Talk:Zealous Smite (3.5e Feat)

Not Sure if Like

I'm not sure I understand this feat. Sure, in the real world you have different sects of the same religion that ostensibly worship the same deity, but because of doctrinal/historical disagreements they hate each other and denounce each other as heretics. But in D&D you have the ability to actually commune with your deity personally (to a greater or lesser degree depending on the campaign setting, but the core rules and spells are designed with that level of direct interaction as a possibility). In your example, Pelor is granting both the Paladin and the Cleric of Pelor divine magic, making accusations of heresy a difficult position to take when you can solve a disagreement by quite literally appealing to "word of god."

It would seem a better fit into the existing D&D religious mechanic if the feat allowed you to smite any creature who does not worship your deity regardless of alignment, or has an alignment different than that of your deity. IMO, if a paladin can smite another worshiper of his own deity, how is that not considered an evil act, causing him to lose his paladin class features? And if, as this feat would indicate, such an act would NOT be considered evil, that would introduce a level of moral relativism to the game that would render the entire alignment system meaningless. Spanambula (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of ways for clerics of the same god in D&D to fight, as not all gods are the "walk among mortals and pass out books" sort. Many are way too busy to be doing anything but the occasional visiting to their top holy guy, so there's plenty of room for misinterpretation. Communing certainly helps, but not all clerics can access that. And depending on the world's views of divination, infomation gained that way may be suspect. All that, however, is mostly irrelevant because when it comes to those who do the smiting, paladins, they don't need a god. In fact, while clerics are usually shown as getting power from a deity a paladin's fluff is getting power from their ideals, from the belief in law and good. The fact this happens to line up with your Pelors and Bahamuts are mostly coincidental. That is to say a paladin falls when they no longer uphold law and good, not when they no longer follow the rule about not eating pork chops from god X's book of things.

It's also a bit self protecting. You see, your LG paladin CAN smite the LG Pope Snugglebunnies. Typically there would be no reason for this, but say there was some conflict, some misunderstanding, and they fight. If Pope Snugglebunnies truly is the orphan saving saint he comes off as, said paladin can smite him. He may have trouble continuing to smite him though, because depending on circumstances that may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes them fall. And probably not before. After all, they can't fall until after the crime's been committed. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with D&D is that it has a very black-and-white moralistic framework and forces everyone into it, and doesn't really allow for much nuance, especially as it pertains to religious extremism. It's one of my pet peeves about the game system, and I do my best to ignore it until I absolutely have to.

That having been said, my main issue with this feat is that if a paladin can basically say "Smiting an innocent priest of a good-aligned god (who my good-aligned god/ideals clash with) would by RAW be an evil act for anyone else, but it's okay for me," then this renders the good/evil alignment axis pointless. The whole point of Smite Evil is that it you don't have a moral quandary about whether or not your smite was justified, because the creature you smote was EVIL, with no possibility of being innocent. The paladin may not need a god, but it's because the system is predicated upon moral absolutism, so righteousness is understood to be the same regardless of what the specifics of worship are between deities. Saying Lawful Good can willfully smite other Lawful Good because of their ideals of law and good is not only nonsensical but calls into question the whole idea of Good in D&D. If the rules say that hurting an innocent is an evil act, but then you have this feat where you can apply your smite to an innocent good creature with no penalty as a lawful good paladin, then why bother having a good/evil axis in the first place?

I can kinda see Smite Good being changed so you can smite whatever, because if you can smite good you're usually evil, and hey, you're evil, so smite whoever. Same with Smite Law, because hey, you're zomg sooo chaotic lolz. Even if you changed Smite Evil and Smite Chaos to include the neutral axis, you at least have some precedence. But allowing good to smite good makes alignment even harder than it already is for a DM to adjudicate.

So for making things harder for the DM as far as dictating what constitutes evil in your game, and for clearly not fitting with the existing framework of the D&D alignment/morality mechanic, I cannot approve of this feat in it's current form. This would be better suited if it were expanded slightly and made into a variant rule for alignment in general. Spanambula (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This feat has absolutely nothing to do about alignment as a rule. It does NOT affect if your action is evil or not. It was never it ended goal or purpose. It just turn Smite Evil/Law/Chaos/Good into Smite All. If you are a paladin and smite an innocent priest, you would deal extra damage as per smite. Then you fall because you violated your code of conduct. This feat does not override any code of conduct, or any falling in the alignment system (if your lawful crusader become chaotic because he decide to act like an anarchist). I could bo down and say it Ur Smite and that your smite come from a power beyond alignment and all that, but it just be fluff and has absolutely no mechanical effects. --Leziad (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that clears that up, and now i feel stupid. Thank you for clarifying. (New personal rule, do not go on wiki tirades while sick and mentally addled by cold & flu drugs.) Spanambula (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)