AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I thought it would derail Mana's topic, so I made it's own. I know you were asking more to the extend you should rp those rogue level skills and feats, but I had two people ask me the question regarding rogue levels on pallies, so this seems like a good oppertunity.

Kamina wrote:

Manarethan, could you give a brief make-up scenario of what you should or shouldn't so? As someone who plays a "cheese build" (Paladin/Rogue) I make sure to RP the skills acquired through her Rogue levels (like her sneaks, magical item manipulation and tumble dodging), but want to make sure I'm doing it to the extent the DM team want to see it.

The following was written by me in response to a discussion regarding sneak attack and umd on paladin characters on the tester forum. I will preface it, by saying was bard available for Robert, my character would not only have tumble and umd, but also perform. Rogue was the next best thing due to the alignment restriction of bard, and I am quite comfortable to have that level on my paladin.

It is in response to the opinion that umd is deceitful, and because it allows you to use evil items, it goes completly against the paladin class. And sneak attack just being murderously cut throat, it does so too.

Quote:

Sneak attack is not evil or even chaotic. Unlike the abilities of a palemaster, or an assassin, lawful good characters can make use of them. A sneak attack is attacking a character who has or has been forced to drop his guard, and going for the vital spots in order to inflict the most harm. Improved critical is an ability available for paladins, and it too aims at attacking the vital spots to inflict the most damage.

Paladin characters have access to knockdown, improved knockdown, and called shot. They are allowed to multi-class in weapon master, which is a class in which you perfect the way of the martial combat and in no small part expand your knoweledge in how to inflict the most damage on your opponent with your weapon of choice. In combat you feint, you strike to wound your opponent to better your odds.

If you take into account that a battlefield is not a series of one-on-one duels of honor, it makes a whole lot of sense. Why should a paladin have a quarrel to bludgeon the face of an orc with his shield, knocking him down to his knees, only to cleave it's head off and go to the next opponent? Or to quickly stab an orc in the back that is about to bring down his axe on the head of your dwarven companion, and then seek his next foe?

Paladins are also permitted to use bows. Are they forbidden to shoot at the head of an orc from a distance? Or do so when the orc is unaware of the paladin, while he savages one of the comrades in arms of his paladin companion? In a traditional duel of honor in Neverwinter, you may need to wait for your opponent to get up if he is knocked down, before the duel continues. I really doubt a paladin would fall or be socially outcast from his conservative order for properly fighting in a battle. Else, have fun falling paladins for attacking a troll with his two companion, or knocking a troll down while the others make short work of it.

Sneak attack simply does not mean you creep up on your opponent while they are sleeping, and then assassinate them in their sleep. You can use it like that, but that makes the act evil, not the technique or knoweledge how to.

As for UMD, it is not only about using evil items. It can be just as much about learning how to activate wands and scrolls. That you learn the ability on how to potentially use evil items, while studying how to activate magical devices, in itself is not an evil act. Just as how studying to become a highly capable killer, does not make you a murderer. A paladin who learns about poisons and how to better cure them, does not necessarily become a poisoner. His code forbids that particular act. To study demonology to better fight your opponents is completly acceptable, as long as the paladin does not begin to dabble in it.

Cutting down someone who has yielded. Using poison to murder someone. Torturing someone, blackmailing someone, extorting someone, lying. Subjecting someone to cruel public humiliation. Using evil artifacts or magic for the greater good, or ignoring a woman who asks for help when her husband is being brutally and wrongly assaulted. Those are things that do not go along with the code.

I have written extensively about Sneak Attack elsewhere, but in short: feats and classes are what they do. Sneak Attack adds xd6 damage against flanked or flat-footed targets. However you rationalize that is up to you. There barely any build elements in NWN that would have a set interpretation.

As for UMD, even using evil items is not evil. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. Using a tool is, essentially, manipulating it or effecting some change on it. Throwing a bad guy into his buddies is, in essence, "using" that bad guy just as much as triggering a wand is "using" that wand. So do you gain the alignment of the bad guy when you throw him? If the guy was chaotic, using him to topple his buddies is chaotic, and if he was lawful it's lawful? No, that would be absurd. The same even goes for spells. Protection against Evil has the "Good" descriptor, that is, the spell itself is inherently good. That does not mean casting it is good; an evil guy summoning a demon to wreck a village would surely cast Protection against Evil, but that would not make him any better.

As for more reasonable examples, there are plenty in the Paladins of the Realms articles. Paladins come in many shapes and sizes, and what matters is that they have justification (or a cultural background) for their actions.

I disagree, a paladin using an evil artifact is on very thin ice and with prolongued use will fall. The paladin should dispose of the artifact (a quest in itsself for an artifact) and certainly not use it for his own gains or even for what he sees as the greater good.

For lesser items it depends on a case by case basis. I wouldn't look kindly on a Paladin who uses a wand of soul shredding or happily contaminates an Orc lair with his wand of deadly plagues.
On the other hand, a shield made to be used by evil toons can't do much harm in a paladins hand and seeing one use such a passive item I wouldn't lose sleep over (Unless its made by trapping a (pure) soul, in that case the paladin should work to determine whose soul it is and then (ussually) free the soul.)

Ignorance is not bliss there so a paladin should be wary of what he is using.
It would be unfair to decide an item in the loot bin which description doesnt hint at anything bad in the creation would contain a soul and thus caused the paladin trouble because he always used it. It could make a good plot if a paladin finds something questionable though and there are clear hints something with the item is amiss.

I think what Pony is suggesting is not that paladins wilfully utilize evil descriptor items in the pursuit of their duties - he probably agrees that doing so would definitely be Fall-worthy, depending upon the circumstances - but that there should not be a problem with the learning process of how to do so (taking ranks in UMD).

Reason? Imagine the scenario where a paladin comes upon an evil artifact, an abyssal portal, and several thousand vrocks are flying towards the entryway. He can do the Lawful Stupid act of planting himself in the front of the abyssal portal and try to defeat every Vrock, or likewise the foolish attempt to destroy the portal artifact with a non-adamantine longsword, OR he can take his lessons in manipulating evil artifacts to simply use his UMD to "flip the proverbial off switch" on the portal by uttering a profane invocation, something that makes him feel oily and horrible afterwards but was a minor act that didn't hurt anybody else for the greater good.

I'm curious to know if there is there any lore written regarding the mechanical alignment restrictions for items to help understand how UMD overcomes this?

For example why are certain items only able to be used by evil/good/lawful alignments? What is inherent in the items that stops people of certain alignments using them? Is it an moral incapability or magical or both?

The item is enchanted to stop people of certain alignments from using it or is the thing just made from a material or in a way that is morally opposed to the person i.e a Paladin not wanting to use a magical rod of fireballs made from baby toes crafted by a demon lord in the shape of Cyric's phallus.

Hudson: Well, it always depends on circumstances. Which is sort of the whole point and why topics like these rarely do any good; people who want clear rules will always want clear rules, and people who can deal with uncertainty and complex information continue about their business because they're just wired that way. This is a bit of a bold statement, but I am pretty sure attitudes towards paladin RP reflect attitudes towards information in general. You see the same phenomenon in many hobbies: there are people who are really into the thing and have a very strong, clear opinion on how it goes, or else aspire to form one, and then there are people who tend to have a less invested, more ambiguous and flexible perspective. It's not that one is better than the other per se, but they cannot easily see eye to eye since they are interested in different things.

There is no ambiguity about the principle itself, though: using something of alignment X does not automatically make the act of using also of alignment X. If that were the case, it would apply to all "somethings" and all alignments. And, as demonstrated in several similar topics, the consequences would turn out quite absurd. If using an evil item turns out to be evil, it is so because of something else (the consequences, the paladin's intentions, local culture and circumstance, some metaphysical stain applied that fools alignment sensors, whatever) and not just because "evil item -> evil act". We have canonical examples of paladins using undead for good, for instance, which shows that there's no cosmic automation at work here.

I agree, of course, that prolonged use of an evil artifact puts the paladin on thin ice. So you are not exactly disagreeing with me there. That has nothing to do with UMD, though. It is a moral decision that may come up in exceptional circumstances, and what the paladin should do depends on those circumstances as well as the paladin's background/code/faith. I just refuted a general principle of object alignment interacting with subject alignment. I would not even want to make a substantial statement about alignment out-of-context, because that is contrary to how I think alignment should be evaluated - by an educated, thorough evaluation of every relevant aspect of a unique situation, something which we cannot have in artificial examples.

I don't know what the original argument was, but I find the thought amusing that a paladin would not use UMD because he felt he was deceiving the inanimate object unfairly. Deserves some custom Paragon of Honesty feat! :lol:

Quote:

A sneak attack, despite the name, is mainly a 'vital blow,' experienced with hitting where it really hurts when the opponent is distracted. It's appropriate to duelists or just about anyone with a precise way of hitting their target.

Quote:

Sneak Attack represents the ability to exploit a nigh-infintesimally brief hole in a foe's defenses such that the attack can strike a vulnerable spot on the target (which requires a discernable anatomy that's vulnerable to such attacks) as a use of developed skill at arms and opportunism- none of which violates Paladin ethics.

I had assumed this is why you can't sneak attack constructs / elementals / undead. They don't have vital areas you could hit them in for more damage if they weren't defending them.

You are free to interpret the mechanical effects of almost any feat and ability (barring some divine ones) in whatever way you see fit, really. It is a bit pointless to argue what Sneak Attack "really" is when each of us has the right to say "Alright, but this is what Sneak Attack represents on my character."

It is also a little tricky to say one must RP every ability on their character sheet, because we don't get to choose them. We have to pick predetermined packages with no IC reasoning, and they may come with baggage that isn't really relevant to our characters. There is no reason a holy warrior should not be able to learn rolling and tumbling on the battlefield, or using arcane wands (for the benefit of the Church of Mystra he serves, no less), but it just so happens the game also forces Sneak Attack on you. It is not up to you, and so it is quite unreasonable to expect some elaborate justification involving an Order of Holy Flanking and a life story of tragedy and loss for a feat that just came along with the package. That is not to say you should outright ignore aspects of your build; the more complete your character, the better. But you have to keep in mind the realities of the game when you evaluate others.

I have said it before: my Cleric/Monk Joon is not a monk. He is part of no monastic order, he lives out in the world, and neither does he practice oriental martial arts. His levels represent a certain style and certain abilities he has practiced, but it isn't 100% compatible with the Monk class. I have never used Stunning Fist because, seriously, he probably can't even bitch-slap. But I can't help the fact that it came with the Monk class, which was otherwise a perfect fit. There is no, and probably never will be, great explanation for why he happens to have the feat. He just does.

Where do we draw the line? How many Paladin levels can I take before I can't say "Well so-and-so is not really a paladin, they simply ... " Is there a canonical Amian list of how much we can interpret, when, and what classes / feats are immune to it?

Is it only going to be the classes people take a few levels of for mechanical benefit that we bastardize the lore of?

Mercedes wrote:

Where do we draw the line? How many Paladin levels can I take before I can't say "Well so-and-so is not really a paladin, they simply ... " Is there a canonical Amian list of how much we can interpret, when, and what classes / feats are immune to it?

Is it only going to be the classes people take a few levels of for mechanical benefit that we bastardize the lore of?

You can be 30 paladin and say you're not a paladin, as long as you follow the rules otherwise expected of a paladin. You could be an elven holy crusader (if you disagreed with the idea that elves could be paladins), for example. It just so happens that you're also expected to be Lawful Good, just like a paladin. I have made a clear formulation of this that I've posted whenever it came up, but it has not been posted officially. It is, nonetheless, DM-confirmed and the policy we have de facto followed since forever. The line is not so much what you can pick and what you can emulate, as it is whether you respect the restrictions and limitations the game normally imposes on you.

PaladinOfSune wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

You typically don't need to request special base or prestige classes, with some qualifications: you cannot claim any powers you can't actually simulate with the mechanics, and those powers are subject to the same limitations as any vanilla class with those abilities. That is to say, you're not excempt from deity restrictions, somatic spell components or whatever by virtue of pretending to be something other than an NWN class. So your special spell you simulate with a wizard level is not a free action even if it would be in PnP, for example. And secondly, there are some extraordinary things that will require a request. These include High Magic and Psionics and some other things listed in R&L, and anything else the DM deem to be extraordinary. Use caution and common sense here, I guess. If it's a new type of magic entirely, it may need a request. Mundane classes and those who just combine traditional arcane or divine magic with something else should always be fair game.

Arcane Trickster, Breach Gnome, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Shaman, Urban Ranger, Runescarred Berserker or whatever? That's always been fine. Don't claim you're a divine caster who doesn't need a deity or try use Paladin to simulate something with no code of conduct, though. I think it's pretty clear when you ask yourself, "Would this character as a vanilla class face some restrictions, and if so, will I adhere to them in my new interpretation?"

It's funny that anyone should even ask this, because it has always been an Amia staple. Not just an Amian thing, but almost the Amia thing. When I joined, the freedom of creativity was an important selling point of the server and everybody knew that. You wanted to play a primitive shaman of Mielikki and use cleric levels? Sure. You wanted to be a brawler with a monk levels? No problem. Times and points of interest change, I guess.

Bingo.

I just wanted to give a poke at the Sneak Attack and point out that just because it's called Sneak Attack doesn't imply it has to be sneaky, stealthy or underhanded. It's simply a naming choice, because Backstab would imply it's from behind and Aimed Blow sounds not-roguish enough to be rogue-ability?

Sneak Attack, Death Attack, Skirmish and even Favored Enemy bonus damage are all what is in DnD called "Precision Based Damage". Being sneaky or stabbing someone in the back is one way to do it, but that's not how it necessarily works. Like many people said above; Sneak Attack is just an attack aimed at a vital spot for more effectiveness. Why flat-footed? Because the state of being "flat-footed" represents the target being unable to put all of their defensive tools to work at the very moment, in other words; The opportune moment.

All sword-fighting and close-ranged combat is essentially based on the opportune moment. Whether you wait for it to come or you use your skills or some other means to create one, so you can then finish the fight by striking a blow at the opportune moment. Paladins who have Sneak Attacks aren't necessarily backstabbers or even dirty fighters, they are simply better at taking full advantage of the opportune moment. Someone might stab the lung when the foe trips, someone with sneak attack simply goes for the heart, throat, spine etc. They just do more damage, because their sneak attack represents better ability to take advantage. It could come from better knowledge of anatomy, or being well-trained in making attacks with pin-point accuracy.

Same with Favored Enemy; the ranger receives damage bonus because they know the weak spots on their target better than others, thus knowing to aim for the weak spots. They know how their favored enemies think, how they fight, they know how to predict their moves and mentality to aim where they knwo the opponent will move to.

That's my take on Sneak Attack and other Precision Based Damage. It's all about precision, not being unfair.

So you can be full-blown 30 Paladin with their divine might, shield, and Paladin spellbook, but not follow a Dogma and instead some Paladin-esque LG internal code of righteousness? You'd still need a deity or greater power as a source for the divine kit, I assume-- could it then be a god who does not support paladins?

Mercedes wrote:

So you can be full-blown 30 Paladin with their divine might, shield, and Paladin spellbook, but not follow a Dogma and instead some Paladin-esque LG internal code of righteousness? You'd still need a deity or greater power as a source for the divine kit, I assume-- could it then be a god who does not support paladins?

Eh, I don't know, to be honest. It is a rule of thumb, and you probably ought to check with a DM before you do something suspicious. Paladins are a pretty special case since they are so heavily defined by rules and codes, but I imagine you could play some kind of a holy knight that does not do anything a paladin wouldn't do. Then again, how that differs from a paladin is another question.

A similar, a little clearer example would be to use Druid for some kind of a (Spirit) Shaman. They might have a telthor instead of an animal companion, and not respect druid armor and weapon restrictions (which are not enforced on Amia anyway). You'd probably want to let the DMs know, especially if you want a reskinned summon, of course.

IronAngel wrote:

There is no ambiguity about the principle itself, though: using something of alignment X does not automatically make the act of using also of alignment X. If that were the case, it would apply to all "somethings" and all alignments. And, as demonstrated in several similar topics, the consequences would turn out quite absurd. If using an evil item turns out to be evil, it is so because of something else (the consequences, the paladin's intentions, local culture and circumstance, some metaphysical stain applied that fools alignment sensors, whatever) and not just because "evil item -> evil act". We have canonical examples of paladins using undead for good, for instance, which shows that there's no cosmic automation at work here.

Following the logic of your statement here, what you are actually saying is that there should not BE alignment restriction on items. The fact that there are, I think, supports the idea that there actually IS something inherently evil in using that idol of bane to buff yourself (just as an example of something obviously evil). While it is entirely possible to use evil for good (or good for evil), and I love the moral ambiguity of it, using evil for good actively taints whatever good you are doing. This isn't reality we are talking about, it is a fantasy realm where good and evil are much less subjective ideals, but rather active and objectively existent (and physically epitomized) in certain things and beings. Using that shield that was bathed in the blood of five sacrificed virgins is an actively evil action, and that is inherent in the item itself and in the use of it, and the use of it exposes your character to evil influence. Even in the examples of doing something (rather then 'using' something), killing one person to save many might be the good and proper choice... but killing the one still taints the good with some evil. And, and, since many gods that support things like paladins are rather strict and uncompromising, the small bit of evil MIGHT even outweigh the good.

I wouldn't even begin to say UMD is evil because it gives the possibility of using items dedicated to or created by evil, but the act of using UMD to do so definitely would be, without any questions in my mind. Hell, with as strict a code as paladins define themselves as, even keeping the evil item around to maybe use in the future ("but only in emergencies!") would be evil enough to be questionable.

Sneak attack on paladins.... it's cheese, but but within the limitations of NWN I think it's probably acceptable. At least to a point. A paladin with more then one (or two?) d6's of sneak attack could probably bare some scrutiny, as that is definitely toeing the line of honorable. Considering sneak attacks are something blackguards get to represent their evil and dishonorable tactics, I think the case *could* be made to not allow paladins to take classes that get sneak attacks (not to mention the balance concerns that already leave paladins well above average), but it's probably better without a hard rule. On the same token, though the mechanics allow it, a paladin knocking someone down and continuing to attack is a fairly obviously dishonorable action that could bare some thought. It's almost the quintessential image of honor and chivalry to allow your enemy to get back up and/or re-arm themself without attacking. It's also pretty integral to the idea of a paladin that they CAN do evil, but they will pay for it. If the Good and Honorable types (and most notably paladins) are allowed to *freely* use evil/questionable tactics (and items, to tie this into the above), I think we are robbing ourselves of a lot of opportunity for interesting RP, and walking more towards a simple action/pvp server.

Also, if you use an ability, even if it just comes with the package of a class you are taking for entirely separate reasons, you should at least have a basic reasoning of why/what/how for it. I find the explanation of 'oh, I dunno why my paladin sneak attacks, it just came along with my tumble dump' to be lackluster at best, and not quite enough for even a permissive RP server. Some leeway of course has to be given to account for NWN, but I don't think expecting *something* is too much to ask.

I assume item alignment restrictions are something supernatural, a lock placed on the item intentionally. It is not as if "evil item -> good cannot use, good item -> evil cannot use", as far as I know anyway. (I have no PnP frame of reference for this.)

Much of what you say makes sense, but it still does not follow necessarily. I mean, if we accept that a paladin cannot legitimately do something evil, and we do know that paladins of the Golden Lion can utilize undead for example, then it follows that either it is not necessarily evil, or paladins actually can incorporate small evil elements into the sum of their action, as long as the outcome is overwhelmingly good. I am fine with both conclusions, really.

There's nothing even remotely dishonorable about Sneak Attack. I wouldn't look more askance at a paladin with thirty dice of Sneak than a paladin with only one. Sneak Attack has nothing "sneaky" about it but its name. In actual practice, it's just a "hit them where their shield isn't" sort of thing, and sure, you *can* acheive that by sneaking up on someone, but that's not the only way to get there. PnP refers to this sort of thing as "precision damage," which is a waaaay better name for it.

IronAngel wrote:

I assume item alignment restrictions are something supernatural, a lock placed on the item intentionally. It is not as if "evil item -> good cannot use, good item -> evil cannot use", as far as I know anyway. (I have no PnP frame of reference for this.)

I've always seen alignment restrictions to mean that using that thing is evil (or good) in itself. But I also look at alignment as a current reflection of character actions and thoughts, rather then the deciding factor itself as a lot of people seem to. To use a different non-magical example (that isn't enforced mechanically), using poison is evil. It's sorta silly to actually place mechanically enforced alignment restrictions, BUT without being able to actually keep track of each character's progress along the good/evil axis in realtime, it's a fairly good middle ground. I'd love to see (most) alignment restrictions dropped, and replaced with dynamic alignment impacts... but that isn't really feasible.

Liz wrote:

There's nothing even remotely dishonorable about Sneak Attack. I wouldn't look more askance at a paladin with thirty dice of Sneak than a paladin with only one. Sneak Attack has nothing "sneaky" about it but its name. In actual practice, it's just a "hit them where their shield isn't" sort of thing, and sure, you *can* acheive that by sneaking up on someone, but that's not the only way to get there. PnP refers to this sort of thing as "precision damage," which is a waaaay better name for it.

We'll have to disagree there. With regards to the limitations of NWN where we really do have to pretend on thing is another from time to time, I'm totally comfortable with paladins have a few sneak attack dice... but at a certain point they most definitely step into dishonorable territory for me. Which is not to say building your paladin to achieve 30 sneak attack dice isn't entirely within bounds, just that it might warrant some IC attention and possible repercussions. Slipping an attack past your enemies guard is fair, but a sucker punch is still a sucker punch, and strict honorable codes are touchy about such things.

By that interpretation, would a no-dwarves or elves-only item restriction then make you less of a dwarf or more of an elf? Sure, alignment restrictions might work differently (for no apparent reason), but to me they seem like enchantments intentionally placed by the item creator to determine who can use them. Like Moonblades, which are very specific. But unless there's some D&D lore that talks about them, it's anyone's guess.

No one can use elven weapons like an elf. Come to Winya see what happens.

IronAngel wrote:

By that interpretation, would a no-dwarves or elves-only item restriction then make you less of a dwarf or more of an elf? Sure, alignment restrictions might work differently (for no apparent reason), but to me they seem like enchantments intentionally placed by the item creator to determine who can use them. Like Moonblades, which are very specific. But unless there's some D&D lore that talks about them, it's anyone's guess.

Hmm... I would say there is a difference between alignment restrictions and racial restrictions (the class restrictions are where it gets really funny, but again, it's a game and balance and fun need to be considered). Racial restrictions would likely be from the creator... Elves do like to keep their magic to themselves for example. Or require something that is inherent to the race itself, like a dwarf's connection to the earth and stone, or a tiefling's lower planar blood. The guy that makes the evil gear might even WANT to good guys to use it, to possibly influence their actions away from good.

Also, I see them as fundamentally different based on the fact that alignment is a range, while race is a category. One can change alignment, but for the most part a dwarf stays a dwarf. Using a dwarf-only item does not make you more of a dwarf, but using an evil item DOES make you more evil.

Mercedes wrote:

No one can use elven weapons like an elf. Come to Winya see what happens.

You mean like when the human and fey druids beat the elves at archery?

... but not with Elven weapons! Let us hand-craft you a bow and we'll make sure you suck with it.

I don't really see why this is a debate. The black and white notion that sneak attack dice = chaotic or dishonorable or chaotic is dumb. And umd is so useful that not taking it just because you don't want a floating word over your head whenever someone gives you their flank (a warrior should know how to do this anyway) is silly. Anyone who tells you otherwise is butthurt because (they feel that) Palladian is overpowered.

Though I do agree that evil only gear is fall material.

I can see why there's concern, but there are tons, tons, tons of odd examples that shatter generalizations.

I can think up of numerous examples where a Paladin could use an evil-only object for a great amount of good, and not receive a fall. I can also think of an example when a Paladin could use an evil-only object and decisively fall.

I can think of a sneak attack that is incredibly cutthroat, deceitful, etc. I can also think of a sneak attack that absolutely isn't.

So.. what does this mean? It means that we shouldn't base our judgments off of a title, or a descriptor. Aren't there varying qualities of evil? Aren't there varying qualities of 'precision', and honor in combat? Its silly to try to lump all of potential sneak attacks into a dishonorable category, and likewise even for evil-only objects. Couldn't a Paladin have UMD and decide not to use it to be able to wield evil items?

Falling a Paladin will always be based upon the circumstances of the situation, character, and actions taken. Even the idea of a Paladin being around Undead. While in most every case, support and toleration of Undead would lead a Paladin to falling, there are other cases where it would not. Consider a Paladin of Osiris, for example. The wide variations of undead, practices, etc, etc.

And having the -ability- to cast evil spells and use evil magic isn't evil or wrong in and of itself, either. All good clerics have the potential to use their divine powers to animate the dead, for example. Its whether or not that cleric decides to do so, not whether or not he has the power to.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

All good clerics have the potential to use their divine powers to animate the dead, for example. Its whether or not that cleric decides to do so, not whether or not he has the power to.

I question this. Said cleric asks his god/goddess for his daily spells. Why would, say, Kelemvor grant such a spell? NWN has a limitation of spells being universal due to no inherent deity system. Are we considering any of those spells in the book as IC, then?

Well it depends on which way you want to take it. From a pure mechanical sense, yes they could, for whatever reason. But like you, I would be inclined to say the deity in question would not grant a prayer for something specifically against their ethos...in anything but an extremely extenuating circumstance.

But until we actually put in something that makes certain spells fizzle out if you have a certain deity, it is hard to put finger on. You could expect a cleric of Kelemvor getting some static over using Create Undead, simply because by lore that is something he should be staunchly opposed to. But do gods like Sune or Lliira have a stance on undead? You could point to their Good alignment and say they are most likely against it, but there are other deities, like Osiris, that are fine with culturally sanctioned undead, or perhaps some others that don't really have it defined in their dogma.

DerkDerkistan wrote:

Mr. Hackums wrote:

All good clerics have the potential to use their divine powers to animate the dead, for example. Its whether or not that cleric decides to do so, not whether or not he has the power to.

I question this. Said cleric asks his god/goddess for his daily spells. Why would, say, Kelemvor grant such a spell? NWN has a limitation of spells being universal due to no inherent deity system. Are we considering any of those spells in the book as IC, then?

As far as I recall, a Deity awarding a character the ability to cast Divine magic is akin to accessing a particular section of the Weave. I remember this being an interesting debate a while back, when people were questioning how Bards were able to cast minor healing magic. Once the deity performs this feat (Giving a person the ability to wield magic through divine means, rather than practiced arcana), they take a greater step back, and the priest gains power through practicing his given connection to the Weave. The divine role isn't all that active. Its only really when gross misconduct is performed with the magic, that the Divinity will then take notice and revoke the ability to cast spells. As far as I know, its not a pre-emptive removal. For example, a cleric possesses the ability to cast the spell 'harm'. This could be used against an enemy of the faith, or it could also be used against a small child. The Deity doesn't stop the magic from happening, its only after the malicious and fall-worthy act that the deity revokes the ability to cast magic through him.

Though I suppose its a matter of interpretation. I can understand where you're coming from too, saying that every time the Cleric prays for the spells (Ie: Resting and slotting them in), that then and there the Deity could simply deny its availability.
But its a matter for another discussion, as in this topic its ultimately moot. I was using it as an example to outline a particular behavior and theme that doesn't depend on that clerical example alone.

Technically, in PnP, a Cleric cannot cast spells that are against his own or Deity's alignment.

d20srd.org wrote:

Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells
A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.

So there is definitely some limits on them by that alone. And I want to say at least the Elemental Titans never grant a spell of their opposing element, which would make sense, but I cant recall the source of that.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

And umd is so useful that not taking it just because you don't want a floating word over your head whenever someone gives you their flank (a warrior should know how to do this anyway) is silly. Anyone who tells you otherwise is butthurt because (they feel that) Palladian is overpowered.

Don't ever tell anyone how they feel, you don't know that.
Maybe YOU feel that way, and if so, then state it as an opinion, not fact.

In my time on Amia, the two most common characters I have played are Drakos, a pure drow rogue, and the far less known Derryn, paladin of Helm, formerly within the Triadic Knights faction (who I hope to bring back some fashion into the future). As such, I hope that gives some credit to my opinion.

It seems I am going to break away from the crowd here and post a more dissident opinion

Generally speaking, I personally believe that paladins should not be using sneak attacks.

I also reject the notion that sneak attacks are just another ‘precision attack’. Sneak attacks, as supported by its own very name, are a type of assault that relies entirely on the opponent being considered flat-footed or otherwise unawares, a factor that seems to be ignored by many previous posters. The concept of attacking your opponent while he is down, or taking him two on one (which is commonly needed for a sustained amount of flank attacks) is typically viewed as dishonourable

Yes, it is precisional in that the attacker is trained in targeting the area that are guaranteed to inflict the more grievous injuries, but the ability of the sneak attack goes beyond this. It is an intentional and practiced method of exploiting a moment of unawareness as well as to its fullest potential. This is what separates it from a simple precision strike. This is why, the sneak attack are not granted to fighters and rangers who are the most combat orientated class in the mundane; who, above all, should be the most proficient in strikes of precision and dealing out maximum damage.

I am not saying all paladins should be restricted from taking the rogue class, or partaking in methods that would be considered underhanded, but the majority of them, especially those I see on Amia, should exercise restraint. It’s a case by case issue that should be judged by the personal codes of that paladin and the deity that they are sworn to. Paladins are not a uniform class that all obey a single set of codes. The chief rules are set by their God, and should be determined by their teachings and portfolio. Gods that have a heavy emphasis on honour and knightly conduct, are ones that I believe, should be steering away from the rogue class features.

In relation to Use Magic Device (UMD), it is definitely another skill that I believe should be far less relevant than it currently is. UMD, as I interpret it, is more than simply using a magical device, but also of a mental-level of deception, where the character need to manipulate their mental state reflect what is demanded of that device, something that is incredibly irregular to paladins, mages and many others, giving its class-restricted status. Far different from simply exercising your force of will.

While many people are not fans of NWN2, I personally would have loved to seen the capped 5 point skill-point depository to prevent the massive skill-dumps we see commonly throughout the server.

I believe the leniency of these restrictions on Amia, is more of a result of the overwhelming PvP atmosphere that has been breed throughout the NWN online community. The struggle for the most dominate character, or even what is now considered, an average PvP build, has placed demands on people that would not otherwise be present, such as tumble and UMD dumps being the obvious path for the majority of characters, which I feel as sadly limited what should be a more invigorating and largely various adventuring community.

Hopefully that makes as much sense in this post as it did in my head.

But I digress, this is simply my opinion and how I like to build my characters.

Although, if I ever do bring back Derryn, his going to be scowling at all you guys pulling the underhanded moves.

Helmites miss nothing!

Drakos_Vek wrote:

I also reject the notion that sneak attacks are just another ‘precision attack’. Sneak attacks, as supported by its own very name, are a type of assault that relies entirely on the opponent being considered flat-footed or otherwise unawares, a factor that seems to be ignored by many previous posters. The concept of attacking your opponent while he is down, or taking him two on one (which is commonly needed for a sustained amount of flank attacks) is typically viewed as dishonourable

I'm not ignoring that fact, I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

"Typically viewed as dishonourable" by who?

Flat-footed does not mean unaware. It means not properly prepared: an opponent who has been in combat for a dozen rounds still goes flat-footed if he loses a Bluff check to feint. Is a feint dishonorable? Flanking has little to do with superior numbers and everything to do with superior positioning: if there's ten of my team and two of yours, your two can very easily still flank one of my ten. Is superior positioning dishonorable?

I'd have thunkified that the fighting style you get with the single die of Sneak that the Pally20/CoT8/Rogue2* who is already putting 30-50 per hit in flat damage is a totally different animal to that of Ron's Rogue25/CoT4/Ftr1 from back in the day with 18d6 Sneak and about 15dmg/hit flat.

It would, I humbly suggest, be almost indistinguishable from the +2AB bonus everyone gets from flanking.

*or Pally19 for the Aasholes. I assume that's what we're talking about, not the like of the Baravar gnomish Rogue13 Epic Dodger?

PS you know I love you Aasimar guys and gals. Oh baby don't be like that, you know I need you...

Uberuce wrote:

It would, I humbly suggest, be almost indistinguishable from the +2AB bonus everyone gets from flanking.

Good point.

Derryn was a aasimar >_>

Liz wrote:

I'm not ignoring that fact, I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

"Typically viewed as dishonourable" by who?

Flat-footed does not mean unaware. It means not properly prepared: an opponent who has been in combat for a dozen rounds still goes flat-footed if he loses a Bluff check to feint. Is a feint dishonorable? Flanking has little to do with superior numbers and everything to do with superior positioning: if there's ten of my team and two of yours, your two can very easily still flank one of my ten. Is superior positioning dishonorable?

It's really a matter of the point of view, others see it as dishonorable, others do not. Where it really matters is how the deity views it. As I said, I imagine it is something that really varies between the types of paladin, who are generally stuck up about the honour stuff.

I am not kicking up dirt over the matters of flanking/strategic positioning/ what not, but rather the precisely trained practice of knifing a guy while he is preoccupied.

I wouldn't say that such a practice is fall-worthy, rather scowl-worthy of the more upstanding paladins.

Like aasholes.

Liz wrote:

I'm not ignoring that fact, I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

"Typically viewed as dishonourable" by who?

Flat-footed does not mean unaware. It means not properly prepared: an opponent who has been in combat for a dozen rounds still goes flat-footed if he loses a Bluff check to feint. Is a feint dishonorable? Flanking has little to do with superior numbers and everything to do with superior positioning: if there's ten of my team and two of yours, your two can very easily still flank one of my ten. Is superior positioning dishonorable?

Well, to make the comparison to PnP, which obviously outlines these things quite a bit more AND has greater flexibility in what they can say the dice are emulating... One of the chivalric tenets 'typical' of paladins hold to is not to attack from behind. So, yeah, superior positioning WOULD be dishonorable by their code. Their strict codes are supposed to be one of the drawbacks of playing a paladin...

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition wrote:

Typical tenets of the Paladin code are as follows (though many variants exist):

A Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment.
A Paladin may never willfully commit an Evil act.
A Paladin cannot associate with any character who persistently commits acts which would cause the Paladin him/herself to Fall - notably Evil creatures.
A Paladin must remain truthful and forthright at all times.
A Paladin must give fair warning and due quarter to enemies.
A Paladin holds stealth, subterfuge, attack from the rear, missile weapons and especially poison as weapons of last resort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Wikipedia is not a source. The actual D&D books don't say anything about attacking from the rear. Nor about stealth, subterfuge, fair warning, or due quarter. All of those are invented and tacked on by some random wiki editor who's making the same mistake as a lot of players here: interpreting the "code of conduct" way too narrowly.

You just quoted an example whose only purpose is to give uneducated players some idea of what a paladin is like, admitted yourself (as the quote explicitly says) that it's just a typical example that can vary, but then you expect it to have some relevance for more educated players who might have developed sophisticated opinions of their own? I don't see the point.

And specifically, we have a "typical" example of what some paladin might stick to, and even that is qualified: in the example the paladin considers these things as weapons of last resort - that is, not to mince words, acceptable.

(Oh, and if Liz is right about that being from no book, very well. Even if it was, though, I would not consider it relevant.)

Honor and chivalry are not so much determined by the god as they are determined by the beliefs of the paladin and his culture. They are not cosmic concepts. It's not that a paladin of Tyr cannot use ranged weapons - it is more likely a Tethyrian paladin of Tyr would not use ranged weapons since the culture puts great emphasis on sword duels, but that a Dalelands paladin of Tyr would use ranged weapons since marksmanship is one of the distinguishing traditions of Dalesmen. A paladin of the Red Knight would use whatever strategy was the most rational, on the other hand - he would probably fall for doing something stupid out of chivalry, because that's so clearly against the core of his faith. So there are many factors that can pull you into many directions. Sometimes it's your god, sometimes it's your culture, sometimes it's common sense, and each of these factors may either confine you to the stereotype or push you to something unusual. No rules of thumb can be made, really.

And in any case, if you were to frown on flanking and attacking from the rear, you'd have to do so equally for all paladins. Most of you are going to end up in positions, in fights, where you would trigger a Sneak Attack if you had it. The fact that you just didn't happen to get the feat as inevitable part of an otherwise justified package does not make it any better; you're still taking advantage of a flat-footed enemy. It is your prerogative to frown upon such conduct, but good luck keeping tabs and convincing the rest of the world.

I wonder if it would be possible to script a system whereby paladins have to take negative dice of sneak attack. That is, in any situation where a 9th-level rogue would get +5d6 sneak damage, a 9th-level paladin in the same situation would have to suffer -5d6 damage. "Oh dear, this blow would be dishonorable; I have to pull the punch!" Instead of having a little white "Sneak Attack!" blurb pop up over their heads when the ability activates, they could get one instead that says "Sucker!"

She is, I totally took the easy way out and searched online before pulling out the big books and typing up references. I could've sworn that reference was true though... maybe I'm thinking of 2nd Ed? That is the system I learned best.

And yes, I quoted a guideline that specifically mentions it is just an example and that variations do exist... as an example showing that stabbing someone in the back while he is engaged with another enemy might be considered dis-honorable. I think that still stands, honestly, whether it is directly from the official 3.5 PnP rulebooks or simply a common enough thought that it made it onto wikipedia.

The point I was actually making, above, is that with as imperfect a system as NWN is, a few dice of sneak attack is perfectly acceptable within any paladin code. More then a few, and I think that leans towards dishonorable action. I haven't once said any of this is 100%, or even that paladins should not have access to sneak attacks. Just that it might bare some scrutiny, and that a paladin *should* have a reasonable rationale for their use of it IG. Within the limitations of the game, a character with LG code (any of them) that utilizes the generality that is 'sneak attacks', is at the least, suspicious... And more so when it involves stabbing disarmed people in the back or on the ground. I don't think that's interpreting the code of conduct too narrowly, but I do think considering it fully acceptable for any paladin to rack up as much sneak attack damage as they like is interpreting the code of conduct too broadly.

It's not likely to change in any event. Tumble dumps are too established to disallow a class access to rogue.

Kudark wrote:

Don't ever tell anyone how they feel, you don't know that.
Maybe YOU feel that way, and if so, then state it as an opinion, not fact.

Should every person that posts on this forum have to add a disclaimer that it is only their opinion they are expressing? No.
Anything that anyone says on this forum -IS- an opinion. The only people that need to add the "IMO" tag is DMs when they are in fact expressing their opinion and not the views of the DM team as a whole.

O'Raghailligh wrote:

Anything that anyone says on this forum -IS- an opinion.

Absolutely untrue, and also not the place for this discussion.

Hudson wrote:

For lesser items it depends on a case by case basis. I wouldn't look kindly on a Paladin who uses a wand of soul shredding or happily contaminates an Orc lair with his wand of deadly plagues.
On the other hand, a shield made to be used by evil toons can't do much harm in a paladins hand and seeing one use such a passive item I wouldn't lose sleep over (Unless its made by trapping a (pure) soul, in that case the paladin should work to determine whose soul it is and then (ussually) free the soul.).

I don't really follow this line of logic. What is so evil about inflicting disease as related to -burning- someone to death, which is infinitely more painful and more suffering to boot. A wail of the banshee separates the soul of the target quickly and painlessly from a body and nothing more, making it probably one of the most painless and humane methods of killing someone you could possibly use, but erroneously, people treat it as though you are raising undead simply because they wrongly go "necromancy am all bad!"

The point of the Evil descriptor is to handle things like this and plainly label spells and abilities that cause issues for good guys and unless mister paladin uses one of these, no harm no foul imo. So far as I know, there are no "evil items" which would require the item to actually be sentient. An item with "only usable by those of evil alignment" is a restriction to ensure tools created by bad guys stay in the hands of bad guys and harder to use by non-bad guys. This is not an "evil descriptor," but a restriction.

The idea that sneak attack and UMD are somehow against the paladin code is silly. You can't be deceitful to non-living things. And the very fact rogue is plainly choosable by paladins in every single publication of D&D should give you all you need to answer a question that was never a reasonable question to begin with. WotC isn't some sort of fly-by-night operation of a handful of teenagers working out of a basement.

If you take 1 level of paladin then yes you are a paladin. Nobody gets carte blanche to call themselves "magic fighters" and get all the goodies of the goodie and none of the actual drawbacks.

This entire non-topic seems needless to me and most likely the result of opinions held by individuals who don't like paladins having UMD or somesuch. Trying to create some sort of environment that is utterly unfounded and the opposite published in the actual entirety of D&D's catalogue of canon should have been utterly dismissed long before it even became a post imo just as much as "alcohol should be poison to dwarves" would.

Actual rules in print and canon are -not- opinion or debate. They're the floor everybody stepping into the server comes to the table with and expects to be the norm.

MightNMagic wrote:

A wail of the banshee separates the soul of the target quickly and painlessly from a body and nothing more, making it probably one of the most painless and humane methods of killing someone you could possibly use, ...

This is not the spell description, it's a scream that the caster emits, causing death to those who fail the save. I would assume that there is pain involved, in such a piercing noise.

Why assume that the scream is any different than what you hear OOC from your computer speakers? It's the necromancy that's killing people, not the sound.

Listen to one of my custom bards songs, Liz, and then tell me if you feel the same way.

I'm afraid I don't see in the description where it's necessarily painless. From the SRD, "You emit a terrible scream that kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself)." Mind this is SRD-stripped flavour text, and I don't have my PHB handy to check the original flavour text. But I'm still not seeing conclusive evidence to say it behaves one way or another.

It's a lethal spell, though. Killing someone with a sword is different from outright death-spelling them, because you can pull a few punches to knock them out or if it's a close fight, well, you're directly protecting your own life. A wizard rarely comes to a point where the only valid means of self-defence is small-radius massacre. Plus, death effects are a little nasty for the fact that, at least in the lore, Raise Dead won't bring them back - Resurrection or greater is required.

That's not to say it's always evil, but it's not dumb to have the opinion that it is. Same deal as sneak attacks - a kick to the groin is considered dishonourable in modern manly-man beat-ups, but you know, it's all relative. What matters is whether or not the paladin's deity, church or other legitimate authority figures agree (and how much that matters tends to vary, except in the case of the former).

Quote:

WotC isn't some sort of fly-by-night operation of a handful of teenagers working out of a basement.

You give them a hilarious amount of credit. I would point out some amusing counter-examples but it's unimportant.

Yossarin wrote:

Listen to one of my custom bards songs, Liz, and then tell me if you feel the same way.

It's a nice song. I got a good while to study it, when you accidentally gave it to my monk once, following a rebuild when giving me the monk-attack widgets. Took me a long time to figure out where the hell it came from, too.

Yossarin wrote:

Listen to one of my custom bards songs, Liz, and then tell me if you feel the same way.

Is it creepier than Andrew's Vodak song? Cuz that mofo is seriously the creep, dude.

sYuzan wrote:

Yossarin wrote:

Listen to one of my custom bards songs, Liz, and then tell me if you feel the same way.

It's a nice song. I got a good while to study it, when you accidentally gave it to my monk once, following a rebuild when giving me the monk-attack widgets. Took me a long time to figure out where the hell it came from, too.

Whoa, really?

Kudark wrote:

MightNMagic wrote:

A wail of the banshee separates the soul of the target quickly and painlessly from a body and nothing more, making it probably one of the most painless and humane methods of killing someone you could possibly use, ...

This is not the spell description, it's a scream that the caster emits, causing death to those who fail the save. I would assume that there is pain involved, in such a piercing noise.

d20srd.org wrote:

You emit a terrible scream that kills creatures that hear it (except for yourself). Creatures closest to the point of origin are affected first.

That is literally all it says, folks. It is imperative that we realize the difference between our own personal flavors, what the IC theories are, and what the description says. There is room for Wail being the neat and painless separation of a soul from a body, or violent sonic vibration that stops your organs, or RPing it as blowing people's heads up like that scene from Scanners like I do. There is no right or wrong here really, just flavor. Leave it at that.

Nature of UMD and Sneak Attack

Who is online