| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin talk has been derailing the once-civil alignment thread, so I'm starting this so that we can debate paladins until we're blue in the face without involving people who don't care.
(If there's anyone on the internet who doesn't care about paladins. There must be one somewhere, but don't ask me where...)
_______________________________________________
Like I've said before: Create your warrior for chaotic good. Give him some cool powers, if you like. Just don't duplicate the paladin's powers, and don't call him a paladin, because he's not.
If people found that sufficiently satisfying, they wouldn't come here and say, "You're doing it wrong" or "You're not open-minded enough"—which, ironically enough, is yet another way of saying, "You're doing it wrong."
Oh, the irony!
_______________________________________________Once again: "As reward for their righteousness [italics mine], these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful."
It's pretty clear one side is not going to convince the other.
Indeed, particularly when one of us insists that the specific image in his head is not only immutable -- within a game of imagination, no less -- but also that nobody is allowed to play with his toys.
FYI, despite using righteousness to argue your own ideal, but you seem to be confused as to the definition of righteousness. (Note that the only mention of law in any definition is in example text.)
_______________________________________________
I don't buy your chain of logic, because it's clearly self-serving the goal of chaotic good "paladins" being accepted.
Much like your logic is clearly a self-serving attempt to maintain the sanctity of your One True Way.
_______________________________________________Why do you have to call your chaotic good "warrior for good" a paladin?
Because that accurately describes his role within the game world and his abilities.
_______________________________________________MrSin, Lesser restriction SHOULD have either lesser versions of the powers OR a different set of powers completely to differentiate it from a real Paladin. Like a CG Holy Warrior might get smite alone and perhaps lose or get a watered down version of the rest of the paladin power set... to balance it they might get a couple unique powers of their own.
You're right; clerics of different alignments have different powers to differentiate them. Other-aligned paladins should have unique powers like appropriately aligned smite X powers, anarchic/axiomatic/holy/unholy divine bonds, positive/negative energy channeling, and protection from X spells.
_______________________________________________Like Jaelithe says you can't have the two different ideas at the same table they stomp on each others toes.
Not so; we're perfectly happy with you playing your LG paladins. It's you who feel entitled to dictate to others what they can and can't play. Even if it's only at your own table, that's simply selfish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not so; we're perfectly happy with you playing your LG paladins. It's you who feel entitled to dictate to others what they can and can't play. Even if it's only at your own table, that's simply selfish.
my intended point as well. i don't want to stop any of you from playing your classic Lawful Good Paladins, but i don't want to feel dirty for Homebrewing or Converting a Chaotic Good Paladin Variant at my Own Table for the player that wants to be a Chaotic Good Paladin Focused on Freedom and individuality rather than order and conformity. just because Chaotic Good Paladins exist in the rulebook, doesn't mean you have to play with them, but it gives other tables another option. it does nothing to water down lawful good paladins, it introduces a functionally similar yet entirely different option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... And why is it required that this class be a "paladin", rather that a "holy warrior of Freedom" or a Sanctified champion of Good, or a "Paragon of Pure Law' ... Etcetera.
Why is it required that he not be a paladin? Did you call dibs? Is there a new rule that different alignments of the same class have different names? If so I totally want to vote that the CN rogue is now called the Cliché. LG will be mascara! CG will be blush.
Makes you wonder, do the paladin orders accept honorary members?
Can a fighter be a paladin? Can a rogue?
Maybe the lodge has a scan for paladin wand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the paladin class just fine as-is. In 30+ years of gaming, the only problems with paladins I've ever seen had nothing to do with the class itself. The trouble was all about disruptive players and/or GMs who enjoyed tormenting players.
At my table, if you want to play a non-LG holy warrior, there are options. Most likely are inquisitor and fighter/cleric. Plus the new warpriest class from the upcoming Advanced Class Guide.
Because the class already exists as a particular thing, not as the other?
Well that depends on your game and source. Paladin has been a lot of things in a lot of games, and of course in real life paladins were something entirely different, its actual definition not being attached to being a holy warrior. WoW, 4E, and Fire Emblem all have different versions of the paladin, and non of them are required to be lawful good.
Which paladin is the real paladin? Hmm!?
At my table, if you want to play a non-LG holy warrior, there are options. Most likely are inquisitor and fighter/cleric. Plus the new warpriest class from the upcoming Advanced Class Guide.
And beyond arguing about a name, you then talk about the context. Why do you want to play x? Is it because of the mechanical things? Its a lot different to play a wizard or a fighter, just the same an inquisitor is a different beast than a paladin which is another beast than a cleric. Fluff is one thing, so is mechanics.
Since really, using the paladin mechanics is a kludgy way at best of representing the concept, why shoehorn it in there?
Most DMs just don't have the time/skill/interest in writing up a special snowflake class. So if they want to allow non-LG paladins, the simplest solution is to drop/change the code, the alignment restriction, and tweak the paladin's aligned powers appropriately.
Besides, it's not like the game is a stranger to many archetypes being kludged into the same class: The cleric was originally a Van Helsing undead-hunter concept. It was slowly reconceptualized into a Templar sort of archetype, and its mechanics still reflect that -- d8 HD, average BAB, and heavy armor prof. And yet all kinds of holy archetypes get kludged into this one class, from dark cultists to priests of subtle sneaky deities to holy scribes of learning and peace.
|
Besides, if you wanted that holy champion of freedom you would want to give it an entirely different package of abilities to truly be thematic anyway.
Why? What powers does the current paladin have that give it a lawful flavour as opposed to a good flavour?
The current powers are already perfect for paladins of any Good alignment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WoW, 4E, and Fire Emblem all have different versions of the paladin, and non of them are required to be lawful good.
Which paladin is the real paladin? Hmm!?
Well, considering that none of those games were around in 1975 (when the paladin class first appeared in D&D), I'd say that as far as paladins in a gaming context are concerned, there is more than a very strong chance that the (Original) D&D paladin, and those that follow those original abilities and restrictions are the real paladins...
there is more than a very strong chance that the (Original) D&D paladin, and those that follow those original abilities and restrictions are the real paladins...
I suppose that depends on how you define real. If I had to define it I'd say that all of my examples are real paladins, just maybe not your paladin or my paladin. The original paladin from 1975 is a paladin, and he's not the PF edition paladin or the fourth edition paladin if you really want to compare. I suppose now I have to ask you what makes it the real paladin to you and the others not?
Anyways, big point was that none of those paladins weren't real. People play them and have fun with them. Doesn't destroy your game or mine, and you may never even have heard of them or given a care.
Somewhat unrelated, but anyone think its weird how protection of something can be the most destructive kind of behavior there is? I wonder if that qualifies as irony. Food for thought.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose now I have to ask you what makes it the real paladin to you and the others not?
I have said on these boards many times that I am a card carrying, "You kids get off my lawn", grognard. I am not ashamed of this...
I realize that people have been tinkering with the rules since day-one, and that's fine, but for me, the classes are what they are. If one wants to play something else, come up with a new class. Even if the new class is just a variation of the "old" class, it's now become something different (and I have no problem with that). First edition AD&D had many new classes showing up in the pages of Dragon Magazine, and second edition AD&D had rules on how to create new classes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, it's not like the game is a stranger to many archetypes being kludged into the same class: The cleric was originally a Van Helsing undead-hunter concept.This is the first I'm hearing about this aspect of the Cleric's history. I was under the impression it started out as a Priest class, a lesser magic user lent power by his god?
Wikipedia says it started out as a mix between the magic user and fighting man and a simulation of the vampire hunting clergy. Also they used to only be able to use blunt weapons, I forgot about that!
|
|
Wikipedia says it started out as a mix between the magic user and fighting man and a simulation of the vampire hunting clergy.
The OD&D book: "Men & Magic" does not say anything or really hint at the "undead/vampire hunter" at all. But it does mention the mix between the fighting man and magic-user however. The spell list is pretty much the same as it is now in PF (though the spell list is smaller and only goes up to 5th level), and the ability to turn undead isn't particularly noteworthy either...
EDIT TO ADD:
Also they used to only be able to use blunt weapons
Weapons in OD&D were all flavor text, as all weapons in OD&D used a d6 for damage.
Wikipedia says it started out as a mix between the magic user and fighting man and a simulation of the vampire hunting clergy. Also they used to only be able to use blunt weapons, I forgot about that!Besides, it's not like the game is a stranger to many archetypes being kludged into the same class: The cleric was originally a Van Helsing undead-hunter concept.This is the first I'm hearing about this aspect of the Cleric's history. I was under the impression it started out as a Priest class, a lesser magic user lent power by his god?
According to Old Geezer, who played with Gary way back when, and likes to answer questions about D&D's history over at RPG.net, the first clerics were a counterbalance to a vampire PC who had gotten out of hand. If OG is to be believed, the vampire's name was Sir Fang, and said vampire eventually accrued a veritable army of undead. So, in grand old Gygaxian style, Gary whipped up the cleric as a means to keep Sir Fang in check: ergo, Turn Undead.
Another amusing but not really relevant anecdote from OG: Apparently Sir Fang's undead minions began as lowly skeletons, but progressed through various forms of undead as their vampire master gained experience. But as his minions were damaged in combat, they would regress through the various undead forms they had taken. During one adventure, Sir Fang decided to engage a flying enemy with his flying minions -- wraiths, spectres, and so forth. The aerial battle took place over a farm, so as the flying undead were damaged, they began dropping from the sky as they regressed to zombie form and suchlike -- providing the farmer below with free fertilizer. :)
I can't be the only one who feels that Paladins would be best represented by a Neutral Good alignment can I?
I am of the opinion that NG is the goodest good, so no, you are not. :)
|
|
Wikipedia says it started out as a mix between the magic user and fighting man and a simulation of the vampire hunting clergy.The OD&D book: "Men & Magic" does not say anything or really hint at the "undead/vampire hunter" at all. But it does mention the mix between the fighting man and magic-user however. The spell list is pretty much the same as it is now in PF (though the spell list is smaller and only goes up to 5th level), and the ability to turn undead isn't particularly noteworthy either...
EDIT TO ADD:
Also they used to only be able to use blunt weaponsWeapons in OD&D were all flavor text, as all weapons in OD&D used a d6 for damage.
I started playing in AD&D 1st ed, and all the weapons had their own entry. Clerics could still only use blunt weapons.
In 2nd ed the 'priest' type consisted of 'cleric' (the generic one we all know) and 'specialty priest' dedicated to a particular god, and he could use his deity's favoured weapon whether it was blunt or not.
Does changing the alignment of the Paladin to something other than lawful good make it overpowered? If the answer is "no", then different alignments should be an option, but if the answer is "yes", then maybe the lawful good restriction should stand.
Why does the game have alignment restrictions at all, for any class? I would imagine it might have to do with maintaining balance.
I would love to play a paladin/barbarian. Raging smite evil would rock.
Why does the game have alignment restrictions at all, for any class? I would imagine it might have to do with maintaining balance.
Legacy more than anything really if I remember right. A lot of things in the game are untouched or kept as close as possible to the original design because their sacred cows, ideally that's best for business, arguably best for the game. Arguably being a key word, not everyone agrees with the idea. There are also much better ways to do balance that don't mess with a players ability to choose to play who they want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't be the only one who feels that Paladins would be best represented by a Neutral Good alignment can I?I am of the opinion that NG is the goodest good, so no, you are not. :)
Yes, the best paladins are those closest to NG, but who still have LG on their sheets. Find a dm that has no problem with this.
Yes, the best paladins are those closest to NG, but who still have LG on their sheets. Find a dm that has no problem with this.I can't be the only one who feels that Paladins would be best represented by a Neutral Good alignment can I?I am of the opinion that NG is the goodest good, so no, you are not. :)
Eh, I barely care about the law-neutrality-chaos axis as it is; I can't imagine having a conversation about the distinctions between NLG and LLG and LNG or whatever.
I love Planescape, but 17 is way too many!
(Also, I'd rather just find a 4e DM.)
egh...
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/paladin.html#_paladin
alignment: LAWFULL GOOD
if it ain't LAWFULL GOOD it ain't no Paladin. the paladin class is the embodiment of Awfull Lawfull (tm)
typical "I want a a poisoned cake, eat it, and survive without adverse effects" attitude.
What if told you, that you could build a paladin that actually encompasses a build your own champion idea, and that the paladin as written is built for one particular one as is, and that no one is saying that the paladin as written doesn't have Lawful Good written on it, and that's largely a complaint by certain groups, and that other people think it would ruin their personal fun if these people actually played a CG paladin?
I don't think its at all a "eat a poisoned cake and live" attitude. Its not like anyones advocating something suicidal. That's probably a little extreme, no?
Nah. Doesn't ruin or remotely effect my fun if you play it that way at your table. Just don't think the book should be changed. The paladin as is is an iconic class. Just add something new that can cover the territory and move on.
Didn't say it was anyone in particular. Just the same, what's wrong with giving other people options? Does it ruin something for you? does it make your game less fun? is it all about sacred cows who's hooves need a good kiss? Gotta ask that type of thing. What would be best.
Adding another class that covers the territory and leaving the old one alone.
So we need 9 different classes instead of one flexible one? To cover one particular thing with a particular set of very similar and heavily shared mechanics?
Adding another class that covers the territory and leaving the old one alone.So we need 9 different classes instead of one flexible one? To cover one particular thing with a particular set of very similar and heavily shared mechanics?
kind of a waste of word count and paper when you can have one flexible class instead of 9 classes with a particular set of very similar and heavily shared mechanics. it is like creating a shaman class that is completely identical to the druid and creating a skinwalker class that is identical to the druid and shaman.
kind of a waste of word count and paper when you can have one flexible class instead of 9 classes with a particular set of very similar and heavily shared mechanics. it is like creating a shaman class that is completely identical to the druid and creating a skinwalker class that is identical to the druid and shaman.
Well yeah, but I mean the skinwalker is slightly less neutral and can be other alignments and changes all the class features about the druid which are
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember waaay back during the Alpha/Beta days, I tried to talk Jason and James into allowing "paladins" of all alignments, because "paladin" really should just mean "the most fervent holy warriors of a particular deity.". Unfortunately, they wanted to maintain the Paladins are only LG trope.
-Skeld
Well, I once played a Barbarian Monk.
How's that possible? Easy: He was born in a barbarian tribe. He dresses, talks and eats as a barbarian. But while a kid, he found that punching people was funnier than hitting them with a stick (Remember: KID. Cutting swords are for adults) so he asked his parents permission to train in a nearbly monastery. Thus, all his class levels are "Monk". For him, being a Barbarian is just a background.
So he has monastic wows, he doesn't indulge himself very much in barbarian parties (He wend to his brother's wedding, he drank some mead with his family, and gived a toast for victory and prosperity... and then, he went back to training and meditating) He's Lawful Good, tough he would like to engage in some chaotic fun... should his training leave him some time!
I like to play a lot with the "Nature / Demeantor" duality, found in World of Darkness games. So, if your deeds can make you fall from goodnes or lawfulness, but not your nature, you can have a character who knows that he MUST behave correctly, but really WOULD LIKE to have some fun.
|
|
Really? Avoiding the word count and pages is that much of an issue? There are several very similar yet different classes already; why, to use your phrase, is it a sacred cow for you that it HAS to be the paladin?
Create one class with flexibility which covers the ground of "holy warrior" - and leave paladin sitting where it is. You add one class and leave those that like the paladin as is what they like.
Alternately - create archetypes that change the paladin into one of the other things it isn't and leave the base chassis alone.
Okay. I'll write a paladin archetype right now.
Paladin of Freedom.
Some paladins realise that the best way to provide the most Good for the most people is by guaranteeing individual liberty, and any laws are to safeguard those liberties. Most such paladins have a code that's based on something like the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Code of Conduct: A Paladin of Freedom must be of Chaotic Good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, her code requires that she respect individual freedom, act with honour (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who would threaten or harm innocents.
Because the paladin is Chaotic, spells with the Law descriptor are not on their spell list and each is replaced by the equivalent spell with the Chaotic descriptor.
In the list of available powers for the Divine Bond, replace Axiomatic with Anarchic.
Done and dusted! Nothing else needs to be changed, and because it doesn't alter any specific power it stacks with any other paladin archetype.
Those who don't want to play a Paladin of Freedom are under no obligation to play one. Everybody wins!
Any problems?
Create one class with flexibility which covers the ground of "holy warrior" - and leave paladin sitting where it is. You add one class and leave those that like the paladin as is what they like.
So... Create one class that's mostly identical but flexible, and make a separate paladin class just to appease you?
Alternately - create archetypes that change the paladin into one of the other things it isn't and leave the base chassis alone.
The problem with archetypes is they can't be used with other archetypes. So for example any paladin archetype that swaps out smite evil wouldn't be usable with sacred servant. Swapping out channel means no oath of vengeance, etc. Its far from a good solution.
I remember waaay back during the Alpha/Beta days, I tried to talk Jason and James into allowing "paladins" of all alignments, because "paladin" really should just mean "the most fervent holy warriors of a particular deity.". Unfortunately, they wanted to maintain the Paladins are only LG trope.
-Skeld
I was told it was a business decision to keep the old restrictions because it was better for sales, if I remember correctly.
Any problems?
You used the word paladin?
Actually, you wouldn't be making a separate paladin class. It already exists.
Actually, anything I make is irrelevant because I'm not involved printing the books. I mean, if we have to argue syntax.
And seriously a paladin of freedom really isn't best represented by a paladin chassis anyhow.
How is that? What about the basic paladin with a different code screams "I'm not chaotic!".
|
|
A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?
How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
Apparently good health is only for lawful people. Maybe only they show true discipline and brush their teeth well and often enough?
I think its more about preferences in bonuses than "Well I mean this actually isn't chaotic" though.
Didn't say it was. Just that there are other things you can put there that are BETTER representative of the concept.
Right, but what about the paladin isn't chaotic?
Alternately, I could say, why are you so insistent it HAS to be the paladin, only the paladin, exactly as is with no changes PERIOD!!!How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
Because its a holy champion guy with smite and divine grace and a four level spell list with litanies?
Why does everyone else have to appease your intolerance, eh?
|
|
Alternately, I could say, why are you so insistent it HAS to be the paladin, only the paladin, exactly as is with no changes PERIOD!!!How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
Occam's razor. It's perfect as it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An alternate paladin could be fun--with appropriately reflavored abilities. A Freedom Warrior needs a freedom of movement ability swapped in for something else at the very least. Probably also the ability to pick locks (opening slave cages, etc.), Mercies that end domination and enchantment effects, to remove fatigue from the oppressed, and so forth.
Those who are arguing for a reflavored version are those who are seeing it as something unique and flavorful and deserving of that attention--and also something different, flavorwise, than the core chassis.
It does not need to be "up to the DM." I imagine a 3PP would be willing to take it on, and if not them, another member of the community.
Alignments aren't going anywhere, and an archetype would be a way to address most concerns and pack in some great flavor.
In short: ask for an archetype and you'll get more interest and in the end, a more interesting product. Argue versus alignments in general, and it spins in circles and goes back to the same tired commentary and turns more people off. For the latter you need an alternative version of PF which Paizo isn't interested in.
Why does everyone else have to appease your intolerance for the paladin continuing to exist as is?Because its a holy champion guy with smite and divine grace and a four level spell list with litanies?
Why does everyone else have to appease your intolerance, eh?
Guy who wants it his way and thinks other people can't have it their way- Tolerant?
Guy who's okay with that one guy's way and several other ways - intolerant?
... What? I didn't say your paladin should be wiped off the face of the earth. I just suggest the chasis be okay to be used with other ideals.