They can freaking resurrect, heal ability damage and act as a spot healer man. That blows every other full BAB's out of combat utility out of the water.
That is a particular set of out of combat abilities that could also be gotten with Use Magic Device (which a Bloodrager will be just as good at, on the average). High ranks in multiple social skills, not so much if you can't afford the investment in Intelligence needed to get enough skill ranks per level, and especially can't afford the investment in skill-boosting feats.
^Some feat or something that I can't remember the name of lets a Paladin spend 10 Lay on Hands to revive a fallen comrade. It isn't an out-of-the-box ability.
Edit: Ninjas have more out-of-combat utility than Paladins/Antipaladins.
Dont complain about warpriest being 3/4 BAB then trot out a rogue archetype.
^Pssst . . . he doesn't get the real reason why I mentioned Ninjas . . . .
slayers and rangers, barbarians, bloodragers and monks have more out of combat utility than paladins and that's just naming a fewDont complain about warpriest being 3/4 BAB then trot out a rogue archetype.^Some feat or something that I can't remember the name of lets a Paladin spend 10 Lay on Hands to revive a fallen comrade. It isn't an out-of-the-box ability.
Edit: Ninjas have more out-of-combat utility than Paladins/Antipaladins.
Back up your claims. Describe this out of combat utility that surpasses raising the dead, curing ability damage, removing curses, and spells that support social skills second only to bard and the 9/9 casters. Everyone maxes perception, and tracking and traps are pretty mediocre niches to fill.
there's some ability that uses something like 10 uses of lay on hands to rez some oneSince when can a paladin raise the dead?
they are decent healers with spells and lay on hands, and their mercies are useful for certain ailments, but their spell list does not go up to raise dead, nor do they have a mercy for that.
anybody knows where that ability is, I sure can't find it in the CRB... neither in spells, nor lay on hand, mercies, or even in the capstone.
^Pssst . . . he doesn't get the real reason why I mentioned Ninjas . . . .
Neither do I, though I won't speak against that evaluation... would you mind clearing up the situation?
I've seen a few people say things like, "If there's a problem, the problem is the player".
But I'd say the problem is, at a wider level, conflicting play-styles plus inflexibility.
Conflicting play-styles can be a problem in any game.
"I'll use my divination powers to see what we're up against and then prepare spells to make us immune to all their abilities."
"Boring! Let's just kick the door down. We're winning battles too easily anyway."
In RPGs, or any group activity, conflict is something you have to deal with. "I think we should do this!" "I disagree!" Does one side give in? Does the group break up? Do you meet in the middle, perhaps compromising between right and wrong?
Morality conflicts are a common one.
"All our other leads are dead. Let's torture the prisoner for information."
"No."
"You're in the minority. You should back down."
"You're in the wrong! You should back down!"
Conflicts can be solved as long as there is flexibility and imagination.
"We'll bluff that we're going to torture him and hope he gives in."
Or:
"We'll torture the prisoner while the priestess is asleep, then murder him and dump his body and tell the priestess he escaped."
Paladins are a common source of conflict because they bring with them a certain lack of flexibility. Maybe the Paladin is Lawful Stupid in a group of Cunning Good PCs. Maybe the player has a very rigid interpretation of the paladin code. Maybe the GM does. "If you sneak past the guards to rescue the hostages, you're not being honorable and you fall." Maybe the other players are bored of the campaign as it is and want to liven things up by abandoning their previous goals and taking over the kingdom and using it to enrich themselves.
These conflicts can be solved either by fixing them before the campaign starts ("I don't think a Paladin is really suited to a campaign about taking control of the assassin's guild") or by applying imagination and flexibility.
ultimate mercyanybody knows where that ability is, I sure can't find it in the CRB... neither in spells, nor lay on hand, mercies, or even in the capstone.there's some ability that uses something like 10 uses of lay on hands to rez some oneSince when can a paladin raise the dead?
they are decent healers with spells and lay on hands, and their mercies are useful for certain ailments, but their spell list does not go up to raise dead, nor do they have a mercy for that.
Hard to qualify for 2 feat chain, but you are definitely right, thank you for reminding me of this.
ultimate mercyanybody knows where that ability is, I sure can't find it in the CRB... neither in spells, nor lay on hand, mercies, or even in the capstone.there's some ability that uses something like 10 uses of lay on hands to rez some oneSince when can a paladin raise the dead?
they are decent healers with spells and lay on hands, and their mercies are useful for certain ailments, but their spell list does not go up to raise dead, nor do they have a mercy for that.
Thanks for finding this. I see that it requires the Greater Mercy feat tax, which is mediocre in its own right, meaning that you have to spend **2** feats and more investment in Charisma than you probably want on a Paladin to get this ability on, that can ill afford the expenditure of 2 feats (and investment in 19 Charisma) to get 1 effect. Sometimes you might HAVE to do this (party has nobody else that can do it at all AND you live and adventure out in a dump where you can't get a Scroll of Raise Dead and/or can't afford the 5000 gp diamond), but it is better to avoid this if you can, because it is going to eat 20% or more of your feats (unless the campaign goes Epic).
I see that nobody got the Ninja joke, so here is the explanation: I got Ninja'd in the post where I put it, in addition to the fact that Ninjas actually DO have more out-of-combat utility than Paladins despite being not a spellcaster (Paladin/Antipaladin spells are not very much utility-oriented) and AND not Intelligence based, so putting it in there just seemed . . . right. Sorry, couldn't resist.
A) No, I don't suppose they are. What I stated might be interpreted to suggest that but I never said the whole world was on the same page. Perhaps I could have said that generally the whole world disliked them. No one really likes evil people in power, even when they do things that can perceived as good. Anyone that says otherwise, well, ... I wouldn't bet they "play for team Good".
If the whole does like them I'd say they were on the same page. There will always be people with a vested interest in a particular person being in power, whether because they helped put them their or because they're keeping someone who would be problematic for them out of power.
If they did by some miracle manage to get into power with the whole world in opposition they must have done it very badly, sounds like a fun final arc.
B) Other people are NPCs and achieve varying different things at the speed of PLOT, for PLOT reasons. I never said the players can't achieve these things but, like the NPCs, their success will be a rare thing.
I mean the success of adventurers is rare too, PCs either die on the way or typically end up the exception to that rule as one of the very few groups of powerful adventurers on a continent usually. So why can't evil PCs be the same.
Or maybe your world is populated with high level retired adventures who knows.
C) I agree that such a game could be fun for certain people. I'm not that into political intrigue and the thought of running such a game where everyone's motivations have to be overly scrutinized and analyzed just feels exhausting. I wear the shroud of evil for my players when I play the role of the bad guys for their enjoyment but I've never enjoyed playing an evil character much past the initial thrill of being able to do anything I want. The level of selfishness it takes to be Evil just isn't in me.
I planned one but it never got to be played because of life, it's not too complex making the NPCs though. Choose what they want, make up a lie, they say that, ''tis easy enough. Then again if you don't want to run that game that's fair enough. I'd love to be in it though because I agree running an evil PC in a none evil campaign can be difficult. Although with a mature group and the LE alignment I think it can be done.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paladin for LG only is a legacy based on a worldview that is still alive that Lawful Good is somehow the best Good because it adds discipline to the mix
Which is innately a Lawful worldview
And the reverse holds true in that view that Chaotic Evil is the worst Evil because it actively promotes destruction (a Lawful take on what Chaotic means BTW)
Note how many posters on Evil PCs threads hold the view that a LE PC is quite manageable, NE can be done but CE is a big No-No
|
If there is no evil to smite one of the paladin's main abilities is void.They can freaking resurrect, heal ability damage and act as a spot healer man. That blows every other full BAB's out of combat utility out of the water.if there's no damage to heal all those abilities are void
Not entirely. A smite bypasses damage reduction regardless of the target's alignment. And we were discussing out of combat ability anyway. Smite doesn't really have an out of combat use that I know of, and in combat if smite isn't an option that Paladin still can just whomp people.
And the other is saying that if you remove the alignment restriction what you have left is no longer a paladin at all in any significant way.
Except for the fact that they are a holy warrior with a specific set of abilities and a code of conduct. Y'know...the stuff that's important.
Because Paladin is already the class that fills Paladin concepts. Your argument makes n sense. You are arguing from the point that non LG paladin's are the natural state of being. There are actually many different ways to achieve holy warriors of non good - including varied classes and archetypes - they just aren't paladins.
Unless we call them Paladins and they have recognizably Paladin traits, like codes of conduct and smites and whatnot.
Your argument, in fact, boils down to 'that's how I like it' as well.
It is not emotion based. Part of the definition of paladin in the game is "lawful good holy champion." If you change that it has, in fact, become something else. Pretty much undeniably.
And why does it have to be that way? There have been variant alignment Paladins going back decades, it's not like there's no precedent. And, yeah, your argument is totally emotion based. "That's they way it's been so that's the way it has to be" isn't exactly logical.
I honestly don't get what the major malfunction is, if you prefer LG Paladins, the ability of people to play CG Paladins or whatnot isn't going to take away your option.
|
|
The variant algnment paladins were in fact different classes with their own ability suite not paladin's with the alignment restriction stripped off.
Ehhh...not that I recall. I was referring to the AD&D ones, and I don't remember them being particularly distinct. Yeah, there were some differences, but they were all recognizable as Paladins. Regardless, the idea that Paladins are and have always been "lawful good holy champions" is forgetting that originally they were "lawful good human holy champions who eschewed most material goods." Those were traits every bit as intrinsic to the class right up until they weren't. Things change.
|
|
all a paladin need is a code or an oath alignment should have nothing to do with it, if a paladin has a code of i must kill all of x race or die trying they must follow that code or fall its not however a LG code to follow and that's an example of a paladin code that already exists published by paizocuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics, ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are conceptsThat's great. I just see one problem with that. You are not describing a Paladin. A Paladin and their code can not be separated from each other without destroying what they represent. Go ahead and play your character, just don't expect other people to acknowledge you as a Paladin. You are not, or you have fallen. There exists other mechanics to play what you are looking for, though maybe not with full BAB and the moral satisfaction. The warpriest comes to mind, Champion of the Faith archetype. You can be Good, no real code outside of your deity, you get smite evil, though you don't get channel energy.
Don't get me wrong. A Paladin does struggle with those desires and anyone that tells you otherwise is lying to you. They simply choose the better (Good and Lawful) path at the end of the thought, regardless of how difficult it makes the decision. That is a Paladin.
Sources please ?
If you think about Torag's code, you are mistaken. As I state quite often, Torag is NOT the LG god of genocide
here's a few
Code of Conduct
Hunt aberrations and do not allow them to roam freely or harm others. Destroy them if you can, or banish them if you cannot.(doesn't matter what their alignment or intentions or circumstance you have to kill everything...
Are those the Oaths of the Oathbound Paladin archetype ?
I do not equate them completely with the Code. And I think your take on them is a bit extreme and more leeway can be foundAs a GM, I would judge how the acts of the Paladin fit both the Code and her Oaths before letting her fall. And I would likely warn her beforehand :-)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The variant algnment paladins were in fact different classes with their own ability suite not paladin's with the alignment restriction stripped off.Ehhh...not that I recall. I was referring to the AD&D ones, and I don't remember them being particularly distinct. Yeah, there were some differences, but they were all recognizable as Paladins. Regardless, the idea that Paladins are and have always been "lawful good holy champions" is forgetting that originally they were "lawful good human holy champions who eschewed most material goods." Those were traits every bit as intrinsic to the class right up until they weren't. Things change.I am referring to the exact same ones, and yes they were very distinct to the tune that, for example, one used Druid spells among other things.
Why is the ability to be specifically a non lawful good paladin necessary to have a non lawful good holy champion? Still waiting for that answer.
And I'm still waiting for an answer as to why Paladins should only be LG other than "because that the way it is."
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may be the glass of 15yo Dalwhinnie (which I thoroughly recommend) speaking... but after skimming through an awful lot of back-and-forth, I felt like throwing my 2c in.
Paladins do not spoil fun. People do.
At worst, the paladin class merely constitutes an excuse for someone to be an ass to the others around the table. As do a number of alignments, clerics of certain religions (e.g. Pharasma) or anything else which has roleplaying elements hard-coded in, and doubly so if "don't put up with this kind of BS" is expressed in some form within the text. But that isn't the paladin (or similar classes) being a "problem". It's problem people looking for an excuse.
Some basic etiquette I've found to work well:
If you are playing a Paladin: Don't rub your Code of Conduct in other people's faces. Zip it up and don't go looking for an opportunity for party conflict.
If you are playing with a Paladin in your party: Don't rub their Code of Conduct in their face. Put the poking stick down. You have Captain America in your team, and yes, sometimes that means showing a little bit of restraint and discretion. Don't go looking to start sh*t, it isn't cool.
If you are GMing for a paladin: Don't try to lynch them with their Code of Conduct. It's a roleplaying hook, not an excuse to be a d*ck. Your job is to promote fun (for everyone) at the table, paladin player included.
cuz some of us want to play different kinds of paladins, ones that can lie or ones that can torture for information, or ones that would have no qualms about slaughtering all they view as heretics, ones that say screw the law i'm going to do good for the sake of doing good, ones that wont let society infringe on the territory of nature all of these are concepts that a paladin should be able to do but by raw they can notThis thread makes me realize how many people still don't know how paladins work, or how to play them.
There's nothing wrong with paladins. There's nothing wrong with the paladin code (any version of it). There are only things wrong with people who, for some reason, still have a very small and rigid view of what paladins are.
I'm kinda surprised. This subject has been talked to death over many editions, with whole essays being written by very good authors.
Given the resources at everyone's disposal these days, why is this still such a problem?
You know, this sounds rather just like you want to play a paladin-variant whose ideal is "murderhobo well, murderhobo often". I think it may simply be that your description was overly casual, I'm not sure. For instance, I am of the opinion that any and all variants of paladin, regardless of alignment, should have serious dedication behind that alignment - "screw the law" just sounds like immature rebelliousness. I think you may well have actually meant a more coherent NG or CG paladin-variant concept, but all we have to go by is your description.
So I think some argument may be stemming simply from people's reaction to what they think you want, when that isn't what you actually want.
Also, it seems we're talking at cross-purposes. The post you replied to was, summarized, "this is why people shouldn't mind LG paladins existing. Why is this a problem?" You posted as if to refute it, by saying you want other kinds of paladins. No one in this thread, before this post (and I don't think it's actually said so after, either), has said paladins of other alignments shouldn't exist, that I've noticed. We were discussing whether other characters were restricted by the existence of paladins and whether paladins at all should exist, at least as a core or base class.
Wow, much posting, little actual progress.
Yeah, I can see the issue. Seems we have one side being conservative with the role and definition of a Paladin and the other being more progressive and loose with their definition of a Paladin. There is never really going to be a consensus on the matter.
I propose that anyone that wants to play a non-LG Paladin simply call their class something other than Paladin, that way that side can get their Paladin-esque abilities. That way, the other side can simply move on from the issue, ignoring or accepting the new class as they are want to. This seems the less divisive option.
no one ... has said paladins of other alignments shouldn't exist
I'm of the opinion that 'Paladins' of other alignments shouldn't exist, because a Paladin is a LG holy warrior by definition and game mechanics. If you want something other than LG, call it something else. That way we can all be happy, even if the mechanics are similar.
no one ... has said paladins of other alignments shouldn't existI'm of the opinion that 'Paladins' of other alignments shouldn't exist, because a Paladin is a LG holy warrior by definition and game mechanics. If you want something other than LG, call it something else. That way we can all be happy, even if the mechanics are similar.
I was not meaning to imply I was referring to any strict precision of the name. I do not care if they are called Paladins of Freedom, or Knights of Freedom, or Drunken Wannabes. Point is there are people wanting a mechanically similar class with different flavor. I don't think they care about the name nearly as much, or at least I don't think they should think it's worth having a cow over, either. I'm all for the term being exclusive. Works fine for me.
Just, this feels like it's going to get confusing, if we end up with an argument of "I want something that I will describe as a CG paladin for the sake of clarity" vs "I don't want you to have that, solely based on you using the term 'paladin'."
Our base assumptions are incompatible, I rather think that many here, whatever their viewpoint, are at the point that everything sounds like .....
I want it now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I said Paladin-ish. Gawain isn't the perfect Paladin (that would be Sir Galahad), but much of his character is Paladin-like. And, it should be noted, that after breaking his word he sought penance and received absolution from both the Green Knight and King Arthur, which is about as close as you get to an atonement spell in Arthurian legend.As I recall Arthur and the other knights actually thought he was making a fuss over nothing, which is both not atonement but also, not very Paladinlike of them.
I don't know that I'd agree with that. It strikes me as fitting that a paladin would be even harder on himself than his companions/superiors would be.
I feel like "champions of other alignments" are a great idea, but the ones that aren't LG shouldn't be defined by things like grace, lay on hands, mercy, etc. They should instead be defined by things that are more appropriate for those alignments.
Maybe the shifter is locked to TN so we can have a trend of mechanically distinct full BAB champions of the 5 most extreme alignments. Personally, I don't like the antipaladin though.
I was not meaning to imply I was referring to any strict precision of the name. I do not care if they are called Paladins of Freedom, or Knights of Freedom, or Drunken Wannabes. Point is there are people wanting a mechanically similar class with different flavor.
Yes, this is exactly the issue. Being a Paladin MEANS something to the Pathfinder universe at large (and certain other rule sets). It is synonymous with Law, Good, righteousness, etc. The Paladins embody all of what they expect a a Good and Lawful person to be, and they are bound by the code to remain that person. In effect, they can be trusted to be a Paladin (Law/Good/righteous, etc) because they are a Paladin. Changing what it means to be a Paladin changes ALL of that and (can) ruin the originality and flavor of what it means to be a Paladin.
I don't think they care about the name nearly as much, or at least I don't think they should think it's worth having a cow over, either. I'm all for the term being exclusive. Works fine for me.
People appear to be having 'a cow' over the name, regardless. Agreeing that the term Paladin remain exclusive is a great first step in understanding each other.
Just, this feels like it's going to get confusing, if we end up with an argument of "I want something that I will describe as a CG paladin for the sake of clarity" vs "I don't want you to have that, solely based on you using the term 'paladin'."
Better to take the time and explain exactly what you want, rather than altering the definition of something that already exists to match what you want. This is how we get new words (in part).
I was not meaning to imply I was referring to any strict precision of the name. I do not care if they are called Paladins of Freedom, or Knights of Freedom, or Drunken Wannabes. Point is there are people wanting a mechanically similar class with different flavor. I don't think they care about the name nearly as much, or at least I don't think they should think it's worth having a cow over, either. I'm all for the term being exclusive. Works fine for me.
Ultimately, it's fairly easy to file off the serial numbers and play a paladin of <whatever> without the game actually having to formally include it. The ability to make a custom alt-paladin covers pretty much everything but PFS. And even in PFS, playing a character, paladin or not, who resorts to torture or excessively brutal murder-hoboing is not going to fly.
The paladin exists as it exists because it encapsulates a very common and evocative literary archetype - the knight in shining armor capable of some miracles through his faith/devotion. Clearly enough people like to play up to that ideal, including myself, that the paladin has made it through numerous edition revisions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you seriously making the argument, that tradition for traditions sake has merit? Since logic based discussion isn't the deciding factor, I am stopping this here, there is nothing of value to be gained by continuing.
Of course respect for tradition is a logical and valid argument. Respect for tradition can be justified in two ways:
1. As G.K. Chesterton argued, the principles of democracy require us to respect tradition. Tradition is simply giving a voice/a vote to all those who lived before us.2. Every generation has trouble seeing beyond its own fads in thought. Respect for tradition is the acknowledgement that those who came before us may see things we cannot due to our fads or climate of thought.
To say that we should have no respect for tradition requires the assumption that every generation is both smarter and wiser than every generation that has come before. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me to claim that every generation, both intelligence and wisdom scores go up by 2. To me, this appears to be the height of arrogance.
I mean, if we say "tradition is valueless in d20 fantasy games" then it's less the Paladin class we'd get rid of, and more the monk, fighter, and rogue classes. The Paladin is at least powerful enough to not require reams and reams of extra rules to make it viable.