons". If there was, they would damn straight be piled up in there. But "Rules of Combat" contains every mechanic necessary to run combat smoothly. Weapons are a part of combat, so it's logical to put them in there. There's also the fact that this is the only reference to weapon statistics in the SRD, so it's the primary source. If they put it under "Monsters", it would still be the primary source for weapon statistics, assuming it was the only reference. In your opinion; just like in WotC's opinion, letting paladins do whatever they want would ruin their game. But letting them associate with Evil under certain circumstances, especially because they can? If they are able to, then they can, and if they want to, they will. Again, only in your opinion. And more importantly, I could use a more minimal example; say, my fighter can cast Prestidigitation once per week when he hits 20th level. That in no way "destroys game balance", but it's still against the rules. But as far as WotC is concerned it does alter the balance. It doesn't destroy it (unless you've found a hidden use for it). Alignment is a mechanic in D&D. Yes. As is the druid's inability to wear metal armor He can actually wear metal armor. the cleric's need to stay within a step of his deity's alignment Yes. the paladin's Code of Conduct Yes. AND the associates clause. No. The entire purpose of the SRD is that it is "the rules" with all the flavor text stripped out. That's part of the way Wizards gets people to still buy the books. If it is in the SRD, it is a rule, not flavor text. It is flavor text. There are no mechanical implications that come from either obeying it or disobeying it, and since there are no mechanical implications, it can't restrict actions. Well, this is why we all know that the real intention of the associates clause is that it's part of the code of conduct. I do not acknowledge this. By arguing, I'm trying to show you the silliness of taking it to be its own stand-alone rule. It's not a rule. You, however, are saying first 1) It must be a separate rule because it's in a new paragraph It is separate. It is not a part of the Code of Conduct. The only logical way for it to be is for it either to be in the same paragraph and have no different title, or for it to be a separate paragraph without a different title. and then 2) It can't be a separate rule because it's unfair. The game has no mechanics for restricting actions that have no mechanical implications. A Fighter casting Meteor Swarm is breaking the rules AND the game balance. This action is also not really roleplaying, except if the Fighter is insane or being flippant. A Paladin selling his soul to a Demon is not breaking a rule and is not altering the game balance (except if it's a nonstandard D&D campaign). This action is heavily roleplaying centered, in that there are no mechanical implications. The game has no mechanics for restricting actions if they don't alter game balance. The logical thing to do would be to decide your original assumption was incorrect, not to decide that out of the entire SRD, this one single rule is somehow a special fake rule that is supposed to be ignored by everybody. Did you notice how earlier in the argument where I overturned the ideal of Good altogether and vilified it for the express purpose of making my point. I will do that to the SRD if that's what it takes. Why would they have put it in there? Because the damn clause is under the Game Rule Information section. It's not logical for it to be put there, as it doesn't work like a rule. I mean, I understand how you're trying to grasp for a weird new definition of "rule", since you're running out of words to try and redefine, but no, that is not the point of rules. It is the point of D&D rules. Rules make up a game. The rules don't have to be fair, and an unfair rule is still a rule. Except the rules in D&D aren't that unfair. Breaking the rules is still breaking the rules, even if everyone enjoys it. The Paladin isn't breaking any rules. He makes the deal without imbalancing the game. And the point of D&D was never to be some sort of balanced competition, it is a game with rules designed around enforcing certain roles and personality archetypes, of which the paladin is the strictest example. The Paladin is strict, but not as strict as to being directly restrained from performing certain actions. That would be completely against the spirit of the game (roleplaying your own character the way you want him to be... within the scope of the rules). Again, no, the definition of rule they use is of course the primary one: And you know this... why?
Vestigial_Thumb 12-12-06, 06:41 PM	I still state that the rule listed in fiendish codex sets a precedence for selling one's soul. Also as the character in question needs to be evil per the rule then it would be impossible for the LG palidin to sell his soul in the first place per the RAW. If you wish to house rule it then fine. See, that's not logical. These are Vile feats. They grant specific effects. The Paladin doesn't gain Abyss-Bound Soul for selling his soul, he gains the Half-Fiend template. Therefore it is logical to assume that the Demon either gets the Paladin's soul in a receptable or gets a first dibs on it after the Paladin dies. In both cases, the soul can be reclaimed. But you try to say because the demon your dealing with is not a demon lord but a lower demon that it is ok. Yes. You make a major self-sacrifice (a Good act) for the purpose of saving countless innocents (a Good act). Tell me how it's Evil. What kind of lower demon will have the power to give the palidin a fiendish template like this other than a demon lord. The DM said this one can. Moreover if it would be so easy for the palidin to just go back to the abyss and take back his soul from the demon how powerful is this creature to begin with? We don't know. It was a nondescript Demon. If it's a Balor, a Solar should do the trick. Or a couple Planetars. Refusing to abide by the contract he gave his word on and try to take back his soul would be a very chaotic act and probably even cause for an alignment shift to CG. Ah, but Demons are Evil incarnate. You can torture them, cheat them, steal from them, and it would be a Good act. The Good-aligned call it justice. Some call it karma. Good heavily supports this ideal. Yes the Demon is an evil creature but the palidin gave his word that he would accept the terms of the contract and must live with that choice. The Demon is Evil incarnate. Everything you do to them that would be Evil to do to innocents is Good-aligned and vice versa. Bad things happen to good people all the time and the world does not end. But in this case the world does end. A half-celestial template would be much better at fighting forces of evil as they get many abilites that combat evil. Indeed. But we're arguing under the assumption that Good has fallen into Neutrality or Evil en masse. If they hadn't, surely they would have granted it to the Paladin, along with anybody that could wield a weapon. Why would a palidin actively pursue a path to be come half-fiendish? A last resort. It would have to be against his will, or the palidin would have no other choice than to accept this and renouce his position as a paladin. Or he could make the deal (a decidedly Good-aligned act, as I demonstrated earlier). The palidin is renouncing his postion as a palidin by accepting this deal, as he is say that his God/Goddess or Ideal (for no deity required settings) is not strong enough nor can he depend on them/it any longer and he has to look for outside answers to his problems. If that is not falling I do not know what is. His ideal has fallen away from itself if he has been reduced to these measures. If the Paladin is the only one left that actually cares about the poor people, he'd be able to power himself (being the President of Good and the sole commander of the forces of Good, which includes, and is limited to, him). Lastly, what kind of irresponsible paladin does not report to his superior and get reinforcements for this campaign when the fate of existence is at stake, and instead single-handedly tries to resolve something of this importance by himself? We're assuming he already tried. Of course that would be the first action to take. The Paladin may sometimes be stupid, but he's not that stupid. Also deities are aware of issues that will directly effect their followers/portfolios and i think the end of existence/death of all their followers shows up somewhere on their "radar" and is cause for direct intervention by an alliance of Gods and Goddesses with avatars and chosen in attendence. Exactly. And if they didn't act, then *BOOM* into Neutrality they fall. So as the situation you argue would never have taken place this arguement is a moot point. Yup. I'm now trying to redeem Good (even if I hate it, I still feel that it deserves a fair trial). Makeshiftwings is the forces of Evil that were trying destroy the multiverse. Shame on you, makeshiftwings. The paladin would never have been in this position to begin with as this very visible threat would have been removed long ago. Can't argue with you there. The point is, that the Paladin is not prohibited from making the deal if he ever got into this situation. If he did get into the situation where a Demon is trying to blackmail him out of his soul, the Paladin is likely the sole manipulator of Good energies and could thus promote himself to a fully advanced Solar, kill the Demon and then proceed to wipe the floor with the other guys.
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 10:44 PM	I'm sorry, thumb, but I'm going to have to withdraw my concession. Something just doesn't sit well with paladins being able to make deals with evil demons and get away with it.
Tobek 12-12-06, 10:53 PM	VT I do respect your arguement and if you feel as a dm that is right it is your decision and I completely support it. I just have issues with a paladin making a deal with an incarnation of evil, giving his word with no intention of keeping it, and then going to kill a creature that may be evil but is abiding by the terms of the contract the paladin agreed to. A paladin can not just walk down the streets of Waterdeep casting detect evil and smiting anything that pings evil and call it a good act. Killing something just because it is evil is not a good act. Now in this case that you are arguing killing the creature instead of making the deal with it then yes that would be a good act, but hunting the creature down later and killing it would not be. I would not allow it in a game I was in. But I completely support your decision to allow it in your game, as it is just that your game and your interpretation of the rules. I guess i just see them a little differently and am not able to come to your conclusions on my own. *edited to address one point- The forces of good can fall from grace yes, but good is an ideal and is immoveable and just because many or all of the forces of good but this paladin abandon good, it does not change the definition of what is good and right, just that many beings no longer follow it.*
Vestigial_Thumb 12-13-06, 09:39 AM	VT I do respect your arguement and if you feel as a dm that is right it is your decision and I completely support it. I just have issues with a paladin making a deal with an incarnation of evil, giving his word with no intention of keeping it, and then going to kill a creature that may be evil but is abiding by the terms of the contract the paladin agreed to. Well, the Demon, being Chaotic Evil is more than likely to betray the Paladin at some point by either pulling the template, or killing the Paladin (if the Paladin pledged it to him). The thing with fiends is that anything done to them that would otherwise be Evil or dishonorable is Good-aligned. On the flip-side, being nice to them or helping them is an Evil-aligned act because it's furthering the cause of Evil. Good believes in karma; what you do to others shall be done to you. They may not go as far as to rape rapists or torture torturers if those same rapists and torturers are mortals, but they can do what they want to make life a living hell for fiends (raping them is generally distasteful to people, though). A paladin can not just walk down the streets of Waterdeep casting detect evil and smiting anything that pings evil and call it a good act. Killing something just because it is evil is not a good act. But fiends aren't just Evil-aligned. They are Evil itself. You can't redeem them, you can't reason with them (unless they see a chance to profit from your proposal) and you can't help them if you expect to be Good-aligned. You can't compare a fiend with an Orc. The Orc has the ability to change its views and become Good. The fiend is just pure, living Evil. Killing it automatically advances the cause of Good, whereas killing the Orc without cause makes it Evil (what matters is what the Orc is doing at the moment). Now in this case that you are arguing killing the creature instead of making the deal with it then yes that would be a good act, but hunting the creature down later and killing it would not be. Except that the fiend is pure Evil. Killing it is tantamount to reducing the amount of Evil in the multiverse. *edited to address one point- The forces of good can fall from grace yes, but good is an ideal and is immoveable and just because many or all of the forces of good but this paladin abandon good, it does not change the definition of what is good and right, just that many beings no longer follow it.* Yes, the objective moral force that is Good still remains, along with the Upper Planes. But the Paladin is now the sole controller of this energy.
DungeonJman 12-13-06, 09:41 AM	An individual selling his soul to a demon/devil is evil, regardless of what the individual is trying to accomplish. By selling his soul to the demon, he is making the demon more powerful, which is an evil act. So regardless of what the paladin is trying to accomplish, he would lose his alignment for willingly commiting an evil act, despite it being for the greater good. If the paladin needed a last resort, i'm pretty sure that he should try to gain a lot of experience quickly or invest his energy in a custom holy death burst or something, but selling his soul would make him a fallen paladin.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-13-06, 10:04 AM	An individual selling his soul to a demon/devil is evil, regardless of what the individual is trying to accomplish. By selling his soul to the demon, he is making the demon more powerful, which is an evil act. Or you could look at it the way I do. The Paladin is getting more out of the deal than the Demon is, making the Demon less powerful, but a little richer (200 gp). The Paladin, however, gains a +4 LA template (though he can't use it effectively). The deal is therefore unaligned (not even in the favor of Neutrality).
DungeonJman 12-13-06, 12:20 PM	Yes, but if we consider that the paladin is actually selling his soul in order to become fiendish, then his personality must take a turn for the worst, considering that he no longer has a full mindset.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-13-06, 12:37 PM	Yes, but if we consider that the paladin is actually selling his soul in order to become fiendish, then his personality must take a turn for the worst, considering that he no longer has a full mindset. But we have to assume that his attitude doesn't change, since, well, nothing suggests that it does.
High Octane 12-13-06, 01:25 PM	Look, the bottom line is this. You can argue all day whether a paladin selling his soul for a half-demon's power in order to promote the greater good is a "good" act. But what you cannot argue is this: The paladin disobeyed his purpose. A paladin cannot do what sellling his soul to a demon is, its submitting his will. Actually, strike that, he CAN do it, but he wont remain a paladin. "But it doesnt expressly say he CANT do that!" It also doesnt expressly say he cant peel the flesh off a newborn innocent baby he just stole and fry it like bacon to EAT IT. But lets take a look at a Demon shall we? Its chaotic evil personified. Thats dealing with something expressly opposite the forces the paladin fights for. Submission of the soul means submission of will, whether in this life or the afterlife. There are possible circumstances where in some twisted way selling the soul would be the greater good, but the paladin would still fall. Why? Because when you are a paladin, you are a paladin all freaking day and all freaking night. Not just in the morning. Not just when its convenient. Every day a paladin has to make moral decisions, and so long as he attempts to make them as a paladin, and when he is wrong he is repentant, he remains a paladin. A paladin does not need to be perfect, but he does need to be repentant on the decisions he he made that he could not forsee as wrong. The paladin here is not repentant. If he was, he would give up his half-demonhood. Could a paladin become a half-demon and it ending up being for the greater good? Im sure its possible. However, he wouldnt remain a paladin. Its as simple as that. He might remain good, but he wont remain a paladin.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 02:14 PM	Or you could look at it the way I do. The Paladin is getting more out of the deal than the Demon is, making the Demon less powerful, but a little richer (200 gp). The Paladin, however, gains a +4 LA template (though he can't use it effectively). The deal is therefore unaligned (not even in the favor of Neutrality). How is selling your soul to a demon prince unaligned? The very act itself is evil. It's like saying that murder is neutral because there are no precedent moral things to declare it evil. Sure, there may not be, but murder itself is what is evil. You don't have to steal in the process to make it evil: the mere act of doing so is the evil itself, and anything else is just more evil in addition to the first. To put it in more modern terms: imagine that there is a corporation that is manufacturing torture implements. The owner of this corporation is definitvely chaotic evil, and makes these implements purely for the purpose of torture. Now say a police officer pays a sum of money to this group in exchange for some illicit information which he intends to use to convict some of the members, including the corporate owner himself. Has the officer done anything wrong? I'd rather not live in a world where police officers break the law to enforce it. Likewise, I'd rather not have paladins that commit evil to enforce good. The ends do not justify the means.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 02:26 PM	BTW, thumb, have you actually considered what you're arguing? A Paladin can now sell his soul to a demon prince on the grounds that the Associates clause is not part of the CoC, and is "misplaced flavor-text". Even in a purely analytical argument, you have *no* proof that it is what you claim it is. If we interpret RAW as pure and sacred, then we have to realize that the associates clause prevents a paladin from associating with evil. It isn't that doing so is out of character for a pally, or that he is breaking his CoC: he is actually physically incapable of associating with evil. As a DM enforcing RAW, while becoming evil would make the Pally fall, trying to associate with evil goes against the laws of physics. Paladin: I kill the infant! RAW DM: You kill the infant and lose your status as a paladin. Paladin: Okay, I go make contact with an evil outsider. RAW DM: You cannot. Paladin: What! Why? RAW DM: While you are not bound by your CoC anymore, the associates clause is not part of the CoC, and is not an ability that you lose when falling. Thus, you cannot associate with evil, which the associates clause forbids you from doing. Paladin: WFT?
Vestigial_Thumb 12-13-06, 03:06 PM	How is selling your soul to a demon prince unaligned? The very act itself is evil. Demon Prince? Look, the act itself is incredibly complex in nature. There are multiple factors to consider. There's the act itself (selling your soul), the other side of the act (sacrifice of one's own purity in the name of the innocents), the intent (which generally doesn't matter, but like with killing, it does in this case) and the result (the saving of countless innocents from destruction). You can't take the alignment of each factor separately; it is all a part of the same action. The outcome remains Good-aligned. BTW, thumb, have you actually considered what you're arguing? Yes. Yes I have. A Paladin can now sell his soul to a demon prince on the grounds that the Associates clause is not part of the CoC, and is "misplaced flavor-text". It depends on what purpose he's selling his soul for. Even in a purely analytical argument, you have *no* proof that it is what you claim it is. It is something that doesn't restrict his actions. If we interpret RAW as pure and sacred, then we have to realize that the associates clause prevents a paladin from associating with evil. It isn't that doing so is out of character for a pally, or that he is breaking his CoC: he is actually physically incapable of associating with evil. No, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything. As a DM enforcing RAW, while becoming evil would make the Pally fall, trying to associate with evil goes against the laws of physics. D&D doesn't work that way. It doesn't restrict your roleplaying. If a Paladin wants to buy stuff from an Evil merchant, he may very well do so and suffers no consequences for it.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 04:07 PM	Demon Prince? Look, the act itself is incredibly complex in nature. There are multiple factors to consider. There's the act itself (selling your soul), the other side of the act (sacrifice of one's own purity in the name of the innocents), the intent (which generally doesn't matter, but like with killing, it does in this case) and the result (the saving of countless innocents from destruction). You can't take the alignment of each factor separately; it is all a part of the same action. The outcome remains Good-aligned. Even as a whole, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. I think it is also iconic of true paladins to think so as well. Yes. Yes I have. Yeah, went too far with that one. My apologies. It depends on what purpose he's selling his soul for. Er, no. Selling your soul is evil. Even for greater good, a paladin cannot commit evil. It is something that doesn't restrict his actions. It says that a Paladin 'will not' associate with evil. Therefore, the moment you have levels in Paladin, as this is mechanical text, you will not associate with evil. Those that do associate with evil are not the mechanical paladin. No, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything. Then why is it there? To empower him? D&D doesn't work that way. It doesn't restrict your roleplaying. If a Paladin wants to buy stuff from an Evil merchant, he may very well do so and suffers no consequences for it. Only true if what he is buying isn't evil, and the money he's giving the merchant isn't going towards evil ends.
High Octane 12-13-06, 04:19 PM	No, it doesn't prevent him from doing anything. No it doesn't. But he won't remain a paladin if he does.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-13-06, 08:02 PM	Even as a whole, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. I think it is also iconic of true paladins to think so as well. These ends jusify these means. Not in general. Er, no. Selling your soul is evil. Even for greater good, a paladin cannot commit evil. Good Vs. Evil Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. "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. The bolded text is what implies that torture is Evil. It doesn't need spelling out. Now, point me to the words that imply that selling your soul is an Evil act. It says that a Paladin 'will not' associate with evil. Therefore, the moment you have levels in Paladin, as this is mechanical text, you will not associate with evil. Those that do associate with evil are not the mechanical paladin. Wait... you lose all the levels you gained in Paladin? Because that's the only interpretation I can pull from this. No, D&D does not take away Hit Dice. No class features or classes can make you lose actual Hit Dice. Then why is it there? To empower him? I don't even know why it's there. Only true if what he is buying isn't evil, and the money he's giving the merchant isn't going towards evil ends. He doesn't necessarily know where the money goes, but merchants aren't usually the types to sponsor Evil campaigns, so I think the Paladin would have to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he hasn't witnessed the merchant committing Evil acts). No it doesn't. But he won't remain a paladin if he does. Yes, he would.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 09:11 PM	These ends jusify these means. Not in general. I thought that was a general phrase, as in, "the end (regardless of what ends) do not justify the means (regardless of what means)." A lawful-good fighter might be able to, but a Paladin cannot commit an evil act, even if it is for greater good. Killing, in D&D, is not an evil act unless the person you are killing happens to be innocent or otherwise. The bolded text is what implies that torture is Evil. It doesn't need spelling out. Are we using implications? I think that it is fairly well-implied that, in the Associates clause, Paladins are not supposed to associate with evil, or they lose paladinhood. Hence 'will not'. I really can't come up with any other reason for it to be there. Now, point me to the words that imply that selling your soul is an Evil act. If we're using implications, then there isn't such a word. Wait... you lose all the levels you gained in Paladin? Because that's the only interpretation I can pull from this. No, D&D does not take away Hit Dice. No class features or classes can make you lose actual Hit Dice. Right. That would be about as stupid as allowing the paragons of justice to sell their sould to chaotic-evil beings for chaotic-evil powers. I don't even know why it's there. Maybe because it's something Paladins aren't supposed to do? He doesn't necessarily know where the money goes, but merchants aren't usually the types to sponsor Evil campaigns, so I think the Paladin would have to give him the benefit of the doubt (considering he hasn't witnessed the merchant committing Evil acts). Then we have no right in assuming the merchant is evil. If the Paladin knew the merchant was evil, then giving him money may further evil causes, and the Paladin would to best to err on the side of caution and not converse with the man. Plus, this evil man is an enemy of his cause, and trading with him would be as bad as trading with an enemy nation during wartime. Let's take another example: the Leadership feat. This feat grants you one cohort and eventually a number of followers. The chart limits your number of followers, however, we can clearly assume that a man is quite capable of acquiring more followers than the table allows. What happens if the player decides to recruit more followers than the table allows? What if the player wants to recruit a higher-level cohort than he would normally be allowed? Should he be allowed to do so?
Talonos 12-14-06, 12:15 AM	Frankly, I think there's no reason, rules wise, that a Paladin had to have a code of conduct at all. I mean, the Paladin without his code is balanced class, is it not? In fact, compared to the cleric or druid, is it not even slightly underpowered? The code of conduct isn't a balancing mechanism. It's there to make the paladin an interesting character. You could have a chaotic Neutral paladin, and it wouldn't be unbalanced by the rules. The code of conduct, in my opinion, is fluff, and the enforcement or lack thereof is entirely up to the DM. Why is it in the SRD, then? It's vestigial. It is a fluff rule from the player's handbook, but becase all of the rules need to be in the SRD, it's there. This leads to an interesting situation, where you have a rule in the SRD that is not entirely mechanics based. I think there is no formula for dealing with code of conduct issues like there are formulas for attack bonuses and Armor class. The concept of alignment itself is up to the DM. Because alignment varies from DM to DM, the code of conduct will doubtlessly vary, too. The Code of Conduct says "You cannot commit an evil act." An Evil act is what the DM says an Evil act is. Therefore, by the transitive property, the code of conduct says "You cannot do what the DM defines as evil." It might sound like the DM is abusing his power, but that's what you get for playing a paladin. If you didn't want to be bound by your DM's view of right and wrong, you should have played a True Neutral Cleric instead. Personally, in my game, I'd simply have the high priest or whatever of the order the paladin belongs to say that selling your soul is a no-no. Then, the lawful nature of the paladin would make it so he couldn't break the rule. If you have a different view of right and wrong in your game, then go for, but I'd advise people agiainst looking through the SRD to try and resolve moral quandries. The SRD is for the rules, and the fluff is up to the DM.
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 12:54 AM	Wha...fluff isn't rules?!?!?! You mean that the definitions of good and evil are ambigiously defined in the PHB because Wizards wanted people to decide for themselves what was right and wrong? Nah, the whole alignment system was created so we wouldn't have to think about right and wrong. It was made so we could have ethics decided for us! 'Cause that's always fun! Anyway, joking aside, this philosophy, while probably true, seems rather new here. I haven't heard anyone say that the meaning of right and wrong is up to the DM. Maybe I missed it a while ago, but it's pretty new to me.
Talonos 12-14-06, 01:10 AM	Well, people here seem to be really concerend about rules, and forget that the DM has the final say. Rules are only half of D&D. If he's a player, I wish him luck in finding a DM that will let him make his character. If he's a DM, I wish him luck in finding a player that thinks that far outside the box. If he's neither, but is merely defending a hypothetical situation he has no intention of reproducing, I guess he just enjoys arguing, and wish him the best of luck in that... :P
Thunder Dragonbane 12-14-06, 08:30 AM	Well, people here seem to be really concerend about rules, and forget that the DM has the final say. Rules are only half of D&D. If he's a player, I wish him luck in finding a DM that will let him make his character. If he's a DM, I wish him luck in finding a player that thinks that far outside the box. If he's neither, but is merely defending a hypothetical situation he has no intention of reproducing, I guess he just enjoys arguing, and wish him the best of luck in that... :P My bet is neither. V T has repededly stated on other topics on how much he hates anything with a good algnment and Paladins in general. And yes good and evil have a lot to do with the GM / Player views on the subject. But I think that this subject has gone from simply stupid to insane with the reading of the RAW in the PHB. Just because the book does not say "if you traffic with evil you will loose all class abilities as a Paladin" doesn't mean that it is not RAI thru the CoC of the Paladin class. The book does say that a Paladin Will not associate with evil. To do otherwise is a violation of the CoC.
Leo 12-14-06, 08:59 AM	Paladin: a knight who achieved great reputation in the medieval age. He fought for god. He (theoretically) would try to be as good and honored as possible. No lying, cheating, chqallenge your oponents openly, protect the inocent, hate everything that it's evil(and smite it when possible). A paladin that isn't LG...Just isn't a paladin. Altough even a demon could become a paladin if he repented for his sins and was willing to fully serve good. Heavens is always willing to give a second chance to people. See the book of exalted deeds.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 08:59 AM	It's vestigial. Like me. My bet is neither. V T has repededly stated on other topics on how much he hates anything with a good algnment and Paladins in general. Yet I am the only one who tries to make him look like he cares about the innocents more than killing Evil. I'm actually justifying his hatred of me. BTW, I am a DM, and if I screwed up so badly as to put the Paladin in this situation, I might play it through before I loaded the last saved game (read: last munch break). But seriously, it basically all comes down to his Code of Conduct (of which I do not accept the Associates clause to be a part of): Code of Conduct 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. These two are the things I'm looking at. He needs to take whatever help he can get. To do otherwise would be to let his own morality dictate the fate of the innocents, leading them to the death (a Neutral Evil act IMO). There's also the fact that the act has multiple factors in determining its alignment. Even if selling his soul were Evil (I personally do not think it is), there is all the stuff that results from it (saving the entire multiverse), the reason the Paladin did it (desperation over those ex-Upper Plane jackasses), and the fact that he'll betray his deal with the Demon (not particularly dishonorable when done to a Demon; it's justice), killing it and reclaiming his soul. I also believe the point is moot. As I see it, the forces of Good have no options. They're inherently Good. They're not supposed to let the Paladin get into this situation. If they did, the act itself would be such a globally Evil one, that they'd immediately fall (basically, they're letting the innocents die because they don't care). This would leave the Paladin alone with the Upper Planes (Chaotic Good would probably be dead altogether), so he could, theoretically (since he is the alfather of Good now) channel Good energies into himself and become a Solar (or otherwise really powerful), wipe the floor with the jerks, give the Solarian power back (he needs to rebuild the Upper Planes). If Good does come to help him, the rest is history.
Leo 12-14-06, 03:42 PM	Nobody said being LG was easy:P
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 03:52 PM	Nobody said being LG was easy:P If you hadn't put that smiley there, I would have actually snapped, killing my family in a fit of insanity (well, I don't love them that much, so it would be easier).
High Octane 12-14-06, 04:50 PM	Yes, he would. Find me a DM whose reading comprehension is so obtuse that he would be unable to glean that selling his soul to a freaking agent of chaos and evil would grossly violate a paladins alignment enough to cause a loss. PLEASE! Find one for me so I can avoid ever playing with them, or listening to them talk, or breathing the same air since his mere presence would cause my brain cells to commit seppuku (sic) suicide until my int and wis scores would bottom out to 0 leaving me in a comatose state only to arise as an ignorant zombie to suck the common sense out of others, since thats what I would inevitably become since this person CLEARLY has a supernatural level of utter and complete ignorance to the very core concept that is the paladin. That is how PAINFULLY stupid this person must be. In fact trying to even THINK of a person like that has caused my brain to shudder violently in order to shake the image from my head. I have to go take a couple asprin and shoot myself now. Thank you SO much for bottoming out the absolute lowest level I have ever seen of forum intellgence. Every TIME it hits rock bottom they take up a freaking mining pick.
Stormbrand 12-14-06, 05:50 PM	Find me a DM whose reading comprehension is so obtuse that he would be unable to glean that selling his soul to a freaking agent of chaos and evil would grossly violate a paladins alignment enough to cause a loss. PLEASE! Find one for me so I can avoid ever playing with them, or listening to them talk, or breathing the same air since his mere presence would cause my brain cells to commit seppuku (sic) suicide until my int and wis scores would bottom out to 0 leaving me in a comatose state only to arise as an ignorant zombie to suck the common sense out of others, since thats what I would inevitably become since this person CLEARLY has a supernatural level of utter and complete ignorance to the very core concept that is the paladin. That is how PAINFULLY stupid this person must be. In fact trying to even THINK of a person like that has caused my brain to shudder violently in order to shake the image from my head. I have to go take a couple asprin and shoot myself now. Thank you SO much for bottoming out the absolute lowest level I have ever seen of forum intellgence. Every TIME it hits rock bottom they take up a freaking mining pick. :bow: :rofl: :clap: :clap: :rofl: :ayyyy!: :heehee I am well impressed. Some of the best remarks I have ever heard.
High Octane 12-14-06, 06:06 PM	:bow: :rofl: :clap: :clap: :rofl: :ayyyy!: :heehee I am well impressed. Some of the best remarks I have ever heard. And yet I misspelled intelligence. :tantrum: Ill leave it in there. I deserve the shame. Thanks though.
Talonos 12-14-06, 06:31 PM	If I were a DM in that situation (for some reason) I'd change it to a "Trial of Faith." The paladin needs to accept fiendish power, (which, evidentally, is morally questionable in a situation like this :rolleyes:) or he won't have the power to stop the BBEG and save innocents, ect. What decision does he make? Does he step towards the gray area, or does he avoid all apperance of evil? If he accepts the power, then he loses his paladin powers. Maybe he'll be able to win the fight. Maybe he won't. If he doesn't he ends up disgraced, and some solars or something will be sent down to "clean up" the situation by defeating the BBEG. (After all, the diety doesn't want the innocents to pay for the paladin's poor desicion.) They will treat the ex-paladin very cooly. Either way, he's got a few quests to do before becoming paladin again. If he rejects the power, and walks into the BBEG's lair knowing full well he'll lose, but willing to fight to the last, then as he charges into combat, I'd inform him that he feels filled with holy power (and grant him the "proxy" template of whatever his diety is, for that battle only.) Now, what's the moral of the story? If a deity cares so much for his paladins, why would he leave them in a situation where thay must sell their soul? Answer, it wouldn't. Therefore, if there is ever a situation where it seems like you must sell your soul, it just means that you don't know the full plans of your deity. My campaign, at least.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 07:14 PM	Find me a DM whose reading comprehension is so obtuse that he would be unable to glean that selling his soul to a freaking agent of chaos and evil would grossly violate a paladins alignment enough to cause a loss. PLEASE! Find one for me so I can avoid ever playing with them, or listening to them talk, or breathing the same air since his mere presence would cause my brain cells to commit seppuku (sic) suicide until my int and wis scores would bottom out to 0 leaving me in a comatose state only to arise as an ignorant zombie to suck the common sense out of others, since thats what I would inevitably become since this person CLEARLY has a supernatural level of utter and complete ignorance to the very core concept that is the paladin. That is how PAINFULLY stupid this person must be. In fact trying to even THINK of a person like that has caused my brain to shudder violently in order to shake the image from my head. I have to go take a couple asprin and shoot myself now. Thank you SO much for bottoming out the absolute lowest level I have ever seen of forum intellgence. Every TIME it hits rock bottom they take up a freaking mining pick. You flamin' me? Look at what happens if he doesn't sell his soul.
Talonos 12-14-06, 07:42 PM	Where would I look for that? I must say, I'm not exactly aware of the origional context.
Reversefigure4 12-14-06, 07:42 PM	Having read far too much of this debate, I now think all Paladins should be FORCED to be half-demons right from creation. And if they don't want to be half-demons, they clearly aren't Good enough to be Paladins.
High Octane 12-14-06, 07:47 PM	You flamin' me? Nope. Just every DM who would allow a paladin to sell his soul to a demon without losing his paladin powers.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 07:53 PM	Just every DM who would allow a paladin to sell his soul to a demon without losing his paladin powers. Under such extremely extreme circumstances I would allow him to do that, and give him a chance to claim it back after he's done. Kind of like a quest for redemption. Where would I look for that? I must say, I'm not exactly aware of the origional context. These two are the things I'm looking at. He needs to take whatever help he can get. To do otherwise would be to let his own morality dictate the fate of the innocents, leading them to the death (a Neutral Evil act IMO). Him not accepting the deal (all circumstances assumed: Good not helping, last resort, etc.) is tantamount to killing the innocents. He had a chance to save them and refused to do so. That goes against his Code of Conduct.
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 08:05 PM	The main issue here is getting people to accept the idea of the Paragon of Justice bonding himself with an incarnation of Slaughter. A Paladin is supposed to fight, even when he knows he's going to lose. This is a big part of heroism. Last stands in the name of Justice are a staple of fantasy literature, and people holding to their ideals, even when it may mean losing, are people of honor. The situation is ridiculous, but the fact is: yes, you can create a situation where the Paladin has no choice but to commit evil. No, there is no actual rule that states that selling your soul is evil, but as Talonos pointed out, the CoC (and I'd extend this to the alignment descriptions as well) are fluff, not crunch. Therefore, it is up to the individual diety that grants said paladin powers to decide (really up to the DM) whether this is a good or evil action. We cannot use the Paladin's Code of Conduct as an explicit guide: it isn't nearly comprehensive enough and wasn't written to define everything it meant to be a paladin. Going through it like a law-book doesn't do said code proper justice.
High Octane 12-14-06, 08:24 PM	Oh, and noone is flaming you several of us are just, still, trying to get past your grasp of the english language because we know that icelandic would be closer to scandinavin from which it was orrigionaly derived. DUDE! :uh-huh: WTF? Seriously, WTF!
High Octane 12-14-06, 08:45 PM	He makes countless innocents die. Know what, QUOTE me the circumstances.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 09:11 PM	Know what, QUOTE me the circumstances. A divine force about to launch an attack on the multiverse itself. The Paladin finds himself in a situation where Good itself is unwilling to help him, and he knows that fighting the enemy will get him killed. A Demon comes along and offers him a trade for his soul in exchange for the Half-Fiend template which will aid him in the battle. So, whether this is an intricate plot by Good to have the Paladin killed (or make him fall) or an intentional attempt at killing every single thing in the multiverse, the Paladin has a choice to make between a blatantly Evil act (marching into battle, responsible for the lives of the innocents he knows he will get killed as a result) or a (IMO) decidedly Good act (accept the deal and stand a fighting chance to save those innocents you're supposed to save; then make amends). In any case, Good committed a massively Evil act. If we think of it this way: A divine force about to destroy the multiverse, and then the Demon comes along and offers the deal. In this case, the Paladin has mutliple Good-aligned choices (and could probably choose all of them). These include praying for reinforcements, a bestowment of the Half-Celestial template, some awesome equipment, an extra powerful mount, an increase in level, a Polymorph any Object effect cast on him and good, old-fashioned extra smite to kick that Demon's ass. EDIT: I realize I got carried away and for some reason added premises to my argument. Under the original premise, no. As long as he has other options available, he would lose his Paladin abilities.
High Octane 12-14-06, 10:09 PM	Ooookay, if the DM set it up so that the player has only the option of take the half-demon template or let evil overrun the realm..... and somehow that added template with even then limited power given somehow was keystone to changing the fact.... Yep. I would avoid that DM for the same reason I stated in my previous long vicious rant.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-14-06, 10:18 PM	Yep. I would avoid that DM for the same reason I stated in my previous long vicious rant. Any DM that actually manages to put the Paladin into that extreme situation (it takes some serious ****ing up in multiple areas) has screwed up royal in my book.
WizO_Cat 12-14-06, 11:05 PM	Ok, knock off the personal comments. Keep the posts on the topic of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, it is considered Baiting which is against the Code of Conduct. Further violations from those on both sides of the argument will result in disciplinary actions. Consider this your only warning on this subject and ask yourself if what you're about to post is really worth getting an Official Warn for.
Talonos 12-15-06, 01:25 AM	Where would I look for that? I must say, I'm not exactly aware of the origional context. These two are the things I'm looking at. He needs to take whatever help he can get. To do otherwise would be to let his own morality dictate the fate of the innocents, leading them to the death (a Neutral Evil act IMO).Ah, so you made up the context. Well, then it's no wonder you're right. A DM is always right in his own campaign. And here, I thought you were referring to a specific situation a different player asked about. Now, If I were in your campaign, in that situation, I'd probably make the "wrong" desicion. I'd refuse the help of the demon. After all, Half-fiend doesn't add all that much to you. A bit higher on your ability scores, but that's only about a +1 to +2 to most skills, saves, and checks, and a +1 to natural armor. Most of the spell-like abilities wouldn't be useful. There's a difference between "Accept my offer or millions will die" and "Accept my offer or there's a slightly higher chance that millions would die." And, as a paladin in your campaign, I would assume (Perhaps naively) that I was making the right desicion. In game terms, I would be blessed for it by my deity. Why would my deity punish me for making the right decision? In out of character, I'd assume that you meant for me to reject the demon's offer. After all, I am a paladin. If you then told me I violated my code of conduct, I would be shocked. I'd try to explain it from my character's point of view. Let me explain: In any normal situation, to a normal character, allying with a demon would be wrong. Just because the situation has changed doesn't make it right, it just means the person is picking the lesser of two wrongs. Perhaps to a normal character, that's the right desicion. The paladin, however, has a very different world-view. He beleives he is the deity's chosen. He has a very simple path: as long as he is righteous, he will never fall. His deity will protect and strengthen him. He would see the demon's offer not as an offer to strengthen him, but as a trick to try and weaken him. He doesn't need the help of the forces of evil to win; the forces of Good can win on their own. If the paladin truely beleives he is capable of defeating whatever the problem is, then there is no way he'd accept help, because the situation has changed from "Lesser of two evils" to "One evil and one good." If he accepted help from the demon, it would mean that he didn't beleive in his deities power. It would indicate a lack of faith. "Get thee hence, foul demon," my paladin says, "and tempt me no more." If, as a DM, you still said I had performed an evil action, I would ask "Am I not role-playing my paladin properly? Is my paladin supposed to assume that right now, when millions of lives are at stake, that his diety would mysteriously abandon him, and he must ally with the forces of evil to emerge victorious?" If, as a DM, you told me "You'll won't be able to make it unless you accept the demon's offer; therefore, it's an evil act not to," I would say "Perhaps, but my character doesn't know that. He honestly thinks that his diety will not let him fall, especially after he just turned down what would probably be the temptation of his lifetime. He did what he felt was right, and if he's doing his best to do what's right based on the knowledge he has." If you still said that my paladin has commited an evil act, I would assume you were attempting to railroad me into a series of "redemption" quests, and sadly leave your game.
Vestigial_Thumb 12-15-06, 09:47 PM	If I screwed up so royally, I wouldn't even let you make the decision. The campaign would come to an immediate halt followed by a rewind. No player of mine will ever get into a no-win situation as a result of my own actions. I'm not saying either decision is wrong (well, IMO, since 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective and Good and Evil are objective, the concepts are incompatible). I would rule that selling the Demon your soul (assuming I didn't rewind (another screwup on the already impressive resumé)) would result in the least damage to all parties. The redemption quests that followed, if any (I'd probably just give you a chance to meet the Demon shortly afterwards and reclaim your soul), would be incredibly short, easy and full of XP (as an apology). I'm not a dumbass DM.
sinrae_kinesti 12-16-06, 04:39 AM	Seems to me the new developments have ended so continued posting is just beating a dead horse
Thunder Dragonbane 12-16-06, 10:35 AM	Seems to me the new developments have ended so continued posting is just beating a dead horse I think it has been a dead horse for 6 pages. I just keep coming back. I haven't even seen the OP for two weeks.
sinrae_kinesti 12-17-06, 03:17 AM	thats pretty much why I'm still here i like to see what ludicrous argument will pop up next. helps make my day go by faster.
Thunder Dragonbane 12-17-06, 10:48 AM	Ok new question. This is on the same lines so I won't bother with a new thread. My game group is hunting down a single demon at the moment. This demon has in it's possesion a artifact bell that summons undead by just ringing it. Our task is to take the artifact away from it whatever the cost. The undead are immune to turning, have enough HD that it takes at least 4 successfull attacks to distroy them, and are incoporeal. They do not do much damage, but they suck up CON on a FORT DC of 25. I think they are the Dread Wraiths from MM1. In the last combat which lasted about 15 rounds, the bell was rung about 6 or 7 times. Each ring summoned more undead than could be counted. In the end one of the characters had to make a god-call just to give the party enough time to gather up and retreat. Now we still have to get back to this location, The Demon is beond the area that the undead are in, and the party is not geared up for incopreal foes. 1)Are there any spells avalible to a 10th lvl Paladin that grant incopreal AC? W/o that I have a AC of 10. 2)Are there any spells that boost the turning ability? Because turning them at all seems impossable. 3) Other than ghost touch, Is there a spell that can lessen the 50% miss chance of incopreal foes? The characters are rather short on funds at the moment. I might have the most and I only have 900 gp. Between the lack of funds, and poor existing equipment I cannot come up with a tactic that can get the party to the Demon. Once we get to the Demon we still have the problem that he might just teleport away after the first round of combat if we cannot drop it in one round. Just so that you know the party consists of: 2) clerics, one of which is rather powerful but rarely seems to use his weapon, the other is a dwarven warpriest who cannot cast his highest lvl of spell because his WIS score is not high enough. 1) sorceress, that is powerful, but was having trouble doing anything with her spell list. 1) ranger, This poor bastard lost all of his magical gear 4 or 5 games a go and only has gear because I bought it for him. 1) paladin, myself, 10th level and my gear frankly is not up to par for taking on wraiths. (+1 fullplate, +1 holy greatsword, +2 cloak of CHR.) I think that if I can get to the demon I can do respectable damage to it. I was thinking to combine the spell divine sacrafice with divine might, power attack, and a smite on the first round. This should grant me 4d6 sword, +5d6 DS, +12 PA, +10 smite, +7 STR, and +6 DM. 38 + 9d6. I should be able to hit on any roll higher than 12, this first round.
sinrae_kinesti 12-18-06, 08:04 AM	i cant think of any paladin spells of First or second level that would give you extra AC vs incorporela but wizards have a 1st level spell ectoplasmic armor (ABJ). I'm sure that he could modify it to be mass ectoplasmic armor. which i would think since mass cure light is a 5th level cleric spell mass ectoplasmic armor should be a 5th level sorceror wizard spell. and you could get a +7 to your ac vs incorporeal if your sorceress is also 10th level. In addition protection from evil gives you a +2 deflection vs evil creatures so thats another option. a far more expensive option (and i know you said you were short on funds) a slightly modified cubic gate with an opening to the positive energy plane so that positive energy continuously leaks onto the material and destroys any undead that gets near you. only bad thing is without protection from positive energy you would be making fort saves not to take damage from the overflow of positive energy (potentially fatal) but if you are injured when you open it you will gain fast healing 5 and wont have to start making the saves until a few rounds after you were fully healed. just some ideas for you. take them or leave them
turalisj 12-18-06, 09:17 PM	Ok, I would like to point out this thread, like so many others that grace these boards, are a point of opinion. If a paladin in my game decided to sell his soul to a demon, not only would he be royaly screwed over by the demon (do you realy think the demon is going to weaken himself for a mere 200gp?), but he would lose his ability to EVER go back to being a paladin. It's not a point of being an evil aligned act, it is a point that whatever diety/pantheon the paladin draws power from is going to be ticked off, and not only refuse to give the paladin the ability to use any supernatural or spell-like abilities from his levels in paladin, but there would be other paladins sent after him because of his newly made demonic/devilish power.
theotherdraxen 12-18-06, 09:31 PM	Ok, I would like to point out this thread, like so many others that grace these boards, are a point of opinion. If a paladin in my game decided to sell his soul to a demon, not only would he be royaly screwed over by the demon (do you realy think the demon is going to weaken himself for a mere 200gp?), but he would lose his ability to EVER go back to being a paladin. It's not a point of being an evil aligned act, it is a point that whatever diety/pantheon the paladin draws power from is going to be ticked off, and not only refuse to give the paladin the ability to use any supernatural or spell-like abilities from his levels in paladin, but there would be other paladins sent after him because of his newly made demonic/devilish power. This has pretty much been the general conclusion: that no amount of RAW slinging is going to get anyone anywhere, and that it's all about what each individual group would agree on. You cannot say it goes one way or the other definitively.
AdamAnt441 03-08-07, 10:18 AM	I would say, "No", a paladin cannot be half demon. His code of conduct is very strict, and he is not allowed to associate with evil willingly. Regardless of whether or not his act is "good-aligned" with regard to becoming half-demon, he has broken his code of conduct, the LAWFUL component of his alignment restrictions, and as such has forfeited his paladin-hood. In paladin parlance, "the ends cannot justify the means", so even if he could do a great amount of good by associating with evil, he has broken one of his own cardinal rules, fine for a chaotic-good character, but unacceptable for a lawful-good character. Consider it this way too; the power this demon has granted the paladin, how did the demon come by such power? By performing centuries of unspeakably evil acts, and now that power is granted to the paladin that he might do a little good in the grand scheme of things! That demon, if he has any good (read "evil") reason for granting such power in the first place, is laughing at the paladin that accepted such an offer, and is just waiting to spring on the paladin the fact that he has unwittingly become a blackguard by willingly embracing such power, the poor misguided fool... That's how I see it...
AdamAnt441 03-08-07, 10:22 AM	Ok new question. This is on the same lines so I won't bother with a new thread. My game group is hunting down a single demon at the moment. This demon has in it's possesion a artifact bell that summons undead by just ringing it. Our task is to take the artifact away from it whatever the cost. The undead are immune to turning, have enough HD that it takes at least 4 successfull attacks to distroy them, and are incoporeal. They do not do much damage, but they suck up CON on a FORT DC of 25. I think they are the Dread Wraiths from MM1. In the last combat which lasted about 15 rounds, the bell was rung about 6 or 7 times. Each ring summoned more undead than could be counted. In the end one of the characters had to make a god-call just to give the party enough time to gather up and retreat. Now we still have to get back to this location, The Demon is beond the area that the undead are in, and the party is not geared up for incopreal foes. 1)Are there any spells avalible to a 10th lvl Paladin that grant incopreal AC? W/o that I have a AC of 10. 2)Are there any spells that boost the turning ability? Because turning them at all seems impossable. 3) Other than ghost touch, Is there a spell that can lessen the 50% miss chance of incopreal foes? The characters are rather short on funds at the moment. I might have the most and I only have 900 gp. Between the lack of funds, and poor existing equipment I cannot come up with a tactic that can get the party to the Demon. Once we get to the Demon we still have the problem that he might just teleport away after the first round of combat if we cannot drop it in one round. Just so that you know the party consists of: 2) clerics, one of which is rather powerful but rarely seems to use his weapon, the other is a dwarven warpriest who cannot cast his highest lvl of spell because his WIS score is not high enough. 1) sorceress, that is powerful, but was having trouble doing anything with her spell list. 1) ranger, This poor bastard lost all of his magical gear 4 or 5 games a go and only has gear because I bought it for him. 1) paladin, myself, 10th level and my gear frankly is not up to par for taking on wraiths. (+1 fullplate, +1 holy greatsword, +2 cloak of CHR.) I think that if I can get to the demon I can do respectable damage to it. I was thinking to combine the spell divine sacrafice with divine might, power attack, and a smite on the first round. This should grant me 4d6 sword, +5d6 DS, +12 PA, +10 smite, +7 STR, and +6 DM. 38 + 9d6. I should be able to hit on any roll higher than 12, this first round. Well, if I remember correctly, the spell "Protection from Evil" grants total immunity to the physical attacks of SUMMONED creatures, unless the protected character initiates an attack against the summoned creature(s) in question. Depending on how the undead were summoned, Protection from Evil (or Magic Circle vs. Evil) may get the party close enough to the demon to be able to confront it. Indeed, the Circle may even protect the party from the demon itself if it were also summoned, giving an opportunity for a rare role-playing scenario! However, insofar that the party is there to destroy the demon, they must inevitably face the horror, which means attacking it and nullifying the magical ward (although the bonuses to saves and armour class would still apply). Just an idea...