Opinions on Paladins


Advice

101 to 150 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

blahpers wrote:
The most polite way I can think of to say this is: This post says more about you and the breadth of your experiences than it does about paladin players or nonreligious people in general.

And I respect that you have that opinion and thank you for expressing it in the most polite way you could find. I don't think either of us are right or wrong here. This is just one of those things.

Please keep in mind that this is just one small window into who I am as a whole. My gaming tables are filled with people of all backgrounds, and my friends even more so.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:

I've only ever played Paladins as humble. They've never told other party members what they can't do, only what he will not do.

You can play one and not be a prick about it. I promise.

To be fair, it was one of the Season 5 scenarios which kind of railroaded the ending, "Do you support person A or Person B, vote!", but doesn't actually alter the adventure itself.


I wonder if, behind every "Line in the sand" paladin, there is a DM who punished paladins for not drawing lines in the sand. It's like the abuse cycle but in gaming.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CalebTGordan wrote:
Alceste008 wrote:


The Paladin class is also the only class where your character really forces their values on the rest of the party.

I have seen a druid force their ideals about nature upon the party to the point of stupid. No hunting, strict rules about fire, and even an extreme view on how to handle monsters of the animal and plant types.

I have seen clerics force their character's religion on others as well. I haven't played with many inquisitors yet, but I imagine that class would be prone to such behavior as well.

Cavaliers could easily force the codes of their orders on the party.

All of these are classes may not have the same type of code of conduct mechanic, but they do have assumptions built in about how they are to be roleplayed and thus potential for the same danger you claim only the paladin has.

A paladin that forces anything to happen isn't playing a paladin right. At least, that is my opinion on how they should be played.

I agree. Anyone who plays a paladin that forces their code and such on the other players is playing "Lawful Stupid", and playing the paladin wrong. My favorite example of a paladin would be Sturm Brightblade from the Dragonlance Chronicles books. While not technically a paladin (he is listed as a fighter with LG alignment in the modules), the way he is written is how I feel is a good paladin. He didn't force the other members of the party to follow his strict code of conduct, or do any of the other "Lawful Stupid" things people in this thread have said paladins are always doing.

People seem to be exposed to bad players who don't know how to actually play a chivalrous hero type character, as well as terrible GMs who don't know how to incorporate such a character into their games.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Desi wrote:

After playing through several campaigns as paladins, I've come across at least a few players that seem to have a deep-seated dislike or even hatred for paladins, in stark contrast to my love for the class. While I can understand some of the concern in paladin PCs(i.e. players playing Lawful Stupid), what have paladins ever done to deserve this hate?

I'm very curious to get a much wider view on this class and how it's been played in other peoples' experiences, be it as a party member, as a DM, or as the paladin player themselves.

Feelings on paladins? Constructive advice for aspiring paladins? Issues that come up as a DM? Past experiences concerning the Fall?

Paladins are the Clark Kents in an increasingly cynical real life world perspective many of us can't divorce from our roleplaying. He's like Clark Kent, if he did not have the power of Superman behind him, we'd be waiting for him to get the sock in the jaw of reality. No other class has that holier than thou implicitly built into it.

It's the suspicion of innocence. Since most of us have some sort of stain on our conscience, we keep looking for faults in that marble plaque of perfection. By his very existence he's a living accusation on the cynicism we feel is necessary in today's society. Evil we can accept for that is the norm. Good tends to make us uncomfortable because we take it as either a personal rebuke or the cover for something sinister that hasn't revealed itself yet.


Kryzbyn wrote:

I've only ever played Paladins as humble. They've never told other party members what they can't do, only what he will not do.

You can play one and not be a prick about it. I promise.

This. Lead by example, not by force.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Adjule wrote:


People seem to be exposed to bad players who don't know how to actually play a chivalrous hero type character, as well as terrible GMs who don't know how to incorporate such a character into their games.

Yeah, that is probably what I should have said. Well put.

Lack of understanding, experience, and context often means an inability to make the proper decisions needed to play the class properly. All that is needed is a little research and discussion with the group and GM. Most problems are solved simply by doing that, as it often brings the needed amount of understanding.

This is one of the reasons I won't play druids or monks. I really don't understand the flavor behind them and the behavior expected to play either one right. Same goes for any class build that has an evil alignment assumed.


blahpers wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I've only ever played Paladins as humble. They've never told other party members what they can't do, only what he will not do.

You can play one and not be a prick about it. I promise.

This. Lead by example, not by force.

This is true, however and in conjunciton with the situation I described in my earlier post in this thread it basically lead to my paladin character leaving the group after a few levels and bringing in a new character to play. Mostly because I hate PVP and I hate interparty conflict, it's absolutely not fun for me.

One can only say, "You can do that, but I'm leaving and will have no part in it" so many times. Which goes back to my earlier point that you need the whole party to work with paladin (and to generally play good or lawful characters). Not everyone need be lawful, not everyone need be good. But it's going to be damned hard for the paladin to get along with the chaotic "neutral" rogue who tries to pick everyone's pocket on their walk through the city. Short of the players knowing its a game (and not thinking of it as though the characters were real) you wouldn't have a party for long. Someone should leave, as the two concepts just don't fit.

A paladin shouldn't force other characters to have to do good, like donating part of his wealth to an orphanage or some such. Or giving gold to the wife of a man he was forced to arrest for crimes. But, you can't expect him to associate with people who actively commit evil acts without attempting to reprimand them. Which usually leads to fighting as both parties believe they're in the right.

In truth, its the fault of the GM for allowing to mutually exclusive charcter concepts to exist at the same table.


Interesting line of discussion. So are you guys of the opinion that a Paladin is justified in standing by while an ally performs what is, for the paladin, an unambiguously evil action? What is his responsibility in this scenario? If it depends on the degree to which the action is evil... where does he draw the line?

It's easy to say that a paladin shouldn't force his beliefs on others. It's a bit harder to ask what he should do when he finds himself in situations where trying to stop the party might be the right thing to do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
aegrisomnia wrote:

Interesting line of discussion. So are you guys of the opinion that a Paladin is justified in standing by while an ally performs what is, for the paladin, an unambiguously evil action? What is his responsibility in this scenario? If it depends on the degree to which the action is evil... where does he draw the line?

It's easy to say that a paladin shouldn't force his beliefs on others. It's a bit harder to ask what he should do when he finds himself in situations where trying to stop the party might be the right thing to do.

You might want to be a bit more specific about your question. It's way too vague for a call. If this is for PFS, the campaign has specific guidelines that overrule standard assumptions. For example a Paladin PC in PFS isn't allowed to strike down the PC Necromancer's minions or the Necromancer himself.

I will say however that three is merit to the saying if you roll with pigs, don't be surprised to have mud on you.


Quote:
You might want to be a bit more specific about your question. It's way too vague for a call.

Question: If a paladin is allied with a fighter, and the fighter is about to commit an act that both characters know is evil, what should the paladin do?

- Just let it happen
- Leave
- Close his eyes and go to his happy place
- Try to talk the fighter down
- Use force, if necessary, to stop the fighter

Follow-up question: Does the answer to the above question depend on the degree to which the act is considered evil?
- The fighter is mutilating/destroying a corpse to prevent it from being raised/animated/whatever
- The fighter is killing unarmed non-combatants as a precaution so they can't alert guards/soldiers/etc.
- The fighter is about to rob/ambush/whatever some travelers because he and the paladin are starving.
- The fighter is going to torture a prisoner to try to extract information.
- The fighter's going to make a pact with a devil.
- The fighter's lying, cheating, stealing, etc.
- The fighter's going to bring some hired goons to a duel to ensure he wins.
- The fighter's going to order some NPCs to advance, knowing it's a suicide mission.
- Whatever other evil actions you can think of.

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
For example a Paladin PC in PFS isn't allowed to strike down the PC Necromancer's minions or the Necromancer himself.

LazarX:
I just got back from a deployment, so have been out of things a bit. Did they officially decide that? Last I heard, probably Januaryish, it was just the necromancer (no PvP), and minions where kind of a grey area, with a lot of table variation on both sides, but it mostly falling into the "don't be a jerk" guideline, on both sides.
Shadow Lodge

aegrisomnia wrote:
Quote:
You might want to be a bit more specific about your question. It's way too vague for a call.

Question: If a paladin is allied with a fighter, and the fighter is about to commit an act that both characters know is evil, what should the paladin do?

- Just let it happen
- Leave
- Close his eyes and go to his happy place
These 3 should be large leaps towards said paladin falling. Maybe not outright, but then again, maybe.

- Try to talk the fighter down
- Use force, if necessary, to stop the fighter
In my opinion, these two, in order, are the appropriate courses. Assuming that said Fighter does not have a histry of doing things like that, in which I think the paladin would be perfectly fine skipping step 1, and any niceties of step 2.

aegrisomnia wrote:

Follow-up question: Does the answer to the above question depend on the degree to which the act is considered evil?

- The fighter is mutilating/destroying a corpse to prevent it from being raised/animated/whatever
- The fighter is killing unarmed non-combatants as a precaution so they can't alert guards/soldiers/etc.
- The fighter is about to rob/ambush/whatever some travelers because he and the paladin are starving.
- The fighter is going to torture a prisoner to try to extract information.
- The fighter's going to make a pact with a devil.
- The fighter's lying, cheating, stealing, etc.
- The fighter's going to bring some hired goons to a duel to ensure he wins.
- The fighter's going to order some NPCs to advance, knowing it's a suicide mission.
- Whatever other evil actions you can think of.

Assuming that these are blatantly evil acts, and that both are fully aware of that fact and the fighter is willing choosing that option, I'm not sure most of these would be too much a factor. Number 1 seems a little odd. Number 6 & 8 (lying, cheating, etc. . . & suicide mission) are exceptions, in which case I would think the paladin would talk then take some other action to prevent these things from happening if possible, such as call out the cheating or informing the minion it's suicide and if not seeking out help to change that, making sure they are able to set their affairs are in order before hand?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, I don't play with jerks either. Usually the 5 of us sit down and discuss what the campaign will be, and what everyone wants to play.
If someone says paladin, and we all agree, no one makes a non-good character, or any other class/alignment combo that will be sure to cause conflicts.


@DM Beckett

I'd tend to agree, but this is why I asked the question in the first place: it seems really hard to be a Paladin and simultaneously have your cake and eat it, too. It's easy to say "don't impose on others," but it sort of falls apart when subject to any real scrutiny.

I have a hard time seeing how being a paladin can be anything but both a blessing and a curse, and I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. In fact, the paladin wouldn't see always striving to have the right thing done as a curse... although others might.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Larkos wrote:


A Paladin is really just Superman.

If that were true every time he stepped a toe out of line a kryptonite meteor would smack him in the face.

As this isn't the case, it's a bit of a poor analogy.

Spoiler:

Oh, you meant in attitude? Well why didn'tcha just say so!

Jaelithe wrote:

Paladins really are simple:


  • Uphold the good
  • Adhere to the law
  • If the two conflict, good always trumps law, because just law is in place for one reason—to preserve the good

And if this were the extent of it, Paladins would be perfect.

Unfortunately, they also have the Code. And the Code, by its very nature, tells the Paladin that in these specific circumstances (and other variable circumstances the GM could make up on the fly if he wanted), "Law" (the Code) trumps Good.

Don't use Poison (even sleep poison), or you Fall.

Respect legitimate authority (even if they're undeserving...) of you Fall.

Act "honorably" and don't lie (which I've seen be interpreted as "Don't ambush your target because that's a form of lying" by otherwise somewhat competent DMs).

The Code contradicts your version of the Paladin, which I see as a much more elegant way to handle it.

Jaelithe wrote:
If a character is summarily executing bandits on the spot—note you didn't say, "murdering, raping bandits caught in the act, unrepentant and too difficult to transport for trial," just "bandits"—well, news flash: He ain't no paladin.

Why not?

It's both Lawful AND Good.

Someone doesn't get to be a bandit without being a right murdering, thieving, raping bastard (at least one of the above, and generally thievery isn't enough unless they steal a LOT...in which case they've indirectly murdered people by stealing their supplies far from the nearest town).

So it's Good to end their threat. Neutral at worst to kill them on the spot.

It's Lawful to kill them because...they're bandits. The very definition of bandit (well, of outlaw, which bandit is a synonym of) is people who have had their right to citizenship evoked because of their actions. Meaning, they don't get a trial. If captured, they will be processed and hanged as swiftly as humanly possible.

The Paladin (and ANY other character) is well within his rights to execute them on the spot for their crimes.

Jaelithe wrote:
Reason #4: "I know, deep down in that place I can't lie to myself, that the paladin *is* better than I am, and I resent it. He's an ever-present reminder that it can be done the right way, if you stop taking the easy way."

Which goes back to my original post.

Paladins bring out the dick in people. Not because of how they act, per se, but because their existence somehow implies there is a "right" way to do everything, and that way it the Lawful Good way.

Lawful Good is somehow implied to be the "best" alignment, which is simply not the case. There is no "best" moral philosophy for how you live your life.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Of course, you also have to remember good is not inherently right ...

Says a guy calling himself "MrSin." Ironic *and* amusing.

It is inherently better than both neutral and evil. It's, you know ... good?

Quote:
...and neither is lawful inherently good.

You're right. That's one of the reasons you follow "lawful" with "good"---so that it is.

Quote:
Similarly that Good doesn't always make the best decisions...

"Good doesn't" ... "make ... decisions" at all. It is, itself, the decision ... and always the right one.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:


Question: If a paladin is allied with a fighter, and the fighter is about to commit an act that both characters know is evil, what should the paladin do?
- Just let it happen
- Leave
- Close his eyes and go to his happy place
- Try to talk the fighter down
- Use force, if necessary, to stop the fighter

Follow-up question: Does the answer to the above question depend on the degree to which the act is considered evil?
- The fighter is mutilating/destroying a corpse to prevent it from being raised/animated/whatever
- The fighter is killing unarmed non-combatants as a precaution so they can't alert guards/soldiers/etc.
- The fighter is about to rob/ambush/whatever some travelers because he and the paladin are starving.
- The fighter is going to torture a prisoner to try to extract information.
- The fighter's going to make a pact with a devil.
- The fighter's lying, cheating, stealing, etc.
- The fighter's going to bring some hired goons to a duel to ensure he wins.
- The fighter's going to order some NPCs to advance, knowing it's a suicide mission.
- Whatever other evil actions you can think of.

Answer: The GM and the group as a whole first need to decide if this is something they want to deal with in hit heir group. If such a problem is something they are okay with, we move on to the next part. This isn't just going to happen with paladin classes though. What if the fighter was committing an act against the party cleric's god?

What should the paladin in your question do? Take action. What action is going to depend on the exact situation. Is the fighter going to kill innocent children? Well, hopefully the rest of the party is going to help the paladin stop it. Is he going to use an evil artifact? Well in this case the paladin need to try to talk him out of it. Essentially, the answer is anything but ignore it.

I want to point out that if there was proper communication about the expectations of the game this shouldn't happen. If the expectation is that is will happen, the paladin and the fighter should both already have an idea of what action will be taken.

Follow-up question:
Yes and no. No in that the paladin should never ignore acts of evil. Just like a cleric shouldn't ignore actions against their faith, a druid shouldn't ignore heinous acts against nature, or certain cavalier orders shouldn't ignore insults to the cavalier's honor.

Yes in that the severity of evil will dictate the needed action to deal with it.

These are just my personal opinions but here how I would handle each of those scenarios.
- I probably would ask that he stop and allow spell casters use magic to prevent the dead from being raised. However, I don't see how this conflicts with the code or is considered a totally evil act. Disrespectful, yes. As such, unless the GM makes it clear I shouldn't, I probably would ignore this in certain situations.

- If I am aware of him doing this, I would remind him of using non-lethal force. Also, dead bodies alert more guards than unconscious people. If I am unable to prevent him, I will need to reevaluate the situation and figure out a new plan so it can be avoided. That may mean stopping the mission for a moment. I may also need to consult with my deity for guidance. However, there is the possibility that it is needed and thus unavoidable. If that is the case the game should be paused and the GM needs to be very clear about the consequences for allowing it to happen. If the GM is going to force my paladin to fall for something unavoidable, I shouldn't have been playing a paladin with that GM.

- I would remind the fighter that we could simply ask them for help. Begging shouldn't be beneath me. Also, there is a chance that the traveler shares my faith, and that could mean even more help. If the fighter is insistent, I am forced to use force against him, I would try to knock him out and not kill him. Maybe some sleep and a warm meal will bring him to his senses.

- This actually almost happened in a game I played. The fighter of one of my groups was going to torture my character thinking I knew something I didn't. The paladin heard the threat. He knocked me out and carried my body to the officials. The GM pretty much said any other action would have caused him to fall. Preventing the torture and finding alternative means to the desired ends is required here.

- The only way this situation would happen is if I was in the same room as this devil. In that case, the solution is to kill the devil, which should have been done before the fighter had a chance to be tempted. Devils are one of my few kill on sight creatures for a paladin.

- If the fighter is doing this in the presence of the paladin and not attempting to hide the activity, then the paladin has every right to arrest them and take them to the local guard. The paladin should issue clear warnings that this will be the action they take if the fighter does those things. The paladin could probably get away with a couple warnings and allow the fighter to repent, but repeat offenses should have clear consequence and action.

- Not sure how this is against the paladin's code. The paladin should do what you are suggesting the fighter do, but it isn't an evil act and thus shouldn't have more than a voiced disapproval.

- I would advance with the minions, standing in the front to live or die with them. Then, when I finished fighting, backhand the fighter and have him dig any graves he created with his actions. I would also demand he take responsibility in telling their families.

- A paladin should always stop, with extreme prejudice, rape and cold blooded murder. If I were playing a paladin and found them in the he middle of comment such acts, gloves are off and I would try to apprehend them alive. If in the defense of myself or others the fighter was killed, I would think the GM would side with me on the situation, but only if I did all I could to prevent his death.


I have been GMing for a long time, and I don't remember paladins being any more disruptive than any other class. If any PC is going too evil for my game, they get a "come to Jesus" meeting with the appropriate celestials. If they don't get the hint, it becomes a "go to Jesus" meeting unless the dice favor them. I usually loan out a copy of Solomon Kane stories to anyone thinking of playing a paladin--that model of paladin works even when hanging out with the murderhobos.

I find the notion that no one in a group of characters in a high pressure environment would try to adjust the behavior of any other character extremely unrealistic. Can anyone point to a book, TV show, movie, or even a gaming group where no one has tried to convince someone to do something?


Jaelithe wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Of course, you also have to remember good is not inherently right ...
Says a guy calling himself "MrSin." Ironic *and* amusing.

The name is actually an ironic one if you'd believe it. I also name a lot of my characters after virtues. The first character I ever made was named Charity.

Jaelithe wrote:
It is inherently better than both neutral and evil. It's, you know ... good?

Why is it better? Such a big philosophical style question. Does it get the most results? Does it save the most lives? Does it make the best compromise? Is it liable if it screws up? What is the situation even!

That said, this kind of talk goes into a wall.

blahpers wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I've only ever played Paladins as humble. They've never told other party members what they can't do, only what he will not do.

You can play one and not be a prick about it. I promise.

This. Lead by example, not by force.

You know, oddly enough I once had a GM in PFS who said I had to be this kind of guy. The guy who leads by example and the guy who doesn't let his teammates get away with anything and threatened me with the fall hammer if I didn't do it. If you know PFS scenarios you might know what kind of problems this poses...


I find it funny that the only problems that people have with paladins seems to be role playing wise where with my group the sheer mechanical power of the class seems out of line enough that on a bad day, the class is a normal combatant. On a good day, it turns into a "why bother, playing another divine class"? Seems to me the code only exist to prevent players from rolling up troops of paladins in any campaign with a central plot against evil. As a result we have running house rules expanding the paladins choices but limiting its powers a bit. However, with the inner sea gods and the advanced class guide, I would be surprised if there are half as many paladins across all pathfinder tables are still active.


My NPC paladin helped my players PC commit suicide last night, so the PC could reincarnate as another race to infiltrate the scarnzi. As the PC's foster father he protested the entire business but when the PC made a diplomacy check imploring father/paladin to do it he relented, knowing he would fall for executing his son, no matter the cause. He smote off the PC's head, informed his colleagues and withdrew into exile having fallen. My player doesn't understand why his actions caused his father to fall.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reincarnate was their best spell for infiltration?!


This thread gets me every time.


He apparently had a brain fart.

Grand Lodge

Have to post here because apparently a lot of people have never seen a Paladin played right.

This is why Paladins are awesome: http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powder_Keg_of_Justice

A lot of parties don't like paladins because it makes morals matter. They can't just be murderhobos anymore and do bad things because it's easier (general observation, doesn't hold for every table).

Also, Paladins are great because they are the straight-man foil to the rest of the parties antics. I'll have to see if I can find it but there was a great story being passed around years ago about a duo of a Paladin and a Rogue that fought crime together.

They were friends but the Paladin was strictly lawful-good while the Rogue was chaotic-good. The Rogue would break laws and apply "pressure" in interrogations to acquire evidence and information to stop bad guys but couldn't let the Paladin know so he had to use sleight of hand, disguise, sneak out at night, etc to cover himself. The Paladin had suspicions but as long as he couldn't get any hard evidence he could keep working with the Rogue.

It was a great good-cop bad-cop partnership.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Desi wrote:
Feelings on paladins? Constructive advice for aspiring paladins?

Love 'em. Make sure you're on the same page as your GM, otherwise you'll end up another horror story.

Check my profile for an excellent breakdown on the code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aegrisomnia wrote:

Interesting line of discussion. So are you guys of the opinion that a Paladin is justified in standing by while an ally performs what is, for the paladin, an unambiguously evil action? What is his responsibility in this scenario? If it depends on the degree to which the action is evil... where does he draw the line?

It's easy to say that a paladin shouldn't force his beliefs on others. It's a bit harder to ask what he should do when he finds himself in situations where trying to stop the party might be the right thing to do.

My Paladin does not condone 'ambigusously evil actions.' He may turn a blind on chaotic actions...If the Thief or spy needs to break in a building and find the clues to continue the adventure, or lie their way into the black market, or something very unlawful... Or neutrual. But not Evil.

If the idea is that they need to sneak around back, kill the guards and hide the bodies... he'll step in, OR they better not let him hear about THAT part of the night...

As the king in kingmaker... there are a lot of people in his employ either directly or indirectly who are NOT LG. His rules are that they are representing him, and not to be involved in things that besmirch his good name...

This seems to be interpreted as 'Don't get caught'....


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't play Paladins (Would like to at some point, just don't get enough games to try all my character concepts) but if I did I'd basically roll with the attitude 'What would Paragon Shepard do?'

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Lawful Good is somehow implied to be the "best" alignment, which is simply not the case. There is no "best" moral philosophy for how you live your life.

It's the best alignment, because it's focus is on the good of society, not just that as one sees it for oneself. Lawful Good is where such things like Maranda Rights, and equal treatment standards for all come from. Where both men and governments are limited by greater standards that bind both.


LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*

At least in your opinion it is.


paladins are pretty good
next question
keep them coming

The Exchange

They're all the best alignment. All the non-evil ones. Says so in the Rules-As-Written. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.

Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

I get the feeling the point about these things being opinions rather than facts are being overlooked by the fact you think they're facts...

Lamontius wrote:

paladins are pretty good

next question
keep them coming

What is your name?

What is your quest?
What is your favorite color?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

100% of LazarXs agree that it is best


LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

I'm going to have to disagree. Most of the greatest heroes of history would be hard to classify as 'Lawful Good'.

Gandhi led a revolution that successfully threw off the largest empire in the world, peacefully. He was literally a rebel, hardly a lawful occupation, so I'd classify him as Neutral good.

Washington was again a revolutionary, fighting for freedom from an oppressive government (Britain's handling of its colonies was total BS). Practically the definition of Chaotic Good. Was he too self absorbed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People who have problems RP'ing with a LG PC are people I do not want to game with.

It is no more difficult to play a LG paladin than it is to play a CN murderhobo. I personally find it more difficult to indulge the latter.

A lot of the stigma about paladin difficulties are those that do not actually exist, or are those that only exist because you perceive them to.

The very concept of things like having to draw lines in the sand, or allying with maligned creatures to accomplish the 'greater good' for the purpose of narrative should never be something that comes up as the player's story ideally is always going to be a story where said scenario of 'greater good' is at jeopardy.

Compare to the literary notion of 'why tell a story about something that is insignificant?' That is, the players are not meant to be some side story that doesn't matter, if they were, they wouldn't be playing that story. Crossing the asymptote of narrative significance means invalidating the entire purpose of story in the first place.

Case in point, unless the player and DM collectively agree that the narrative demands the paladin's alignment shift, then it cannot.

All other points regarding narrative structure and play style ignore the fact that this is a game, played by people at the table and that actions often can be and are rescinded at will, those involving the narrative should not be excluded on the bias of a {url=tvtrop that I am too lazy to link to}Jerkass DM{/fake url} whose gaming opinion are unmovable and whose decisions are unchangeable only for the purposes of the theory crafted thread that is the stigma created on internet forums to be known as "the weekly paladin alignment thread."

Ultimately the 'paladin problem' is itself a fictional issue that we play through by playing the role of role players who have a problem with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FuelDrop wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

I'm going to have to disagree. Most of the greatest heroes of history would be hard to classify as 'Lawful Good'.

Gandhi led a revolution that successfully threw off the largest empire in the world, peacefully. He was literally a rebel, hardly a lawful occupation, so I'd classify him as Neutral good.

Washington was again a revolutionary, fighting for freedom from an oppressive government (Britain's handling of its colonies was total BS). Practically the definition of Chaotic Good. Was he too self absorbed?

The fact that they rebelled does not make them not lawful. Washington believed in a firm set of laws and rules and a lawful and orderly society. He just didn't believe that Great Britain should sit at the top of it.


I'd like Paladins better if they could be any alignment but just had to be paragons of that alignment.

I want to play a Chaotic Neutral Paladin who is an anarchist in every way (in the philosopher sense, not the Sex Pistols sense). Power structures of any kind are the Enemy; a line of good kings will inevitably give birth to a bad one, and it is better to remove the system before that happens.

Characters who are entirely defined by their ideals can be interesting in the hands of a responsible and intelligent player, I just don't like how the class that is designed for this has such a limited set of ideals that is considered acceptable for the class.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:


The fact that they rebelled does not make them not lawful. Washington believed in a firm set of laws and rules and a lawful and orderly society. He just didn't believe that Great Britain should sit at the top of it.

A Chaotic Good Washington may have well accepted the crown that the historical Washington refused.


LazarX wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The fact that they rebelled does not make them not lawful. Washington believed in a firm set of laws and rules and a lawful and orderly society. He just didn't believe that Great Britain should sit at the top of it.
A Chaotic Good Washington may have well accepted the crown that the historical Washington refused.

A lawful Washington might not have been a part of such an unlawful rebellion in the first place.

Alignments weird like that. Probably best to keep historical figures or real life characters out of alignment arguments.


Washington was Neutral Good, certainly. Being a politician that listens to people he doesn't agree with 100% always was one of his most extraordinary features as president.

Thomas Jefferson was totally Lawful though, bordering on Evil.


MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The fact that they rebelled does not make them not lawful. Washington believed in a firm set of laws and rules and a lawful and orderly society. He just didn't believe that Great Britain should sit at the top of it.
A Chaotic Good Washington may have well accepted the crown that the historical Washington refused.

A lawful Washington might not have been a part of such an unlawful rebellion in the first place.

Alignments weird like that. Probably best to keep historical figures or real life characters out of alignment arguments.

Whether you rebell against a particular government has nothing to do with whether you are lawful. If you believe that a different system of l"laws not men" is the appropriate lawful system, then it's not chaotic to remove one set of codified laws and put in another set of codified laws.

I think things like that are what causes half the problems with people's views of paladins and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
I think things like that are what causes half the problems with people's views of paladins and such.

I think part of the problem is everyone has a different view of what alignments are and what they would do. Probably not the guy with the opinion that things should be flexible being the wrong one so much as the guy who believes in a one true way being off.


RDM42 wrote:
FuelDrop wrote:
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

I'm going to have to disagree. Most of the greatest heroes of history would be hard to classify as 'Lawful Good'.

Gandhi led a revolution that successfully threw off the largest empire in the world, peacefully. He was literally a rebel, hardly a lawful occupation, so I'd classify him as Neutral good.

Washington was again a revolutionary, fighting for freedom from an oppressive government (Britain's handling of its colonies was total BS). Practically the definition of Chaotic Good. Was he too self absorbed?

The fact that they rebelled does not make them not lawful. Washington believed in a firm set of laws and rules and a lawful and orderly society. He just didn't believe that Great Britain should sit at the top of it.

Correct. Revolutionaries need not be non-lawful; they need only believe that the current regime is unjust.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
FuelDrop wrote:
I don't play Paladins (Would like to at some point, just don't get enough games to try all my character concepts) but if I did I'd basically roll with the attitude 'What would Paragon Shepard do?'

salutes

drives the Mako into a ditch

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
MrSin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
*snip* It's the best alignment *snip*
At least in your opinion it is.
Yes it is. Chaotic Goods are generally too self absorbed, and Neutral Goods too passive.

I can honestly declare that my CG characters generally aren't self-absorbed and my NG characters are far from passive.

plays his barbarian as Good as his paladin


And Elsa the halfling bard, Grand Diplomat of Tuskwood, trollbane- and neutral good also officially registers her disagreement with the attribution of passivity.

101 to 150 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Opinions on Paladins All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.