A Paladin of Asmodeus now an option?

[Iceheart2112]

So I was looking through the new Distant Shores book and I came across a new faith trait called Pact Servant. It says that "You may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining your own alignment as a cleric , inquisitor , or other divine spellcaster. You may not select the evil domain unless your own alignment also contains an evil aspect." This sounds like you could totally do a Paladin of Asmodeus now (though admittedly you'd be foolish to do so, fluff wise). Am I reading this right?

[Florian]

Paladin of Asmodeus is not new. Pantheistic Blessing alowed a Paladin to venerate the God Claw Pantheon that encludes Iomedae as well as Asmodeus ;)

But yeah, it reads as the trait makes it possible, too. Welcome to Cheliax, friend Paladin, no go don your Hellknight armor.

[Belzyk]

Well this is pathfinder so I'm not sure but 3.5 had evil paladinsso its always been possible since the release of the variants.

[Tuvarkz]

So I was looking through the new Distant Shores book and I came across a new faith trait called Pact Servant. It says that "You may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining your own alignment as a cleric , inquisitor , or other divine spellcaster. You may not select the evil domain unless your own alignment also contains an evil aspect." This sounds like you could totally do a Paladin of Asmodeus now (though admittedly you'd be foolish to do so, fluff wise). Am I reading this right?

I believe the devs said at the Paizo forums that no Paladins of Asmodeus due to CoC interference because it would further his plans somehow. Otherwise, you can play a DSP Nightguard Paladin which does have a CoC that would allow a paladin of Asmodeus (And LN/LE alignments)

[Psyren]

So I was looking through the new Distant Shores book and I came across a new faith trait called Pact Servant. It says that "You may treat Asmodeus as if he were a lawful neutral deity for the purposes of determining your own alignment as a cleric , inquisitor , or other divine spellcaster. You may not select the evil domain unless your own alignment also contains an evil aspect." This sounds like you could totally do a Paladin of Asmodeus now (though admittedly you'd be foolish to do so, fluff wise). Am I reading this right?

That trait allows the one-step rule for a LG character but Paladins weren't subject to the one-step rule to begin with. I'd have to read the trait myself to be sure but I'm not seeing anything actually being any different from their perspective.

[elonin]

So how do you role play a character that by vow (which if he violates looses all his abilities) has to be a paragon of law and good accepting a patron who is evil? Having the patron should cause him to fall.

[Belzyk]

So how do you role play a character that by vow (which if he violates looses all his abilities) has to be a paragon of law and good accepting a patron who is evil? Having the patron should cause him to fall.

By using a variant of it. Or not using alignment system. The alignment system is useless. Games are best played with shades of grey not the black and white of good and evil.

[Florian]

That trait allows the one-step rule for a LG character but Paladins weren't subject to the one-step rule to begin with. I'd have to read the trait myself to be sure but I'm not seeing anything actually being any different from their perspective.

The CRB doesn't mention anything concerning Paladins and deities, as the core assumption is, that Paladins need no connection to deities.
That part is in the Inner Sea World Guide and here, the one-step rule is also used for Paladins, for example, Abadar (LN) being a common choice for Paladins.
Gods of the Inner Sea even goes further, bringing new CoCs based on the different deities.

(I'm not saying that its a good idea to try that as you will fall sonner than later, but in context of the setting, it is a reasonable notion)

Interestingly, Asmodeus is counted amongst the Pantheon of Law and Civilization deities, the pantheon all the Paladin deities belong to.

Back in the Bastards of Erenus AP, there was an entry on Asmodeus mentioning him to (amusingly) play along when a Paladin choses him as a patron.

[Slithery D]

That trait allows the one-step rule for a LG character but Paladins weren't subject to the one-step rule to begin with. I'd have to read the trait myself to be sure but I'm not seeing anything actually being any different from their perspective.

Wait, what? Paizo has published Paladin codes for Abadar, Irori and Shelyn, just like they've published Antipaladin codes for Gorum, Calistria [these two mean CE antipaladins can end up in their deities' realm in Elysium in the afterlife...), Urgathoa, and Norgorber.

There was a lot of crying about this on the Paizo forums, with the devs really regretting publishing this and pushing back against this interpretations. I'll just note that it's a highly specific regional trait associated with a particular place in Not-Asia, so if your paladin isn't from that location where they have an alternative view of Asmodeus it's kind of moot.

You'd also need to have a Paladin code that's consistent with LG and what Asmodeus expects of his followers. Good luck. Since Paladins don't need to follow gods anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter if their code complies with a god who actually exist, or a real god as it actually exists, just that it complies with LG. Maybe this is what you meant by not subject to the one step rule, a Paladin with a comprehensible LG compliant code can follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster whether the FSM is CE or doesn't even exist, the alignment discrepancy is only a problem if the deity makes any real world demands of you (i.e. a pit fiend appears with orders for you) or when you reach Pharasma for judgment.

[Taelas]

The alignment system is useless. Games are best played with shades of grey not the black and white of good and evil.

On top of not being particularly helpful, this is also just plain wrong. For one thing, the alignment system doesn't actually prevent you from having shades of grey. Secondly, epic stories work well with black-and-white moralities: look at Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings for inspiration. Not all games are epic in scope, though, and shades of grey tend to work better in more nuanced games. But you can still use alignments in them just fine.

The main problem with alignment is not alignment itself, it's people disagreeing what they mean.

[Ssalarn]

It's funny that Paizo keeps publishing material that are instantly interpreted as allowing Paladins of Asmodeus, then spending months after backpedaling. In the Mother of Flies boom of the Council of Thieves AP, there's a two page spread that goes into great detail about how paladins of Asmodeus exist without breaking their code, and why Asmodeus would want and support them in the first place. There are published NPC paladins who venerate the order of the Godclaw, which includes Asmodeus. There's traits and feats in multiple supplements, including Distant Shores, that open the door even wider.

Ultimately, unless you're playing in PFS, it doesn't matter what James Jacobs says, it's up to your GM to decide whether paladins of Asmodeus exist in his game. The tools and reasoning to support either interpretation are readily available.

[Psyren]

The CRB doesn't mention anything concerning Paladins and deities, as the core assumption is, that Paladins need no connection to deities.
That part is in the Inner Sea World Guide and here, the one-step rule is also used for Paladins, for example, Abadar (LN) being a common choice for Paladins.
Gods of the Inner Sea even goes further, bringing new CoCs based on the different deities.

None of the sources you mentioned apply the one-step rule to Paladins that I've seen. Note that this actually removes a restriction from them that clerics, warpriests and inquisitors have to deal with.

The main restriction they have to deal with is their code and the Associates clause. Venerating a deity like Asmodeus is bound to run afoul of that sooner or later, but they aren't forbidden from taking such a path from the outset.

[Florian]

@Psyren:

It's the usual case of setting rules trumping core rules.
Take a look at what deities provide a Paladin CoC. They're all within the one-step rule. Also note how those change the whole "association" stuff, something that doesn't make sense when you go by the setting.

Basic examples would be published NPC Paladins following the Godclaw, serving as Hellknights or associating with Low Templars.

Heck, Asmodeus is even described to be basically on good terms with most other deities, from giving councel to Iomedae to having trysts with Shelyn.

Switching Asmodeus to be counted as an LN option thus makes him eligible for the one-step rule. His placement in the setting makes him a viable option for Paladins of a more unbending and remorseless bent to stick to.

Besides that, I can pretty much understand why Paizo is against having Paladins associated with Asmodeus and why the devs always backpeddle when they introduce this idea (again): Hellknights are already the Judge Dredd imperaonators. If you make asmodean Paladins a regular feature, there will be endless discussion about whether the paladin falls or not.

[Dusk Raven]

By using a variant of it. Or not using alignment system. The alignment system is useless. Games are best played with shades of grey not the black and white of good and evil.

I think the topic of this discussion assumes using the alignment system.


It's funny that Paizo keeps publishing material that are instantly interpreted as allowing Paladins of Asmodeus, then spending months after backpedaling.

Haha, really? Honestly, at this point, if I were Paizo, I'd just role with it and essentially state that Asmodeus is borderline neutral anyway. Then again, it seems like they're kinda doing that, from what I'm reading in here. I wouldn't know, because the Core Rulebook doesn't have squat about the deities and I don't know which books do. Although there is a wiki, come to think of it. Maybe I should browse it once I remember the URL. Or which wikia it is.

[Florian]

@Dusk Raven:

I wouldn't say borderline neutral, far from it. But unlike the older Greyhawk-based 3,5 version, Hell and Asmodeus have a bit different angle, as they showcase "Unyielding Law" more than just focusing on the evil part.

So, unlike previous settings or editions, there is no hidden cult of Asmodeus, but a full-fledged regular church.
For example, it's usual to count him among the gods of civilization, a position that's a bit more elevated than just being the lead archdevil of Hell, because of his close assoziation with laws, pacts and contracts. On the other hand, he is seen as showcasing the darker sides of civilization, with slavery and oppression.

Fluff on the inter-deities relationships is great on that account: Besides Abadar (the main god of civilization), no other deity really likes Asmodeus or is close to him, but they know they can absolutelly trust him and rely on that.
Seting-wise, it is a nice twist that there's an empire based ln the "Fall of Rome" backstory, that stopped said fall by commiting itself fully to Asmodeus and is, in a sense, one of the greatest forces of stability in the overall region.
There's a nice ambivalence to that, as your typical adventurers may as well clash with those forces as fight alongside them.

(Example: In Crimson Throne, they support a tyrannical gouvernment, in Kingmaker, it absolutelly makes sense to ally with them against chaos and lawlessness)