Paladin Alignment

[Gnoll Bard]

Honestly, I don't think all of this talk about game mechanics is really necessary. Paladins, as written, have to obey a code of conduct, and that's a pretty fundamental element of the class. Adhering to a consistent code of conduct is a fundamentally Lawful thing to do. If a Chaotic Good character were to keep to such a code and never deviate from it, they would cease to be Chaotic and jump straight to Lawful. Because, you know, they're consistently acting extremely Lawful.

Antipaladins, on the other hand, don't make any sense to me, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[Kerrigan Soth]

Book of Exalted Deeds, Wizards of the Coast, p12 wrote:

Lawful good characters by no means have a monopoly on goodness. Though all paladins are lawful good, plenty of exalted characters of all character classes are chaotic good or neutral good, and they exemplify the ideals of good in the D&D universe no less than the paladin. There are differences between the goodness of a lawful good character and that of his chaotic good counterpart, just as there are marked differences between the archons and eladrins that embody those alignments in the celestial realms.

Quote:

Chaotic Good characters are strong-willed individualists who tolerate no oppression, even in the name of the common good.

They usually work alone or in loose bands, rather than as part of some organization or hierarchy. They have no confidence in the ability of laws and social mores to train people in good behavior. Indeed, they have seen all too often how people hide behind rules and laws as an excuse for evil or at least irresponsible acts. While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces—religion, philosophy, or community, for example—to encourage good behavior and punish evil. Chaotic good adventurers fight evil because it’s evil, not because it’s illegal.

In societies where evil practices are tolerated, chaotic good
characters are the most likely rebels, and they have few hesitations
about overthrowing the existing order if it means eliminating
those evils.

[zergtitan]

In my general opinion alignments don't mean codes of conduct and patterns that have to be followed, but are in fact personality directions. that the description given for each alignment should fit the general direction of how their character acts and reacts but does not define how a character acts entirely.

In the terms of loosening the alignment so people of other good alignments(for paladins) and bad alignments(for antipaladins) I think the guys at pathfinder should develop archetypes for the paladin(/antipaladin) that will allow such freedoms in alignment choice. just like did for the Agathonion-blooded Aasimar monk with the character trait in Blood of Angels, and the martial-arts master archetype in Ultimate Combat.

P.S. this is a call for Pathfinder RPG line to please produce Ultimate Faith and Ultimate Skills books.

[princeimrahil]

When my friends and I started playing DnD, we all wanted to have character theme music. A lot of my friends picked some classic rock or metal tunes, but I was playing a Paladin, and I instantly knew what my theme was.

Paladins are Superman. They represent the very highest ideals of heroism. Not only do they fight evil and protect the weak, but they help the community in smaller, humbler ways, too - they lay on hands to cure the sick. They donate their wealth to churches and orphanages. The ones with good climb scores probably even help get cats out of trees.

Other heroes may have different methods. Batman uses fear. Wolverine uses ruthlessness. But at the end of the day, Superman is still the icon, the mold to which the all ascribe, even if they can't quite achieve it. This doesn't mean they're not great heroes, of course, but when people see Superman, they always feel safe. When people see Batman, they tend to have a different reaction.

Paladins are, in effect, extremely powerful knights-errant (read: vigilantes) whose delegation of authority to themselves, combined with their incredible power, should make normal people tremendously afraid of them. They don't answer to worldly authority (since they can ignore evil laws and resist illegitimate authority), are capable of defeating nearly any opponent single-handedly, and have a strong habit of going straight after evil first, and asking questions later.

People should be TERRIFIED of Paladins, but they're not. Why? Because of the Paladin's code. Paladins always make the right choice - and not merely "a" right choice, but the right choice, the best possible choice, even if that choice seems kind of lame. Paladins are those annoying kids in school who always follow the rules perfectly. They're the guys who stay after church to talk to the priest/minister for a half hour (which makes you feel bad, but hey, you wanna get home to watch football!) They wear corny sweaters and participate in bake sales. They have a tendency to come across as an almost naive, saccharine kind of good.

But they have to be that way to be Paladins. To be invested with so much power and individual authority, Paladins have to be unquestionably good. When a fighter rolls into a troubled town on the frontier, people are apt to wonder: Is this guy going to help us out, or is he just going to mess the place up more? When a Paladin shows up, people smile - even cheer - because they know that, no matter what, he's going to put things right. When a Paladin gives his word, that's good enough for anybody.

Yeah, Paladins can come across as corny. So can Superman. But as Chris Sims puts it (slight paraphrasing here): "Superman is the one character who holds all life sacred and defends it, because that's the only way that the idea of someone having that much power is heroic and not absolutely terrifying."

I don't think that anyone is saying that there can't/shouldn't be champions of various gods given special, thematically appropriate powers (champions of Cayden Cailen have already been mentioned). What most people are saying is that the Paladin represents a specific heroic archetype (which I'm equating here with Superman), and that to turn that archetype into a cut-and-paste collection of powers that can be given to any alignment spoils that icon's special meaning.

By all means, let's have chosen warriors of specific deities (which, one should note, a Paladin isn't). Let's have champions of different faiths and alignments. But let's make them distinct from the Paladin, because the Paladin's idiosyncrasies - "warts and all" - are what define him as a hero.

Of course, all that said, do whatever you think is fun at your table. I'm just speaking in broad terms here.

[Degoon Squad]

As some people have said , define good.
I recently played with a Paladin that was Good by way of the Spanish Inquisition . He would not torture or kill prisoners himself nore let us, but he had no problem handing them over to the proper authorities to have their hands removed for theft, be burned at the stake for demon worship , be sold into slavery for their crimes. etc.
Are we going to define good by our enlighten (Some what) 21 century standards, or by twelfth century standards.

[princeimrahil]

See my previous post. "Paladin good" = "Superman good."

[Gnoll Bard]

zergtitan wrote:

In my general opinion alignments don't mean codes of conduct and patterns that have to be followed, but are in fact personality directions. that the description given for each alignment should fit the general direction of how their character acts and reacts but does not define how a character acts entirely.

In the terms of loosening the alignment so people of other good alignments(for paladins) and bad alignments(for antipaladins) I think the guys at pathfinder should develop archetypes for the paladin(/antipaladin) that will allow such freedoms in alignment choice. just like did for the Agathonion-blooded Aasimar monk with the character trait in Blood of Angels, and the martial-arts master archetype in Ultimate Combat.

P.S. this is a call for Pathfinder RPG line to please produce Ultimate Faith and Ultimate Skills books.

Actually, I completely agree with you. In fact, I think that the Chaotic alignments are defined, in part, by *not* having codes of conduct. Characters who are neutral with regard to Law and Chaos, on the other hand, may or may not try to adhere to a code of conduct most of the time, but in any case wouldn't be too upset about breaking said code if the situation merited it.

In fact, I think that back in the 2nd edition Player's Handbook, the example given of a Neutral Good character was a loyal vassal of a king who was nevertheless willing to disobey his leige's direct orders if he felt it was in the best interest of the kingdom.

[zergtitan]

Wizards of the coast has an alignment test in case you want you player to find out if the way they think is LG. I just did it and got LG as my alignment, go figure.

[johnlocke90]

Revan wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Revan wrote:

Show me one power a paladin has that would not fit thematically on a warrior empowered to visit holy wrath upon tyrants and villains by a Chaotic Good god.

You just rolled a natural 1 on getting the point. It's not about what's thematic, it's about what's balanced. Lawful good places a lot of strictures on a character, which balances the paladin's great powers. Chaotic good much less so, so they shouldn't get as great a spread of powers.

The Antipaladin exists. He sets a mechanical precedent for a Paladin with a less restrictive alignment and virtually identical powers. If a Chaotic Evil paladin can exist, then there is no rational reason a Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good person cannot exist.

Chaotic people can have strictures. Gorum is Chaotic Neutral, and most of his Clergy is Chaotic Neutral as a rule, and he actually imposes some fairly specific strictures on them--he's all about war, but he does not approve of killing prisoners or the the surrendered, attacking from behind, using 'cowardly' tools like poison, otherwise failing to face things head-on, and butchering non-combatants (though a disctinction is made between non-combatants and pacifists--those who can't defend themselves, versus those who won't). A Gorumite who does any of those risks losing his powers. Same as a CG paladin might risk his powers if, say, he didn't attempt to free slaves he came across. Or if his powers come from conviction instead of a god, then the code is self-imposed, which is perfectly in line with Chaotic Good.

And Antipaladins are unbalanced as a result imo. An antipaladin will crush a paladin simply because he gets to do things the Paladin can't.

The only balancing factor is that most societies hate chaotic evil and as a result I can't rely on others for help if I get into trouble. Paladins are organized. A Lawful evil paladin would have all the strengths of an antipaladin while still being able to organize.

[johnlocke90]

Fozbek wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Fozbek wrote:

Dabbler wrote:

Chaotic good much less so, so they shouldn't get as great a spread of powers.

Not so. Plain old lawful good isn't all that restrictive. Similarly with plain old chaotic good. Paladin-level LG is very restrictive, and it would be the same with paladin-level CG. Again, look at the antipaladin code. It's extremely restrictive--they basically are forced to screw over every single person they meet. They cannot cooperate with anyone in the long-term.

By definition, lawful means following a logical, codified set of rules for action. That's restrictive compared to a chaotic ethic, which is to basically do whatever you feel like doing. Hence by definition of law and chaos, the chaotic character has less restraints on them right at the outset.

As pointed out, a chaotic good character cannot by definition have a code of conduct beyond 'be good' because that in itself would be against the idea of chaos as freedom of choice. Therefore a chaotic good paladin cannot be held to a strict code like a lawful good paladin, and the code defines the paladin.

Tell that to the Antipaladin. They must follow their particular code of ethics, just as Paladins must. They must take every advantage whenever possible (so they have to lie to, cheat, and steal from everyone they possibly can). They must not commit any good act that does not serve an evil end (not a single act of charity or kind word to anyone, ever, unless it serves an evil purpose). They must put their own whims and desires above everyone else's at all times (no cooperation--it's the Antipaladin's way or the highway). They must punish anyone who is good or just.

That doesn't sound like they can do whatever they want to me. Honestly, it makes Antipaladins even more suicidal than Paladins are. At least paladins can cooperate with others and are allowed to compromise and otherwise use teamwork. Antipaladins are basically required to be...

Actually the antipaladin code explicitly says "provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals."

[Icyshadow]

Irulesmost wrote:

Also Paladins of Asmodeus.

Guide to the River Kingdoms, Paladin of Milani.

Yes, a Paladin of a Chaotic Good (emphasis on the Good) deity.

[Azure Shin]

This is just my 2 cents on this. I believe a Paladin should be any alignment that his/her deity is but lawful. Meaning you follow the laws of your religion, everything after that it how you want to play it. Someone posted something about Calistra (my favorite Deity but i'm told i have to stop picking her) If there is a character who is a Paladin of Calistra then they should follow the rules of the "church". Calistra isn't one for donating coins to the poor or helping an old lady across the street. If someone ran over the old lady over they might seek vengeance on the part of the old lady though. The term "Paladin" more or less means "Warrior Of God" well if that is what it means then shouldn't it be up to my god what alignment i am?

[Rob Godfrey]

Ion Raven wrote:

Maybe I'm just saying crazy talk, but wouldn't the Assassin be a better complete and total opposite the paladin? I mean as far as in the older editions (though I've never played, only heard stories).

Paladin doesn't use poison, but the Assassin does; Paladins are upfront and honest while Assassins are sneaky and lie; The Paladin is like the light while the Assassin is like the Shadow. Just saying...

The Anti-Paladin just seems like the crazy comically evil guy. I just have a hard time seeing a Paladin falling and doing a 180 and going on an insane and destructive path rather than becoming LE or CG.

I have a issue getting my head round why Anti-Paladins have to be chaotic evil, LE just made more sense, a tyrannical warrior of a cruel and despotic code, rather than a blood drenched loon.

Knights of Takhisis to me are a perfect example of what an Anti-Paladinic organisation would look like, disciplined, controlled, brutal and cruel..

But living in their lands for most people was as good if not a slightly better deal than living in the LG lands, yes the laws where draconian, but they where also codified, and the reputation of the Knights really cuts down on bandits and thieves.

To me Asmodeus is damn near the perfect God for APs.

Oh and LE can be as restrictive and hard to play as LG, especially with a code attached.

For people arguing balance: an arcanist crushes tha pal and ap, then creates his own demiplane and has a cup of tea...so arguing balance for martial classes is kinda pointless.

[Tryn]

A Paladin obeys a code of conduct no matter the circumstances.

The Code of Conduct:

Quote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

And that's what makes him lawful, nothing more, nothing less.

Lawful means you follow a code very strict, even if this means not to take the easy way to victory. (similar to the monk, who follow his monastry/teachers "code/teachings")

For me taking away the Paladins alignment restriction means, taking away a lot of the classes flavour.

P.S.: You can even play a bad-ass, bar-fighting, dirty Paladin, you only have not to use the above mentioned "tricks". ;)

[Taumas]

Paladins are Lawful/Good, and Anti-Paladins, being theyr opposite, are Chaotic/Evil; That said I think Archetypes can and should be created to uphold perfectly common concepts as the Holy Liberator and the Dark Paladine, because, I think the grind of the Holy Warriors, devoted to a cause, has a place for them.

[Lucy_Valentine]

I actually don't think paladins should exist as a class. And that's not because I dislike them - I've played one, enjoyed it, and I think it's hard to do. Lawful and good come into conflict a lot, and that makes them an interesting and at times frustrating exercise in being the better person. Always, always being the better person. And enemies take advantage of that - why wouldn't they? You have the option to kill a recurring villain? But then they surrender. D'oh. Someone is doing something really bad! But it's legal, and you have no authority to stop them. D'oh. And so on. Trying to always do the right thing, even when you're tired, even when you're angry, even when you're confused, even when the criminal in front of you detects as evil... it's hard!

But, as a point of principle, I don't think you should reward that difficulty with mechanical benefits. Because, if you do, that encourages people to play them for the mechanics - not for the sake of playing that sort of character. And that is exactly the motivation you don't want amongst paladin players, because it means they're going into it in completely the wrong mindset. The snacky powers become the focus of the class, rather than the interesting moral conflict.

So shove the mechanics. Play a paladin and use the order of the Blue Rose as your class mechanics. Or play a paladin and use the Warpriest. Or a cleric. Any of those works.

[Axelthegreat]

I recently built a paladin, and while they're lawful good, they're less lawful and less good than most. He's not exactly strict, though he is forceful about his ideals. He's not determined to make people lawful good, but instead make them not chaotic and not evil.

Even good people make bad calls, and get desperate. he'll rarely kill (blade of mercy FTW!) because death is permanent, and even antagonists have some good in them. It's just important to understand why people are acting as it is to understand how.

have not actually played this character yet, but I definitely like the concept.