I have never seen this(interesting paladins) be a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because they don't make goblin paladins.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, no. It's the problem of people buying into Paizo's Big Lie and saying "ooh, goblins are evil, they can't be paladins," when, in fact, goblins are full of love and compassion and generosity.
|
Um, no. It's the problem of people buying into Paizo's Big Lie and saying "ooh, goblins are evil, they can't be paladins," when, in fact, goblins are full of love and compassion and generosity.
They love fire. Are passionate (see goblins sometimes mix passionate and compassionate) about things that go kablooey and are generous with their 'splosions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@TOZ:
Very funny, bigot.
According to a recent study by the Goblin Research Council, and despite what those liars at Paizo, Foxnews, Moveon.org and the Cato Institute would have you believe, a full 17% of goblin babies hear the calling of Iomedae. And then they eat their weaker siblings.
Population control is Lawful Good!
They love fire. Are passionate (see goblins sometimes mix passionate and compassionate) about things that go kablooey and are generous with their 'splosions.
See?
So Ken, why do you think interesting Paladins are so hard to make?
I haven't seen this problem, I have seen more people having 'problems with Paladins' than people having an actual problem with Paladins.
I can't recall the last 'boring' one I saw.
I would argue that no-one has published a Goblin Paladin. I AM a goblin Paladin, so obviously they do make them. I feel that all my other Paladin characters have been interesting characters, although sadly they have not necessarily lasted long, (more a problem with the games they have been in than anything else.)
It also has to do with the fact that, as the OP failed to mention along with the CHA minimum, Paladins used to be a human-only class. One of the first notable exceptions to that was in the first Dungeon Magazine after the switch to 3rd Ed. They had a Half-Orc Paladin in an adventure & on the cover of the issue. Personally I always thought He would have made a more interesting Paladin & Half-Orc Iconic than either of the Iconics WoTC chose. Hrusk was always "Oh really, a Half-Orc Barbarian, I don't see it.*" & the female human Paladin was, well not nearly as interesting as Seelah.
*Please note the use of Sarcasm.
In my experience, low point buy tends to produce bland paladins. I know that stats aren't entirely responsible for a characters personality, but at the same time, most paladins are knuckle-dragging thugs because their main dumb stat is intelligence; there's a reason one player in our game refers to paladins as "goons...holy goons."
I'm about to start in a 15 point buy game, and it has been suggested that I try a paladin. Dumping intelligence looks mighty tempting...
@Irnk--
I am a goblin paladin, too. Nice to meet you, brother.
How do you feel about the Glorious People's Revolution in Galt?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pointbuys are no excuse for dumppersonalities.
Oh you goblins, always complaining about how hard the world is on you. "Oh nobody understands us! They think we are all bad!" Try dropping your strength score by four you big-headed loons! [/a kobold's attempt at humor]
I think the idea of the noble monster character has become something of a cliche, honestly. Maybe that is why we see a dearth of non-core race paladins? With characters like Drizzt running around, I know nobody wants to see their character written off as "just another cliche". Not to mention concerns on the mechanical strengths/weaknesses that are always at play when building a character. Paladins call for good strength, constitution, and charisma these days. (Thank God they don't need Wisdom anymore!) Though you can replace constitution with dexterity for the archery builds. With three stats that are all pretty important, it becomes necessary to consider which race is going to be giving you the best bang for your buck if, like many of us, you are inclined to build a character who will not be too much weaker than his fellows.
Pointbuys are no excuse for dumppersonalities.
Agreed. And dumb doesn't mean personalityless. Back in the day when paladins required a high wisdom as well, I had one that was Wis 15, Int 5, and yes, his warhorse was smarter than he was. he would habitually ask his horse or the Icon on his shield for advice. He kept expecting to get a good idea "straight from the horse's mouth" (never happened) or from his deity (Torm, the True, FR) via the icon (occasionally as a flash of insight [Dm ruled wisdom check]). He was otherwise a holy thug with a holy sword, but he was still a shining example of Torm's faith.
1) People have different ideas of what good is. You get dissonance between the player and the DM
2) You have different ideas of what lawful is, you get different ideas between the player and the DM
The paladin, essentially, becomes a design by committee: the paladin won't do anything the player doesn't want him to do, but the player has to worry about what he thinks the DM thinks of his actions and his personality.
The way GMs handle paladins vary wildly, so people with multiple GMs usually need to make a generic paladin, change the roleplay from GM to GM, or play an ex-paladin.
Due to their dependence on individual GM inclination and moodswings, there's also no common ground to discuss them. So, similar to the reason you see way more threads about rules than about roleplay, there's little reason to bring up your interesting paladin concept except to spark further alignment/paladin flame-fests or unrelated anecdote sharing.
Pointbuys are no excuse for dumppersonalities.
True. I never said it was justified, but it tends to happen. I've seen way to many dumb paladins. Granted, you can have a variety of personalities with a 5 intelligence, but still...
|
I think one of the reason we see "boring" or "stupid" paladins, is because people often assume that a paladin has to be a "book banging" zealous fanatic.
This weekend I had allot of fun playing PFs at Con Temporal in Chapel Hill NC.
My character a 2nd level paladin of Sarenrae, Ehud al Nisir, played through The Temple of Emperyl Enlightenment, and The Cypher mage Dilemma. I had allot of fun with the character, and I think allot of the other people at the table enjoyed my character. I think I played my character as patient, considerate, courageous, insightful, and even humorous.
Anyways I enjoy playing paladins. They can be allot of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are plenty of interesting paladins out there.
Who is 'people'? Rather broad and sweeping generalization there.
Usually "anybody but me."
Haha, I recently read the Half-orc Paladin redeemer found in the Adanced race guide and thought to myself: "Finally, a not lawful-stupid Paladin!)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Ken, why do you think interesting Paladins are so hard to make?
I haven't seen this problem, I have seen more people having 'problems with Paladins' than people having an actual problem with Paladins.
I can't recall the last 'boring' one I saw.
There are no boring paladins.
Only boring paladin threads.
I could see this being a problem if the core of a player's character concept is a class, race and alignment combo.
There are no boring paladins.
Only boring paladin threads.
So true, oh so true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of the Code, which is as badly-written as the "chomper" scene in GalaxyQuest.
Seriously.
Mind you, the Code is hamstrung by the alignment "system" (and I use the term advisedly) that Pathfinder inherited from the hoary, old rpgs I started playing with...
Also, take all the dumpstat mentions upthread and give 'em +1,000 or so...
Solution?
Re-write the Code; one for Paladins w/o deities, one for each deity that supports Paladins, giving SPECIFIC POINTS of what "good," and "law" mean, and LISTING REQUIREMENTS OF BEHAVIOUR for Paladins to follow.
Once players don't have to wonder if they dare help an old lady across the street, they MAY pay more attention to their characters' personalities...
Solution?
Re-write the Code; one for Paladins w/o deities, one for each deity that supports Paladins, giving SPECIFIC POINTS of what "good," and "law" mean, and LISTING REQUIREMENTS OF BEHAVIOUR for Paladins to follow.
I propose you consider looking at the outdated but still exemplary '2nd Ed Complete Paladins Handbook', wherein you will find well developed codes and all the joys you request...including matters Theological.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=AD%20D%202nd%20Edition%20Complete%20P aladins%20Handbook%202147%20&_itemId=310268093309
Itll be the best few bucks you ever spent.
I see them played as lawful stupid only because they got clear restrictions. Intelligent people don't have rules that absolute. If the only way to kill your ennemy is through poison, you do it.
Shifty:
Heh. Not me. I don't play Paladins. Other than once, a loooong time ago, and it wasn't really my cup of tea.
But good advice/directions for the OP.
It was a 2nd Ed game... I just wrote up a 'Horse Nomad' kit for her, rather than standard armored knight concept (my DM was always happy with balanced player-written stuff, so it was fine). She made "knight-errant" style wandering righter-of-wrongs play more fun than I expected.
But give me a lawful/evil Conjuror with access to the Book of Vile Darkness over a Paladin of any stripe and I'll be much happier...
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are a paladin of Shelyn, you focus more on courtly love than on love’s physical manifestations, and do everything you can to make yourself a living shield between beauty and purity and those forces that would consume or destroy them.
The paladins of Shelyn are peaceable promoters of art and beauty. They see the ugliness in evil, even when cloaked in the form of beauty, and their job is to prevent the weak and foolish from being seduced by false promises. Their tenets include:
• I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
• I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
• I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty’s answer to them.
• I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
• I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
• I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
• I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am Tolomeo Amadeus Eulogio el Sinverguenza, known by some as Hijo del Diablo.You do not need Indigo Montoya to make your character interesting. You could have Ian of Iomedae and still have a compelling character without pages of cliches.
There's no need for posts like these. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion aside from bashing the OP's character then I suggest you not post.
The name actually was the thing, which finally made me understand the concept of lawfully stupid... Sorry, but I almost spilled my coffee.
On a more serious note (which is kinda hard, after having gone through all the other snarky posts), I share the general consensus that there is no lack of interesting concepts for a paladin.
It only takes a good talk with your GM to see whether your concept fits the general setting and campaign - but that goes for every character concept, so no big deal.
If your group is prone to ridicule certain staples in fantasy roleplaying you might have a hard time, but that's true for your average halfling rogue or half-elf bow-wielding ranger.
If you're the last (wo)man standing after a terrible battle, nobody will laugh at your PC anymore (and trust me, in the games I attend, that is the case most of the time - even if you have like Wis 5...).
Ruyan.
I think the idea of the noble monster character has become something of a cliche, honestly.
Oh yeah? So, what do you make of that old canard that demihumans are alright but humanoids are masses of undifferentiated evil? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm?
More pinkskin lies!
Vive le Galt!!
So Ken, why do you think interesting Paladins are so hard to make?
I haven't seen this problem, I have seen more people having 'problems with Paladins' than people having an actual problem with Paladins.
I can't recall the last 'boring' one I saw.
There are no boring paladins.
Only boring paladin threads.
Personally, I don't even read paladin threads. I just skim 'em, looking for opportunities to yell nonsense and sell copies of the Galtic Worker.
@ Comrade Anklebiter: I have heard many things about the Glorious Peoples Revolution in Galt. As it stands however, I've been stuck in Varisia & parts North so mostly what I have heard is just that, what I've heard.
That said: Vive la Revolucion!
Interesting to see all the goblin socialism here, when I was sure that goblins were free market types, what with all their "Goblin Markets". Can you be a paladin of the "invisible hand"?
I'm playing my second paladin now. He dual wields a warhammer and shield, and tries to be fun, generous, and helpful. He tries to work well with the team.
Paladins, as seen most often, seem to be the embodiment of Lawful Stupid. I don't understand this.
Whenever I run into this, one of my responses is: it's an insult to the creativity of our players. We have great players, and players who have played wonderful, colorful paladins.
At this point, maybe it's something we just like to grump about, which makes it into something of a parable.
|
|
There's no need for posts like these. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion aside from bashing the OP's character then I suggest you not post.I am Tolomeo Amadeus Eulogio el Sinverguenza, known by some as Hijo del Diablo.You do not need Indigo Montoya to make your character interesting. You could have Ian of Iomedae and still have a compelling character without pages of cliches.
I think that Chubbs McGee added a great deal to the discussion, especially as regards the OPs premise that only he is capable of making an interesting paladin or that interesting is defined as a collection of tired cliches that have nothing to do with the actual character concepts of a paladin. The person who has made absolutely no contribution to this thread is you.
Why do you feel like you have a right to judge what is and is not needed? Why do you think that you have the right to suggest people not be a part of this community?
Interesting to whom?
I think the fact that one pursues an action that is self sacrificing and/or more dangerous than all the alternatives due to it being what is good and just is pretty darn interesting. The moral dilemmas it creates are awesome for role playing.
|
|
There's no need for posts like these. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion aside from bashing the OP's character then I suggest you not post.I am Tolomeo Amadeus Eulogio el Sinverguenza, known by some as Hijo del Diablo.You do not need Indigo Montoya to make your character interesting. You could have Ian of Iomedae and still have a compelling character without pages of cliches.I think that Chubbs McGee added a great deal to the discussion, especially as regards the OPs premise that only he is capable of making an interesting paladin or that interesting is defined as a collection of tired cliches that have nothing to do with the actual character concepts of a paladin. The person who has made absolutely no contribution to this thread is you.
Why do you feel like you have a right to judge what is and is not needed? Why do you think that you have the right to suggest people not be a part of this community?
I never suggested that Chubbs couldn't or shouldn't be a part of this community. I would welcome any discussion from anyone as long as it's constructive and adds to the thread. His response didn't add to the thread but bashed the OP's character.
Why for instance is a Paladin that resembles Inigo Montoya (and it's Inigo not Indigo btw) a cliche while a Paladin that's based on a Templar not? I mention this because you defend Chubbs point and even congratulate him on a point well made while serving up what could be considered a cliche.
Now I don't think that either concepts are particularly cliched and for all I know your Templar based Paladin has a rich backstory and is a wonderful addition to the table you play at. But the same goes for the OP's Paladin (which btw the only connection I can see to Inigo Montoya is that the OP rp's him saying his name in a similar manner).
As for judging, well... just look at the text below the comment box where the "most important rule" is explained: don't be a dick. I felt Chubbs was being a dick posting a comment like that and I called him out for it. I certainly didn't mean to sound like a dick myself and if I did then I apologize. I could've phrased it better. But my point still stands.
1) People have different ideas of what good is. You get dissonance between the player and the DM
2) You have different ideas of what lawful is, you get different ideas between the player and the DM
The paladin, essentially, becomes a design by committee: the paladin won't do anything the player doesn't want him to do, but the player has to worry about what he thinks the DM thinks of his actions and his personality.
This is exactly why there aren't more successful paladin characters, but has nothing to do with making paladins interesting. The reason [most] people find it hard to make interesting paladin characters is quite simple: [most] people are stupid, lazy, or both. I say that with no individuals in mind, it's just what the evidence says to me about people in general.
This is exactly why there aren't more successful paladin characters, but has nothing to do with making paladins interesting. The reason [most] people find it hard to make interesting paladin characters is quite simple: [most] people are stupid, lazy, or both. I say that with no individuals in mind, it's just what the evidence says to me about people in general.1) People have different ideas of what good is. You get dissonance between the player and the DM
2) You have different ideas of what lawful is, you get different ideas between the player and the DM
The paladin, essentially, becomes a design by committee: the paladin won't do anything the player doesn't want him to do, but the player has to worry about what he thinks the DM thinks of his actions and his personality.
The reason I quit playing paladins is that my decisions were dictated by the code or the DM's interpretation of the code. Rarely did the DM and my view of the code align perfectly. Other players I've seen have had similar experiences.
It's also difficult because regardless of the type of diety you follow, you are still stuck with the code. I've seen DMs get upset because of paladins were being too aggressive in combating their diety's enemies, or they didn't think that the paladin was LG enough in their treatment of morally ambigious situation the DM threw to mess with the paladin. I've also seen DMs say things like, sure you're fine with your diety, but the code says ______, so you still need to atone for your "misdeeds" in service to your god.
In short, it's roleplay by committee.
If I want to play a paladin style character, I play a cleric or oracle. I become stronger mechanically and don't have to worry about the DM thinking I am more LN or NG than LG nearly as much.