Paladin : Smite evil can't be use anymore

[Sweetyy]

Hi everyone!

I just got a strange message since ACT 4 when I'm trying to use Smite Evil or my Divine Weapon with my Paladin saying "Specific alignment required"... Wtf ? I mean my paladin is neutral good and I didn't have this issue before ? What am I missing ? Does my paladin has to be Loyal good instead ?

This paladin is my main character by the way.

Thanks in advance for you help and have a nice day!

Sweetyy

[Boss]

İlk olarak Bry tarafından gönderildi:

In D&D 5e paladins have sort of been redefined as following a particular oath but otherwise being any alignment, which I like better. Pathfinder uses the old, purely lawful good paladins. I'm a little surprised of the many things Pathfinder borrowed it didn't borrow the new paladins, since Pathfinder in general seems to favor giving as many options as possible.

Untrue. 5E removed alignment restrictions for literally everything (You should have noticed that Bard doesn't have to be Non Lawful, Monk doesn't have a Lawful Requirement, and Paladin also doesn't have any restriction). This, however, still doesn't make THEMATIC sense; you're focusing on Evil Paladins, but technically there's no rule that you can't be a Chaotic Paladin... Except, by the literal definition of alignments, no Chaotic character would ever be able to have the dedication and ability to swear to an Oath for their entire life... Ultimately, if they *somehow* did that, every day they uphold their Oath they'd eventually turn more towards Lawful.

The Class Description before you get to the stats for Paladin talks about the 'Cause of Righteousness', describing in extensive detail that a Paladin is a force of good. The Sacred Oath text tells you Paladins swear to an Oath to uphold Good. And then all three base Oaths: Devotion, Vengeance, and Ancients ALL tell you the Paladin is swearing to fight off Evil with different focuses. With the Oathbreaker being the only true evil choice.

5e removed Prestige classes, but only sort of; they put them in as Archetypes, such as the Shadow Monk actually being the Shadowdancer from 3.5. Similarly, later editions of DnD 5E added other oaths, like Conquest, to better represent Blackguards; the actual lore, however, as written in the Player Handbook, hasn't changed. Paladins are still Lawful Good, and deviations are regarded, still, as being Blackguard/Fallen/Anti Paladins.

[KellyR]

İlk olarak Bry tarafından gönderildi:

In D&D 5e paladins have sort of been redefined as following a particular oath but otherwise being any alignment, which I like better. Pathfinder uses the old, purely lawful good paladins. I'm a little surprised of the many things Pathfinder borrowed it didn't borrow the new paladins, since Pathfinder in general seems to favor giving as many options as possible.

Um. Pathfinder is older than 5e, by quite a wide margin. Where they share features, 5e borrowed from Pathfinder, not the other way around.

That said, the D&D alignment system is nonsense and always has been, so I've always disliked "Paladins must be lawful good" and "monks must be lawful" and other such things.

[seeker1]

IMHO, you can be a warpriest of any deity, evil, good, lawful, or chaotic, which means that you have a character who is "sorta" a champion on behalf of any deity they want and the "causes" they are associated with ...

I know "not a paladin" but the warpriest is similar conceptually. The warpriest lets you "champion" evil, chaos ... or neutrality.

Anyway, there have been long arguments about why alignment systems in RPGs suck. The problem with D & D is to rip it out, you also have to redo the entire cosmology of the Outer Planes.

As a result, 5E didn't do it either.

[KellyR]

İlk olarak seeker1 tarafından gönderildi:

IMHO, you can be a warpriest of any deity, evil, good, lawful, or chaotic, which means that you have a character who is "sorta" a champion on behalf of any deity they want and the "causes" they are associated with ...

I know "not a paladin" but the warpriest is similar conceptually. The warpriest lets you "champion" evil, chaos ... or neutrality.

The Chaos/Law divide bothers me most about D&D alignment, but honestly having an "Evil" alignment is sort of stupid too. And tends to create 2 dimensional villains. But eh.

[seeker1]

I've said this before, but I think the Law/Chaos axis in D & D comes from the Eternal Champion novels of Michael Moorcock, which go back (IIRC) to the 60s. In Moorcock's fiction, the eternal conflict of the champion is between Law and Chaos. And again I want to point out that like him, D & D uses them not just to represent human moral choices, but also cosmic forces.

[KellyR]

İlk olarak seeker1 tarafından gönderildi:

I've said this before, but I think the Law/Chaos axis in D & D comes from the Eternal Champion novels of Michael Moorcock, which go back (IIRC) to the 60s. In Moorcock's fiction, the eternal conflict of the champion is between Law and Chaos. And again I want to point out that like him, D & D uses them not just to represent human moral choices, but also cosmic forces.

TBH it's the "cosmic forces" part that annoys me. Part of why Eberron is my favorite D&D setting: The gods aren't part of it, and religion is actually religion. Gods may or may not exist, and do not manifest to prove they do.

[Boss]

I generally disagree with the premise here. People seemingly don't have any issues with 'Good/Evil' stuff in games like Kotor or Mass Effect, but the one that actually gives you Nine Alignments, is apparently bad?

Personally, I think the system has worked just fine, and mostly has become an issue due to poor understandings of both. Example: In the Tavern right after the Maze, you can speak with Seelah. She'll appear happy and in good nature (as she usually is), and explains that she feels mourning over death is just another strike against the forces of good, and that you should only be weeping after the city has been recaptured. A LAWFUL response, is to literally tell her off and explain that seeming cheerful during such troubling times is disrespectful. A LAWFUL response to a LAWFUL GOOD paladin.

Not to mention, every evil response is basically, "I dun like you, Die." Some of the most petty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Evil lines are directed at Lann. I mean, petty. Yet Pathfinder clearly knows how to write good villains.

In truth, the alignment system is good, it's the low level interpretations of them that have lead to strife and confusion. Nevertheless. A Paladin is Lawful Good, a bastion of righteousness as written in every edition of DnD and Pathfinder, INCLUDING 5E. It's why I enjoy the class, because they're not a 'champion' for a god, but a belief. To those trying to talk about Lawful Neutral, or etc, it feels along the same lines as the dumb 'Grey Jedi' stuff from Star Wars.

[KellyR]

İlk olarak Boss tarafından gönderildi:

I generally disagree with the premise here. People seemingly don't have any issues with 'Good/Evil' stuff in games like Kotor or Mass Effect, but the one that actually gives you Nine Alignments, is apparently bad?

Personally, I think the system has worked just fine, and mostly has become an issue due to poor understandings of both. Example: In the Tavern right after the Maze, you can speak with Seelah. She'll appear happy and in good nature (as she usually is), and explains that she feels mourning over death is just another strike against the forces of good, and that you should only be weeping after the city has been recaptured. A LAWFUL response, is to literally tell her off and explain that seeming cheerful during such troubling times is disrespectful. A LAWFUL response to a LAWFUL GOOD paladin.

Not to mention, every evil response is basically, "I dun like you, Die." Some of the most petty ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Evil lines are directed at Lann. I mean, petty. Yet Pathfinder clearly knows how to write good villains.

In truth, the alignment system is good, it's the low level interpretations of them that have lead to strife and confusion. Nevertheless. A Paladin is Lawful Good, a bastion of righteousness as written in every edition of DnD and Pathfinder, INCLUDING 5E. It's why I enjoy the class, because they're not a 'champion' for a god, but a belief. To those trying to talk about Lawful Neutral, or etc, it feels along the same lines as the dumb 'Grey Jedi' stuff from Star Wars.

Eh. I have issues with alignment in all the games you listed. Because writers and game designers have very narrow ideas of what's good and what's evil. Let alone D&D's law and chaos silliness.

[Boss]

I agree, KellyR. But you'll notice something super funny. The Lawful responses in games like DnD from modules are all "obey authority". Yet the Lawful Evil Devils never act like that. When Pathfinder, or DnD authors write OF a character with a specific alignment, it's like they suddenly understand how they're supposed to behave; Vecna, Demons and Devils, Neutral Evil Thayans. One of the most iconic characters in DnD was Irenicus, the big bad of Baldur's Gate 2. A wholly Neutral Evil entity... that could love. His entire storyline was basically a desperate bid to bring his dead wife back to him.

And yet, despite them CLEARLY understanding the alignment system well as a general 'personality' and writing incredible villains, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ CHOICES are the bottom of the barrel awful. It's why I liked Mass Effect. Renegade felt like "real" evil, in the sense that you're still there to save the world, but you don't take ♥♥♥♥ from anybody. That's the kind of evil, or Revan's evil from Kotor that I'd like to play, not the "Waking up to your face is awful" to Lann evil. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Or hurr durr, this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ gem from Pathfinder:
----Scene----
You've come across a person in the Market that's arguing with a Prelate over moving the guard to rescue people. The Prelate (Hulrun) doesn't like this worshiper and orders him to be captured mid conversation, and executed.
----Seelah----
Takes issues with this. She immediately protests, saying this isn't what Iomedae would want. He snaps back, saying he's an Inquisitor, and to shut her mouth. To a LAWFUL GOOD paladin.
----Your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Response----
LAWFUL: "You're doing what's right, Hulrun. There's no place in the crusade for troublemakers!"
----WTF?----
That's your lawful response. It's like they think Lawful means "submit to authority". Something that Bane, Devils, and literally every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ other person in the world wouldn't agree with. Certainly, I think in our modern world, if a cop held a gun to someo dude's head and was about to execute them, it doesn't matter WHAT the world has come to, a lot of people would be very ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ upset over that. Law abiding people.
In this scene, Hulrun has clearly LOST HIS MIND, due to the chaos and fear in the city. With the breakdown in government, he's fast tracking the proper process, and acting as Judge and Executioner. He's giving into his EMOTIONS (which I regard as a Chaotic thing), allowing his anger over having a person protest how he's acting, and opting to execute him mid conversation.

Your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ character, as a LAWFUL individual, is like, "Yep, this is fine." The Chaotic response is to intervene. What???? There's a clear disconnect between the writers for characters with alignments, and the writers that come up with the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ alignment choices.

[corisai]

İlk olarak Boss tarafından gönderildi:

I generally disagree with the premise here. People seemingly don't have any issues with 'Good/Evil' stuff in games like Kotor or Mass Effect

Total crap in ME as linked with subtle propaganda. During interview in ME1 - answer like you're loving your job (lol you ARE a promising officer!) and get renegade points o_O.

Not very cool in KOTOR too. Because - how republican jedi could be a "good" guys if they are not going against slavery as we'd seen in movies? oO

[GunStarX]

I have zero issues with the class of paladin being restricted to lawful good. The problem is still why do none of the gods who do not work on that axis have holy warriors? Warpriests, inquisitors and clerics are not the same as a full bab warrior who is granted divine power for upholding the law of their god. That last part is key, the law of the god. Whatever alternative class there is for paladin should simply be restricted to the center alignment of their god.

I think it could be a cool idea, where the subclasses have varying powers for their center alignment.

[Boss]

İlk olarak GunStarX tarafından gönderildi:

I have zero issues with the class of paladin being restricted to lawful good. The problem is still why do none of the gods who do not work on that axis have holy warriors? Warpriests, inquisitors and clerics are not the same as a full bab warrior who is granted divine power for upholding the law of their god. That last part is key, the law of the god. Whatever alternative class there is for paladin should simply be restricted to the center alignment of their god.

I think it could be a cool idea, where the subclasses have varying powers for their center alignment.

It's called Fighter. Or Multiclassed Fighter.
The thing about Paladin is it's not a 'warrior for your god'. It's a warrior for Goodness/Righteousness. The very unique aspect of them (Smite Evil, Sense Evil, Immunity to Fear) comes from that single minded, rigorous training and devotion to an ideal, not to the wishy washy minutia of each individual god. Straying from that Path, no matter the person Deities' opinions, results in a loss of one's powers. Telling a Lie (in DnD) for the "greater good" means you lose your powers, flat, no matter what the Ends would result int.

I've always liked this notion, and trying to dilute it by destroy Paladin lore, just so everyone else can do the exact same thing Paladin does, is dumb.

There are plenty of similar, if not quite the same class choices, Including as you listed, a Warpriest. The end up HANDS DOWN stronger in melee than a Paladin between all their buffs (especially in DnD 3.5). With equal bab should they pick the obvious spell that makes them equal to a fighter in bab. Not to again, mention multiclassing.

----
Also, another great Gem in this game. Talking to Lann about the comparisons of life in the Undeground, and how his tribe either all starve together, or none do. Unlike the surface where a starving family can be left completely alone.

Your EVIL choice here is: "Stop whining. I clawed my own way up, and anyone who can't do the same is just lazy or weak."

Ah yes, Capitalism, the great evil as we know it. Holy hell Pathfinder.

[GunStarX]

İlk olarak Boss tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak GunStarX tarafından gönderildi:

I have zero issues with the class of paladin being restricted to lawful good. The problem is still why do none of the gods who do not work on that axis have holy warriors? Warpriests, inquisitors and clerics are not the same as a full bab warrior who is granted divine power for upholding the law of their god. That last part is key, the law of the god. Whatever alternative class there is for paladin should simply be restricted to the center alignment of their god.

I think it could be a cool idea, where the subclasses have varying powers for their center alignment.

It's called Fighter. Or Multiclassed Fighter.
The thing about Paladin is it's not a 'warrior for your god'. It's a warrior for Goodness/Righteousness. The very unique aspect of them (Smite Evil, Sense Evil, Immunity to Fear) comes from that single minded, rigorous training and devotion to an ideal, not to the wishy washy minutia of each individual god. Straying from that Path, no matter the person Deities' opinions, results in a loss of one's powers. Telling a Lie (in DnD) for the "greater good" means you lose your powers, flat, no matter what the Ends would result int.

I've always liked this notion, and trying to dilute it by destroy Paladin lore, just so everyone else can do the exact same thing Paladin does, is dumb.

There are plenty of similar, if not quite the same class choices, Including as you listed, a Warpriest. The end up HANDS DOWN stronger in melee than a Paladin between all their buffs (especially in DnD 3.5). With equal bab should they pick the obvious spell that makes them equal to a fighter in bab. Not to again, mention multiclassing.

----
Also, another great Gem in this game. Talking to Lann about the comparisons of life in the Undeground, and how his tribe either all starve together, or none do. Unlike the surface where a starving family can be left completely alone.

Your EVIL choice here is: "Stop whining. I clawed my own way up, and anyone who can't do the same is just lazy or weak."

Ah yes, Capitalism, the great evil as we know it. Holy hell Pathfinder.

Fighter has zero divine power or mount option. A cav/cleric is the closest you could get in a lot of ways. As stated in my post, I have zero issues with the class of paladin being restricted to lawful good. I am saying we need another class altogether...

[Boss]

As I said, Multiclass Fighter is a thing. And melee oriented clerics are literally what you're asking for, or Oracle multiclass.. There's also melee centric sorceror builds out there. While my experience in Pathfinder is significantly less than 3.5 DnD, I can tell you that Paladins are outshone tremendously by other choices.

There really doesn't need to be a 'Holy Warrior' base class, given it already exists. As I've said.

[GunStarX]

No it's really not close to the same thing. You could multiclass practically anything from the basic set of dnd classes, yet we still have hybrid classes for almost every combination. Considering there's posts about "why my paladin cant be "good" pretty regularly an alternate class is warranted.