On setting and flavor - Why I oppose some "player choice" options in the core.

[HWalsh]

Now - The following is in essay format.

I am going to preface this with the following:

If you are going to reply to this, please give reasons that are legitimate and pursuant to the essay.

-----

Many things in gaming are heavily opinion-based. This is a fact. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Likewise, many things in gaming are diametrically opposed, and as such compromise that makes everyone happy literally isn't possible. This causes a significant amount of friction in the player base and is why things like Paladin Alignments and Goblins as Core are so hot button.

Lawful Good Paladin proponents cannot compromise with non-Lawful Good Paladin proponents because, quite simply, if one only wants Lawful Good Paladins then anything that allows non-Lawful Good Paladins isn't a compromise anymore. That is simply losing.

Thus the non-Lawful Good Only Paladin supporters like to argue that the pro-Lawful Good only supporters refuse to compromise. That is because there literally cannot be compromise on that issue because it is a binary argument. A 1 or a 0, a yes or a no, there is no third option.

This is more broadly displayed in the terms of world flavor. You have generally three types of players:

Type I:
These types of gamers like the flavor and the lore of the world. They read everything they can, they write up characters who have backstories tied to the background of a city rather than just naming one. They care deeply for the story and world flavor and that is their primary consideration when they begin character design. For the rest of this essay we will call these gamers: Narrative Gamers.

Type II:
These types of gamers are primarily concerned with mechanical freedom. They may care about some parts of the lore, but generally see it as a suggestion. Classes don't have flavor to these players, they are mechanical shells that they can slap onto any character they create and they, generally, want to make what they make, and don't care if it fits with the lore or not. They want to play what they want to play and anything that says otherwise can take a long walk off of a short pier. These are the types of gamers who will create a character that resembles an anime protagonists because they can. For the rest of this essay we will call these gamers: Agency Gamers.

Type III:
These types of gamers straddle the boundaries between Narrative and Agency Gamers. They like freedom, but they don't like to go too extreme. They will see the anime character and shake their head saying, "Really? This isn't Naruto the RPG ya know!" While at the same time they will see the overly detailed lore-shackled Paladin and say, "Pull the stick out and lighten up!" We will call these gamers: Average Gamers.

For the most part Average Gamers make up the bulk of the gamer population, I'd wager they make up around 50% of the gaming population. The other two seem to exist in equal population, around 25% each. The forum-goer numbers do skew toward the Agency gamer, but is not indicative of the actual population of gamers as a whole.

The problem, and issue, generally comes between Agency and Narrative Gamers. The reason is that the source of enjoyment they get out of the game is literally in opposition to each other. The less lore and canon adherence the less fun the Narrative gamer has. The more restrictions and lack of freedom the Agency gamer has the less fun they have. This means that, in general, there will never be consensus between those two fringe groups.

This isn't because Narrative Gamers are unreasonable, and it isn't because Agency Gamers are unreasonable, it is simply because the source of each group's enjoyment detracts from the enjoyment of the other group.

I am a Narrative Gamer - I love the story and the lore and, to me, it is a greater challenge to design a character within that lore and framework. I get a lot of enjoyment making sure my character fits and I have fun when the world, situations, and characters I interact with fit within that setting. This includes other PCs.

So when I play with someone who sees classes as chassis for powers, who want to play the oddest thing they can come up with, that is outright ridiculous who doesn't particularly care about the world setting, it sours the experience for me.

This is not to confuse Agency players as Power Gamers either. You can get Power Gamers in all groups. I have seen lore adherent characters who break the game just as much as the Cavalier who won't even enter a bar unless they can take their mount or the character who is literally based solely on a character from Naruto.

(No joke: I played the Solstice Scar event and one player refused to go into the opening scene unless they were allowed to ride their Axe Beak mount into the bar, and I have played PFS with a character who literally built a character from Naruto.)

In PFS I will grit my teeth and get through the scenario. In non-PFS, if I am the GM I'll curb that stuff in creation, if I am a player and it is allowed I will often simply leave the group to find a different group.

This is why PF2e is such a stress-inducing thing for me.

PF1 had clear lore as part of the core. Sure you could play a Goblin - In a home game, but it wasn't part of the main ruleset. Sure you could play a Neutral pure Paladin in a home game (or Mythic game) but they weren't available as actual default choices. To me, every step that the game takes toward removing more of the world flavor is another step that it takes away from making it something I want to play.

As a GM it makes my job harder, as it is easier for a home GM to remove a restriction than to put one back in place. There is less push back from players in the former than in the latter. As a player it makes my job harder in home games because it is part of the new core set, and in PFS it is impossible as there is literally nothing I can do.

What it generally means is that I am less inclined to purchase the new product since I know that I am going to not play it in society play, and I am unlikely to play it outside of a home game, and when I do play it in a home game I am going to have to do significant re-writing of the game which makes PF1 easier to run as I don't have to give my players a multi-page addendum guide to read so that they can understand the setting.

So... If the Agency Players get their way fully, which so far it appears that they are... Then we Narrative Players suffer.

The only way for Paizo to go forward is to give the Agency Players their thing (Goblins in Core) and the Narrative Players their thing (Lawful Good Only Paladins) so that both sides get just as much out of 2e as the other.

The issue is, however, that this creates a slippery slope.

If every time the Narrative Gamers get to keep half of what they want, while the Agency players get half of what they want, the Narrative players face eventual extinction as future versions of the game come out.

Example:
If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

So I urge Paizo, err on the side of the Narrative Gamers. They have a lot more to lose than the Agency Gamer and it is easier for a GM to give an Agency Gamer something by removing a restriction, than it is for a Narrative Gamer to put that restriction back.

Thank you.

[Planpanther]

The real problem is that this industry is just not big enough for both what you call narrative and agency gamers. There is no anime RPG on the level of D&D/PF. Conflicting tastes will continue to battle for design space. Eventually, tradition always gives way to progression and you have no alternative for a supported TTRPG. Dems da breaks.

[kyrt-ryder]

HWalsh wrote:

I am going to have to do significant re-writing of the game which makes PF1 easier to run as I don't have to give my players a multi-page addendum guide to read so that they can understand the setting.

While the I fit best into the 'Agency' category you've drawn up... I certainly feel your pain here.

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and wrote the memoir.

[ChibiNyan]

As long as you can find like-minded people, you can always play the game you want. PFS, of course, becomes a very tricky issue and this leaves you with doing what I did: raise my own crop of players with the narrative style.

In simple terms, the more the core rules stray away from your view of the game, the riskier it becomes to play with "randoms" or new players. If that has been your strategy to find games up til now, its gonna get tougher.

There's a lot of players in the world, including narrative ones! Find them so you can have a lot of fun with PF2.

[Malk_Content]

Narrative and agency players are not two different groups that are opposed. Most players are probably a healthy mix off both. We want options and we want them to make narrative sense.

We already have non lg Paladins that make narrative sense. It fills both my desire for player agency and already fits in with existing narrative aspects of the game.

It has nothing to do with narrative vs agency, it has to do with your personal preference. Which is fine, everyone is allowed to have them.

[Deadmanwalking]

Speaking as a primarily narrative focused gamer for the most part (though I don't think all Classes have inherent flavor that's at all meaningful...Paladin certainly does, though), I basically strongly disagree that PC Goblins or non-LG Paladins necessarily violate any of the world lore.

PC Goblins in the corebook demand an in-universe explanation of some sort as to why they've become more common and more accepted than they were in previous years. But the setting is advancing a decade or so, and Paizo have indicated there will be such an explanation.

So PC goblins don't violate the world's verisimilitude and are consistent with the narrative, as long as Paizo provides an in-universe reason for them. Which it seems clear they are going to.

Non Lawful Good Paladins also don't necessarily violate the narrative of the setting at all. Antipaladins were already absolutely possible, for example, and available in LE and CE versions. Combining the Paladin and Antipaladin Classes makes good mechanical sense and changes nothing about the world. So, if going with the 'four corners' model (which I advocate) of LG, CG, LE, and CE being the only available Alignments for Paladins, all you have to explain are the CG ones...and frankly, the ability to already play a CG Warpriest (Champion of the Faith) and be basically impossible to distinguish from a Paladin in-universe is already a thing. Indeed, that's true for all Alignments.

In short, the universe already contains CN individuals with Divine spellcasting who can Smite Law and Detect Law (just to pick a random example). So making them mechanically 'Paladins' changes absolutely nothing about the world that anyone in-world would notice. I personally still don't like Paladins except of the 'extreme' alignments, but it doesn't violate in-world stuff to have Paladins of all Alignments.

And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on a character sheet, I don't think that's a narrative problem and, frankly, think claiming it is such a problem is factually wrong.

[Dread Moores]

Malk_Content wrote:

It has nothing to do with narrative vs agency, it has to do with your personal preference. Which is fine, everyone is allowed to have them.

And that's the whole show. Goodnight folks! Tip your wait staff.

[Revan]

"You can play what you want and I can play what I want," is a compromise on it's face. More specifically, we're prepared to give up the specific name 'Paladin' and have certain mechanical differences in exchange for being able to use the mechanical chassis overall on a Chaotic Good character. That's a compromise. We give up part of what we want, you give up part of what you want, but we both get something out of it.

[kyrt-ryder]

Planpanther wrote:

The real problem is that this industry is just not big enough for both what you call narrative and agency gamers.

Now you listen and you listen good. This here town [industry] ain't big'nuff fer tha both of us.

[kyrt-ryder]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on a character sheet, I don't think that's a narrative problem and, frankly, think claiming it is such a problem is factually wrong.

Based on previous conversations I am relatively certain (please correct me if I'm wrong Walsh) that HWalsh is a far more extreme example of a 'Narative Gamer' than you Deadman.

To him what's on the sheet is what people notice in world.

[PossibleCabbage]

So what about, instead of "player choice" we emphasize "GM choice". Which is to say include a sidebar like this:

Quote:

In the previous edition of Pathfinder, the Paladin class was restricted to being LG only, in large part because "who the Paladin is" is defined as "the sort of person who always does the right thing in the right way." Naturally this is seen by many to exclude non-good characters, as they tend to be willing to not do the right thing, and non-lawful characters, as they tend to be willing to break the rules when it suits them.

However alignment is often a contentious subject, and smart, thoughtful, and talented GMs may have fundamentally different interpretations of alignment as fits their games, it is important to underline that what defines a Paladin is less the alignment and more the fact that Paladins are above all virtuous, honest, ethical, righteous heroes who do not lie, take shortcuts, or otherwise dishonor themselves. If your interpretation allows for characters who are first and foremost "scrupulously rule-following and morally upright people always willing to put themselves in harm's way to defend both people and principles" to be alignments other than Lawful Good, then feel free to allow those people to be Paladins. Note that this is different from "any character of any alignment may be a Paladin" as many Lawful Good people are insufficiently righteous to qualify as Paladins.

Historically, the Law/Chaos axis has been ambiguous enough that people will differ on the three good alignments, but it is our position that a Paladin should always be good, and should be someone who tries to do things in the right way, never ignoring laws, rules, or norms solely for the purpose of expediency; as the "easy way" is not the way of the Paladin.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

HWalsh wrote:

Lawful Good Paladin proponents cannot compromise with non-Lawful Good Paladin proponents because, quite simply, if one only wants Lawful Good Paladins then anything that allows non-Lawful Good Paladins isn't a compromise anymore. That is simply losing.

Odds are, you do not just want Paladins to remain Lawful Good for the sake of it. As you explain in your essay, you seemingly want to maintain a sense that the Paladin class is strongly flavored, and that Paladins in universe, the one you're playing in particular, earn their powers through strictly righteous conduct. If this assessment of your wants is accurate, a compromise would be any set of design choices which maintained this sense of specialness, where being a paladin is hard and the main paladin has a strong flavoring to them similar to the one they have now, but still allowed the other party the ability to play the character they wanted.

That might be impossible, but the designers at Paizo are brilliant and talented people who could find a solution that satisfies or comes close to satisfying both of you.

Likewise, for me, I have certain fears about what would result from Chaotic Good Paladins being made an option. I have had success in the past expressing my fears through a fictionalized stream of consciousness monologue, so here is what goes through my head when the idea is proposed:

"Oh god, this guy is probably one of those people who thinks Lawful Good characters are unplayable and that all GMs will make him fall for refusing to take a vampire prisoner. There are millions of people like him. This stigma against LG characters is super baked into the broader culture around this game. If I hadn't had The Spoony One to vaccinate me against it before I got into this game, I'd probably think the same way. Then I'd never have been willing to play a Lawful Good character, and I'd never have been able to discover my favorite class. How many people are already being cheated out of the fun they'd have playing a Lawful Good paladin by this stigma? How many more new players would be if they walked into the game and had the book in front of them telling them they can be a Chaotic Good paladin, and the people around them telling them they're going to be at a disadvantage if they pick the LG paladin because it requires them to be a joyless stick in the mud? The paladin is one of the last vectors for assuaging people's fear of being Lawful Good, and taking that away will mean hardly anyone plays a Lawful Good Paladin, or anything else, ever again.

"And it's all well and good to say I can still play my Lawful Good Paladin, but how will people react to that choice in a world where it's strictly optional? A lot of people are already judgmental about anyone who dares to play a standard paladin. How much worse will it get when I ask to spare the bandit we've knocked out and the four Chaotic Good/Neutral characters at my table all are thinking 'this guy could have just been Chaotic Good like the rest of us.' How much less willing will people be to accommodate my desire to be a Lawful Good Paladin when they can say 'you should have just been Chaotic instead?'

"And even if people at the table treat me right, how much of a chump does it make my character that he put in all of the work to get these powers by staying pure-hearted and acting uprightly when a million people are running around getting all the same advantaged in exchange for nothing but a generalized promise to be roughly nice most of the time? He goes from being a righteous warrior who earned specialness through his own effort to a dumbass who made work for himself by choosing the harder way of getting the same powers for no good reason."

Something that could assuage those fears while still allowing Chaotic Good paladins in the game would be a compromise that would satisfy me. If you are reasonable, the same is true of you and whatever your fears are.

[Milo v3]

I don't really like your distinctions for Narrative gamer etc. since I don't think they're very accurate in this circumstance. I'd be counted as a Narrative-Gamer by your definition, but because I dislike Golarion and use homebrew settings of my own creation, my desire for how 2e goes would be an "Agency-Gamer" because I want to be able to do my Narrative-Gamer style stuff but find setting-specific material makes that more difficult.

Regardless, Paizo are the ones who own the setting and narrative of Pathfinder, if they put options in Core which can do a thing, then that thing is a thing in the setting. Narrative gamers aren't suffering in anyway if something they dislike gets put into the setting, because ... that just means they're disliking some aspects of the setting.

[Heather 540]

I'm a bit of both Narrative and Agency. I love to make characters and use them in a story, even if I never end up playing them in a game. But without the Agency part, I wouldn't know how to build them. A clear set of rules governing abilities and powers helps me know how to keep my character alive so I can keep playing that character.

For example, I have a pair of characters that are twins and are being built to be played together. No GM would allow me to play 2 PCs at the same time, but I'm having fun making them. That's Narrative playing - making a character with a story for no reason other then to make a character with a story. Their backstory is that they are young former nobles whose father had been swindled out of his title, fortune, and lands. So they had to become thieves in order to survive and hope to regain their inheritance one day.

The Aspect part is their class and feats - Dashing Thief Swashbuckler and Unchained Phantom Thief Rogue. One focuses on Steal and Disarm while the other focuses on flanking and supporting her sibling.

I can't just say 'he steals the bag and runs' and just expect it to happen. That's against the rules. I need to make a Steal check so I give him the Improved Steal feat. That's Aspect gaming. As far as I can tell, the game doesn't work without both.

[gwynfrid]

HWalsh wrote:

That is because there literally cannot be compromise on that issue because it is a binary argument. A 1 or a 0, a yes or a no, there is no third option.

With this axiom, you paint the world in binary terms indeed. This lends itself very poorly to the description of RPGs, a category that is by its very nature one of the most nuanced, gray-area gaming concepts in existence (I mean, seriously, a game that, by design, never ends, and you can't ever win?).

I agree that it's virtually impossible to please everybody. But it doesn't follow that compromise is impossible forevermore. Not being able to find any 3rd option would just signal insufficient imagination on the part of the player, GM, and/or game designers.

HWalsh wrote:

The problem, and issue, generally comes between Agency and Narrative Gamers. The reason is that the source of enjoyment they get out of the game is literally in opposition to each other. The less lore and canon adherence the less fun the Narrative gamer has. The more restrictions and lack of freedom the Agency gamer has the less fun they have. This means that, in general, there will never be consensus between those two fringe groups.

These is a real opposition, and I understand where you're coming from. But Narrative vs Agency isn't the only axis of opposition in styles and preferences. Another is Realism vs Fantasy (Realism gamers want everything in the game to be a reasonable reflection of the real world, with the sole exception of magic. Fantasy players want to see the fantastic in everything). Another is Complexity vs Simplicity (Complexity partisans will complain about the game being like 5E, Simplicity gamers will want rules that are easier to learn and teach). You also have Tradition vs Modernity (Tradition players will basically want PF2 to be as faithful to its PF1 roots as possible, Modernity says the PF1 system and its 3E foundations are worn out). Then there's the PFS gamer vs the Homebrewer, 2 completely different perspectives on game dynamics in every respect. I'm sure there are other oppositions one could find by spending a bit of time on the forum.

Looking at the debate from only one angle of Agency vs Narrative is therefore an oversimplification. Players will feel happy and/or unhappy about PF2 depending on what PF2 looks like from multiple perspectives.

HWalsh wrote:

PF1 had clear lore as part of the core. Sure you could play a Goblin - In a home game, but it wasn't part of the main ruleset. Sure you could play a Neutral pure Paladin in a home game (or Mythic game) but they weren't available as actual default choices. To me, every step that the game takes toward removing more of the world flavor is another step that it takes away from making it something I want to play.

The problem I have with this is that you're assuming a static world. You're implicitly saying the world flavor cannot evolve: One must either preserve or remove it. I don't want to accept that premise.

HWalsh wrote:

If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

First, I have to admire someone who's able to project the hobby's evolution 30+ years ahead!

More seriously: You posit that the world (and game) is not just static, but also finite. It isn't, and this is one of its greatest strengths. A civilized, even a Good goblin is possible because designers can and should bring change to the game world. Assuming they do a good job, then that evolution will be credible and even natural.

[NorthernDruid]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

-snip-

And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on...

Alignment isn't an OOC thing though. Not as long as there's in-setting elements (like "detect [alignment]" and "protection from [alignment]" spells to point out the example that was brought up in the group I played with).

Just wanted to nitpick that out there.

I'm also new to the forums... hi. *shy wave*

[Deadmanwalking]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on a character sheet, I don't think that's a narrative problem and, frankly, think claiming it is such a problem is factually wrong.

Based on previous conversations I am relatively certain (please correct me if I'm wrong Walsh) that HWalsh is a far more extreme example of a 'Narative Gamer' than you Deadman.

To him what's on the sheet is what people notice in world.

That's true in some cases and very much not in others. It really depends on the thing in question.

And, frankly, even if that's the case, the new edition is gonna change what's on the character sheet way more than being able to write 'Paladin' (or something equivalent) rather than Warpriest (Champion of the Faith) will.

NorthernDruid wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

-snip-

And, from a narrative perspective, aren't changes that people actually notice in-universe what would be a problem? I mean, if all that changes is an OOC thing like what's written on...

Alignment isn't an OOC thing though. Not as long as there's in-setting elements (like "detect [alignment]" and "protection from [alignment]" spells to point out the example that was brought up in the group I played with).

But nobody's Alignment has changed. My point was that there were already people of all Alignments in-setting who had all the visible, and most of the narrative, elements of being a paladin, that just wasn't the Class on their sheet. So the only change is the Class on their sheet to Paladin.

NorthernDruid wrote:

Just wanted to nitpick that out there.

I'm also new to the forums... hi. *shy wave*

Hi! Welcome to the forums.

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

"And even if people at the table treat me right, how much of a chump does it make my character that he put in all of the work to get these powers by staying pure-hearted and acting uprightly when a million people are running around getting all the same advantaged in exchange for nothing but a generalized promise to be roughly nice most of the time? He goes from being a righteous warrior who earned specialness through his own effort to a dumbass who made work for himself by choosing the harder way of getting the same powers for no good reason."

Not to tell you you're having badwrongfun or anything, but shouldn't your character be staying pure-hearted and acting uprightly because that's the kind of character you want to play, rather than because the game mechanically rewards it? If you want to play a character with a Paladin's code, just do it. You don't have to have a mechanical class to back it up. And if anything it's weird that Paladins have to maintain Lawful Good to get their powers, because their powers already aren't significantly better than most other classes (Clerics are already significantly more powerful for less effort) and if they should happen to fall they're reduced to being sub-par Fighters.

Besides, why do you think that it's less effort to maintain a pure Chaotic Good alignment? I realize a lot of people play CG because they feel like it's a more expedient form of Good, but that's not really true. A CG character just has a different way of thinking about Good. LG values order and society over individual freedoms. A CG Paladin would have to take the opposite stance, which means opposing otherwise legitimate authority when it infringes on the rights of an individual. Meaning that a CG Paladin's vows might actually be harder to follow through with than a LG Paladin's vows, because they are more likely to put the Paladin at odds with society.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

gwynfrid wrote:

The problem I have with this is that you're assuming a static world. You're implicitly saying the world flavor cannot evolve: One must either preserve or remove it. I don't want to accept that premise.

It's true that that's not broadly the case, but in this specific instance, the most likely way chaotic good paladins would be implemented he's by simply removing the currently existing flavor that makes Paladin's lawful good, and replacing it with something much weaker that doesn't require that. That's what 5th edition did after all. You can either be a traditional Paladin, for which there isn't that much support because it's now just a part of the class, or you could be one of five other deeply uninteresting alternatives.

The paladins flavor was diluted, precisely as HWalsh said it would be. I'm also willing to bet that people don't play the traditional Paladin very often now that they have seemingly easier choices.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

A Ninja Errant wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

"And even if people at the table treat me right, how much of a chump does it make my character that he put in all of the work to get these powers by staying pure-hearted and acting uprightly when a million people are running around getting all the same advantaged in exchange for nothing but a generalized promise to be roughly nice most of the time? He goes from being a righteous warrior who earned specialness through his own effort to a dumbass who made work for himself by choosing the harder way of getting the same powers for no good reason."

Not to tell you you're having badwrongfun or anything, but shouldn't your character be staying pure-hearted and acting uprightly because that's the kind of character you want to play, rather than because the game mechanically rewards it? If you want to play a character with a Paladin's code, just do it. You don't have to have a mechanical class to back it up. And if anything it's weird that Paladins have to maintain Lawful Good to get their powers, because their powers already aren't significantly better than most other classes (Clerics are already significantly more powerful for less effort) and if they should happen to fall they're reduced to being sub-par Fighters.

Besides, why do you think that it's less effort to maintain a pure Chaotic Good alignment? I realize a lot of people play CG because they feel like it's a more expedient form of Good, but that's not really true. A CG character just has a different way of thinking about Good. LG values order and society over individual freedoms. A CG Paladin would have to take the opposite stance, which means opposing otherwise legitimate authority when it infringes on the rights of an individual. Meaning that a CG Paladin's vows might actually be harder to follow through with than a LG Paladin's vows, because they are more likely to put the Paladin at odds with society.

Maintaining a pure chaotic good alignment is unquestionably easier than maintaining of your lawful good alignment. All you have to do to be chaotic good is whatever you would want to do anyway, unless it would be an evil Act. A character who was chaotic good would be able to choose to tolerate societies evils whenever it struck them as expedient for the greater good. Fighting a losing battle against oppression when one could instead pursue something more likely to succeed is a very lawful thing for someone to do. Meanwhile, a lawful good character would have to take a principled stand and intervene because it was the right thing to do.

[Milo v3]

Dude, what your describing as chaotic good many (possibly most) would class as chaotic neutral.

[A Ninja Errant]

HWalsh wrote:

Example:

If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

That assumes that Narrative will find nothing extra or new to like in PF2 and further iterations, which seems like a bit of a jump. I'm probably in the Average category, I like making crazy characters and power-gaming (albeit I'm getting better about that) but I don't generally play anything I think is immersion breaking. I don't want Goblins in Core for narrative reasons, but I don't want Paladins restricted to LG because it just seems like an out-dated restriction just kept around for tradition.

Granted I don't have much attachment to the Paladin concept though, I very rarely play them. Playing a LG Holy Warrior type can be fun, but I've always found it odd that deities of other alignments wouldn't create similar orders of Holy Warriors for themselves.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

It's true that that's not broadly the case, but in this specific instance, the most likely way chaotic good paladins would be implemented he's by simply removing the currently existing flavor that makes Paladin's lawful good, and replacing it with something much weaker that doesn't require that. That's what 5th edition did after all. You can either be a traditional Paladin, for which there isn't that much support because it's now just a part of the class, or you could be one of five other deeply uninteresting alternatives.

The paladins flavor was diluted, precisely as HWalsh said it would be. I'm also willing to bet that people don't play the traditional Paladin very often now that they have seemingly easier choices.

Perhaps, but traditionally Paladins are supposed to be super rare anyway, and only the best of the best even qualify to be one. So I don't see it as an issue that people don't play the traditional one often. And if people are playing the alternative versions they must not be that deeply uninteresting, right?

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

Maintaining a pure chaotic good alignment is unquestionably easier than maintaining of your lawful good alignment. All you have to do to be chaotic good is whatever you would want to do anyway, unless it would be an evil Act. A character who was chaotic good would be able to choose to tolerate societies evils whenever it struck them as expedient for the greater good. Fighting a losing battle against oppression when one could instead pursue something more likely to succeed is a very lawful thing for someone to do. Meanwhile, a lawful good character would have to take a principled stand and intervene because it was the right thing to do.

I disagree. If anything, LG Paladins have a higher capability for tolerating the evils of society, because "the greater good" is their primary goal, whereas the CG Paladin has to fight for the good of the individual over the good of society as a whole. That sounds pretty difficult to me. Actually kind of makes it sound like CG paladins might not be very viable as PCs...hmmmm lol

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Milo v3 wrote:

Dude, what your describing as chaotic good many (possibly most) would class as chaotic neutral.

They're similar. The difference is that the one is well-intentioned and kind while the other is self-interested.

[gwynfrid]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

It's true that that's not broadly the case, but in this specific instance, the most likely way chaotic good paladins would be implemented he's by simply removing the currently existing flavor that makes Paladin's lawful good, and replacing it with something much weaker that doesn't require that. That's what 5th edition did after all. You can either be a traditional Paladin, for which there isn't that much support because it's now just a part of the class, or you could be one of five other deeply uninteresting alternatives.

I'm not a 5E player, but I'd wager that uninteresting is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming the alternatives are really not valid, then no one is playing them, which means no skin off anybody's nose.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

The paladins flavor was diluted, precisely as HWalsh said it would be. I'm also willing to bet that people don't play the traditional Paladin very often now that they have seemingly easier choices.

Really? Playing the classic knightly hero of many immortal legends would become an unpopular choice because of some upstart, poorly flavored concepts?

[ThePuppyTurtle]

gwynfrid wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

It's true that that's not broadly the case, but in this specific instance, the most likely way chaotic good paladins would be implemented he's by simply removing the currently existing flavor that makes Paladin's lawful good, and replacing it with something much weaker that doesn't require that. That's what 5th edition did after all. You can either be a traditional Paladin, for which there isn't that much support because it's now just a part of the class, or you could be one of five other deeply uninteresting alternatives.

I'm not a 5E player, but I'd wager that uninteresting is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming the alternatives are really not valid, then no one is playing them, which means no skin off anybody's nose.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

The paladins flavor was diluted, precisely as HWalsh said it would be. I'm also willing to bet that people don't play the traditional Paladin very often now that they have seemingly easier choices.

Really? Playing the classic knightly hero of many immortal legends would become an unpopular choice because of some upstart, poorly flavored concepts?

Considering the stigma surrounding paladins as we currently have them, a stigma which is the entire reason why this discussion is so hot button, I'm willing to bet there's severe social pressure in many groups to never even consider playing that Paladin.

I know that when I started off it would have scared me away. I would have immediately went for one of the easy ass ones, and I never would have discovered what is now my favorite kind of character to play. I needed to be forced out of my comfort zone, and once I was, I loved it. I don't want people cheated out of that.

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

Considering the stigma surrounding paladins as we currently have them, a stigma which is the entire reason why this discussion is so hot button, I'm willing to bet there's severe social pressure in many groups to never even consider playing that Paladin.

I know that when I started off it would have scared me away. I would have immediately went for one of the easy ass ones, and I never would have discovered what is now my favorite kind of character to play.

That may be the case, I'm not 100% sure what stigma you're talking about to be honest. I really only started paying significant attention to the forums since the PF2 announcement. Being pure LG does make it hard to fit a Paladin into a lot of adventuring parties, and it forces restrictions on other players, so I can see why some would oppose it. Personally I don't mind having a Paladin in the party when I'm playing something rogue-ish, just because it can be kind of fun sneaking around the Paladin to get stuff accomplished. I do think a lot of people have an idea (mistaken, I know) that Paladins have to be stuck-up, stick-in-the-mud, holier-than-thou types though, which can be pretty obnoxious.

[willuwontu]

This all premises on that by opening paladin up to other alignments, you are losing something, but you're not. In fact it allows others to enjoy playing it as well.

The only thing you lose out on, is the ability to stand on a high horse and say "I'm a paladin, and better than all of you."

Paladins are a fun class in PF1, it'd be nice to be able to play NG or LN ones as well, share your toys in PF2.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

willuwontu wrote:

This all premises on that by opening paladin up to other alignments, you are losing something, but you're not. In fact it allows others to enjoy playing it as well.

The only thing you lose out on, is the ability to stand on a high horse and say "I'm a paladin, and better than all of you."

Paladins are a fun class in PF1, it'd be nice to be able to play NG or LN ones as well, share your toys in PF2.

What was stopping those others from playing a paladin before? The answer is that nothing was, save their personal hang ups about playing a lawful good character. The game should help them get over, rather than indulge, those Hang-Ups.

If people would just play the Paladin under a good GM they would see that it's not this spooky table wrecker everyone thinks it is.

[kyrt-ryder]

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Now an option that DOES work, a compromise that allows every one to have what they want (except narrative extremists who vehemently object to any other paths to a Paladin's abilities) is to strip the Paladin away from Full Class Status.

Some kind of Champion class takes its place, with Paladins as one type pf champion.

In the same way that a necromancer is not a conjurer, Paladins are distinct from other branches of Champion, but all are constructed on the same chassis.

[kyrt-ryder]

TL;DR

Lawful Good Paladins are great, but not as a form of player compulsion.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

With all due respect to Walsh and Turtle, there is only so much available word count in the crb. Even the Barbarian, with his former 'non lawful' limitation and access to six of nine alignments is too limited for the crb, let alone the Paladin.

Now an option that DOES work, a compromise that allows every one to have what they want (except narrative extremists who vehemently object to any other paths to a Paladin's abilities) is to strip the Paladin away from Full Class Status.

Some kind of Champion class takes its place, with Paladins as one type pf champion.

In the same way that a necromancer is not a conjurer, Paladins are distinct from other branches of Champion, but all are constructed on the same chassis.

If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.

[kyrt-ryder]

But they can't and that is the point.

You get a Paladin experience out of a Paladin with all that entails.

A Liberator (CG) or Purifier (NG) or Judicar (LN) have their own distinct experiences.

Would you expect the same experience from a Necromancer and an Illusionist?

[willuwontu]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

What was stopping those others from playing a paladin before? The answer is that nothing was, save their personal hang ups about playing a lawful good character. The game should help them get over, rather than indulge, those Hang-Ups.

If people would just play the Paladin under a good GM they would see that it's not this spooky table wrecker everyone thinks it is.

This assumes they had issues that stopped them from playing them before, when they may have played them, but just not enjoyed being LG which is a definite issue in a game about having fun with a group of others. LG is not an alignment everyone enjoys playing, but the Paladin is depicted as the "Martial Champion of Good and Righteousness" which a lot of people like the idea of when playing as a hero.

I don't see paladin as a table wrecker (if you don't have a "gotcha" DM), it's a pretty fun class. What I don't see is the hangups on opening up the alignment when all it'd do is benefit the players and allow them to have more fun (I have the same feeling about any other alignment locked class).

[CrystalSeas]

Nah, wrote a long post pointing out circular reasoning, self-reflexive statements, definitions that are circular, etc.

In short: if you define something as binary, it is, by definition, binary. That doesn't mean your definition is useful in the real world beyond this essay.

Rigid definitions that don't map to the real world. Your "three kinds of gamers" have a lot of overlap outside the confines of this essay. Thus, the conflicts are not as clear as you make them. Often the same gamer is on both sides of your artificial lines.

So, nice essay, good English. Fails logic and applicability tests.

[kyrt-ryder]

Note that a necromancer and illusionist have massive overlap in abilities, yet they still play very differently.

[Necromancer Paladin]

The Golarion already has non-LG paladins in it from 1e RPG-line.

[Heather 540]

The true mark of a great compromise - everybody goes home angry. lol

An archetype like the Gray Paladin could work for a Chaotic Good Paladin.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

willuwontu wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

What was stopping those others from playing a paladin before? The answer is that nothing was, save their personal hang ups about playing a lawful good character. The game should help them get over, rather than indulge, those Hang-Ups.

If people would just play the Paladin under a good GM they would see that it's not this spooky table wrecker everyone thinks it is.

This assumes they had issues that stopped them from playing them before, when they may have played them, but just not enjoyed being LG which is a definite issue in a game about having fun with a group of others. LG is not an alignment everyone enjoys playing, but the Paladin is depicted as the "Martial Champion of Good and Righteousness" which a lot of people like the idea of when playing as a hero.

I don't see paladin as a table wrecker (if you don't have a "gotcha" DM), it's a pretty fun class. What I don't see is the hangups on opening up the alignment when all it'd do is benefit the players and allow them to have more fun (I have the same feeling about any other alignment locked class).

Frankly, I think the number of people who actually dislike playing Lawful Good characters in the way you describe is miniscule. I think far more people have never played one, and somehow have it in their head that they can't.

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

In reality, these people would get along just fine playing lawful good if they just tried it. But they're scared too, and have it in their heads that they can't, so they think the game is outlawing them from playing a paladin by requiring them to be lawful good in order to do it.

This is a hang up I would have had if I hadn't had to try out a lawful good character in order to play a paladin. I discovered my favorite class and favorite character is a result. If you get what you want, and someone like me joins the game in two years, they'll be cheated out of a great experience.

[Cole Deschain]

When you open your effort with an attempt to splinter what is actually a continuum into three distinct cells, two of which are mutually exclusive, it's safe to say that the definition of "legitimate and pursuant to the essay" is going to be difficult to parse.

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.

Even granting that is true, restricting the Paladin to LG doesn't accomplish that. It just means those players won't play Paladins at all. There's 10 (11 in PF2) other core classes that don't require LG.

[kyrt-ryder]

They're not completely wrong.

Playing too far out of type can be very difficult and depending on the individual also possibly unfun.

Every one should try as many different things as they have the opportunity to, but we're here to have fun as well.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

A Ninja Errant wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.

Even granting that is true, restricting the Paladin to LG doesn't accomplish that. It just means those players won't play Paladins at all. There's 10 (11 in PF2) other core classes that don't require LG.

There is some Merit to that point. That does, after all, seem to be what's happening. However, I think the game could take other measures to reduce the lawful good stigma. Here are the changes I would make to the Paladin:

1: Remove the associates clause from their code. That one is the cause of the only problem with paladins that seems to me to have any legitimacy, the fact that they can be required to police the rest of the party in a way that might infringe on the way they want to play their characters.

2: Add a paragraph for sidebar noting that different Paladin's can interpret their codes in different ways. To one Paladin, respecting legitimate Authority means allowing City guard to recapture an escaped slave. To another Paladin, allowing those guards to stain their souls with such an immoral act would be profoundly disrespectful and they could never do it. To a third, the escaped slave being an innocent person in need simply trumps the respect legitimate Authority clause. A fourth Paladin simply cannot bring themselves to violate either aspect of their code even the name of the other, and so they try to do something to satisfy every part of it, like track down the original owner in by the slave so they can free them once they're found.

Building that kind of diversity of interpretation into the game will make even poor GM's less likely to have a different interpretation of the code than their player does and have the player fall as a result. This way, the GM might interpret the code one way, but the fact that the character sees it a different way is sufficient and valid for that to not cause the Paladin to fall. This does not mean that Anything Goes. The evil act Clause is still absolute, and any literary critic can tell you that multiple interpretations being possible does not mean that every interpretation is equally meritorious or even defensible. Arguments over which interpretations are defensible will still mean that the Paladin causes arguments sometimes, but I think this would cut down on it a lot.

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

I've played LG, I've played Paladins. It's fun in its own way, but CG is more my style. I don't see why I can't be a CG Holy Crusader of say Milani. Granted Warpriest fills that role, but how long did it take for us to get a class that does? Besides the Warpriest is basically a redesigned Paladin that doesn't have to be LG. So why not make Warpriest default and call the Paladin what it should be: a subclass of Warpriest.

[dragonhunterq]

It is much easier for a GM to relax a restriction than to impose one (in general). I'd much rather keep paladins LG. If needs be add a sidebar saying "open up paladins to other alignments if you really must" or something a little more diplomatic :D

[A Ninja Errant]

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

A Ninja Errant wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

If people feel like they can get fundamentally the same experience out of whatever the chaotic good Paladin ends up being called, they're only going to play that one from now on. People are scared to play lawful good characters and they need to be forced out of their comfort zone so that they see that everything is going to be fine.

Even granting that is true, restricting the Paladin to LG doesn't accomplish that. It just means those players won't play Paladins at all. There's 10 (11 in PF2) other core classes that don't require LG.

There is some Merit to that point. That does, after all, seem to be what's happening. However, I think the game could take other measures to reduce the lawful good stigma. Here are the changes I would make to the Paladin:

1: Remove the associates clause from their code. That one is the cause of the only problem with paladins that seems to me to have any legitimacy, the fact that they can be required to police the rest of the party in a way that might infringe on the way they want to play their characters.

2: Add a paragraph for sidebar noting that different Paladin's can interpret their codes in different ways. To one Paladin, respecting legitimate Authority means allowing City guard to recapture an escaped slave. To another Paladin, allowing those guards to stain their souls with such an immoral act would be profoundly disrespectful and they could never do it. To a third, the escaped slave being an innocent person in need simply trumps the respect legitimate Authority clause. A fourth Paladin simply cannot bring themselves to violate either aspect of their code even the name of the other, and so they try to do something to satisfy every part of it, like track down the original owner in by the slave so they can free them once they're found.

Building that kind of diversity of interpretation into the game will make even poor GM's less likely to have a different interpretation of the code than their player...

If they keep the Paladin, I would strongly hope they do something like this.

[Artificial 20]

How about we strike a compromise?

Goblins are now a core race.

Paladins go back to humans only.

Fair trade?

[Zhayne]

Here's the thing ... if you put lots of player choice and flavor options in the game, then individual groups can pick the flavor/lore options they want. How this doesn't make everybody happy, I simply cannot fathom.

If there are non-LG Paladins, then people who prefer only LG paladins can say 'Only LG paladins in this world'. It may not be a compromise, per se, but it gives everybody what they want.

This means you can CREATE YOUR OWN world, lore, and flavor more easily.

Some of us don't give two squirts of (urine) about Golarion.

IMHO, the ideal setup would be to create a completely mechanical book,then a 'Golarion Campaign Setting' that narrows the options for 'canonical' Golarion, while leaving things wide open for those of us who make our own worlds.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

A Ninja Errant wrote:

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

My evidence for this is that people who want to make chaotic good paladins a thing often talk about it as though it were an act of inclusion, like there's some class of lawful good challenged people finally being allowed to indulge in one of the game's classes from which they had previously been unfairly excluded, like this were the equivalent of building a wheelchair ramp.

I've played LG, I've played Paladins. It's fun in its own way, but CG is more my style. I don't see why I can't be a CG Holy Crusader of say Milani. Granted Warpriest fills that role, but how long did it take for us to get a class that does? Besides the Warpriest is basically a redesigned Paladin that doesn't have to be LG. So why not make Warpriest default and call the Paladin what it should be: a subclass of Warpriest.

You should, but that class should be flavored around subterfuge, protection, and subversion of more powerful forces. The lawful good Paladin we have is flavored around supporting one's allies, taking blows for them, and healing.

The essence of chaotic good is just more like a rogue than a tank. A chaotic good Rogue/Paladin hybrid would be a wonderful thing that I would love to see in the game.

[Xerres]

Lawful Good is my favorite alignment and I love Paladins. Playing Evil characters is very uncomfortable for me, I have quit 'Evil' games before. Closest I get is Mastermind type Neutrals who perform Evil when necessary but prefer cleaner methods. All this about "You have to play outside your comfort zone!" is extremely annoying to me, and somewhat insulting as well.

If you're so concerned about people playing Lawful Good then you should make a personal effort to discuss it with people in a way that isn't "You're just scared to follow rules!"

If they still just want to be Chaotic then shove off. They don't have to play Lawful anymore than I have to play Evil.

At this point I think the real solution is to remove Paladin from the Core classes, and toss it in an alignment splat book that builds classes for the different alignments and gives suggestions about how they're all fun to play. For someone at least. Even though my preference is just that Paladins be open to everyone, if the decision is that other alignments have to wait to have something special then Lawful Good can wait too.