Kind of strange that they made the Redeemer archetype Half-Orc-only (and Human if you do the appropriate Racial Heritage cheese). Should at least be open to other traditionally monstrous races, including full-blooded Orcs (even though they be suboptimal for this mechanically due to the Ability Score adjustments being unfavorable for everything except Strength).
Well, in fact this is open to monstrous race since monstrous race are opened to DM fiat, if your DM let you have access to the Orc Race then if you have the right argument you can let him you play a Redeemer archetype Orc... What players can do with normal races and class and what DM can do with it is really different... The redeemer archetype can be applied by a DM to virtually any individual, without regard from races, that wants to be redeemed... So a Daemon with the redemeer archetype can exist if your DM want to... ;)
wow i love the explosion of the thread, even if i ingorned it for a week lmao XD, i seriouslly thought the thread had run its course but nope take a look away and it bursts lol
Well, Paladin gameplay is a thing that as been discussed since the Paladin appeared and that will always be discussed... A lot of people 'including me who is a DM at my table) think that "with great power comes great responsability", if a Pal is powerful then it should be toned down by his RP... :p
Are you talking about me?
Are you talking about me?
Sorry but I don't think so, the quote say : "Raphael Valen wrote" so it's not about you... ;p
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) paladins aren't oppressive.
This means they DO NOT enforce their code or ethics on others.
They are NOT the hell knights of lawful goodness.
2) Paladins are NOT Judgmental.
they don't kill things "just because they are evil"
However things like outsiders (demons/devils) are pretty much free game, unless there is a serious reason why they don't need to die, immediately, just yet.
3) paladins are interested in redeeming others
which is the reason for #1 and #2
4) Paladins don't expect everyone to be able to uphold or live up to their code,
They know they are the exception not the rule.
5) Paladins are caring, considerate, and protective of others.
6) Paladins prioritize the innocent over the wicked.
a paladin will save a drowning girl , even if it means letting the arch devil escape.
does this mean if the paladin chooses to slay the arch devil in lieu of saving the drowning girl, that he falls?
No… because slaying the devil furthers the overall goal of good.
The girls death is unfortunate, but the devils threat overrides.
The paladin has made a tough choice… not made an evil one.
7) Paladins refrain from personally invoking themselves in things that would break their ethical code.
They disapprove of allies doing such things (breaking and entering, lying, manipulating, looting etc) but they don't feel empowered or responsible to stop them from doing so.
The Gygaxian Paladin is what most people refer to as "L-awful Stupid", and was more a means of game balance than it was role playing.
the 1E Paladin was far an away more powerful than other martial classes and in many cases outshines wizards as well.
Lawful stupidness and the other silly restrictions it suffered were a mean of game balance.
decades later that is not the current paladin, who, even without alignment/code is balanced with other character classes.
Well, Paladin gameplay is a thing that as been discussed since the Paladin appeared and that will always be discussed... A lot of people 'including me who is a DM at my table) think that "with great power comes great responsability", if a Pal is powerful then it should be toned down by his RP... :p
I think that this is the number one reason of contention (though I believe that you are correct). Paladin powers are balanced (in part) by their roleplay restrictions. Taking away their roleplay restrictions can lead to an imbalance.
Well, Paladin gameplay is a thing that as been discussed since the Paladin appeared and that will always be discussed... A lot of people 'including me who is a DM at my table) think that "with great power comes great responsability", if a Pal is powerful then it should be toned down by his RP... :pI think that this is the number one reason of contention (though I believe that you are correct). Paladin powers are balanced (in part) by their roleplay restrictions. Taking away their roleplay restrictions can lead to an imbalance.
I don't think that's true.
The Paladin in 3/PF is balanced with other classes. It's restriction to LG is more sacred cow than game balance anymore.
It USED to be Game Balance, just like the ranger used to be restricted to good and the druid to neutral only.
Alignment was used as a balancer, along with minima stat requirements in earlier versions of the game.
The different classes also required different amounts of experience to level, all of that contributed to players using cleric, fighter and thief classes more often than the others (unlike now)
However, now the classes are a lot more banked with each other, gone are the different levels of advancement, attribute requirements (like a 17 charisma!) and many of the alignment restrictions.
Because the classes are a lot more balanced.
Paladin may be a little tweaked when fighting evil critters, but it's gimped when not doing so.
The LG isn't the major barrier it once was either.
As evidenced by Paizo staff teaming Seelah (LG Paladin) up with Seltyiel (LE EK) in the CoT AP.
Something that would never have happened in earlier versions of the game.
|
Being responsible for the life you save is not unheard of in traditional cultures. If that wasn't what the writers meant they shouldn't have written that the paladin was responsible for the life of the surrendered. They would be responsible for the safety or keeping of the prisoner. Life is that thing that goes on until a person dies.
If a paladin leaves a prisoner with a compatriot of questionable morals and says "I am holding you responsible for this prisoner's life," how would you interpret the paladin's statement?
Mmmh.. As anyone suggested that he should ask his DM how the DM view a Pal ?
When asking your dm about paladins, definitely ask if you can actually kill enemies, evil foes/monsters, evil people and if they are protected by "accept my surrender or you fall shields" if your vile enemies give up.
Can their evil lives be forfeit, or is your paladin status forfeit if you are too eager to smite and purge (zealous paladins are into S&M).
Ask for clarification on what punishment in the paladin's code means and whether there are kid gloves in your paladin's size.
Definitely ask whether a paladin always have to respect worldly laws, or only lawful good governments; or only the laws of the faith and their god and the laws of the country be damned. This can actually significantly impact what you can and can't do without falling if governments, local bodies, and bureaucrats cannot be defied. If a contest between secular and church power comes up, your paladin needs to know which way they can go without falling down.
Ah! And don't forget to ask whether it is kosher to kill evil old lady spellcasters if they go for their wands or start casting. That caused some problems for a pally player before, leading to such comedic situations of players being angry with the fast acting paladin and the whisper in the air that surely you must fall for that: "why didn't you take her alive?" "Why didn't I let that disintegrate spell bounce off my forehead?" "You definitely should fall for taking out that corrupt evil spellcaster, you monster!"
|
Honestly, I don't watch anime, so I can't speak for characters from there, but I've read most of Pratchett's works, and I'd absolutely allow for a paladin to be played like Vimes or Carrot. What I personally view as the best paladin, able to fit in any party, is Obi-Wan Kenobi.
He's compassionate, lawful, except when he's not, is able to go and think outside the box (talking to an underground related bar owner, rather than trusting the Council in Camino not existing) preferring to negotiate first, rather than think with his lightsaber, and in the Clone Wars cartoon works together with questionable characters in order to stop greater evil. Light hearted, has a sense of humour, and is not the pain in the exhaust pipe other jedi are.
While he does some non-lawful acts occasionally, he's still lawful in principle. I view him as the paladin most parties need, but not the one they deserve. Some players need the Holy Pain.