| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want the "real" inspiration for the D&D Paladin? Go back and read Sir Thomas Malory... pay close attention to Galahad and Percival (for Paladins who never fell) and Lancelot (for a Paladin who fell from grace but did not turn to evil after falling)-- there's the root inspiration for the class, and to most people, Galahad, Percival, et al. really do look like LAWFUL Good in game terms.
Also go back and read Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, which has what would become the paladin's signature abilities and immunities on display front and center (and is also the source for D&D's regenerating trolls, among a lot of other things). The D&D paladin is like the Chanson de Roland and Morte d'Arthur as seen through Anderson.
At one point, Sir Holger touches his girlfriend's boob and has impure thoughts -- and all the sudden loses his immunity to compulsion effects, much to his dismay.
|
Interesting thread. Thank you all for this morning's entertainment. I do have some input, though...
Let me start, right off the bat, by stating that I simply cannot get past the contradiction in the OP's statements. She doesn't even use alignment in her own games, but loves to play LG. She'd never allow non-good paladins, but chaotic-good is okay. She runs her own game, but plays in enough other games that it would be easier to change RAW than it is to convince a single DM of her PoV.
Doesn't jive, sorry. Please do expound on this matter a bit more if you feel misrepresented, but this is my understanding of what you've said. Maybe more than one person posts under your alias, but short of that, these view points are very hard to reconcile.
Also I take issue with your statement that the paladin is mechanically balanced against the other classes without the alignment restriction. If that were the case, why not simply pick another class? No, I suspect you want that particular package, because it really is pretty sweet. And honestly, the way paladins are normally played, it has to be. Otherwise it winds up being a lot of wasted space. If you have examples of other core classes without such restrictions that are mechanically on par with the paladin, please do lay them out. Absent such evidence, I'm afraid the 'alignment as balance' argument will most likely stand.
While I'm at it, I'd wouldn't be myself if I didn't throw a jab at the min-max crowd, too. On what level does 'Full BAB' really, actually matter in a roleplaying game? So long as your DM isn't a complete jerkwad, your character will get their chance to shine, no matter whether you're sitting at +3 or +6/+1. I've always loved characters for their own sake, and the mechanics are just details. But I digress...
My final bit of input would be a little guidance to the OP in how to make a request. See, your stated mission is to play the game the way you want it played. As suggested many times so far, houserules are your answer. Outside of organized play, you should have a good deal of success with this type of offer:
"I'd like to play a paladin of diety, who is non-LG. In exchange for the alignment restriction, I'm willing to give up power, or something else you might find appropriate. I'd also be willing to hammer out another specific code of conduct that deity would support."
Except, back to that conflict, this isn't what you actually want because RAW isn't actually changed, and you said you want to play LG. So I sit here at the end of my post wondering if this genuinely is simple trolling. You're arguing, against the masses instead of with whom it would actually matter (your DM), for something you yourself wouldn't ever use. How would you characterize such behavior?
If a class draws jerks to play it like moths to a flame that is a problem with jerky players not the class.
I can entertain the question of why a paladin must be Lawful and Good for flavor reasons. I keep them lawful good for traditional reasons because it has worked for me for so long. I would be opposed to changing their alignment just for the traditional reasons.
To suggest however that the paladin's alignment needs to be changed because jerks are drawn to it is a very poor reason. Like I said above, Jerky players are there and they will play jerks. To claim the alignment needs to be changed because of jerks is like saying we need to reduce graduation requirements because kids don't read as much.
I hold paladins to high standards and I have yet to find a jerk that cannot be stripped of paladinhood due to the way they portray paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how happy the jerks will be when they don't have to be Lawful anymore! D:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say nay! ... "Nay!"
Keep their alignment and code restrictions, otherwise they're not paladins anymore. If it was easy everybody would be one. It's a difficult class to play and maintain and those who do it truthfully to higher levels have earned a sense of accomplishment that other classes don't get.
It's nice to have such lofty goals and such heroes in an era where it's cool for everyone to play antiheroes.
Back in the day in the X-Men comics, when Wolverine was introduced to the group it was an interesting dynamic to see him be baddass as opposed to goody-two-shoes Cyclops, but as the anti-hero phenom grew, more "Wolvie" clones arouse not only in comics but in RPGs and all aspects of pop culture. Now we're saturated with anti-heroes and we forget what made them cool in the first place. It was to play off of real heroes like Cyclops, Superman, ...and paladins. A whole group full of "I'm more a more dark and moody anti-hero than you" is just boring.
I *still* think it's all about that "kill,burn,castrate" (further abbreviated as k-b-c) Paladin.
See, Kelsey, you consider that character to be within LG. You consider k-b-c behavior Lawful, RAW arguably doesn't, you want to play k-b-c Paladins so you ask for RAW to be changed as to that to be possible.
In two words: fat chance.
Except I don't consider that character LG, because the ended up having to atone. She wouldn't have had to atone if her actions were 100% correct.
So, from what I gather, and let me summarize here.
The OP has adamantly stated that she doesn't feel that one should be punished for wanting to the crunch of the paladin by having to adhere to the lawful alignment requirement. After all, she wants the class features, alignment is separate.
The OP has adamantly stated that neutral paladins are not ok, and removal of the good alignment requirement is not ok, and a player should have to be punished by submitting to those factors for playing the crunch of a paladin.
Have I about summed it up? If so, I think the hypocrisy levels just got a bit too high here for me.
I wouldn't have a problem with a
Post AsThe most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place. Questions? Check the FAQ.
How to format your textQuoted material here....This is bold and italics.
Go to Paizo Publishing.
Contact customer.service@paizo.com
- one
- two
This is and this is smaller.
This is for play-by-post threads.
Movie plot spoiler:This is a spoiler, such as revealing who really did frame Roger Rabbit.This is a dice expression.
neutral equivalent with equivalents of the crunch (kind of like a neutral anti-Paladin). I think that, while changing the class to any good is nice, changing it to any alignment pretty much invalidates all it's crunch. Remember that the Paladin crunch is designed with a good aligned holy warrior in mind, not neutrality. A neutral Paladin wouldn't work without changing a lot of crunch, while an NG or CG class would.Next time, please ask my why I don't support allowing neutral Paladins before calling me a hypocrite.
No, the paladin was designed as a lawful good holy warrior in mind. Once you start removing some of those barriers because you want the crunch without them, its entirely hypocritical not to remove them all.
That was my point, and it stands.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I say nay! ... "Nay!"
Keep their alignment and code restrictions, otherwise they're not paladins anymore. If it was easy everybody would be one. It's a difficult class to play and maintain and those who do it truthfully to higher levels have earned a sense of accomplishment that other classes don't get.
It's nice to have such lofty goals and such heroes in an era where it's cool for everyone to play antiheroes.
Back in the day in the X-Men comics, when Wolverine was introduced to the group it was an interesting dynamic to see him be baddass as opposed to goody-two-shoes Cyclops, but as the anti-hero phenom grew, more "Wolvie" clones arouse not only in comics but in RPGs and all aspects of pop culture. Now we're saturated with anti-heroes and we forget what made them cool in the first place. It was to play off of real heroes like Cyclops, Superman, ...and paladins. A whole group full of "I'm more a more dark and moody anti-hero than you" is just boring.
On problem. NG and CG isn't anti-heroic. They are just as good and have goals just as lofty as an LG character. It's LN, TN, and CN alignments that do anti-heroes.
If a class draws jerks to play it like moths to a flame that is a problem with jerky players not the class.
I can entertain the question of why a paladin must be Lawful and Good for flavor reasons. I keep them lawful good for traditional reasons because it has worked for me for so long. I would be opposed to changing their alignment just for the traditional reasons.
To suggest however that the paladin's alignment needs to be changed because jerks are drawn to it is a very poor reason. Like I said above, Jerky players are there and they will play jerks. To claim the alignment needs to be changed because of jerks is like saying we need to reduce graduation requirements because kids don't read as much.
I hold paladins to high standards and I have yet to find a jerk that cannot be stripped of paladinhood due to the way they portray paladins.
Okay, that's one reason down. The second, however, still stands.
|
. It's LN, TN, and CN alignments that do anti-heroes.
I totally disagree.
A LN character will act heroically if law, customs or a superior's orders demand it, as all of those come first before his/her morality. Judge Dredd will go for a long mile of heroism... if that's what law and order expect of him.
a NN character will act heroically if he or his vital assets are in danger.
A CN character will act heroically because it's Tuesday morning and he feels like it, and it's a great opportunity to remind everyone that this is the day they ALMOST caught Cpt. Jack Sparrow.
Jack Sparrow and Judge Dredd are anti-heroes.
I disagree, Judge Dredd is definitely an anti-hero, so he's okay. Jack Sparrow, on the other hand is... well, he's somewhere between plot-device, and prolonged random encounter, at the end of the day he's still a pirate, and pirates are jerks. He's not even a heroic jerk, he only saves others so he can use them later.
That said, I'd rather have a more well-defined concept of a paladin code, honor is a seriously debatable thing even in modern times, where we should have this nonsense down by now. Especially with multiple countries making a big deal about honor for thousands of years.
As is, the Paladin is the most disruptive class in Pathfinder...
First, understand I did not read through all 7 pages of responses, so I might be missing something.
We should start this discussion reviewing the requirement that you question, the fact that the Paladin must maintain a LG alignment.
"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. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion."
Now, you say the requirement is what's wrong here, while other's say its your players. If it's the requirement, then it should be focused on what's written in RAW, here, regarding the LG requirement you question.
What part of the above would FORCE or PUSH a player to be disruptive? Is her commitment to oppose evil just too grating for the NG Druid? Is the fact that she tells the truth (mind you it doesn't say she HAS to speak up when someone else in her party lies) just too much for the CG Rogue to bear? Does that fact that she's driven to help those in need and speak out against injustices lend itself to coming across as a complete jerk to the LN cleric of Abadar?
Like most things in life, people can certainly use these as reasons to act like a jerk, but it isn't really something that forces or pushes players to be jerky. A person who combines honor with compassion is someone that most people WANT to be around (Think real life here...you'd much rather want to be around someone like this than the CN Rogue who you probably cannot turst). Of coruse, any drama queen player can run with this to come across as a Judge of all other player's actions (which is NOT listed here...unless, of course, that character does something that is truly evil), which no one likes. But, I find if Paladins just focus on the honor and compassion, use the guidelines given and not add a bunch of old school rules to make it more complicates than it needs to be, it can be a very fun class and one that any party would love to have with them.
On a related note, check out Paizo's books about Faits of Puity. They have a couple of pages on various Paladin codes as they relate to various Good deities. It will really open most players eyes as to the many ways to play what is often considered a very rigid class. You might be surprised like I was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like LG Paladins.
If you don't want to be LG, don't play a Paladin.
If the Paladin is being 'disruptive', then it's not the game mechanics, it's a disconnect between the players at your table. Either Pallyman is being an asshat, or the other players can't get away with being Selfharm McGoth the N3c20m4nc3r and having a sook that CN is totally legit and not-evil and the Paladin is calling them out on their Gouda again.
So thats not mechanics, thats players.
Fix the players and the problem goes away like magic!
Shifty illustrates why paladins are a problem. They are the only class which by design force other players to conform to their restrictions to be able to function within the group. No other class in the book requires that other players at the table change their behavior for the benefit of your class.
Look at the example Shifty gives, trying to mock other players. He blames the problem on someone else in the party playing a necromancer who isn't even an Evil necromancer. Whereas the problem in this case IS THE PALADIN because the Paladin's code is what is causing this problem.
Look at every other class and its restrictions. No other class in the book requires their party to adhere to their desires like the Paladin does. Every other class that has restrictions are personal restrictions. This is akin to making it so that not only can Druids not wear metal armor, but they cannot adventure with people who wear metal armor either.
In this case, it is the Paladin who is the disruption. Any other party could have characters in it ranging from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, from Barbarians to Antipaladins, and not a single problem arises beyond their general differences in opinion. For example, the Order of the Stick party couldn't exist if Roy was a Paladin. Roy seems very Lawful Good, but he's a Fighter, not a Paladin. He tolerates Belkar's evil, and works towards changing it for the better, or at least pointing it in the direction of other evils. A Paladin is likely to be required to leave the party or kick Belkar out. The Paladin is the problem.
Even Anti-Paladins laugh at Paladins. An anti-paladin is given a free ticket to break their code anytime they see fit. One of the reasons Antipaladins should really be Chaotic Evil, with their code as a laughable mockery of the Paladin code. They are allowed to break their code as long as it suits their personal desires. They can go forth and be a hero, as long as it furthers their goals, reputation, or is otherwise selfishly motivated. An anti-paladin is a better party member than a true Paladin, because he can happily work alongside Lawful Good characters and the Chaotic Evil necromancer. He just might constantly try to one-up the Lawful Good guys to display his superior power, or nudge that Chaotic Neutral Necromancer from a free spirit into a terrorist; but as far as the game is concerned, he can be in most any group.
Thanks, Ashiel. This is what I've been trying to get at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the problem is bad roleplaying?
If the evil character cannot work around a paladin then perhaps he should be punted out of the group.
Belkar really is the perfect example a badly played chaotic evil pc.
Anything other than hey I'm right here and I'm evil massacring this orphan and her puppy the paladin can work around, except for evil clerics and antipaladins both of which glow like solar flares under detect evil. Generally when a campaign starts the group should talk beforehand and try to figure out if there are going to be any huge conflicts from the start.
So it comes back to bad role playing. The paladin class requires the party to at least try to be decent roleplayers IF there is an evil character in party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually played a paladin with a party member that was a necromancer and we agreed that as long as he didn't go out and murder innocents to make undead, we would have (in character) a grudgingly partnership. Everything was fine and dandy. I honestly think it's the player of a paladin's fault moreso than the class. Same goes with people that play Chaotic Neutral alignments or people playing Rogues that constantly steal from the party. Freeing up the paladin to be Neutral and Chaotic won't change bad roleplaying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Ashiel. This is what I've been trying to get at.
You're welcome Kelsey. Seems like a lot of folks have been giving you a hard time with this thread. Especially the guy who thinks you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater (the guy calling you a hypocrite).
He seems to have forgotten that almost every class has been changed. Look at Druids. Earlier in the thread one of the designers even noted that Druids had been changed from their earlier counterparts just because they wanted them to. It seems completely asinine to suggest that modifying one restriction on a class means trashing the entire class or all their restrictions.
For example, in 3E and 3.5, Barbarians were illiterate. One of their class restrictions was they didn't get the option to read unless they invested skill points or multiclassed. In Pathfinder, they changed that. They left everything else, and no one is going to suggest that the Barbarian isn't the Barbarian anymore. I don't see why that guy can't see this.
I actually had to remove alignments from my online games because of how people metagamed with them so much. Some players who try to guess the alignment of someone by watching how they acted, and sum them up in a few minutes. Others would respond to people based on what their alignments were, as opposed to what was going on. It got so annoying that I eventually stripped alignment from most PCs and most NPCs.
All characters and creatures were considered to be Neutral alignment. No matter how good or bad you are, unless you have a supernatural connection to good or evil, you register as Neutral. Amazingly, this simple change to make everyone Neutral caused everyone to start acting like people, and treating other people like people, because their alignment didn't matter anymore, only their character.
Meanwhile, classes such as Paladins and Clerics gained alignment subtypes, which caused them to be treated as those alignments (representing their connection to those forces), and came with the perk of allowing their attacks to overcome certain damage reductions (for example, a Neutral Good Paladin's attacks are treated as Good for the purposes of overcoming damage reductions).
But oh, you must wonder, "Did you say Neutral Good Paladin?"; to which I would respond "Yes, yes I did". You see, to further push good role-playing, Paladins in my online game choose alignments other than Neutral to champion. So a more traditional paladin champions Law and Good, and has the Law and Good subtypes. Some Paladins are more interested in Good rather than Law, and might just accept the Good subtype. Others might champion freedom, and thus have the Chaotic subtype. Some might champion evil, and have the evil subtype. Thus Paladins became the opposite of druids in terms of alignment.
Whereas druids require a Neutral alignment (Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Good, Neutral Evil), Paladins can't be true neutral. They have to champion something to be Paladins.
Depending on which version of Paladin you decide, it can affect your order, your codes, your abilities, and so forth. For example, a Paladin of Law would have Smite Chaos and spells like Protection from Chaos, and Sword of Order (identical to Holy Sword except instead of a +5 Holy weapon, you get a +5 Axiomatic weapon), etc. Whereas a Paladin of Law and Good would get both.
They can go forth and be a hero, as long as it furthers their goals, reputation, or is otherwise selfishly motivated. An anti-paladin is a better party member than a true Paladin, because he can happily work alongside Lawful Good characters and the Chaotic Evil necromancer.
I think you have Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral mixed up.
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal
if you find a Lawful good character to be disruptive
then i highly doubt having a chaotic Evil Character of any type in a mostly good group will be any better at all as.
The Paladin is not for everyone
If you can't actually accept what the Paladin class is, then quit complaining and move onto another class that can be selfish and impulsive
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shifty illustrates why paladins are a problem. They are the only class which by design force other players to conform to their restrictions to be able to function within the group. No other class in the book requires that other players at the table change their behavior for the benefit of your class.
Show me where it says that the Paladin has to force their views on other party members. The only think the Paladin has to speak out or has some compuctures against, is outright evil acts.
First of all, I don't know of too many campaiagns which encourage having evil characters in the party. However, if I was running one which does (Such as the upcoming Pirate AP), I would warn against having a paladin in the party (and, indeed, Paizo mentions that its the first AP where they specifically mention that a Paladin does not fit well).
But, in a party for CG, NG, LN, N, and CN, made up of people who generally look out for each other and work together for common good (Which is the vast majority of adventures out there), Paladins fit in fine.
Paladins fit in just fine even in mostly Neutral parties. Certainly a paladin's fevor to push justice may be at odds with the party that generally lacks any sort of conviction. He may become their voice of reason, or like another Paladin I see, he goes with what the group wants to do and doesn't speak much. There's NOTHING in the paladin LG requirement that states she MUST force others to be nice, follow the law, etc. Being LG doesn't mean you must force all others in your group to be LG or that you cannot work with N characters on a N cause. Of course you can! And you can do it without being a jerk and keep your LG alignment.
The paladin simply has a respect for authority, follows a code (either the local law, or one of the many, fun paladin codes out there), hates evil and cares for the innocent. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, says that they have to (or should) like like LS (Lawful Stupid) and force others to do the same.
As far as them getting along with Evil Characters in the party as you suggest (like order of the stick), reality is that, while some parties / groups may make concessions for evil people in the group, they generally don't LIKE it. In fact, if a LG/NG/etc runs with a CE/LE for a long time, I would argue under most circumstances they are moving towards a neutral alignment. Good characters (Who are selfless and have conviction enough to lay down their lives for others) generally do NOT get along with Evil characters (Those who are selfish enough to kill or harm others if it gets them what they want) in the long run. Sorry. That's why I, and many other DM's, don't even allow evil characters in a 'good campaign' or mostly good party. If everyone is playing their alignment properly, there's no way that can last for tooooo long without someone really compromising and eventually turning Neutral.
|
This has to be repeated: Paladins don't get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good. They are actually forbidden by their code of conduct from following the precepts of Evil nations. The Paladin shtick works equally well as a loner or a leader, and it is by definition distinctly disloyal. A Paladin must abandon compatriots.
While I disagree that changing the alignment restriction would fix bad roleplaying, I do find it to be a bit interesting to play a Neutral Good paladin, since that's how I tend to play anyways. Course, I just play "I follow the law so long as it is for the good of the people. When the law stops being good, it stops being law". I'd imagine that people should play a bit more like Superman or, even better, Captain America than Judge Dredd.
This has to be repeated: Paladins don't get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good. They are actually forbidden by their code of conduct from following the precepts of Evil nations. The Paladin shtick works equally well as a loner or a leader, and it is by definition distinctly disloyal. A Paladin must abandon compatriots.
What's that from?
So the problem is bad roleplaying?
If the evil character cannot work around a paladin then perhaps he should be punted out of the group.
Maybe the Paladin should be punted out of the group for being the only one with a problem. As I noted before, an Evil Necromancer can in fact be very heroic, if you see heroism as doing heroic things that save people, fight evil, and progress the goals of the party. The Evil Necromancer just might be doing it for entirely selfish reasons (maybe he likes the reputation which gives him more clout and freedom to do what he wants, perhaps he parties with the other heroes because it's a convenient way to find excellent corpses to animate, while getting paid or respected by the villagers you're saving instead of slaughtering, or maybe it's because the necromancer for all his evil is still a human being and doesn't like the bandits ravaging the countryside where he grew up).
In the scenario of the Paladin PC vs Evil PC in the same party, the Paladin is in the wrong. He or she is in the wrong because any PC is just as legitimate as the Paladin in their right to be within the group, and to contribute towards their goals. I commented as to why the Anti-Paladin is more of a team player for this very reason. Paladins refuse to associate with anyone who isn't Good or Neutral, except in specific circumstances. The problem here is the Paladin.
The onus is on the Paladin to conform to the group, not for the group to conform to the Paladin.
I'm all for removing Lawful from the Paladin and Chaotic from the Anti-Paladin. The appeal to me is they you have 4 class following on of the 4 alignments. Paladin for good, monk for lawful, barbarian for chaotic, and anti-paldin for evil. This just makes more sense to me and it's house rule I'm going implement.
Maybe the Paladin should be punted out of the group for being the only one with a problem. As I noted before, an Evil Necromancer can in fact be very heroic, if you see heroism as doing heroic things that save people, fight evil, and progress the goals of the party. The Evil Necromancer just might be doing it for entirely selfish reasons (maybe he likes the reputation which gives him more clout and freedom to do what he wants, perhaps he parties with the other heroes because it's a convenient way to find excellent corpses to animate, while getting paid or respected by the villagers you're saving instead of slaughtering, or maybe it's because the necromancer for all his evil is still a human being and doesn't like the bandits ravaging the countryside where he grew up).In the scenario of the Paladin PC vs Evil PC in the same party, the Paladin is in the wrong. He or she is in the wrong because any PC is just as legitimate as the Paladin in their right to be within the group, and to contribute towards their goals. I commented as to why the Anti-Paladin is more of a team player for this very reason. Paladins refuse to associate with anyone who isn't Good or Neutral, except in specific circumstances. The problem here is the Paladin.
The onus is on the Paladin to conform to the group, not for the group to conform to the Paladin.
I was stating that the player acting more foolishly should be the one punted out of the group, not necessarily the evil character. In the example I was using with belkar we have a character who is completely amoral enjoying only slaughter who is perfectly comfortable and open about betraying the entire team. This is typically bad roleplaying.
The same can be extended about the paladin. If you've got a paladin who is constantly determining the group's actions based off of his morality code, who is warning enemies in that the party has in an ambush so that the fight is fair, who is affecting the group in a negative manner then you've found your culprit.
Every member of the group is to conform to the group because the group is a team. The person that adversely affects the team is the one that either needs to work on their character or is the one that should have considered playing a character that they could handle better in the group.
I was referencing specifically the evil character in my earlier post because of belkar and because the onus of breaking the law is on the law breaker.
If my best friend is a cop and I enjoy robbing liquor stores, then I don't do it when I'm hanging out with my buddy. At the very least he'll complain. If I let him know I don't get to yell at him that it wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't a cop. The problem is that I let him know and it is now a problem that we both have to deal with.
The paladin can not conform, if it means abandoning his code or violating his ethos. The paladin must leave a party if it goes that way, or anyone in it practices such things and will not leave, and most likely would.
The player can re-roll a character that will fit in a party where a paladin won't fit.
Maybe the Paladin should be punted out of the group for being the only one with a problem. As I noted before, an Evil Necromancer can in fact be very heroic, if you see heroism as doing heroic things that save people, fight evil, and progress the goals of the party. The Evil Necromancer just might be doing it for entirely selfish reasons (maybe he likes the reputation which gives him more clout and freedom to do what he wants, perhaps he parties with the other heroes because it's a convenient way to find excellent corpses to animate, while getting paid or respected by the villagers you're saving instead of slaughtering, or maybe it's because the necromancer for all his evil is still a human being and doesn't like the bandits ravaging the countryside where he grew up).
You're misunderstanding evil.
Raw: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
If a guy likes to kill without qualms, he's evil. If he's doing it for sport or out of duty to some evil deity....Evil. If he's doing "heroic" things for "Selfish" reasons, guess what? Neutral. Know the alignments and understand what they are in RAW, and not what you might think they are. It's easy to equate "Selfish" to "Evil." In reality, to all extent, Most characters are "Selfish." The question is, in pursuit of what they want out of life, to they respect the lives and well being of the innocent to go out of their way to help (Good), Run over and kill people to get what they want, regardless of guilt or innocence (Evil) or they pursue what they want out of life with no serious commitment anyway to the notations above (Neutral).
Neutral would also include someone who's behaviours flip flop a lot for personal reasons. As it states in the book "Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters."
Once you understand this, then you understand that the only people the Paladin would, by his requirements, HAVE to speak out against are characters who, according to RAW, are evil as listed above...those who have no problem (or very little problem) harming or hurting the innocent to get what they want.
I think you have Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral mixed up.
Chaotic Neutral emphasizes freedom and individuality. Evil is generally being something of a bastard. While most Chaotic Evil characters are rampaging psychopaths, it is entirely possible to be a character that both Chaotic and Evil without being a rampaging psychopath.
For example, a character that hates authority, appreciates his own freedom, while also being evil is of course, Chaotic Evil. A Chaotic Evil character can function within society, doing what is expected of them as long as it is convenient and suites their purposes, doing what they can get away with, trusting only their closest companions, and being more interested in their own personal power than in the fate of little Timmy who fell down the well. Doesn't mean he won't save little Timmy. Maybe he has a weird soft spot for children. Even Nazis like kittens.
Show me where it says that the Paladin has to force their views on other party members. The only think the Paladin has to speak out or has some compuctures against, is outright evil acts.Shifty illustrates why paladins are a problem. They are the only class which by design force other players to conform to their restrictions to be able to function within the group. No other class in the book requires that other players at the table change their behavior for the benefit of your class.
By the Paladin's code, they must avoid working with evil characters unless they are doing so temporarily to overcome a greater evil. That works great when you're trying to bring down the evil emperor, but it falls apart with more mundane tasks, events where you aren't trying to fight a greater evil but are working on a more open-ended task, or doing a spiffy side quest such as trying to find that ancient sword in the dungeon. At which point the Paladin either has to take a hike, or force the other guy to take a hike. The onus is on the Paladin.
First of all, I don't know of too many campaiagns which encourage having evil characters in the party. However, if I was running one which does (Such as the upcoming Pirate AP), I would warn against having a paladin in the party (and, indeed, Paizo mentions that its the first AP where they specifically mention that a Paladin does not fit well).
I don't know of many campaigns (barring drow campaigns) that encourage having evil characters in the party, but the vast majority of the games I have played in since I started playing D&D about 12 years ago, have recognized the evil alignments as valid alignments for characters. Just as everyone says Paladin players don't have to be asshats, the same is true for Evil characters. The critical difference is that evil characters don't require the other party members to be "not good".
The critical difference is that evil characters don't require the other party members to be "not good".
True...but most G and N characters are GOING to have a problem with the E's disregard for human life and wellbeing. They are, at least, going to be disturbed. And, even if they are not, they are certainly going to watch their back, because they will be next. Their CLASS may not require them to do something in order to move forward, but their alignment (if it's G or, most of the time even the LN and TN) will change if they do not.
The reality is, you cannot have a character that stands for good like the Paladin hang out with the CE character as if they are buddy buds no more than you can a NG cleric of Sarenrae or the CG Robin Hood type. To do so, SOMEONE will change over time, because ONE of them will have to compromise their values in order to accomodate the other. You're right in that the Paladin is the only one who, if he does change to a Neutral alignment he loses his power...but the reality is the Cleric would lose favor with her deity, and the Robin Hood would lose favor with the people who support them. They would certainly be no less changed by such as an experience as the Paladin, though the ramificiation may be less immediate.
The paladin can not conform, if it means abandoning his code or violating his ethos. The paladin must leave a party if it goes that way, or anyone in it practices such things and will not leave, and most likely would.
The player can re-roll a character that will fit in a party where a paladin won't fit.
That is the result of bad roleplay. The paladin can conform to an instance. He can work around an evil character that gets caught once, unless they're playing belkar. The paladin cannot conform to a character that flaunts their evil.
I don't know what kind of universe the rest of you are playing in, but evil characters in mine are a minority so they try to lie low unless they've got a mob of evil henchmen. Since pcs rarely get lots of evil henchmen most of them try to keep the fact that they would kill their mothers for sixty cents on the quiet side. A character can play evil without singing about it. If he's not singing how does the paladin know?
As I noted before, an Evil Necromancer can in fact be very heroic, if you see heroism as doing heroic things that save people, fight evil, and progress the goals of the party.
if a "Evil" Necromancer is going around doing good then he/she isnt evil
Youre playing a neutral or dare I say good Necromancer
All depends on how you RP and probably spell selection
The critical difference is that evil characters don't require the other party members to be "not good".True...but most G and N characters are GOING to have a problem with the E's disregard for human life and wellbeing. They are, at least, going to be disturbed. And, even if they are not, they are certainly going to watch their back, because they will be next. Their CLASS may not require them to do something in order to move forward, but their alignment (if it's G or, most of the time even the LN and TN) will change if they do not.
The reality is, you cannot have a character that stands for good like the Paladin hang out with the CE character as if they are buddy buds no more than you can a NG cleric of Sarenrae or the CG Robin Hood type. To do so, SOMEONE will change over time, because ONE of them will have to compromise their values in order to accomodate the other. You're right in that the Paladin is the only one who, if he does change to a Neutral alignment he loses his power...but the reality is the Cleric would lose favor with her deity, and the Robin Hood would lose favor with the people who support them. They would certainly be no less changed by such as an experience as the Paladin, though the ramificiation may be less immediate.
That.
Most if not all of my good aligned characters would almost never work with someone evil and if they did they would sleep with one eye open. My most recent example was my NG ranger (who later became LG) for kingmaker who said no to the wizard when he suggested animating dead to help us and said that he wouldn't stand those vile things.
I was stating that the player acting more foolishly should be the one punted out of the group, not necessarily the evil character. In the example I was using with belkar we have a character who is completely amoral enjoying only slaughter who is perfectly comfortable and open about betraying the entire team. This is typically bad roleplaying.
The same can be extended about the paladin. If you've got a paladin who is constantly determining the group's actions based off of his morality code, who is warning enemies in that the party has in an ambush so that the fight is fair, who is affecting the group in a negative manner then you've found your culprit.
Every member of the group is to conform to the group because the group is a team. The person that adversely affects the team is the one that either needs to work on their character or is the one that should have considered playing a character that they could handle better in the group.
I was referencing specifically the evil character in my earlier post because of belkar and because the onus of breaking the law is on the law breaker.
If my best friend is a cop and I enjoy robbing liquor stores, then I don't do it when I'm hanging out with my buddy. At the very least he'll complain. If I let him know I don't get to yell at him that it wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't a cop. The problem is that I let him know and it is now a problem that we both have to deal with.
I agree. However, acting stupid isn't really a problem with any class. That actually is a problem with the player. If you got someone going around burning down orphanages for fun, yeah, he's being dumb. If you've got someone alerting the enemy to your party's ambush to save your honor, also stupid. The thing is, the Paladin is the only class that even when played Intelligently, creates a problem within the group merely because other members of the group aren't his alignment.
You're misunderstanding evil.
Raw: "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
If a guy likes to kill without qualms, he's evil. If he's doing it for sport or out of duty to some evil deity....Evil. If he's doing "heroic" things for "Selfish" reasons, guess what? Neutral. Know the alignments and understand what they are in RAW, and not what you might think they are. It's easy to equate "Selfish" to "Evil." In reality, to all extent, Most characters are "Selfish." The question is, in pursuit of what they want out of life, to they respect the lives and well being of the innocent to go out of their way to help (Good), Run over and kill people to get what they want, regardless of guilt or innocence (Evil) or they pursue what they want out of life with no serious commitment anyway to the notations above (Neutral).
Nah, still evil. Selfishness is evil. Selfishness is the opposite of Altruism which is good. The bad guy who has no compassion or remorse for his foes? Evil. The Emperor from Star Wars? Evil. You don't have to be a blood thirsty killer to be evil. It is entirely possible to seem like a good guy while being evil. Most adventurers hurt, oppress, or kill in general. The evil guy just might enjoy or at least not mind it as much as the next guy.
If you absolutely must kill or go out of your way to hurt and oppress others just for the sake of doing so, then there are some heinously evil neutral people in your view of the world.
Neutral would also include someone who's behaviours flip flop a lot for personal reasons. As it states in the book "Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters."
Once you understand this, then you understand that the only people the Paladin would, by his requirements, HAVE to speak out against are characters who, according to RAW, are evil as listed above...those who have no problem (or very little problem) harming or hurting the innocent to get what they want.
The evil rogue who adventures for money, slitting the throats of orcs because he can, and enjoying that ever so unmistakable feeling of the blade sliding through the skin and across the adam's apple as the orc gurgles his last dying breath in an instant. Ah, wonderful. The guy who lives in a mansion, sipping tea from a porcelain glass, who has made a name and a fortune for himself through heroic adventure, which he used to gain the following of the people, which got him into a position of power, after he sullied the reputations of his rivals, can also be evil. He hurts, oppresses, and perhaps evil kills, when it suits him. He doesn't go out of his way to do it, but if it is convenient, then he will consider it.
As I noted before, an Evil Necromancer can in fact be very heroic, if you see heroism as doing heroic things that save people, fight evil, and progress the goals of the party.if a "Evil" Necromancer is going around doing good then he/she isnt evil
Youre playing a neutral or dare I say good Necromancer
All depends on how you RP and probably spell selection
I'm a big believer in Neutral and Good necromancers (even the undead-raising kind) because alignment doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's entirely possible by the rules to maintain a Good alignment while doing so. But that's not the type I'm talking about.
The evil character who does the adventuring thing because it serves his purposes is still an evil character. Say you have an evil necromancer who really just wants more power. So he hooks up with this group of adventurers, who probably get hired or go out of their way to do a lot of good deeds. The evil guy doesn't care about the good deeds. Hell, let the damned villagers rot for all he cares, but he does like the money to be made, and the corpses to be acquired. Orc raiders causing trouble for a village? Sounds like an excellent opportunity to enjoy your dark powers with no threat of reprimand. Orcs make better undead anyway, since they're so naturally strong. Who cares if your party's Lawful Good guys said they would turn over the stolen loot to the town; you're still going to slaughter those orcs and laugh about it, perhaps force a few into your service, animate their dead and pack all their chain mail and weapons into the cart pulled by your ox; go pawn all of it, and then use your split to buy more onyx, a few scrolls, research a new spell that makes bones erupt from corpses like a frag grenade because you think that'd just be hilarious, and probably get some nookie and a beer.
EDIT: It's entirely possible for evil characters to act like real people. Just the worst of real people. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you murder people indiscriminately, or even murder people at all. Some commoner insults you? You laugh at him and note the family resemblance to the family goat. Killing the commoner, even if you would want to, doesn't serve your purposes. That would bring you more grief. Most evil creatures are interested in themselves and their survival.
But that's another thing. Evil people can be evil even if they do good things now and then. They can still develop bonds, or even love. A diabolist conjurer who emerges from the shadows to save a village where his sister lives, is acting heroically. He's still an evil devil mongering wizard who sacrifices kittens, but don't touch his family or the sister he loves so dear.
Alignment is an overall thing. Virtually nothing is absolute. Even outsiders aren't absolute. Fallen and Redeemed outsiders are not uncommon in either historical fiction, religion, or popular culture. Lucifer from religious texts is an angel that rebelled and took a third of the heavens with him, whereas Sparda was a devil who awoke to justice and rebelled against the evil powers that be, leading to the Devil May Cry series.
But, all of this is fairly irrelevant because the point remains...
The Paladin is the only class that requires his entire party adhere to certain aspects of his code or he or they have to leave.
Nah, still evil. Selfishness is evil. Selfishness is the opposite of Altruism which is good. The bad guy who has no compassion or remorse for his foes? Evil. The Emperor from Star Wars? Evil. You don't have to be a blood thirsty killer to be evil. It is entirely possible to seem like a good guy while being evil. Most adventurers hurt, oppress, or kill in general. The evil guy just might enjoy or at least not mind it as much as the next guy.
That's your opinion, not RAW. And by embellishing and adding to what's in the alignment description in RAW by your own take on what is "Evil," you are unnecessarily placing a much larger restriction on the paladin than what is already there.
The evil rogue who adventures for money, slitting the throats of orcs because he can, and enjoying that ever so unmistakable feeling of the blade sliding through the skin and across the adam's apple as the orc gurgles his last dying breath in an instant. Ah, wonderful.
Again, you're adding to what is evil.
Look, everyone likes money...for the most part. They are happy when they get a lot of it, and unhappy when they lose it.
The Evil Person, gets the money (his satisfaction) by steamrolling whoever gets in his way. As RAW states, "A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience." But dang, he loves the money he gets.
The Neutral person gets the money doing the most convenient thing available. He does have compuctures against killing or harming innocents, but other than that, he has no allegiences, and pretty much just looks out for himself while doing his trade. He, also, loves the money he gets and feels satisfaction.
The Good person puts lives before money, mostly. When he gets paid from hard work, inheritance, or doing a good deed...he also feels satisfaction. He, just like the above, has a selfish desire for money....but he simply isn't willing to put that desire above the other's well being.
Wolverine loves killing....but what makes him a Good character? He tempers that desire for the well being of others. He still finds killing to be satisfactory...but according to RAW, as long as he does it in defense of innocents, it doesn't matter HOW much he likes it. Eralier Wolverine was neutral because, he would often go out on his own, not caring that it may put his team mates in danger if he wasn't there to help protect them. However, even though he liked killing, he was still neutral because he had compuctures against killing the innocent. He never killed other good people in order to fill that lust. Sabertooth did, and HE was evil.
Don't add to the rules, and then complain about the implications to other parts of the game like Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a lawful evil character that kept the paladin in the group in the dark to his activities. It can be done, but that depends on the character. If he didn't give a fig newton abotu what the paladin thought or didn't think he was a valuable asset to keep around, he would not have hidden it. I'm sure if half the stuff he did came to light, the paladin would have called him out or left the party. The rest of the party didn't care. I didn't make the character LE, he started as CN, and through the story changed.
Knowing that one of your friends wants to play a paladin, and you choose to roll an evil necromancer, you are the d-bag, not the pally player. Just sayin'.
I agree. However, acting stupid isn't really a problem with any class. That actually is a problem with the player. If you got someone going around burning down orphanages for fun, yeah, he's being dumb. If you've got someone alerting the enemy to your party's ambush to save your honor, also stupid. The thing is, the Paladin is the only class that even when played Intelligently, creates a problem within the group merely because other members of the group aren't his alignment.
That is where you and I disagree. In a group where there is conflict between the paladin and the other players that exceeds mild dislike, i.e snarky comments, then someone, typically, is not role playing intelligently. Either the paladin is being a snot, or someone is showing their hand. The paladin has no real way of knowing other characters' alignments except through their actions and detect evil. Detect evil is deliberately flawed I suspect for this reason.
There is one type of jerk character I see more than the 'paladin' jerk character.
its the player that plays an evil character BECAUSE another player is playing a paladin. This in my experience is a much bigger draw for the Jerky player.
I have booted players from my game for this, and at best told them they were no allowed to play an evil character.
I am not one to enjoy the trend of reading about Villains. I play Heroic fantasy. It is one of my complaints about marvel comics. Any villain that makes a kid want to be that character is a villain done wrong. If I have two players who are in conflict because one is a paladin and one is evil, I will default to the paladin.
I have seen more paladins played well than evil characters played well. Incidentally one of my long time players plays an evil character. He started out as a paladin. He did not plan to go the Antipaladin route. It happened naturally, meaning at first the player was annoyed that I was so restrictive to paladins, and began breaking the restrictions. Than he freaked out on an evil character. he just started to become less tolerant from there, and went the way of evil. He went from Tyr to Talos. i house rule Antipaladins can be any evil. If they are a LE antipaladin of a lawful god, breaking their honor will cause them to attone as well.
Nah, still evil. Selfishness is evil. Selfishness is the opposite of Altruism which is good. The bad guy who has no compassion or remorse for his foes? Evil. The Emperor from Star Wars? Evil. You don't have to be a blood thirsty killer to be evil. It is entirely possible to seem like a good guy while being evil. Most adventurers hurt, oppress, or kill in general. The evil guy just might enjoy or at least not mind it as much as the next guy.That's your opinion, not RAW. And by embellishing and adding to what's in the alignment description in RAW by your own take on what is "Evil," you are unnecessarily placing a much larger restriction on the paladin than what is already there.
Ok. You win. You're not evil unless you are actively hurting, oppressing, or killing others, and doing so often enough that it's a standard thing within your alignment.
Let's ignore the fact that the Lawful Evil alignment pretty much disagrees with that interpretation, since it also mentions things such as racism, and even having compunctions against killing under certain circumstances (just like good characters, hmm).
Heaven help us.
Again, you're adding to what is evil.
Look, everyone likes money...for the most part. They are happy when they get a lot of it, and unhappy when they lose it.
Nay. I noted that the rogue enjoyed the killing. The fact he was getting paid to do it was a bonus. All the adventurers are getting paid to stop the orcs, but the rogue is seriously enjoying the fact he has a license to kill.
The evil rogue who adventures for money, slitting the throats of orcs because he can, and enjoying that ever so unmistakable feeling of the blade sliding through the skin and across the adam's apple as the orc gurgles his last dying breath in an instant. Ah, wonderful.Again, you're adding to what is evil.
See above. Money is merely the motivation.
Wolverine loves killing....but what makes him a Good character? He tempers that desire for the well being of others. He still finds killing to be satisfactory...but according to RAW, as long as he does it in defense of innocents, it doesn't matter HOW much he likes it. Eralier Wolverine was neutral because, he would often go out on his own, not caring that it may put his team mates in danger if he wasn't there to help protect them. However, even though he liked killing, he was still neutral because he had compuctures against killing the innocent. He never killed other good people in order to fill that lust. Sabertooth did, and HE was evil.
So what you're saying is that because Wolverine would act as a loner, disobeying orders because it suited him, that he was somehow more evil than chaotic? That's ironic, since wolverine is noted as a berserker frequently. His ability to follow orders is a Law vs Chaos issue, not a Good vs Evil issue. The fact he likes killing and is one of wolverine's darker aspects. In fact, it's one of the reasons a lot of other heroes even within his own team dislike him. Of course, he eventually comes around and acts more good, more reserved, and develops bonds with his companions. Happily killing people, but with compunctions against killing certain types of people, is pretty much definition Lawful Evil; which is probably why Sabertooth often mocks wolverine for being dishonest with himself.
There is one type of jerk character I see more than the 'paladin' jerk character.
its the player that plays an evil character BECAUSE another player is playing a paladin. This in my experience is a much bigger draw for the Jerky player.
I have booted players from my game for this, and at best told them they were no allowed to play an evil character.
If that was the only reason that they were playing an evil character, then yes, that is a being a grade A douchebag. But if they're just playing the character they want, the Paladin CLASS is the only thing that says that a well played Paladin and a well played Smart-Evil character cannot coexist.
In fact, it's arguable that merely playing a Paladin is a selfish act, because you are giving everyone else an ultimatum. Either you don't play X, Y, or Z, or you can't play with me, or I won't play with you.
I am not one to enjoy the trend of reading about Villains. I play Heroic fantasy. It is one of my complaints about marvel comics. Any villain that makes a kid want to be that character is a villain done wrong. If I have two players who are in conflict because one is a paladin and one is evil, I will default to the paladin.
Stan Lee once commented that one of the reasons X-Men was so popular and so compelling was because there wasn't always a clear indication as to who was right. Charles Xavier and the X-Men were clearly the good guys, while Magneto and the Brotherhood were clearly the bad guys, in most cases, but you always were left wondering if the bad guys were right. Even Charles Xavier struggled with this. Magneto was a hero and he was a terrorist. He was a person. That's why some of the X-Men flip-flopped from time to time. And in many cases, you even saw where Magneto could stand up and be a hero, show mercy, and so forth.
That's actually why many people loved the great age of Marvel Comics. Their characters were compelling. Their villains weren't overly stupid and cartoon-like. Most of them acted believable. They weren't just white hats vs blue hats. Lots of people read about how superman ran about rescuing everyone from bad guys who were bad because they were, until they grew up a little bit and began reading big-kid comics where people were people, and bad guys didn't always seem so bad, and good guys had their shades of gray, and you started looking at people for being people, and really appreciating that fact.
I have seen more paladins played well than evil characters played well. Incidentally one of my long time players plays an evil character. He started out as a paladin. He did not plan to go the Antipaladin route. It happened naturally, meaning at first the player was annoyed that I was so restrictive to paladins, and began breaking the restrictions. Than he freaked out on an evil character. he just started to become less tolerant from there, and went the way of evil. He went from Tyr to Talos. i house rule Antipaladins can be any evil. If they are a LE antipaladin of a lawful god, breaking their honor will cause them to attone as well.
That seems like a fair house rule. Antipaladins in the APG are noted as being Lawful Evil, but their code sounds very unlawful. :P
I have not read through this entire thread but I think this needs to be said. Why do people pick on paladins? Because they have a code of conduct that restricts their roleplaying and the roleplaying of the group. This does not mean paladins need to be changed Oddly enough, look at what the class IS. It even said that few answer the call to be a paladin. It takes a lot of work. Shouldn't that give you an idea that this class is not for everyone? I am a naturally lawful and good person by nature, so the paladin code of ethics is easier for me to grasp and internalize. It takes a person of the right mindset and a mature group to play paladins. Simply put, the class is meant to be hard and walk the difficult path. Stop trying to pull it down because you can't handle it.
I have not read through this entire thread but I think this needs to be said. Why do people pick on paladins? Because they have a code of conduct that restricts their roleplaying and the roleplaying of the group. This does not mean paladins need to be changed Oddly enough, look at what the class IS. It even said that few answer the call to be a paladin. It takes a lot of work. Shouldn't that give you an idea that this class is not for everyone? I am a naturally lawful and good person by nature, so the paladin code of ethics is easier for me to grasp and internalize. It takes a person of the right mindset and a mature group to play paladins. Simply put, the class is meant to be hard and walk the difficult path. Stop trying to pull it down because you can't handle it.
The best "Paladin" I've ever seen was played by a 5 year old with a Lawful Good Fighter. He was everything your iconic good Paladin was. He even had a warhorse, a lance, a sword, a shield. He fought goblins, felled ogres, and claimed treasure. When he had treasure, he gave a lot of it away to the poor, helped an old lady pay off the debts on her house, and rode children around the town square on his horse. He didn't lie, or cheat, or steal. He accepted surrender, and he acted with mercy. He was a truly good person. Truly wonderful is the mind of a child.
"Paladin" is not a class. It is a concept. It does not require a code of conduct, it requires a mindset which the code of conduct does not really enforce, nor does it really go very far in defining it. To be a good Paladin, you have to want to be a Paladin for more than mechanical reasons. In the Star Wars d20 RPG, it talks about playing a Jedi, because Jedi have a lot of considerations, codes, and reservations, much like Paladins do. One of the things that has often been suggested is a simple test.
Q: If you took away the lightsaber and force powers, but left the philosophy, order, and so forth, would you still want to play a Jedi?
A: If not, then playing a Jedi probably isn't for you.
Paladins are much the same. This is one of the reasons I prefer using Clerics as Paladins in both 3.x and Pathfinder. Paladins have nice abilities but they aren't stronger than other classes by any means. Clerics can be played with the same flavor, but are more customizable, get along better with parties, and are decently martial characters as well. The fact Paladins sucked eggs in 3.x was just the nail in the coffin.
EDIT: I too am naturally lawful good, by the way (though I have Lawful Evil tendencies when it comes to designing encounters for my group >:} ). Kelsey has a point though.
The Paladin is the only class that requires his entire party adhere to certain aspects of his code or he or they have to leave.
What a curiously sensationalist and misleading statement.
So what you're saying is that because Wolverine would act as a loner, disobeying orders because it suited him, that he was somehow more evil than chaotic? That's ironic, since wolverine is noted as a berserker frequently. His ability to follow orders is a Law vs Chaos issue, not a Good vs Evil issue. The fact he likes killing and is one of wolverine's darker aspects. In fact, it's one of the reasons a lot of other heroes even within his own team dislike him. Of course, he eventually comes around and acts more good, more reserved, and develops bonds with his companions. Happily killing people, but with compunctions against killing certain types of people, is pretty much definition Lawful Evil; which is probably why Sabertooth often mocks wolverine for being dishonest with himself.
First of all, I never, ever said anything about him being more evil than chaotic (in fact, I said he wasn't evil at all according to RAW and I never mentioned L vs. C.
"Happily killing people, but with compunctions against killing certain types of people, is pretty much definition Lawful Evil"
That's your interpretation, not RAW.
An LE person kills in a way that is lawful. In other words, if there's no laws agianst killing, an LE person kills if it helps him get what he wants. That is NOT Wolverine. It IS Sabertooth (actually, Sabertooth doesn't care about the law at all..hates it..so he's more CE). Wolverine protects the innocent and his team, regardless of whether or not it's the law, and puts his life on the line doing so. That's "Good." Since he is now know more for sticking with the team and defending the innocent than in the past (where he is telling everyone on the X-Team to leave him alone while he marches off and does pursues his own goals), he's more of GOOD now than a Neutral.
Look, I don't disagree, on a personal level, that a person's motivations define who he/she is. The reality is that, in our heart of hearts, most of us are PRETTY selfish even when we are nice, but, we don't go around killing others. If you want to say that's Good, neutral, evil or whatnot, go ahead. If you want to say that, in your mind, Wolverine is an evil character, that's your opinion. I respect that. However, according to PF rules, what makes an Evil character is that fact that they have very little respect for human life and/or don't mind making others suffer to get what they want. When you change that, based on your own perception, then camplain that the Paladin cannot work the way you think it should when you have changed the mechnics underneth based on your own personal perceptions, you have chanced the game.... and you are now bringing up a concern about a gameplay mechanic on something that you have effectively houseruled.
On the LE note.... Though an LE character will follow Law, tradition or code...the reality is that he will do everything outside of that which keeps him clear according to those guidelines (including hiring others to do the murder for him, for example). Read the LE again carefully. And think to yourself, "If murdering others was made lawful, would the LE use that as a way to get ahead?" The answer is yes. (Although some may have small compuctures vs. things such as not killing children, relatives, etc). I assure you, the Paladin would not since, even though it is lawful to kill others to get whatever he wants, it would not be "Good" (Which respect life).
What a curiously sensationalist and misleading statement.The Paladin is the only class that requires his entire party adhere to certain aspects of his code or he or they have to leave.
And an entirely true one. Their code is quite clear on it. Except within a specific circumstance, they are not allowed to associate or work with anyone who is of evil alignment or consistently offends her moral code. Which, by the way, includes Neutral characters who do not follow the Paladin's code.
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
While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.
A Paladin cannot adventure with evil people or those who consistently do not live by her code, except under specific circumstances. That means if you have a rogue in the party who uses poisons, that doesn't jive. Bard in the party is a liar? No jiving. Your sorcerer likes to cheat at cards? No dice. The barbarian acts without honor? He has to go.
I believe you are placing a restriction on the paladin by that interpretation that is not intended.