How much free will do you have if some random guy convinces you that your brother's going to cause the apocalypse unless you stab him right now?
Honestly, I do think that most enchantment spells should have an evil descriptor, because taking away someone's ability to make choices is one of the most evil things you can do.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
How is it changing your game?
I dunno, not acting to stop tyranny might be a gross violation on the part of Cayden's clerics.
Also, a chaotic cleric is submitting to Cayden's will, yes? That's what clerics do; submit themselves to a greater being for divine powers. By your definition of chaotic, there can be no chaotic clerics.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I dunno, all I've been hearing is that Paladins wouldn't be Paladins anymore, despite the fact that they'd still smite evil, lay on hands, and cast divine magic. And really, Paladins would still be LG. Opening up the Paladin to any good doesn't prevent a LG Paladin in any way, shape, or form.
So why not allow it? Individual DMs could restrict Paladins to LG in their home settings if they so desired, and people could play NG or CG Paladins at official events and such. Really, I don't see any downside for officially allowing Paladins be any good alignment.
I just don't understand how Paladins of any good alignment destroys Pathfinder fluff forever. I really don't. All I keep hearing is "PALADINS WON'T BE PALADINS ANYMORE EVERYTHING IS RUINED SHARK JUMP AAAA"
D&D survived Druids being allowed to be any neutral alignment. It survived Evil Rangers. Why is Paladins of any good alignment the straw that breaks the camel's back? Why is it an idea so abhorrent that anyone who asks about it is automatically labeled a munchkin powergamer weeaboo? How does it destroy the "Holy Crusader for Good" concept that is central to the Paladin? Why would it make Paladins who are incorruptibly pure suddenly meaningless?
It looks like your basic argument is that it's too much work to say "I'm a Lawful Good Paladin."
Seriously. That's all you have to do. Just add two little words if Paladins are allowed to represent more character concepts.
The point of buying the Core Rulebook is for the core rules of how to play the game. The core should only provide fluff suggestions, not fluff straightjackets.
The LG restriction isn't in the Inner Sea Guide. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. Note that in the core rulebook, Clerics aren't restricted to worsjipping Gods, but in Golarion, they are. PF isn't restricted to Golarion. It can be used as the mechanical underpinnings for a multitude of fantasy settings. So why not make the core expansive, and then restrict rules for various campaign settings?
I'll reiterate. I'd be fine if the fluff said "Paladins are usually lawful good. In some campaigns, the DM may restrict the Paladin to be only lawful good." That would be okay.
But straightjacketing the paladin so that Paladins can't be wandering knight errants? So that Paladins cannot be flawed characters (since roleplaying those flaws will usually get your powers revoked)? That just seems mean-spirited.
I just don't see why maybe lightening some of those restrictions completely destroys the fluff of the setting forever.
I'm not saying Wizards don't learn spells. I'm not saying that Gods don't exist. I'm just saying that maybe Paladins being champions of all kinds of good doesn't render Golarion invalid in any way, shape, or form.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I don't see why providing more expansive fluff to the Paladin suddenly makes Pathfinder a fluffless wasteland inhabited only by munchkins and trolls.
Why is it all or nothing that the Paladin has to be lawful good or Pathfinder is ruined forever?
Thing is, the Paladin concept is extremely restrictive. Even clerics, who have been held as an example of only being allowed to worship Gods, can actually worship elemental forces or demon lords if they so desire. Fighters can be self-trained farmboys or veteran soldiers. Rogues don't actually have to be thieves if they don't want to.
Why is there just one class that has all this unnecessary fluff? Why is "I am a Paladin?" more important then "I am a Fighter," which doesn't say anything about a character's motivations or personality?
Either all classes have to be restricted to one concept, or all of them should support multiple concepts. I just don't see why allowing Paladins to be knights errant suddenly makes it so that "YOU MUST INCLUDE ROBOTS IN EVERY FANTASY SETTING EVER AAAA"
I just don't see why being inclusive instead of exclusive is a bad thing. Why is every super holy paladin suddenly rendered invalid by the inclusion of more freedom-oriented paladins?
If someone wants to use Cleric mechanics to play a character that was, say, the child of a God (so all of their divine spells are from inborn power, and not worshipping a god or concept), then I say more power to them! Or they could use cleric mechanics to play an actual aspect of a God that was given human form for whatever reason. Heck, if the player wanted to flavor their spells as various fire-and-forget magitech devices, why not?
Maybe all of those characters aren't appropriate for all campaigns, but a Lawful Good incorruptible pure pureness character might not be appropriate for all campaigns. Should Paladin mechanics be off limits then, even if they could be used to support a character that would fit into a different campaign?
I think that classes should be able to support a broad range of characters. Paladins should be able to support a John Henry type character as much as a Lancelot type character.
The problem is, you're limiting people who want to use the paladin mechanics to play something other than a "nigh-unattainable honorable, trustworthy, paragon of virtue."
Seriously, what is so terrible about the concept of a wandering knight, beholden to no one but himself and his god? About a slave who is chosen at an appointed hour to rally his fellow slaves and take the fight to the oppressive empire?
Paladin mechanics could be used to represent a whole range of characters. Why is that a bad idea?
You're not bolding the most important word of that passage, so I did.
Implies means that the following words are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of those behaviors, and you could still be chaotic.
I'd say that Clerics getting Divine Intervention whenever they feel like it trumps all that. That and their ability to summon angels to solve all their problems. ;P
I'm just saying that the Paladin's fluff, which you say is so central to the class, makes no sense as long as the Cleric also isn't restricted to the Paladin's code as well.
With a less strict code, why is a Cleric given greater power than a Paladin?
But Paladins have to follow two Codes of Conduct, that of their God, and the standard Paladin Code as well. And for that, they don't gain the ability to raise the dead, perform miracles, or call on their God's most favored angels to fight for them. They're literally restricting themselves to be less powerful that the followers that don't have their extra restrictions.
Your main argument for the Paladin's code is that without it, the Paladin wouldn't make sense as a character archetype. I say that with it, the Paladin doesn't make sense, literally because Clerics have both more power and more freedom than a Paladin of the same God does.
Meh, leaving the fighter thing aside, I'm going to repeat that the Paladin's fluff makes no sense, versimilitude-wise, because they're held to strict standards by the Gods who grant world-altering magic to Clerics who don't have these standards.
I mean, why would you take strict vows to have less strength than someone else? That doesn't make any sense at all.
I suppose then, you'd be fine if all Fighters are required to be soldiers, then? As you've mentioned, classes are based around strict archetypes. If they lack flavor, then they shouldn't be in the game. Fighters possess no intrinsic flavor like the Paladin, Cleric, or Wizard do, which makes them "not interesting to read."
Basically, the argument I'm hearing from you is "you cannot color outside the lines, because it confuses people." This argument, however, doesn't apply to more generic classes like fighters or rogues. Said classes can be used to create a multitude of character types, which is apparently a failing of the system.
If restrictions are what make classes great, then would you agree that fighters and rogues are the worst classes in Pathfinder, then?
I'd also like to point out again that Gods hold their Paladins to a higher standard than the guys they give their truly world-shattering magic to. A cleric can use a miracle for a morally-dubious purpose, as long as they're serving their deity, while Paladins can't cast miracles and are not allowed to do any straying from the "one true path," even if that path is the stupidest way to solve a problem.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Since a Paladin's Code is essentially the Cleric's Code + multiple other restrictions, shouldn't the Paladin be proportionately stronger than a Cleric as well? I mean, Lawful Good deities give their strongest magical powers (restoring the dead and miracles, for example) to followers who they hold to a lower standard than their Paladins.
That really doesn't make any sense at all.
Okay, so I was looking through the Advanced Race Guide, when I realized just how dumb-sounding catfolk and ratfolk sound. I mean, sure, they look like cats and rats, but they're really the only races who seem singled out by that designation in their name.
After all, gnolls aren't called hyenafolk. There aren't ravenfolk, there are tengus. It's vanaris, not monkeyfolk. And gods help you if you call a minotaur a bullfolk.
So, why don't we have cooler names for catfolk and ratfolk, if every other animal-themed race gets a better name?
So, I was looking over the Aldori Sword Lord online guide the other day, when something struck me. Combat Expertise as it currently exists really serves no purpose other than a feat tax for certain combat maneuver builds.
Reason being that we have Fighting Defensively, which anyone can do without spending a feat. Both Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively offer the same benefit; trading accuracy for AC for a combat round.
Why does Combat Expertise exist then, if you can get basically the same bonus without having to spend a feat on it?
What if the Raven was a genie that was cursed into its current, bird-like form? Part of the sorcerer's motivation could have been trying to free said genie's true powers, having been promised a wish if he manages to do so.
At any rate, I would have let him reskin the bird either way. Let him get invested in his character, and all that. Certainly doesn't sound like he wanted any mechanical advantage there.
So crafting magic items gives you Alzheimer's disease, then?
"I have finally created the Staff of Fire that we need to defeat the Troll-King of Mt. Terrible once and for all!
Also, I seem to have forgotten how to cast fireball. And lightning bolt. And haste.
Also I seem to be frailer now. And I've forgotten that knowledge about nature that I was learning specifically so that I could learn about creatures that live on mountains. And that ability I learned to use my weapons with finesse, in case my foes closed with me. I don't know how to do that either, despite the fact that I was working on how do that for several weeks now.
Honestly, I think something that might be cool would be a debuffing Magus who focuses more on debilitating spells.
You can get Touch of Fatigue by level 3 with Spell Blending, which makes one of your attacks every round have a chance to fatigue foes. Prepping Chill Touch also allows you to basically make debuffing attacks for an entire combat with one cast, at higher levels.