Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct.


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really just a personal issue for you, Kelsey. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's now reached past my first hand to count on my fingers the number of 'paladin fix/is my paladin evil/paladin etc' threads you've had.

The most honest feedback I can give you, is that how you see a paladin, is not the same way everyone does. The same way the way I see a paladin is different too. I am of the personal opinion that removing good from paladin is just as valid, and making them lawful only, would resolve as many issues as your solution does.

The reason I'm not starting a thread to ask the devs to do it? Because I don't believe I speak for a majority of players who have these issues. Neither do you. There is a small vocal minority on these messageboards. The majority of players who have no issues with paladins don't come to post here about them. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HAVING FUN PLAYING THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

In summary, the proper fix for this sort of thing, if you have a problem with this, is a houserule. Asking the devs to change something (that they've stated they are happy with, and has existed through every iteration of this game so far) for everyone, is akin to saying 'well my way is best, do it my way.'

Newsflash, if that was true, you'd be the one running the show. :)

really, let it go. You don't like paladins as written. We get it. you heavily houserule them. we get it. You ask us if a lawful evil guy is actually CN or NG, we get it. At this point, theres just not a whole lot to be said on the subject.

This belongs in the houserules forums, its quite clear from devs previous statements they aren't about to remove this sort of thing from the game.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with law

Here's the CRB on lawfulness:

The rules wrote:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

...
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.
...
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
The rules even use the word "discipline", so you can't really say they're unrelated.
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

At this point, however, this is more your opinion that actual rules work. The Rules are tilted far more in favor of Honour and Justice and Discipline being associated with Law, than with any other alignment.

Which is, again, why Lawful Behavior is in the Paladin code. It is not that other alignments can't be Honorable or Disciplined, it's that they aren't honorable or disciplined ENOUGH.

I contest this with a raging fire. Just because law considers two things important doesn't mean a person of another alignment can't consider them to be of the utmost importance. After all, chaotic Barbarian tribes very often take matters of honor and justice extremely seriously, and anybody can be as disciplined as a Paladin is. Batman is, and he sure isn't lawful.


Kelsey, what is it about the paladin that you love so much that you want to change the alignment restrictions?

Seems to me that a lot of folks see the rigid aspect and code of honour as an attraction to the class not a detraction.

Take away the alignment restriction and you're left with a divine fighter, no?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Batman is, and he sure isn't lawful.

Nonsense, Batman is Lawful Neutral.

Thread over, folks. :)


There's room for considerable debate on the Batman front. An old 3.5 Supplement described Batman as an ideal archtype for a LG Rogue, actually.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I believe the Paladin class should NOT be changed.It is, however, a harder class for the individual to play and the group to interact with, as it can potentially lead to group conflict.

I think that it shouldn't be as hard to play or as open to group conflict.

Quote:
These issues should be discussed by the group members and the GM prior to starting play. Note that the Paladin's code indicates he should only be associating with non evil characters and that he should disassociate himself from those who consistently offend his moral code. There are far fewer potential problems when the alignments of the groupmembers are similar and there are no evil or chaotic members in the group.
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.

You say you want to play a Paladin but your idea of what a "Paladin" is what would really be a Cleric or Inquisitor.

If all you want is a NG "Paladin" then play Cleric or Inquisitor and role-play the way you want to, because clearly all you want from the "Paladin" is its name and abilities but nothing of what it is to be a Paladin.


Weables wrote:

This is really just a personal issue for you, Kelsey. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's now reached past my first hand to count on my fingers the number of 'paladin fix/is my paladin evil/paladin etc' threads you've had.

The most honest feedback I can give you, is that how you see a paladin, is not the same way everyone does. The same way the way I see a paladin is different too. I am of the personal opinion that removing good from paladin is just as valid, and making them lawful only, would resolve as many issues as your solution does.

The reason I'm not starting a thread to ask the devs to do it? Because I don't believe I speak for a majority of players who have these issues. Neither do you. There is a small vocal minority on these messageboards. The majority of players who have no issues with paladins don't come to post here about them. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HAVING FUN PLAYING THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

In summary, the proper fix for this sort of thing, if you have a problem with this, is a houserule. Asking the devs to change something (that they've stated they are happy with, and has existed through every iteration of this game so far) for everyone, is akin to saying 'well my way is best, do it my way.'

Newsflash, if that was true, you'd be the one running the show. :)

really, let it go. You don't like paladins as written. We get it. you heavily houserule them. we get it. You ask us if a lawful evil guy is actually CN or NG, we get it. At this point, theres just not a whole lot to be said on the subject.

This belongs in the houserules forums, its quite clear from devs previous statements they aren't about to remove this sort of thing from the game.

I disagree here. Just because something can be houreruled doesn't mean it's merits should never be debated. Let's keep personal digs out of this.


from what i've seen the deluge of paladin posts here are more often than not started by you.

if you want to and squeeze every character concept you have into the paladin class, then do it. house rules are your friend. its pretty clear that the game designers and plenty of other folk have no problem with (in fact, quite like) paladins just the way they are - myself included.

trying to convince everyone that their opinions are wrong and they should think like you, is about as effective as us trying to do the reverse to you. its time to let it go.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I believe the Paladin class should NOT be changed.It is, however, a harder class for the individual to play and the group to interact with, as it can potentially lead to group conflict.

I think that it shouldn't be as hard to play or as open to group conflict.

Quote:
These issues should be discussed by the group members and the GM prior to starting play. Note that the Paladin's code indicates he should only be associating with non evil characters and that he should disassociate himself from those who consistently offend his moral code. There are far fewer potential problems when the alignments of the groupmembers are similar and there are no evil or chaotic members in the group.
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.

You say you want to play a Paladin but your idea of what a "Paladin" is what would really be a Cleric or Inquisitor.

If all you want is a NG "Paladin" then play Cleric or Inquisitor and role-play the way you want to, because clearly all you want from the "Paladin" is its name and abilities but nothing of what it is to be a Paladin.

No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I believe the Paladin class should NOT be changed.It is, however, a harder class for the individual to play and the group to interact with, as it can potentially lead to group conflict.

I think that it shouldn't be as hard to play or as open to group conflict.

Quote:
These issues should be discussed by the group members and the GM prior to starting play. Note that the Paladin's code indicates he should only be associating with non evil characters and that he should disassociate himself from those who consistently offend his moral code. There are far fewer potential problems when the alignments of the groupmembers are similar and there are no evil or chaotic members in the group.
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.

You say you want to play a Paladin but your idea of what a "Paladin" is what would really be a Cleric or Inquisitor.

If all you want is a NG "Paladin" then play Cleric or Inquisitor and role-play the way you want to, because clearly all you want from the "Paladin" is its name and abilities but nothing of what it is to be a Paladin.

No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

So House-Rule it. What's the problem?


st00ji wrote:

from what i've seen the deluge of paladin posts here are more often than not started by you.

if you want to and squeeze every character concept you have into the paladin class, then do it. house rules are your friend. its pretty clear that the game designers and plenty of other folk have no problem with (in fact, quite like) paladins just the way they are - myself included.

trying to convince everyone that their opinions are wrong and they should think like you, is about as effective as us trying to do the reverse to you. its time to let it go.

I've started maybe three or four. There have been plenty that I had nothing to do with.

As for the rest, I am within my rights to point out that maybe something shouldn't be RAW anymore.


My point exactly Montana.


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.

The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.

What's wrong with those things being labeled as Lawful, if you have no issue with the things themselves?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Then it sounds like your problem includes not understanding the cleric or inquisitor. ;)


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I believe the Paladin class should NOT be changed.It is, however, a harder class for the individual to play and the group to interact with, as it can potentially lead to group conflict.

I think that it shouldn't be as hard to play or as open to group conflict.

Quote:
These issues should be discussed by the group members and the GM prior to starting play. Note that the Paladin's code indicates he should only be associating with non evil characters and that he should disassociate himself from those who consistently offend his moral code. There are far fewer potential problems when the alignments of the groupmembers are similar and there are no evil or chaotic members in the group.
So, I should either not get to play the character I want (a Paladin), or someone else should not get to play the character they want (a chaotic character)? I don't line that. I'd rather have an NG or CG Paladin that doesn't have much of a problem with the chaotic characters. Then we can all have fun instead of arguing over who is allowed to play what.

You say you want to play a Paladin but your idea of what a "Paladin" is what would really be a Cleric or Inquisitor.

If all you want is a NG "Paladin" then play Cleric or Inquisitor and role-play the way you want to, because clearly all you want from the "Paladin" is its name and abilities but nothing of what it is to be a Paladin.

No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.
So House-Rule it. What's the problem?

I can't just house rule me a non-LG Paladin and take it into any campaign I want, that's the problem. House rules only effect my own campaigns, in which I am not a player. I can house rule a non-LG Paladin, but I can't play with her.

Plus, I actually prefer my characters, regardless of class, to be LG. I've had a few NG characters, but not as many as I have LG characters. My problem is with how much trouble forcing LG causes, and how many people don't play the alignment well. It's irritating and shouldn't be RAW.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.

Then what do you think Law should be better at than Chaos? Or should neither be better than the other at anything?


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
not of a divine investigator or divine caster.
Then it sounds like your problem includes not understanding the cleric or inquisitor. ;)

I get them. I just don't want to play them. I love the Paladin's class features the best, not the Cleric's or Inquisitor's.


Keltoi wrote:

Kelsey, what is it about the paladin that you love so much that you want to change the alignment restrictions?

Seems to me that a lot of folks see the rigid aspect and code of honour as an attraction to the class not a detraction.

Take away the alignment restriction and you're left with a divine fighter, no?

What do I love about the Paladin? Excellent class features and status as a divine warrior.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

Are we talking about "kill, castrate, burn" LG characters? :)


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.
What's wrong with those things being labeled as Lawful, if you have no issue with the things themselves?

If you label it solely lawful, I can't have a chaotic or neutral character that considers it highly important. That's my problem. Discipline and devotion may be lawful, and that doesn't bug me, but I contest being told a neutral good or chaotic good character couldn't also consider them highly important.


Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.
Then what do you think Law should be better at than Chaos? Or should neither be better than the other at anything?

Neither should be better than the other at anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.


Gorbacz wrote:
Are we talking about "kill, castrate, burn" LG characters? :)

To a degree, yes. I'm not very proud of that particular Paladin.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.

Clerics don't have all the warrior abilities Paladins have. You know what? I DO want the Paladin abilities without the existing code of conduct. There isn't anything wrong with that. I shouldn't have to play an inherently lawful character to have the class features so long as I am inherently good.

As for house ruling, that only works when I am in charge. I'm not good at being in charge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.

Pretty much it. Player enjoys specific powerful character class. Player can't play lawful if their life depends on it. Player requests lawful requirement be removed.

Hey, I can't play lawful to save my life either. I'm capricious by nature. That's not a problem is. Pretending this is anything other than what it is? more of an issue


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.
What's wrong with those things being labeled as Lawful, if you have no issue with the things themselves?
If you label it solely lawful, I can't have a chaotic or neutral character that considers it highly important. That's my problem. Discipline and devotion may be lawful, and that doesn't bug me, but I contest being told a neutral good or chaotic good character couldn't also consider them highly important.

Note - I did not say "Consider them important" I said "Not good ENOUGH."

Would you expect a Lawful character to be the best at shirking rules and disregarding authority? No, those are strengths of Chaos. Those strengths come with drawbacks, namely being not as disciplined as a Lawful character, who is likewise not the best at bucking rules and traditions.

I have no, I repeat, NO problem with a Chaotic Character or a Neutral character being honorable and disciplined... I DO have a problem with them being JUST AS GOOD at a Lawful creed as a Lawful person.

I would have an equal issue with a Lawful character being undisciplined and wild.


Weables wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.

Pretty much it. Player enjoys specific powerful character class. Player can't play lawful if their life depends on it. Player requests lawful requirement be removed.

Hey, I can't play lawful to save my life either. I'm capricious by nature. That's not a problem is. Pretending this is anything other than what it is? more of an issue

Actually, I play lawful more than I play neutral, and I don't do chaotic. I don't have a problem being lawful. My problem is that I don't think that mandating law in the RAW is a good idea. It causes problems, it doesn't make sense in the context of the universe, and it stifles the ability to play who you want to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm highly self-disciplined. I also have very little respect for traditional authority. What alignment am I? Or do I not exist?
... or is the D&D alignment system just not really useful for modeling realistic people, as opposed to 2-D fantasy archetypes?


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.

Clerics don't have all the warrior abilities Paladins have. You know what? I DO want the Paladin abilities without the existing code of conduct. There isn't anything wrong with that. I shouldn't have to play an inherently lawful character to have the class features so long as I am inherently good.

As for house ruling, that only works when I am in charge. I'm not good at being in charge.

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Just because lawful characters are usually disciplined doesn't mean that devotion and discipline are lawful. That's like saying that honor is a lawful attribute just because law tends to put emphasis on honor. Neutral and chaotic characters can easily be highly disciplined and devoted (or honorable, for that matter).

What's wrong with discipline and honor being Lawful attributes? It sounds as though you (like so many before you) think that to associate a desirable quality more with Law than Chaos will somehow condemn Chaos as bad.

There are lots of desirable personality attributes out there. Some are lawful, while others are chaotic. Both alignments have a lot to offer, but they have different things to offer.

Chaos has its shortcomings:

PRD wrote:
On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.
But you know what? That's okay. You don't need to steal Law's strengths in order for Chaos to be worthwhile. (I see people try to do the opposite too.) You don't need to homogenize them.
The problem isn't chaos stealing law's strength, it's saying that X can only be a lawful attribute, and non-awful characters can't do it well.
What's wrong with those things being labeled as Lawful, if you have no issue with the things themselves?
If you label it solely lawful, I can't have a chaotic or neutral character that considers it highly important. That's my problem. Discipline and devotion may be lawful, and that doesn't bug me, but I contest being told a neutral good or chaotic good character couldn't also consider them highly important.

Note - I did not say "Consider them important" I said "Not good ENOUGH."

Would you expect a Lawful character to be the best at shirking rules and disregarding authority? No, those are...

What's wrong with an undisciplined lawful character who never breaks the law? What's wrong with a chaotic tribal Ranger with a mountain of devotion to a deity and more self control than many monks who doesn't see the need for law? I don't see a problem.

What I do see a problem with is requiring that neutral or chaotic characters be less devoted and disciplined than lawful characters. Devotion and discipline have nothing to do with attitudes toward established authority figures.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.

Divine Warrior in service of a deity, sounds awfully like Cleric. If base cleric doesn't do it for you try crusader archetype.

Otherwise, its just like i said all you want from Paladin is the abilities, without following the code of conduct.

That's akin to me saying; "I sure do like Wizards but that damn arcane spell failure is such a bust, i better post threads about how wizards should wear armor like a cleric."

So just house-rule it and leave it be.

Clerics don't have all the warrior abilities Paladins have. You know what? I DO want the Paladin abilities without the existing code of conduct. There isn't anything wrong with that. I shouldn't have to play an inherently lawful character to have the class features so long as I am inherently good.

As for house ruling, that only works when I am in charge. I'm not good at being in charge.

Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

It's a bad mechanic because it's too rigid and difficult for a lot of players, and classes shouldn't be that hard to play.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm highly self-disciplined. I also have little respect for traditional authority. What alignment am I? Or do I not exist?

My point exactly.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I see law as order and chaos as entropy, surely i am influenced by Moorkok but by seeing them this way i rarely have problems telling one from another.
I also think that the problems with paladins come from people who have problems playing a paladin, surely in my group we don't all see the paladins the same, for example i see them more as holy warriors and another person sees them as goody doers, but we almost* never have problems problems with paladins and that's because we know what the other thinks and when we play in his game we accomodate.

rise of the runelords spoiler:

For example during the first book of rotrl in the goblin stronghold the players might (the book says that the DM might want to put them there) encounter a bunch of goblin babies, sure if i had a paladin of torag from Sandpoint, a paladin with oath of vengance or a paladin of Erastil from Sandpoint and would not chose to slay the goblin babies i would have him fall, any other paladin except paladins of shelyn (i would have a problem with a paladin of shely killing the babies) i would be ok either way.
When the party encountered the goblin babies they didn't have a paladin and the rest of the party decided to left there (to die of starvation), you know what happened? We keep playing.

*we only have some paladin problems when one particular player plays paladins but then again we have problems with whatever this player plays, whether it's a paladin, a cleric, an oracle, a magus or whatever

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

Funny how we're gone from "there are many people who want this change" to a classic pile-on-the-OP in less than 100 posts.

Forum meta never ceases to amaze me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.

Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
As is, the Paladin is the most disruptive class in Pathfinder, and I blame the part of the code of conduct that mandates lawful behavior.

Paladins are not the most disruptive class in pathfinder. No such thing exists. The most disruptive issues in D&D and pathfinder are the players who only care about getting the loot they want and doing anything they want with no RP repucussions.

If the Paladin is disruptive in yoiur game then change it. But it has been a staple of the game since it's founding. Just because the people you play with have no concept of how to play a virtuous, honorable knight like character who is willing to die to make sure that the innocent and weak are protected from evil does not mean there is any problem with the class that is made to exemplify that concept in the game world.

Seriously if the paladin class is cramping your style of slaughter, main, loot and pillage then don't have them in your games.

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
My problem is with how much trouble forcing LG causes, and how many people don't play the alignment well.

And here we get to the heart. There is no problem with the class. It is a problem with the players. A lot of players characters are greedy amoral jerks who will and do rationalize ANY action that allows them to get and do whate they want in game. Paladins are bad mixes for those groups. The class does not need to be changed. It IS what it is supposed to be.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm highly self-disciplined. I also have very little respect for traditional authority. What alignment am I? Or do I not exist?

... or is the D&D alignment system just not really useful for modeling realistic people, as opposed to 2-D fantasy archetypes?

Trying to apply an alignment designed for a fantasy setting where Good, and Evil, Law and Chaos are measurable cosmic forces to the considerably more complicated real world is a trap you will not bait me into, sir.

D20 has never been particularly good at replicating the real world. Most of the Fantasy it has its roots in doesn't, either.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

*cough* spellbooks! *cough*

Yeah, it's a hardwire rigid class, but it's one such class out of dozens. And there are folks who enjoy just that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.


Gilfalas wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
As is, the Paladin is the most disruptive class in Pathfinder, and I blame the part of the code of conduct that mandates lawful behavior.

Paladins are not the most disruptive class in pathfinder. No such thing exists. The most disruptive issues in D&D and pathfinder are the players who only care about getting the loot they want and doing anything they want with no RP repucussions.

If the Paladin is disruptive in yoiur game then change it. But it has been a staple of the game since it's founding. Just because the people you play with have no concept of how to play a virtuous, honorable knight like character who is willing to die to make sure that the innocent and weak are protected from evil does not mean there is any problem with the class that is made to exemplify that concept in the game world.

Seriously if the paladin class is cramping your style of slaughter, main, loot and pillage then don't have them in your games.

Actually, lawful good is my favorite alignment in the game, and I don't do characters that aren't lawful good or neutral good. Slaughter, maim, loot, and pillage isn't my style. I just don't think that you need to be lawful to be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, and I feel that the lawful requirement causes to much lawful stupid, too much "gonna annoy the rest of the party", and too much "gotta punish the Paladin for being irritating", and I want to see it as an any good alignment class.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

I suspect, that the issue is more that the paladin is one of the most powerful classes in the game. There is (or may be) a view (not one I share, mind) that it being restricted to a LG alignment accordingly crowns that alignment with the "Most Noble and Good" award. If someone doesn't view LG as deserving that place (whether true or perceived) it rankles.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.

Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.


Gorbacz wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.

*cough* spellbooks! *cough*

Yeah, it's a hardwire rigid class, but it's one such class out of dozens. And there are folks who enjoy just that.

The problem is that you can be hardwire rigid without the code of conduct requiring it. You can be hardwire rigid and be a Fighter, even.


I do not think that it has anything to do with the way that the class is designed and written about in the Core book. It has to do with the way people play or do not play the class. How is that the fault of the class or the book?


Heck,

To be a virtuous, honorable knight willing to die in the protection of the weak, you don't have to be lawful. You also you don't have to be a Paladin.

Any class can do that. a knightship is a title, any fighter/cleric/wizard/monkey can be granted it


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.
Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.

Then like i said either house-rule it or suck it up and play a cleric or inquisitor.


TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Them tell me this how is your argument for taking away the Lawful from Paladin valid at all, when all it boils down to is you want X class feature and don't like how the class is made, so its a bad mechanic.
Like I said above, I personally find it to be poor game design to mix and match the cruch and the fluff so indelibly. It's like writing "all wizards are required to wear blue robes and tall, pointy hats with stars embroidered on them!" into the rulebook.
I get what your saying. But its not like people don't have other options for a divine warrior if they don't like the Paladin fluff.
I suspect, that the issue is more that the paladin is one of the most powerful classes in the game. There is (or may be) a view (not one I share, mind) that it being restricted to a LG alignment accordingly crowns that alignment with the "Most Noble and Good" award. If someone doesn't view LG as deserving that place (whether true or perceived) it rankles.

You got me. LG is my favorite alignment, but I don't think it deserves a place as "most noble and good". I think all good alignments deserve equal places as paragons of virtue, and if I was forced to choose only one as "most noble and good" it'd be NG, not LG, do to NG's neutrality on anything not involving good.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Then what do you think Law should be better at than Chaos? Or should neither be better than the other at anything?
Neither should be better than the other at anything.

That's what I thought. In that case, your gripe is with the entire concept of alignment, not with Paladins. You just notice the issue with Paladins because they have the most specific interaction with alignment.

The whole point of "Law vs Chaos" is that Law is better at some things while Chaos is better at others. Neither is better overall, they just have differing strengths and weaknesses (and the CRB spells this out explicitly).

If you don't like the idea of one alignment being better at X than another, that's fine. It's just not about the paladin. :)

51 to 100 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.