Again, I provided a link above that allows for all that... except replacing the Aura of Justice with the Aura of Freedom, which surely could be argued is even more appropriate right?Mechanics that a Champion of the Faith Warpriest lacks which, *thematically*, a holy champion of Cayden Cailean should have:
* Full BAB
* Divine Grace
* Aura of Courage
* Aura of Resolve and Aura of Righteousness
* Aura of Justice -- I suppose I'm less attached to this one than the others.
Had not seen your link when I posted. Such an archetype is indeed basically what every person advocating for CG paladins on this thread has suggested, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that you can't have a Lawful Good Paladin of Cayden. The "one step between you and your deity" is a rule for Clerics (also Warpriest, Inquisitors, etc.) it is curiously absent in the rules for Paladins.
There's nothing weirder about an LG Paladin who worships Cayden than an LG Wizard who worships Nethys.
That does send a message of inadequacy; that a CG deity's most devout and true worshipers just aren't good enough - by whatever measure of good is necessary, be it morality, fortitude, dedication, or what have you - to manifest the power to cast 4/9 spells, heal with a touch, project an aura of courage(especially glaring given that Cayden is explicitly and specifically the god of courage ), or smite evil. That one must stray from Cayden's teachings to the point that, if one were a cleric they would actually lose their powers, to manifest these abilities.
Also keeping in mind that the deity specific paladin codes that exist, exist only for LG, NG, and LN deities, and that a paladin dedicated to those deities can lose their powers by violating that deity's specific code while acting in a way that's still LG. And that the one paladin archetype that exist that allows the paladin to be something other than LG(NG & LN) also explicitly forbids them from worshiping deities from alignments other than those.
I think it's plainly obvious that the reason the one step rule is absent from the paladin is because someone judged that it would be redundant with the paladin's restriction to LG. They figured they didn't need to specify because the paladin could only be one alignment and all the deities that a paladin would follow in their minds, and by extension, all the deities that offer paladin codes, are within one step of that one alignment. When they created an archetype that allowed the paladin to be something else, they reinforced the concept that only deities within a step of LG were allowed.
Which I perceive as a massive middle finger to the rest of the deities but I've made that abundantly clear over the course of this thread.
I have to admit, I genuinely do not understand you, PossibleCabage. You're okay with a LG divine caster worshiping CE gods, or removing alignment from deities all together, but the idea of someone who isn't lawful good having full bab, heavy armor/martial weapons, smite, lay on hands, buffing aura, and 4/9 casting is just abhorrent to you.
Sighs, for those DM that would be willing to consider CG Paladins, why not simply pick an alternate class like the Anti-Paladin? Again, the consideration of a CG Liberator.
You have a heavily armour holy warrior who can smite good, has divine grace, offers lay of hands, and the majority of the rest of Paladin abilities but not exactly the same. Though with somewhat different flavor, as I feel is only appropriate.
The differences being in class skills, spell list, divine bond, aura of justice, and an alternate code of conduct.
And when Paizo publishes it I'll be satisfied to let this go. Until that time it is glorified fan fiction. It may be well balanced fan fiction, fan-fiction I'd be happy to incorporate into my own home game at my personal table, but it's still fan fiction.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics that a Champion of the Faith Warpriest lacks which, *thematically*, a holy champion of Cayden Cailean should have: [SNIP]
My quibble with the 'you don't need a CG Paladin, that's what Warpriests are for' is that the corollary is that 'you don't need LG Warpriests, that what a Paladin is for.'
Since the latter isn't true (you *are* allowed to play a LG Warpriest), the former shouldn't be an argument.
Still, the Unearthed Arcana Paladins of Freedom, Tyranny, etc. are all viable solutions. Just change what needs changing to update them to reflect the changes from 3.X to Pathfinder, and good to go. Green Ronin's Holy Warrior class would need a lot of upgrading from 3.X to Pathfinder, but is an *awesome* resource, that bases a Holy Warriors powers on two domains chosen from their god, so that you can make a baseline 'Paladin' Holy Warrior, or one that worships a god of Death and Weather and has wildly different, but thematically appropriate, abilities.
Yes, Paladins were always LG back in 1st edition of some other game. Whoopy. They also were human-only and required a 17 Charisma. Rangers had to be good (and cast wizard spells!). Dwarves couldn't be wizards. Monks used d4's for HD, and when you hit X level as a Monk, you had to seek out another Monk of that level and fight to advance! There was only one Druid of certain levels, so you might hit the ceiling and then have to wait for someone to die before you could level up. Races other than humans could multiclass, but had level caps, and couldn't be many classes (and most nonhuman races were harshly limited in how many levels of Cleric they could take, because, apparently, all of their gods sucked!), while humans could be any class to any level, but couldn't multiclass. Assassin and Illusionist were base classes, and everyone had a chance at psionic powers.
Throw another sacred cow onto the fire, with all the other sacred cows we've burned.
It's a brave new world.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when Paizo publishes it I'll be satisfied to let this go. Until that time it is glorified fan fiction. It may be well balanced fan fiction, fan-fiction I'd be happy to incorporate into my own home game at my personal table, but it's still fan fiction.
This sentiment is laughable, since I make liberal use of 3rd party to enhance my campaigns. It's why I don't give a damn what is or is not banned in Pathfinder Society or not, unless it is clearly unbalanced.
The way I look at it, if Paizo doesn't offer what is wanted by me or my players I go to that which does offer what i want. Whether that is homebrew or 3rd party, I will use it if it fits and is balanced even if it wasn't published by Paizo.
I mean lets be honest her, Paizo has messed up, fumbled the ball, or created that which is broken before. Of which then has been picked up far more gracefully or creatively by a 3rd party. For example, Everyman Gaming actually making Unchained Pathfinder useful.
I mean seriously, unchaining the Monk and making it is none of its archetypes could be used anymore? The issues with how they unchained summoners and in what they changed with eidolons. They messed up with that book.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because tautology is not a convincing argument, and never has been? Especially when discussing an imaginary character in a world that we have created out of whole cloth, and thus can define in any way we wish? I know you *want* it to only and forever be exactly what you want it to be, but life isn't fair. Definitions and perceptions change. You just have to accept it and stop railing against it.
I want to play a holy warrior dedicated to the cause of freedom, an inspirational and revolutionary figure who crusades against oppressive status quos. With the most minute tweaks, the paladin chassis provides everything I imagine such a character. What high crime against roleplaying has been committed here? I posit that the crime against roleplaying is in fact denying the concept because it does not fit a predetermined mold.
I hate alignment restrictions isn't much of a convincing argument either though. Which is what it boils down to. I think strong alignment lines enhance the 3.0 esque game lines. There are better systems for exploring moral grey. The framework for 3.0 works better with absolute alignments and these kinds of restrictions.
Okay, just to be provocative:
Two concepts.
Player agency is more important than the fictional universe.
And the opposite of that.
Fictional universe is more important than the player agency.
Mutually exclusive and can seem really alien to one and another.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the reason you have to be LG is because a Paladin isn't just a holy warrior.
Unless, y'know, we decide it is.
A Paladin, specifically, is a Lawful Good entity that is empowered by the universe itself and may, or may not, follow a God.
Not according to the CRB description.
paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve.
At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
A God grants spells. The other stuff? The God has NOTHING to do with.
Granted, it's been a while, but I don't even think this was the case in AD&D. Maybe in Ebberon or something Paladins were specifically empowered by the universe because of their lawful goodness, but it ain't that way in Pathfinder. Otherwise there would be no deity specific Paladin codes.
Why can't people just accept that this is this way because it is the way it is?
Because tautologies are tautological.
At the risk of sounding blunt... Life ain't fair. Sometimes you want what you can't have. I want to get out of this wheelchair, it ain't happening. You just have to accept it and stop railing against it.
Said the guy who can't let go of his headcanon about Paladins. Again, not sure how this affects you. No one is trying to make you play chaotic Paladins, no one is telling you that you can't mandate that Paladins be LG, and no one is forcing you to play in a game with CG Paladins. You're acting like the Paladin, as a class, belongs to you personally. It doesn't. Sorry. I love Paladins dearly, they are my favorite class. I love the code of conduct, I love that they are paragons of virtue and order, and I love the moral clarity. However, I don't think it's fair to mandate that everyone play in accordance with my personal tastes.
I hate alignment restrictions isn't much of a convincing argument either though. Which is what it boils down to. I think strong alignment lines enhance the 3.0 esque game lines. There are better systems for exploring moral grey. The framework for 3.0 works better with absolute alignments and these kinds of restrictions.
I disagree with the premise that alignment mechanics make things better, but even if I didn't there is nothing morally grey about a CG Paladin.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the same reason no accepts a tautology: because it doesn't make any sense.Again, the reason you have to be LG is because a Paladin isn't just a holy warrior.
A Paladin, specifically, is a Lawful Good entity that is empowered by the universe itself and may, or may not, follow a God. A God grants spells. The other stuff? The God has NOTHING to do with.
Why can't people just accept that this is this way because it is the way it is?
How come only short and light people can be jockies?
How come you can't compete in the Olympic sprints while riding a Segway?
Why can't I just make my character at 20th level rather than earn it?
Why can't barbarians be lawful?
Why do monks have to be lawful?
Why are my pants 34-36 instead of 24-26?
Why can only women be Miss USA?
Why can only guys become Mr. Universe?
Because those are the rules. Player agency is not the end-all be-all of gaming.
If we're listing tangential things as if they were relevant, I want in.
Why can I make a LN or NG Paladin with the Gray Paladin archetype?
Why can I make a non-lawful Monk via the Martial Artist archetype?
Why has my clothing size gone up from when I was a baby?
Why is life no longer constrained to single-celled organisms?
Because things change. The rules are not some static institution incapable of evolving or adapting, and just because a CG "Paladin" or whatever you want to call it does not exist in Pathfinder right now doesn't mean that it can't or that it shouldn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How come only short and light people can be jockies?
Nothing stops a large and heavy person from trying to be a jockey. However these physical traits tend to make them less good at their job. A Chaotic Good person is not inherently less good at following personal Codes of Conduct (as various classes with codes and edicts open to Chaotic characters prove), dedicating themselves to something larger, kicking evil in the teeth, etc., and a Paladin chassis, slightly tweaked, perfectly represents a number of Chaotic Good concepts.
How come you can't compete in the Olympic sprints while riding a Segway?
Well, it wouldn't be a good idea, first of all, the world record holder for human footspeed running a bit over twice as fast as a Segway's top speed. More to the point, the race is a test of human footspeed, not of control of a motorized vehicle. An analogous event in which everyone is racing on a Segway could almost certainly be constructed if it was so wished, though. Meanwhile, a LG Paladin and a hypothetical CG Paladin are both righteous, dedicated moral paragons who inspire others, crusade against evil and injustice, and hold themselves to specific standards. There is nowhere near so much a difference between them as between a footrace and a Segway race.
Why can't I just make my character at 20th level rather than earn it?
You absolutely *can* make your character at 20th level, if the aim of the game is to play a super high-powered adventure right from the get-go, and everyone is doing the same. Heck, provided that everyone involved agreed, there even could be a game in which you were a 20th level character in a party of 1st level characters--not my bag, and not yours, but there doubtlessly exist people who would enjoy that, or at least some less extreme form of level disparity. However, creating a 20th level character when the expectation is that all the players begin at 1st level is a blatant attempt at cheating--gaining a mechanical advantage over other players. A Chaotic Good Paladin does not have such a mechanical advantage. Insofar as the Code of Conduct is a mechanical balance for Paladin abilities--and it really isn't, because the Antipaladin has by and large the same abilities with a Code of Conduct which is functionally inviolable, and because roleplaying restrictions are fundamentally *unable* to balance mechanical abilities in any meaningful way, as a quote-unquote 'rollplayer' can always just write the required alignment or deity on their sheet--the Chaotic Good paladin would still have a Code of Conduct, just a different one. Just like a Paladin of Torag or Ragathiel can do things that a Paladin of Shelyn or Sarenrae would balk at.
Why can't barbarians be lawful?
They should be able to.
Why do monks have to be lawful?
They shouldn't.
Why are my pants 34-36 instead of 24-26?Because your physical measurements, unlike the stated alignment of a fictional character, cannot be altered with a keystroke.
Why can only women be Miss USA?
Why can only guys become Mr. Universe?
Well, they should be open to trans women and trans men respectively, at the very least, if they aren't already. And while I don't know of any male-only beauty pageants of the top of my head, they could and very well may exist, and there certainly *are* female equivalents of the Mr. Universe competition.
I hate alignment restrictions isn't much of a convincing argument either though. Which is what it boils down to. I think strong alignment lines enhance the 3.0 esque game lines. There are better systems for exploring moral grey. The framework for 3.0 works better with absolute alignments and these kinds of restrictions.
No, but I think it's more convincing to point out that alignment is an incoherent system that breaks down if you think about it for more than a moment. Therefore, nothing important should ever depend on such a system. Matt Colville can say "DEscriptive not PREscriptive" until he's blue in the face, but as long as you risk losing class features if your alignment changes, alignment is prescriptive. And again, if all you want is to describe your character, just use words. No reference to any system is necessary.
Why can't barbarians be lawful?
Why indeed? Because people put too much stock in class names, and because D&D did it. There's no reason someone from a rural or primitive background can't be lawfully-inclined, and as far as I know, Barbarian characters are under no special obligation to oppose the spread of civilization (indeed, there is even an Urban Barbarian archetype). There are several ways to get the Rage class feature as a Lawful character, and there is even a Lawful Good patron (Ragathiel) whose portfolio includes the Rage subdomain.
Why do monks have to be lawful?
Because the stereotypical Monk is a Zen Buddhist, even though the class description does say the class includes "self-taught brawlers". At least with the Monk, if your alignment changes, you don't lose class features, you just can't take more Monk levels. That's understandable from the premise that being a Monk requires a lot of discipline. But then again, it would seem that many classes (e.g. Wizard) would require a lot of discipline to master, and they aren't restricted to Lawful, nor should they be. I believe some 3.5 gish classes were described as tending towards Lawful because of the discipline required to master both martial and arcane arts.
s-stop it guys srsly
No.
The question I have for people who want CG Paladins is:
What characters are you prevented from playing by having to write two specific letters on your character sheet that aren't CG?
Since from where I sit, you can just write "LG" and "Paladin" on your character sheet and play any character you want, they just can't lie, cheat, steal etc. (if you want to do those things, play a Gray Paladin; that's what it's for.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A swashbuckling Paladin of Cayden Cailean who sails the high seas in search of righteous adventure, leading daring raids on slaver ports and such in between bouts of drinking and wenching in every port.
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.
A Paladin of Desna, keeping the road safe for travelers, hunting vile aberrations and other forces of the Elder Mythos, but also staunchly opposed to immigration barriers and helping to smuggle slaves to freedom in Andoran.
A Paladin and Sacred Prostitute of Calistria, a courtly, Companion/geisha type who brings joy and comfort to her clients--whether tending to their I'll with Mercies, obvious physical pleasures--or smiting such enemies as have done them a true injustice.
A Paladin of Chadali, trusting that the Serendipitous Path will guide them where they are needed to do the most good.
Just to name a few.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.
Even more than Desna or Cayden Cailean, Milani has a strong 'crusader' feel to her, and seems very much like the sort of god who'd sponsor an order of holy warriors opposed to tyranny and supportive of less-than-lawful-friendly concepts like revolution and insurgency.
Pharasma trends towards both lawful and good, and would be another non lawful or good god who'd seem fond of holy warriors, smiting undead or various folk who strive after immortality, or traffic in or devour souls (daemon worshippers, for instance). On paper she's Neutral, but she actively hates some evils (daemons, undead) and is suck a stickler for following the rules that breaking one of her 'laws' unleashes the concept of disease upon the universe. (She seems more LN, than N, to me. Not so much good, as 'hates some specific evil folk,' which is no guarantee of being good. In either case, an order of Holy Warriors (don't call them Paladins!) operating in her name and using the mechanics of the class-that-shall-not-be-named would be thematically appropriate.)
|
Only Lawful Good people can become paladins because when they created the universe, the gods sat together and agreed on a few ground rules, including but not limited to restrictions on direct divine interventions and/or assistance by their most powerful servants.
The forces of chaos and evil refused to agree to all the terms or even sit at the meeting which resulted in the forces of law and good to gain a few assurances to protect their mortal followers via extra paladin powers. Paladins are strongly self regulated and their code ensures that these powers won't be used for chaos or evil.
There. This is why my dad can't have Paladins (he was also drunk and missed the meeting)
A swashbuckling Paladin of Cayden Cailean who sails the high seas in search of righteous adventure, leading daring raids on slaver ports and such in between bouts of drinking and wenching in every port.
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.
A Paladin of Desna, keeping the road safe for travelers, hunting vile aberrations and other forces of the Elder Mythos, but also staunchly opposed to immigration barriers and helping to smuggle slaves to freedom in Andoran.
A Paladin and Sacred Prostitute of Calistria, a courtly, Companion/geisha type who brings joy and comfort to her clients--whether tending to their I'll with Mercies, obvious physical pleasures--or smiting such enemies as have done them a true injustice.
A Paladin of Chadali, trusting that the Serendipitous Path will guide them where they are needed to do the most good.
Just to name a few.
Why can't you do all of those things as LG? There's no restriction on a Paladin's alignment to be within one step (or two, or three) of its deity, just like there's no restriction on a wizard or a fighter or a rogue's alignment to have anything to do with its deity. You can absolutely play a lawful character who is a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, etc.
You want to play any of those characters, and write down "LG" it's fine with me.
|
|
A swashbuckling Paladin of Cayden Cailean who sails the high seas in search of righteous adventure, leading daring raids on slaver ports and such in between bouts of drinking and wenching in every port.
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.
A Paladin of Desna, keeping the road safe for travelers, hunting vile aberrations and other forces of the Elder Mythos, but also staunchly opposed to immigration barriers and helping to smuggle slaves to freedom in Andoran.
A Paladin and Sacred Prostitute of Calistria, a courtly, Companion/geisha type who brings joy and comfort to her clients--whether tending to their I'll with Mercies, obvious physical pleasures--or smiting such enemies as have done them a true injustice.
A Paladin of Chadali, trusting that the Serendipitous Path will guide them where they are needed to do the most good.
Just to name a few.
Why can't you do all of those things as LG? There's no restriction on a Paladin's alignment to be within one step (or two, or three) of its deity, just like there's no restriction on a wizard or a fighter or a rogue's alignment to have anything to do with its deity. You can absolutely play a lawful character who is a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, etc.
You want to play any of those characters, and write down "LG" it's fine with me.
Paladins must be lawful good, but they can worship a deity who is one step away from that alignment, as can a cleric. Abadar, Sarenrae, and Shelyn all have significant groups of paladin worshipers.
A paladin of Desna wouldn't work, by the rules. Because the paladin would have to be lawful, and that means that paladin wouldn't be following the chaotic teachings of Desna's faith, which is not a lawful act, and therefore one of 2 things would happen:
1) The paladin's alignment would shift away from lawful, turning him into an ex paladin.
2) The paladin's alignment stays lawful but that means he's not properly worshiping Desna and so gets cut off.
And in fact, I don't love paladins. They're my least favorite base class.
As for in print material about paladins and non-lawful good deities, that's pretty all over the place. Inner Sea World Guide, the various deity articles in Pathfinder, Champions of Purity, Faiths of Purity, Gods and Magic, and more.
THe reason there isn't a paladin for every alignment is because:
1) That dilutes the coolness of the paladin, and...
2) There's not enough design space, and...
3) Having tried to design other alignment paladins for Dragon magazine in #310 and #312... I can say that I'm really unsatisfied with how my design worked out because they diluted paladins and there wasn't enough design space. Most of them ended up really silly.
Dev posts are not rules. The CRB says "a cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s" a similar statement about Inquisitors appears in the APG, a similar statement about the Warpriest appears in the ACG, in no rulebook does it say anything about a Paladin's alignment being in agreement with their deity's. They're reprinted the CRB like 8 times so if they felt like changing the printed rule they could have, easily.
You can play with James Jacobs' house rules in that post, but I don't, and I would suggest that the only thing keeping you from playing all your revolutionary, gadabout, freedom fighter Paladins is clinging to that house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dev posts are not rules. The CRB says "a cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s" a similar statement about Inquisitors appears in the APG, a similar statement about the Warpriest appears in the ACG, in no rulebook does it say anything about a Paladin's alignment being in agreement with their deity's. They're reprinted the CRB like 8 times so if they felt like changing the printed rule they could have, easily.
You can play with James Jacobs' house rules in that post, but I don't, and I would suggest that the only thing keeping you from playing all your revolutionary, gadabout, freedom fighter Paladins is clinging to that house rule.
It's not a house rule. JJ was talking about Golarion lore.
If your playing Pathfinder ruleset it doesn't assume your playing Golarion. But once the topic is about Desna, Milani, etc it's fair to assume it's about Golarion.
And in Golarion a LG Paladin of a CG deity doesn't make sense.
A swashbuckling Paladin of Cayden Cailean who sails the high seas in search of righteous adventure, leading daring raids on slaver ports and such in between bouts of drinking and wenching in every port.
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.
A Paladin of Desna, keeping the road safe for travelers, hunting vile aberrations and other forces of the Elder Mythos, but also staunchly opposed to immigration barriers and helping to smuggle slaves to freedom in Andoran.
A Paladin and Sacred Prostitute of Calistria, a courtly, Companion/geisha type who brings joy and comfort to her clients--whether tending to their I'll with Mercies, obvious physical pleasures--or smiting such enemies as have done them a true injustice.
A Paladin of Chadali, trusting that the Serendipitous Path will guide them where they are needed to do the most good.
Just to name a few.
Why can't you do all of those things as LG? There's no restriction on a Paladin's alignment to be within one step (or two, or three) of its deity, just like there's no restriction on a wizard or a fighter or a rogue's alignment to have anything to do with its deity. You can absolutely play a lawful character who is a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, etc.
You want to play any of those characters, and write down "LG" it's fine with me.
Raiding slavers ports wherein slavery is legal = you fall, also you are a pirate I.e a thief, I.e double fall.
Inspiring revolution = you fallOpposing immigration law = you fall
It's pretty obvious why you can't do those things with the lawful good Paladin rule. Especially with the absolute wealth of trigger happy DMs looking for a reason why you might fall.
maybe you wouldn't make them fall for that, unfortunately you can't assume everyone is going to be a liberal as you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question I have for people who want CG Paladins is:
What characters are you prevented from playing by having to write two specific letters on your character sheet that aren't CG?
Since from where I sit, you can just write "LG" and "Paladin" on your character sheet and play any character you want, they just can't lie, cheat, steal etc. (if you want to do those things, play a Gray Paladin; that's what it's for.)
Deities outside LG, NG, and the singular example of Abadar for LN don't have Paladin Codes, so a Paladin worshipping that deity would still be required to follow the usual code. The code which states you must aid those in need unless they'd use it for Evil or Chaotic purposes. The code that requires you to remain LG, preventing you from performing enough Chaotic acts to warrant an alignment shift. Good luck trying to play a Paladin who worships Milani when you are required to respect legitimate authority even if they are unjust ("respect" not meaning "agree with" or "defer to" here - nobody's saying Paladins have to abide by the rule of an Evil king) and can't actively aid those who would use your power for Chaotic ends.
There's no reason to believe that a Paladin is intended to be able to worship deities more than one step away from their alignment given that doing so would either cause you to stop being LG or require such an intense willful ignorance of that deity's goals that you'd essentially be worshiping a heretical non-existing form of that deity. Neither of which are the goal in this scenario.
By and large, people don't just want to hand-wave the restriction and play whatever alignment they want - they want a different set of restrictions and class features similar to the ones presented in the Antipaladin and the Tyrant archetypes, which are both compelling versions of a Paladin of other corner alignments and complete classes in their own right.
|
|
Only Lawful Good people can become paladins because when they created the universe, the gods sat together and agreed on a few ground rules, including but not limited to restrictions on direct divine interventions and/or assistance by their most powerful servants.
The forces of chaos and evil refused to agree to all the terms or even sit at the meeting which resulted in the forces of law and good to gain a few assurances to protect their mortal followers via extra paladin powers. Paladins are strongly self regulated and their code ensures that these powers won't be used for chaos or evil.
There. This is why my dad can't have Paladins (he was also drunk and missed the meeting)
Ha, I like this. Can I use it? It's actually not that bad of an explanation, at least considering it from a lore perspective.
Again, in consideration the dragon magazine, I can see what I can tinker with in creating a "paladin" of every alignment or at least the alignment extremes.
No, but I think it's more convincing to point out that alignment is an incoherent system that breaks down if you think about it for more than a moment. Therefore, nothing important should ever depend on such a system. Matt Colville can say "DEscriptive not PREscriptive" until he's blue in the face, but as long as you risk losing class features if your alignment changes, alignment is prescriptive. And again, if all you want is to describe your character, just use words. No reference to any system is necessary.
It really isn't though. Everything in golarion is made up of aligned energy and the prime plane is how its sorted and divvied up to the gods. The concept of things and beings that are pure good, and pure evil isn't particularly incoherent until you get players or gms who want to tweak the system cause they hate prescriptive alignment.
There are better settings and systems for moral grey than 3.0 clone games.
|
|
Yes, if you want more subjective morality and where things are less objectively black or white but many shades of grey, you shouldn't be playing D&D or Pathfinder.
Even though originally it was simply on the Law & Chaos axle, alignment has always been a thing for D&D or games created from it and it's very much baked into the system/setting.
The only reason it doesn't seem to work for some players is there are some unwilling to accept or suspend their disbelief that the setting simply works differently than our world. Personally, for myself, I'm willing to accept that in this particular game or setting alignment is very much an objective and measurable concept.
The best you're going to get is D&D 5e, if you want to not have to worry about alignment so much, but don't demand that Pathfinder follow suit and making alignment not as important.
You want a system that allows you to create whatever concept or character you want with by far less restrictions, I recommend HERO System or GURPS. Perhaps even Savage Worlds or The Strange, all great systems in their own right if for different reasons.
|
|
Dev posts are not rules. The CRB says "a cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s" a similar statement about Inquisitors appears in the APG, a similar statement about the Warpriest appears in the ACG, in no rulebook does it say anything about a Paladin's alignment being in agreement with their deity's. They're reprinted the CRB like 8 times so if they felt like changing the printed rule they could have, easily.
You can play with James Jacobs' house rules in that post, but I don't, and I would suggest that the only thing keeping you from playing all your revolutionary, gadabout, freedom fighter Paladins is clinging to that house rule.
I believe it's been said before that yes, if you play by the CRB rules only, a paladin of [insert concept here] is ok; however if you play in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting i.e. Golarion campaign, paladins follow the same rules as clerics, druids, rangers, inquisitors and other divine casters - they need to respect the one step rule and must worship a deity. I believe it's been said somewhere, although I don't have the quote handy, that the only exception to this is the oracle class (they are divine casters but don't need to worship a deity to function in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting i.e. Golarion campaigns).
That is my current understanding of paladins and other divine casters at this time, which may or may not be accurate and reflective of various updates via the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line products which I have not read yet.
|
|
Only Lawful Good people can become paladins because when they created the universe, the gods sat together and agreed on a few ground rules, including but not limited to restrictions on direct divine interventions and/or assistance by their most powerful servants.
The forces of chaos and evil refused to agree to all the terms or even sit at the meeting which resulted in the forces of law and good to gain a few assurances to protect their mortal followers via extra paladin powers. Paladins are strongly self regulated and their code ensures that these powers won't be used for chaos or evil.
There. This is why my dad can't have Paladins (he was also drunk and missed the meeting)
Ha, I like this. Can I use it? It's actually not that bad of an explanation, at least considering it from a lore perspective.
Again, in consideration the dragon magazine, I can see what I can tinker with in creating a "paladin" of every alignment or at least the alignment extremes.
LOL! sure! go ahead and use it! my head-cannon is as powerful as real cannon, 'cause my dad said so! :P
Said head-cannon also has it that Asmodeus was the first to arrive and sit and that meeting, and made sure he wiggled the Tyrant anti-paladins out of this agreement*, 'cause you know, he was worried about his future small, persecuted colony of Cheliax and knew they'd face persecution from its inflexible, mired in bureaucracy, top-heavy Empire of Taldor! :)
*He also somehow gained the service of real paladins for a while, due to a loophole he exploited with some knightly order using the word 'Hell' as part of their organization name... :P
And when Paizo publishes it I'll be satisfied to let this go. Until that time it is glorified fan fiction. It may be well balanced fan fiction, fan-fiction I'd be happy to incorporate into my own home game at my personal table, but it's still fan fiction.This sentiment is laughable, since I make liberal use of 3rd party to enhance my campaigns. It's why I don't give a damn what is or is not banned in Pathfinder Society or not, unless it is clearly unbalanced.
The way I look at it, if Paizo doesn't offer what is wanted by me or my players I go to that which does offer what i want. Whether that is homebrew or 3rd party, I will use it if it fits and is balanced even if it wasn't published by Paizo.
I mean lets be honest her, Paizo has messed up, fumbled the ball, or created that which is broken before. Of which then has been picked up far more gracefully or creatively by a 3rd party. For example, Everyman Gaming actually making Unchained Pathfinder useful.
I mean seriously, unchaining the Monk and making it is none of its archetypes could be used anymore? The issues with how they unchained summoners and in what they changed with eidolons. They messed up with that book.
I can self-publish a class that has full bab, all good saves, d12 hd, 8+int skill points, 9/9 casting with a spell list that cherry picks the best from both the wizard and cleric lists, has rage, flurry, bloodline & domain powers, smites, and has 10d6 sneak attack that it can use at any time against an enemy that it targets with an ability that gives it a flat bonus to hit and damage.
That doesn't mean that class is an official, recognized part of the pathfinder setting.
And that isn't to say that all or most 3rd party publishers are churning out horrifically imbalanced trash with no quality control. Nor is it to say that Paizo is incapable of making mistakes; to be sure, they have released more than their share of broken material.
But there's a reality and that reality is that what paizo publishes is what is official lore for the setting. Now, that doesn't mean too much; any individual DM is free to use whatever amount of official lore they do or don't want at their own table. Golarion represents maybe 60%, probably less of my home campaign, mixed in with elements borrowed from a dozen other series/settings along with a healthy dose of original material. And I'm perfectly fine borrowing from other d20 publishers - I'm a particular fan of drawing from White Wolf's World of Warcraft line. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've fallen head over heels in love with Everyman's unchained line, especially their fighter.
But I've known more than one DM who have a hardline "no" on using any third party material at all for one reason or another. And there's been more than one person on the traditionalist side of things in this thread that's made it clear or at least given the impression that if Paizo did release an official archetype/alternate class for the paladin that could be CG, they flat out wouldn't allow it in their games. So whether it's third party or official doesn't matter because people are going to stick to their convictions on this.
But only what's published by Paizo directly is official lore for Pathfinder, and my lore complaint on this - that a lack of heavy armor, martial weapon, full bab, smite/aura/4th casting/lay on hands divine warriors makes CG out to be either impotent or incompetent, can only be addressed by Paizo.
For the same reason no accepts a tautology: because it doesn't make any sense.Again, the reason you have to be LG is because a Paladin isn't just a holy warrior.
A Paladin, specifically, is a Lawful Good entity that is empowered by the universe itself and may, or may not, follow a God. A God grants spells. The other stuff? The God has NOTHING to do with.
Why can't people just accept that this is this way because it is the way it is?
How come only short and light people can be jockies?
How come you can't compete in the Olympic sprints while riding a Segway?
Why can't I just make my character at 20th level rather than earn it?
Why can't barbarians be lawful?
Why do monks have to be lawful?
Why are my pants 34-36 instead of 24-26?
Why can only women be Miss USA?
Why can only guys become Mr. Universe?
Because those are the rules. Player agency is not the end-all be-all of gaming.
People are less willing to accept it because it doesn't have to be how it always was, much like any of your above statements. As pointed out, any of those can and probably should change.
If Paizo makes these changes then great! If they don't, well, does it affect anyone or anything outside of a PFS game? Some people are sticklers for By The Book gaming .. I am not one of them. There are no prizes for slavishly following rules that you and your table do not agree with.
The books are the beginning. Change what you want, incorporate rules from Paizo, from third parties, from different gaming systems or Candyland if it is what you want. Whatever makes things more interesting, more complete, more exciting, or more logical for your group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin of Milani, inspiring the revolutionary forces with her Auras as she leads a smiting charge upon the Temple of Asmodeus.Even more than Desna or Cayden Cailean, Milani has a strong 'crusader' feel to her, and seems very much like the sort of god who'd sponsor an order of holy warriors opposed to tyranny and supportive of less-than-lawful-friendly concepts like revolution and insurgency.
So much of this.
We've gotten heavily hung up about Cayden Cailean in this thread - not without reason given that he's the god of bravery and courage.
But Milani is on another level in regards to "needs a paladin archetype". She's also the strongest argument against the notion that chaotics lack the dedication to get a paladin's powers given that she is, once again explicitly and specifically, the goddess of devotion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the reason you have to be LG is because a Paladin isn't just a holy warrior.
A Paladin, specifically, is a Lawful Good entity that is empowered by the universe itself and may, or may not, follow a God. A God grants spells. The other stuff? The God has NOTHING to do with.
Why can't people just accept that this is this way because it is the way it is?
At the risk of sounding blunt... Life ain't fair. Sometimes you want what you can't have. I want to get out of this wheelchair, it ain't happening. You just have to accept it and stop railing against it.
I could repeat what others have said in regards to that being a tautology. I could repeat what others have said in that just because something is/was a certain way doesn't mean it must/will always/should be that way.
Instead I'm going to ask a question; why is it that you want to deny other people something that they want?
What harm does it do you or anyone for their to be a chaotic good paladin-equivalent?
What do you lose? What does it take away from you?
In what tangible way does it make the game, the class, your enjoyment of the game/the class, worse?
What do you profit from denying other people something they would enjoy?
Those questions may be unfairly slanted given that you aren't actually responsible for holding the CG paladin back from publication; unless you're an alt account for one of Paizo's top brass but that seems like a long shot.
But to me it genuinely seems that you particularly, but also several other people on the traditionalist side of things, take personal affront towards the idea of any non-LG paladin chassis(of which there are multiple) as if something is being taken away from you and your ability to enjoy the game is being actively harmed by the change.
But it isn't, is it? Not really. The LG paladin is still there, still playable. This isn't a zero sum game where increasing the access of paladins beyond LG some how diminishes the value of LG's paladin stock.
And just as traditionalist argue that people who want CG paladins can just play them in their home games without paizo publishing an official rule for it, people who want LG-only paladins are free to enforce that restriction in their own home games, so that argument goes both ways.
You're right, life isn't fair. But when we're presented with the opportunity to make it more fair, shouldn't we take that opportunity? Isn't that what a paladin would do?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, life isn't fair. But when we're presented with the opportunity to make it more fair, shouldn't we take that opportunity? Isn't that what a paladin would do?
/thread win
The whole exclusive v. inclusive paladin debate is so similar to a certain real-world issue, it's uncanny. And it's clear which side Paizo, and history, is on.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the reason you have to be LG is because a Paladin isn't just a holy warrior.
A Paladin, specifically, is a Lawful Good entity that is empowered by the universe itself and may, or may not, follow a God. A God grants spells. The other stuff? The God has NOTHING to do with.
Why can't people just accept that this is this way because it is the way it is?
At the risk of sounding blunt... Life ain't fair. Sometimes you want what you can't have. I want to get out of this wheelchair, it ain't happening. You just have to accept it and stop railing against it.
I could repeat what others have said in regards to that being a tautology. I could repeat what others have said in that just because something is/was a certain way doesn't mean it must/will always/should be that way.
Instead I'm going to ask a question; why is it that you want to deny other people something that they want?
What harm does it do you or anyone for their to be a chaotic good paladin-equivalent?
What do you lose? What does it take away from you?
In what tangible way does it make the game, the class, your enjoyment of the game/the class, worse?
What do you profit from denying other people something they would enjoy?
Those questions may be unfairly slanted given that you aren't actually responsible for holding the CG paladin back from publication; unless you're an alt account for one of Paizo's top brass but that seems like a long shot.
But to me it genuinely seems that you particularly, but also several other people on the traditionalist side of things, take personal affront towards the idea of any non-LG paladin chassis(of which there are multiple) as if something is being taken away from you and your ability to enjoy the game is being actively harmed by the change.
But it isn't, is it? Not really. The LG paladin is still there, still playable. This isn't a zero sum game where increasing the access of paladins beyond LG some how diminishes the value of LG's paladin stock....
If HWalsh and others like him spend so much time and energy fighting for the LG Paladin only paradigm, it shows that this exclusivity does mean A LOT to them, even if we do not understand why
They should not be casually dismissed or made to feel guilty of "grognardism" just because of our failure to try and see things their way
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tequila Sunrise: it's so clear which side Paizo is on? history? apparently not that clear as I have no clue what you're talking about.
@FormerFiend: I disagree that paladins of Milani would be a good idea. Recent books have opened a slew of more thematically appropriate game options for worshippers of Milani, and that faith really strikes me as more appropriate for rebel fighters willing to do any dirty deed available in the book to tip the scales against tyranny. That doesn't strike me as a paladin thing to do. Worshipers of Cayden, Desna, Milani, etc. have received their own treatment and service in various products so far, and thus the evolution, in the story, of what those worshipers look like have been portrayed as a different breed of folks which would not really fit well if slapped with a paladin code. Why should the forces of chaos have paladins? in particular, 'good chaos' i.e. the spreading of chaos to fight tyranny requires different tactics, mindsets, and skill-sets (stealth, bluff, disguise and other means of subterfuge which, to be honest, isn't offered easily by the paladin class)
@The Raven Black: very good point... I've lured a lot of 'D&D only' people to Pathfinder along the years and these ladies and gentlemen often roll their eyes at significant deviations from D&D. More often than not I'm able to argue the benefits of such changes, such as being able to sneak attack constructs and undead things, but to open paladins to other alignments would be to break something sacred to them.
Also, why don't we have "Why can't my barbarian be lawful!!" threads? I agree with JJ that asymmetry is good for the game and the story. I don't find it annoying one bit that monks have to be lawful, barbarians non-lawful, etc. I think what we're seeing here is an unwillingness by some to try the Lawful Good alignment. It's not really 'harder' than playing any other alignment when you remind yourself you're just playing a character and it's not about being the stick in the mud to the rest of the party as much as playing the character in an open, assertive and transparent manner i.e. the character is not afraid to take a stand in certain situations. The rest of the party can grumble all they want that the paladin won't let them steal stuff, but when an undead or evil outsider or dragon shows up, guess who they flock to in order to gain that sweet +4 to saves vs. fear, and guess who they're happy to see smiting the heck of these things. So, to me, the LG restriction is an opportunity for roleplay and fun interactions between players. To strip that restriction and allow any old CG, CN, TN etc. paladin in order to blend with the rest of some bland CG, CN, TN merc-like group is just a lazy excuse to do away with roleplay and fully submit to roll-play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Tequila Sunrise: it's so clear which side Paizo is on? history? apparently not that clear as I have no clue what you're talking about.
@FormerFiend: I disagree that paladins of Milani would be a good idea. Recent books have opened a slew of more thematically appropriate game options for worshippers of Milani, and that faith really strikes me as more appropriate for rebel fighters willing to do any dirty deed available in the book to tip the scales against tyranny. That doesn't strike me as a paladin thing to do. Worshipers of Cayden, Desna, Milani, etc. have received their own treatment and service in various products so far, and thus the evolution, in the story, of what those worshipers look like have been portrayed as a different breed of folks which would not really fit well if slapped with a paladin code. Why should the forces of chaos have paladins? in particular, 'good chaos' i.e. the spreading of chaos to fight tyranny requires different tactics, mindsets, and skill-sets (stealth, bluff, disguise and other means of subterfuge which, to be honest, isn't offered easily by the paladin class)
@The Raven Black: very good point... I've lured a lot of 'D&D only' people to Pathfinder along the years and these ladies and gentlemen often roll their eyes at significant deviations from D&D. More often than not I'm able to argue the benefits of such changes, such as being able to sneak attack constructs and undead things, but to open paladins to other alignments would be to break something sacred to them.
Also, why don't we have "Why can't my barbarian be lawful!!" threads? I agree with JJ that asymmetry is good for the game and the story. I don't find it annoying one bit that monks have to be lawful, barbarians non-lawful, etc. I think what we're seeing here is an unwillingness by some to try the Lawful Good alignment. It's not really 'harder' than playing any other alignment when you remind yourself you're just playing a character and it's not about being the stick in the mud to the rest of the...
Well, the evil part of the forces of Chaos *already* have Paladins, and oddly had them before their Lawful counterparts. And good Chaos also requires inspiring and devoted warrior . Worshipers of Cayden and Milani especially tend to be highly militant, highly devoted to their latest cause, self-sufficient and inspiring in ways that Lay on Hands and Auras mimic very well, and possessed of deep-seated convictions no less powerful than those of someone Lawful Good, which would fit perfectly as a Paladin Code of a different stripe. It might be appropriate to tweak skills, but that's rather par for the course when it comes to archetypes, isn't it? But the knightly/holy warrior abilities of the Paladin--and yes, specifically those of the Paladin in ways things like the Warpriest do not match--absolutely fit perfectly for both obvious and more creative character ideas related to Chaotic Good deities.
I think I can speak for the CG Paladin advocates at large when I say we 100% support LG Barbarians and Chaotic Good monks--the latter, in fact, *already* being in Pathfinder by virtue of the Martial Artist archetype. I would hazard the guess that those don't come up so much because, not having an actual Code of Conduct attached, few people care to audit them so much. For that matter, I could as well ask why one never sees threads demanding to know why Cavaliers and Samurai are allowed to be Chaotic despite needing to hold themselves to strict codes.
It used to be that bards couldn't be Lawful. It used to be that Paladins had to be human. It used to be, God only knows why, that forest-dwelling, in-tune-with-nature elves could not be druids. It used to be that Monks were not allowed to multiclass, or else they would lose the ability to advance as a Monk ever again. It used to be that humans could not multiclass at all. RUles change, restrictions are lifted. Many people no doubt had much mental energy invested in how any of these things used to be, much as some do in Lawful Good only Paladins now. That does not automatically make their resistance correct, nor bind me to respect it. If someone wishes to proclaim that *their* monk has made a lifetime commitment that cannot be deviated from, that their particular Paladin order is human only, that their paladin is Lawful Good--they remain 100% free to do so, and I'll not say a word against them. (Well, I might wonder if such a Paladin order was, in fact, racist, I admit, but one can probably fit some less-than-progressive attitudes into a paladin under the banner of their Lawfulness). If they wish to rail against me and make insinuations that I am not a good roleplayer, some kind of sneaky powergamer or whatever other snideness because I have different character ideas than they do--well then, I'd say they're the ones who need to try to see the opposing side.
It really isn't though. Everything in golarion is made up of aligned energy and the prime plane is how its sorted and divvied up to the gods. The concept of things and beings that are pure good, and pure evil isn't particularly incoherent until you get players or gms who want to tweak the system cause they hate prescriptive alignment.
Yes, if you want more subjective morality and where things are less objectively black or white but many shades of grey, you shouldn't be playing D&D or Pathfinder.
Even though originally it was simply on the Law & Chaos axle, alignment has always been a thing for D&D or games created from it and it's very much baked into the system/setting.
The only reason it doesn't seem to work for some players is there are some unwilling to accept or suspend their disbelief that the setting simply works differently than our world. Personally, for myself, I'm willing to accept that in this particular game or setting alignment is very much an objective and measurable concept.
The best you're going to get is D&D 5e, if you want to not have to worry about alignment so much, but don't demand that Pathfinder follow suit and making alignment not as important.
Moral questions are just not avoidable in an RPG unless you're so lucky that everyone is always in agreement, you run a fairly bland campaign in which nothing you do could reasonably be debated on moral lines, or if people just don't pay attention to it.
But let's say that for whatever reason, no one disagrees about what it means to be a Good person. There's also the Law-Chaos divide, which as others have argued rarely makes a difference in practice: Good characters, of whatever stripe, will do Good things regardless of the law of the land ("it's unjust") or their personal beliefs ("I was wrong"). Evil characters will pursue their agenda, and if they can do so legally or with the help of the authorities, so much the better. There's a good reason that characters overly committed to Law or Chaos are dubbed "Lawful/Chaotic Stupid", because their actions often aren't those of a believable character.
You want a system that allows you to create whatever concept or character you want with by far less restrictions, I recommend HERO System or GURPS. Perhaps even Savage Worlds or The Strange, all great systems in their own right if for different reasons.
There are better settings and systems for moral grey than 3.0 clone games.
Again, the fact that later editions of D&D relaxed alignment, and most other RPGs dont bother with it, speaks volumes about the usefulness of alignment. It should make you ask why alignment exists in the first place, other than D&D had it and Pathfinder is a 3e derivative. A setting can have nine flavors of outsiders and their respective planes without any reference to an alignment system.
So, to me, the LG restriction is an opportunity for roleplay and fun interactions between players. To strip that restriction and allow any old CG, CN, TN etc. paladin in order to blend with the rest of some bland CG, CN, TN merc-like group is just a lazy excuse to do away with roleplay and fully submit to roll-play.
And there's the tired old non-sequitur.
And just as traditionalist argue that people who want CG paladins can just play them in their home games without paizo publishing an official rule for it, people who want LG-only paladins are free to enforce that restriction in their own home games, so that argument goes both ways.
I'm curious to know how much overlap there is between people who say "CG Paladins would diminish the game" and "there's no such thing as bloat, just ban everything you don't want to use from your home game".
|
|
Worshipers of Cayden and Milani especially tend to be highly militant, highly devoted to their latest cause, self-sufficient and inspiring in ways that Lay on Hands and Auras mimic very well, and possessed of deep-seated convictions no less powerful than those of someone Lawful Good, which would fit perfectly as a Paladin Code of a different stripe
I agree they are militant, but disagree this means they should inspire like paladins.
One definition of militant is:
adjective
1.
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
"a militant nationalist"
synonyms: aggressive, violent, belligerent, bellicose, vigorous, forceful, active, fierce, combative, pugnacious.
noun
1.
a militant person.
synonyms: activist, extremist, radical, young turk, zealot
"the demands of the militants"
I think paladins don't fit the bill for freedom fighters and extremists.
You're right, life isn't fair. But when we're presented with the opportunity to make it more fair, shouldn't we take that opportunity? Isn't that what a paladin would do?/thread win
The whole exclusive v. inclusive paladin debate is so similar to a certain real-world issue, it's uncanny. And it's clear which side Paizo, and history, is on.
@Tequila Sunrise: it's so clear which side Paizo is on? history? apparently not that clear as I have no clue what you're talking about.
It's clear once you compare the issues. And I should have said that Paizo is on the side of progress and freedom with regards to the real world issue -- which I won't specify b/c it's pretty OT and would violate forum rules IIRC -- and on the traditionalist side when it comes to paladins. Isn't it funny how an institution can be on opposing sides of very similar issues? It's why I really respect Paizo as a company, but find its product less than ideal.
I don't expect any of that to clarify the issue I'm thinking of, so feel free to PM me if you're curious. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tequila Sunrise: I think I know what you're speaking of but I totally disagree that a parallel should be drawn between Paizo's stance on real social issues and a silly little alignment restriction for a class in a fictitious game. :) Also, I will disagree with you that wanting paladins to stay LG is being 'traditionalist' or even that being 'traditionalist' implies that you have a disagreement with modern social progress and freedom! :) For instance, I would think that inclusive behavior includes being accepting of traditionalist cultures that advocate the maintaining of traditions or the resisting of change well into our current modern days (i.e. an inclusive person will accept that the hijab is still worn in public by some Muslim women and that certain Amish communities still do not use electricity).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tequila Sunrise: it's so clear which side Paizo is on? history? apparently not that clear as I have no clue what you're talking about.
Probably referring to LGBT rights and representation. Paizo is very inclusive, although I don't really think that has much to do with CG Paladins.
@FormerFiend: I disagree that paladins of Milani would be a good idea. Recent books have opened a slew of more thematically appropriate game options for worshippers of Milani, and that faith really strikes me as more appropriate for rebel fighters willing to do any dirty deed available in the book to tip the scales against tyranny. That doesn't strike me as a paladin thing to do.
Of course that's not a Paladin thing to do - you're talking about the LG Paladin, whose Code of Conduct prohibits many tactics a CG character would consider. You seem to be under the impression that when people say "I want a CG Paladin" that they literally want a CG Paladin with the exact same Code of Conduct as the LG Paladin. Not only is that wrong, but it has no precedent - every Alternate Class and Archetype which brought the Paladin chassis to another alignment (CE Antipaladin, NE Insinuator Antipaladin, LE Tyrant Antipaladin, and LN / NG Gray Paladin) came with its own form of the Paladin Code of Conduct to fit that alignment. Of course any CG Paladin would come with its own Code of Conduct, which would likely allow the methods you have issues with.
Worshipers of Cayden, Desna, Milani, etc. have received their own treatment and service in various products so far, and thus the evolution, in the story, of what those worshipers look like have been portrayed as a different breed of folks which would not really fit well if slapped with a paladin code. Why should the forces of chaos have paladins? in particular, 'good chaos' i.e. the spreading of chaos to fight tyranny requires different tactics, mindsets, and skill-sets (stealth, bluff, disguise and other means of subterfuge which, to be honest, isn't offered easily by the paladin class)
And yet the Chaotic Evil deities, whose followers are among the most selfishly-individualistic people on the planet, are still capable of having Antipaladins with a Code of Conduct that doesn't prevent them from using such tactics! Why would we assume that CG deities would hold their "Paladins" to the same standards as the LG ones? Heck, even the LG deities aren't entirely paragons of the Paladin code. Ragathiel's most devout warriors, the Crimson Templars, are literally referred to as "ruthless assassins" and count many Paladins of Ragathiel among their number. LG Paladins who worship Torag hold a code that allows them to mislead others and show no mercy to / accept no surrender from the enemies of their people, acts that would cause Paladins of other deities to fall!
Also, why don't we have "Why can't my barbarian be lawful!!" threads?
I agree with JJ that asymmetry is good for the game and the story. I don't find it annoying one bit that monks have to be lawful, barbarians non-lawful, etc.
Great! Even though it may not work for others, at least it works for you and your games. Just remember that some tables and players will feel differently.
I think what we're seeing here is an unwillingness by some to try the Lawful Good alignment. It's not really 'harder' than playing any other alignment when you remind yourself you're just playing a character and it's not about being the stick in the mud to the rest of the party as much as playing the character in an open, assertive and transparent manner i.e. the character is not afraid to take a stand in certain situations. The rest of the party can grumble all they want that the paladin won't let them steal stuff, but when an undead or evil outsider or dragon shows up, guess who they flock to in order to gain that sweet +4 to saves vs. fear, and guess who they're happy to see smiting the heck of these things.
Your assumption is pretty patronizing. The issue is not that people don't want to "try" a LG Paladin, it's that the only Full-BAB divine classes (Paladin and Antipaladin) are restricted to 6 of the 9 alignments and those alignments don't fit every concept. What, exactly, do the CG, CN, and N alignments have that makes it so unthinkable that they can't have a Paladin or Antipaladin archetype like the rest?
So, to me, the LG restriction is an opportunity for roleplay and fun interactions between players. To strip that restriction and allow any old CG, CN, TN etc. paladin in order to blend with the rest of some bland CG, CN, TN merc-like group is just a lazy excuse to do away with roleplay and fully submit to roll-play.
Edit: At first I was going to say something that in retrospect was pretty, uh, hot-headed. I've decided against that.
|
|
Edit: At first I was going to say something that in retrospect was pretty, uh, hot-headed. I've decided against that.
I managed to read it, before you edited it, and I take no offence. You make some good points above so if you know a lot of people who are *dying* to play non_LG paladins, then sure, why not, what's the harm I guess?
I'm sorry if my opinions sounded patronizing to you, as it wasn't my intention... I guess my entire rant(s) is(are) just me hoping paladins stay LG as it would be my personal preference and the personal preference of a lot of gamers I know that they remain so. Paladins have always been the class emulating saintly characteristics: they often do a lot of personal sacrifices and can be hated by regular people who think of them as 'holier than thou' and I've always liked that dichotomy of power that comes at a personal cost. Basically, I would like to be able to keep saying "That's not a very paladin-like thing to do" in game without having to add "assuming you're an LG paladin". :)
If things change, so be it... it won't be the end of the world! :)
Edit: At first I was going to say something that in retrospect was pretty, uh, hot-headed. I've decided against that.I managed to read it, before you edited it, and I take no offence. You make some good points above so if you know a lot of people who are *dying* to play non_LG paladins, then sure, why not, what's the harm I guess?
I'm sorry if my opinions sounded patronizing to you, as it wasn't my intention... I guess my entire rant(s) is(are) just me hoping paladins stay LG as it would be my personal preference and the personal preference of a lot of gamers I know that they remain so. Paladins have always been the class emulating saintly characteristics: they often do a lot of personal sacrifices and can be hated by regular people who think of them as 'holier than thou' and I've always liked that dichotomy of power that comes at a personal cost. Basically, I would like to be able to keep saying "That's not a very paladin-like thing to do" in game without having to add "assuming you're an LG paladin". :)
If things change, so be it... it won't be the end of the world! :)
There are one whole heck of a lot of Chaotic Good concepts who emulate saintly characteristics, perform personal sacrifices, have a 'holier than thou' attitude, and derive power at a personal cost. And hey, if the semantic issue is your biggest problem, I'll happily call my CG Paladin something else--I mean, aren't you already in that boat with Antipaladins and Tyrants and Insinuators and Gray Paladins?
|
|
I guess I don't have a problem with the new LE antipally since it aligns well with my head cannon that Asmodeus is at the centre of everything Golarion related and had a seat at the 'Grand Creation Table".
The CE antipaladin fits horribly in my version of Golarion especially since chaos on a cosmic scale is just an engine of destruction (rovagug, maelstrom, etc.) In my version of Golarion paladins, hellknights and LE tyrants somewhat exist to help resist against the ever expanding maelstrom, and thus CE antipaladins are extremely rare and "individual god projects" to further specific goals etc.
I guess I don't have a problem with the new LE antipally since it aligns well with my head cannon that Asmodeus is at the centre of everything Golarion related and had a seat at the 'Grand Creation Table".
The CE antipaladin fits horribly in my version of Golarion especially since chaos on a cosmic scale is just an engine of destruction (rovagug, maelstrom, etc.) In my version of Golarion paladins, hellknights and LE tyrants somewhat exist to help resist against the ever expanding maelstrom, and thus CE antipaladins are extremely rare and "individual god projects" to further specific goals etc.
The Maelstrom, last I checked, was pure *creation*, just not terribly *stable* about it. Note also the generally chaotic First World, which bursts with life and vitality. And one wonders why Cailean and Milani and whoever else don't have individual god projects of their own?
So far as it goes, CE Antipaladins *are* the default in Pathfinder, Tyrants and Insinuators being archetypes, which tends to suggest that they would be the rarer examples--and I could certainly dig out some old arguments I had on these boards with those who found the idea of a Lawful Evil Antipaladin as blasphemous as a Chaotic Good Paladin.
Which is not to say there's not a fascinating story in your head canon, of course, but the mechanical option for CG Paladin characters would no more prevent you from running such than the mechanical options of gunslingers forces you to turn Golarion into the Wild West.
You're right, life isn't fair. But when we're presented with the opportunity to make it more fair, shouldn't we take that opportunity? Isn't that what a paladin would do?/thread win
The whole exclusive v. inclusive paladin debate is so similar to a certain real-world issue, it's uncanny. And it's clear which side Paizo, and history, is on.
History doesn't have sides, its the study of events that occur and the circumstances surrounding them.
Paizo's position on civil rights is a bit of a reach as regards changing fundamental themes of a game system that only reached its levels of success via similarity to an old system and its themes.