|
I wish I could remember the novel. The main character is a fallen Paladin. Only he isn't. He thinks he is. He had a morally ambiguous decision to make and was thrown out of his order. He does not use any of his abilities, because he was simply told you messed up and are no longer a Paladin. the way the character reads is that he takes fighter levels thereafter because he is refused atonement. Trouble is, what ever the order thinks, they forgot to consult the forces of good, who at the end of the book tell him he did the best he could in the situation and that there are those still within the order who are really fallen, while he is fully capable of his abilities. He then heals someone by laying on hands. Fallen in this case does not mean going over to the Darkside, just not with the full support of the lightside. He had it, his superiors did not.
Just an idea.
|
|
I wish I could remember the novel. The main character is a fallen Paladin. Only he isn't. He thinks he is. He had a morally ambiguous decision to make and was thrown out of his order. He does not use any of his abilities, because he was simply told you messed up and are no longer a Paladin. the way the character reads is that he takes fighter levels thereafter because he is refused atonement. Trouble is, what ever the order thinks, they forgot to consult the forces of good, who at the end of the book tell him he did the best he could in the situation and that there are those still within the order who are really fallen, while he is fully capable of his abilities. He then heals someone by laying on hands. Fallen in this case does not mean going over to the Darkside, just not with the full support of the lightside. He had it, his superiors did not.
Just an idea.
That sounds very much like the story of Tirion Fiordring of Warcraft. He was thrown out of the Order of the Silver Hand because he freed an orc who had fought him with honor. He stops using his abilities for years afterward, while hanging around the Plaguelands to keep an eye on his son who joined the Scarlet Crusade. When his son is murdered by the evil ArchBishop, he meets the latter in combat, and his powers come back to him now that he has revitalised his commitment to the Light.
In game terms he continued to progress in Paladin levels, but because of his own self-doubt pretty much functioned without any of the active abilities. (He did seem to maintain the Paladin's grace, and immunity to disease.)
I am so trying to remember this story, he ends up befriending a young girl and being her protector. Damn it has been maybe 15 years since I read this.
I would just let him build another class and have his ex=paladin as pure backstory. Playing a paladin class without any of the powers is not a great idea. So he should work toward redeeming himself or not use the class.
A caviler might give him the feel he wants without crippling him.
+1.
Though if he is really set upon it, and wants to redeem himself, playing with a few fallen paladin levels for a couple of levels and perhaps multiclassing in a strange combination, then later redeeming himself for a glorious return can be awarding. As long as they are not to many "dead levels". Maybe he wasn't pure paladin.
There was an Eberron character in one of the novels who was a roguish fallen paladin/master inquisitive that later redeemed himself. A great storyline.
I also liked the Greyhawk campaign where a fallen paladin of heironeous became a holy knight of the netural swordlord, Kelanen. Though that was a 2E campaign mechanically...
OTOH a fallen paladin can pick up a few level of the 3lvl prc chevalier to easily get back alittle bit of his paladin powers.
I wish I could remember the novel. The main character is a fallen Paladin. Only he isn't. He thinks he is. He had a morally ambiguous decision to make and was thrown out of his order. He does not use any of his abilities, because he was simply told you messed up and are no longer a Paladin. the way the character reads is that he takes fighter levels thereafter because he is refused atonement. Trouble is, what ever the order thinks, they forgot to consult the forces of good, who at the end of the book tell him he did the best he could in the situation and that there are those still within the order who are really fallen, while he is fully capable of his abilities. He then heals someone by laying on hands. Fallen in this case does not mean going over to the Darkside, just not with the full support of the lightside. He had it, his superiors did not.
Just an idea.
[...]
I am so trying to remember this story, he ends up befriending a young girl and being her protector. Damn it has been maybe 15 years since I read this.
Was it an Eberron novel? From the Heirs of Ash trilogy? One of the characters is a "fallen" paladin of the Silver Flame, trying to cope with past actions done in the name of the Flame. I think it is the same one i refer to above, though i could be wrong. Apparently there are a lot of flavourful non-cookie-cutter paladins and even a few fallen ones in the Eberron novels.
Good thing jedi are not paladins then huh. They don't even have much in common with Paladins.
Really?
Well, that explains a lot about our disagreements.
Maybe, I never got why people think they are Jedi-like. The Jedi as written (in all forms) have nothing really in common with the classic D&d paladins. They lie, have a flexible ethics code, and are not "good" or really lawful just organized and orderly. They are more inline with monks.
Just what makes them "paladin" like?
But without the capacity to fall in power and glory of a different sort, the Paladin has very little real temptation. How is a Paladin EVER going to fall when a fall isn't just a fall from grace, but a fall from power as well?Yo do know that there is this interesting little thing called roleplaying, right ?
Trust me, I am quite the min-maxer, but even I sometimes choose sub-optimized (from a powergamer point of view) options because they make more sense for my character and because they bring more fun in his life/adventures.
Except 99% of the time it DOESN'T make sense for the character. How can evil be tempting and luring and desirable if it's going to result in the loss of all your powers.
The Dark Side shouldn't be STRONGER, but at the same time, it shouldn't be much weaker either. Just 'more seductive.'
I don't think the paladins realize the action is going to make them fall or they may think it is worth the sacrifice. The story where the paladin is held prisoner, but given the chance to get out of prison and save the day is an example. In order to do so he must ally with an evil person, and since time is short he does not have time to think about it. The one alliance may not cause the fall, but the devil will continue to try to pull farther and farther from his deity until his powers are gone.
Quietly, seductively, a voice whispers into his ear. "Give it up," it says. "It's so easy. Give in to me. Forsake your vows and swear off your god, and I will give you strength one hundred fold. You can save that precious boy above."
. . .
"No, see, if I did that, I'd fall, and I'd basically lose all my class abilities. I mean, it would be just weaknesses all over the place, I'd be pretty useless. Look your deal is nice and all but the mechanics are pretty clear that taking you on your offer would just make me weaker."
Uh-huh. So we're in a situation where the tempter can actually give him hundred-fold strength (that's a +33 Str bonus based on carrying capacity), but somehow the tempter can't give him enough of a long-term power boost to make up for the loss of paladin class abilities.
Yeah, that is a stupid design for a temptation. I just don't see why you think it has to do with the paladin falling mechanics, rather than being a problem in the design of your temptation effort.
You seem to believe that a Paladin's loss of powers is permanent. It is very much not so.
IMO, PFRPG powered the Paladin up one so that people who wanted to play one for RP reasons (and accepted the whole code and alignment constraints with it) would not be punished by playing a weaker class (which the Paladin was in 3.5).
I believe that having the possibility of temporarily losing their powers is what balances the "brokenness" of the class. If you take away this possibility, you will end up with a Paladin class with zero constraints and that will quickly dominate every other class around.
First off, the paladin simply isn't so powerful that it requires a binary yes-no to keep them "balanced."
Secondly, RP restrictions did not work for 2e kits. They do not work with the paladin.
And thirdly, the loss of powers doesn't need to be permanent. Tt doesn't need to exist at all.
Yo do know that there is this interesting little thing called roleplaying, right ?
Yeah, and that's what I'm encouraging. You should try it sometime.
Adherence to a strict code, powers with affinity to light, and a dark counterpart. Can't get much more Paladin like in space fantasy.
A strict code of neutrality and emotion-less thinking, an affinity for the force of balance and a counterpart of destruction , hate and rage.
Still not seeing paladin-like here in the lest. I see monks with magic swords.
Secondly, RP restrictions did not work for 2e kits. They do not work with the paladin.
Funny, its worked for over 20 years and still works fine. Maybe you are not playing the same game or classes I have seen.
You seem to want "paladins" of every Al, which is not a paladin. The cleric class is made for that. The inquisitor also fills that role.
Funny, its worked for over 20 years and still works fine. Maybe you are not playing the same game or classes I have seen.
You seem to want "paladins" of every Al, which is not a paladin. The cleric class is made for that. The inquisitor also fills that role.
Yeah things have never once changed between then and Pathfinder, never once.
It's kinda funny that I've been focused entirely on roleplaying while the responses have been "But but the rulebooks can never be changed" or "But but these are what the mechanics are."
I'd love to hear some reasons based on roleplaying on why the paladin losing all their powers improves the game and makes the paladin falling more interesting, because I've already thrown out reasons it does the stark opposite.
I'd love to hear some reasons based on roleplaying on why the paladin losing all their powers improves the game and makes the paladin falling more interesting, because I've already thrown out reasons it does the stark opposite.
Because a paladin is fulled by something greater then himself, once he forsakes that, whatever granted him his boons is gone and those powers along with it. A cleric who "falls" also looses everything as well.
I do agree someone who falls and does not choose to redeem himself should be allowed to "trade" those dead levels in for something, caviler, a fighter, rogue or some type of PRC made for this. He should not be crippled mechanically forever, but he should not be allowed to keep his paladin powers either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the reasons Clerics make better Paladins than Paladins do. It was true in 3.x, and it's still arguably true in Pathfinder, mainly because clerics actually can emulate the slow temptation to evil tropes that Paladins frankly cannot. While falling and redemption is something of a staple of Paladins, the mechanics handle it extremely poorly.
Firstly, any act of evil causes you to fall. This makes "slow temptation" pretty much a moot. Then, redemption is also pretty moot because a simple atonement spell takes care of all that. Nothing interesting there.
A cleric can slowly shift too far from their ideals and find themselves unfavored by their patron. Now they have the option of either finding strength in themselves, or another divine patron. It can happen slowly, and you actually can be tempted.
Heck, Cleric 15 / Fighter 5 pretty much gives you an excellent "Paladin".
EDIT: On the subject of Jedi, they really are very similar to Paladins in their concept. The only difference is they don't automatically fall the moment they tap the dark side. Instead, they're more conductive to roleplaying as they can slowly slide down that slippery slope.
And for the record, those who are light-sided are stronger in time, while the dark side is a short path to power that tapers out earlier. Most apprentices or young jedi are tempted by this quickness, because it feels stronger to them, even though that strength is technically an illusion in the grand scheme of things. This means that apprentice Sith are generally stronger than apprentice Jedi, but explains heavily why a single experienced Jedi can pretty much rock countless dark-siders single-handedly (take Yoda for example).
Heck, even Obi-Wan whupped the prodigy while he was all consumed with darkness and such. :P
Well clerics make better holy warriors as that is what they are, they do not make better paladins however.
As for the jedi/sith thing. I still think they are not paladins, they just have nothing in common with them other then being mystic warriors.They don't follow a code anything like the paladin code and they are not forces of Good. The Sith/Jedi are about equal in terms of power overall. However for the rule of two sith they tend to be more powerful as they are not rank and file fighters. And Rule of One sith tend to have the higher ranked sith as the best and most powerful. As the weak do not last.
Sith do seem better at combat as that is what they are trained for, Jedi as a whole are not fighters, they can fight but are more mystics with combat training as a way to horn that power. Sith however are combat, they live and breath for power, to roll in it and take as much as they can. As a whole sith train for combat much more then the run of the mill jedi.
I still say they are monks. The better way to look at it would be Jedi are more like monks or fighters while the sith are more like barbarians. One is skill, inner reflection and training, the other is rage, raw emotion and training.
Because a paladin is fulled by something greater then himself, once he forsakes that, whatever granted him his boons is gone and those powers along with it. A cleric who "falls" also looses everything as well.
That doesn't answer my statement. You haven't shown this as being good for drama, roleplay, or anything. You've just stated "Yes paladins in Pathfinder are punished if they fall."
Let me put it another way - at one point you literally lost levels for changing your alignment. Regardless of your class. Do you think this was good for RP and that we should go back to this?
I did in fact answer, you just happen to not like my response. I find the fact you fall and yes loose power key to the roleplaying and design of this class.
If you can not fall, there is ZERO reason to have a code and without the code there is zero reason to have the class. I stated I feel the rules should allow you to trade your fallen levels in, but I do not feel the rules should allow a pass or allow you to have any AL. The roleplay is about the class, the class is about both the code and the ability to fall. It cheapens both the class and the players role play options by just saying "sure do whatever, the code is more like..um guidelines that never honestly matter"
That is simply not a paladin. Go play a cleric if that is what you want. But when you choose the play a paladin your PC has taken a vow and knows all his power comes from his vow and the holy powers. So yes in game it makes sense he loose something that was never his, but just power he was granted.
I disagree with his point. I feel it is part of the drama, not harmful to it in the lest. And he has proved nothing but game mechanics that says its weaker, that have nothing to do with roleplaying or drama.
I don't see falling as being bad design but part of the class. I do feel there should be a way to offset the mechanics of the fall but that should not be "let him keep his abilities"
I would seriously love a variant rule for Paladin falling. Something more corruption based and less insta-ban
More or less Toz, its a fundamental difference in view it seems. I think paladins should be LG only, have a strict code and fall and lose power. He does not.
I am not sure how else you can look at it really.
I do agree that mechanically there should be an option other then dead leveLs( Which is why I have always allowed players to trade dead levels). I do not agree that option is keep playing a paladin but hang the al AND CODE.
There's totally reasons to have a code and to have paladins fall and all that.
The reasons are "roleplay."
If you can't imagine a paladin falling being a dramatic and important event without beating them over the head with mechanics, then it seems like a personal defect.
Again, there used to be a punishment for changing your alignment. Now there isn't. Are you going to claim that D&D lost a lot of roleplaying and drama when they changed that?
And again if a paladin can't fall ( which he can't for you it Seems} the code and roleplaying the code or the fall have little meaning.
The fall is big and it should be, It should be life shattering huge. But its not if done your way, its a foot note { oh, well didn't need to code anyhow, silly me"
I am not. He said you should keep playing the class without loosing the powers. How is that not falling? Have I misread his intent?
Clerics have the very same issue. However they can switch gods and regain all the power they have lost (mostly) ,where a paladin can not. Which I admit is a mechanical issue, but not a roleplying one.
Always fun watching an advice thread devolve into pointless raging -.-
Always fun watching an advice thread devolve into pointless raging -.-
Its called an argument or a disagreement. People tend to have them. And the advice has been over for a while. The Op got lots of it, hopefully it was helpful.
I am not. He said you should keep playing the class without loosing the powers. How is that not falling? Have I misread his intent?
Clerics have the very same issue. However they can switch gods and regain all the power they have lost (mostly) ,where a paladin can not. Which I admit is a mechanical issue, but not a roleplying one.
I dont think that is what he is saying. Prof. Cirno correct me if I am wrong.
He is saying instead of any one single act making a paladin loose his powers, for the sake of RP, it should be several actions that show the slow descent into evil or at least away from the nature that made him into a paladin in the beginning.
A slow fall and no fall are not the same.
I dont think that is what he is saying. Prof. Cirno correct me if I am wrong.He is saying instead of any one single act making a paladin loose his powers, for the sake of RP, it should be several actions that show the slow descent into evil or at least away from the nature that made him into a paladin in the beginning.
A slow fall and no fall are not the same.
If that is what he is saying I totally misread his first post on the subject and have heavily colored how I took his other responses then.
Edit: If I have indeed misread him, sorry about that man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed.
My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels?
Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed.
My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels?
Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
I'm in agreement with this. My brother played a better Paladin than I have ever seen anyone else play in my entire time of gaming for more than a decade, and he was 4! But here's the funny bit. He was a Fighter. He didn't even have divine powers. He just acted in a way that was very Paladin like. He donated his money to charities, and he rode kids around on his horse, and saved old ladies from danger. He did it just because it was a good thing to do. That made him a hero.
Likewise, if a character "falls", it shouldn't be a matter of "oops, you dun goofed, lawlz, no powers for j00". It should be a major thing that is handled in roleplaying. Perhaps he is expelled from the order, and stripped of his rank. Perhaps he stops believing in what his order believes, and finds a different path to the same ends. Perhaps he will come back and rejoin after doing something heroic. However, the current rules do not support this at all.
Arthas of Warcraft 3 — as previously noted — is the best example of a Paladin falling that I've seen since I started playing this game. You can't model Arthas either. He slowly descended. He got so disgusted watching Salgaras and the evil he was fighting hurting and killing his people, and spreading their plague, and basically screwing everything up, that his anger slowly blinded him to what was happening inside. Slowly, one by one, his friends turned on him. Jaina said he had changed and wasn't the Arthas she knew (and they were romantically involved in the story), and his mentor Uther the Lightbringer questioned his very sanity and took his troops and rode to seek council with the King to exert Authority over Arthas to make him stop.
Arthas slaughtered a village so they wouldn't be turned into undead, literally racing to kill his own villagers to save them from Sargeras and the Necromancer hordes. As his foe evaded him at every turn and left an ashen land where Arthas' people once were, he was enraged and followed them to the very ends of the earth to the northern Continents to track him down. He ended up lying to his people, betraying the mercenaries that fought for him, and eventually giving in to madness and the whispers of an evil sentient magic sword.
Now THAT is a fallen Paladin. And it is absolutely impossible to do in Dungeons & Dragons or Pathfinder because the moment he made is first mistake, click, light switch off.
Well, this thread has certainly given me more to think about than I expected...
Do you mean that in a good way, TOZzy? :P
Any instance of unexpected brainwork is a good thing. Even if I don't want to think more, or if it's from someone telling me I'm wrong.
Glad to have dusted your attic a bit. :P
Why Not? Sure, you'll be nerfed crunchwise, but the roleplaying opportunities will be awesome.
Ms. Ashiel! I am a married man! ;)
I can't cheat. I'd lose all my powers.
Clerics are better. :P
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed.
My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels?
Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
So I had it right. You feel a paladin can be any Al, do damned well anything and keep all its power.I strongly disagree as that is not a paladin.And your example has nothing to do with this. Not a single thing. This isn't about an old rule, but a class and how that class is built, how it functions. And is not a rule limited to the paladin.
You keep ignoring the cleric, who can fall just as well as the paladin. He also looses all his powers, just like the paladin/ He like the paladin does not own his powers. He is gifted them by a higher power and he can be stripped of them.The druid can also "fall" and suffers as much as the paladin mechanically as well. This isn't unique to paladins, but common with divine classes.
The only difference between the cleric and the paladins "falls" mechanically would be that a cleric can regain his by switching teams, as they can be of any AL and have many, many gods to pick from. A druid is just as screwed as a paladin however.
The only way a paladin could not mechanically fall would be to allow every Al to have paladins and every god to have a wildly different code or to make them arcane with no ties to anything holy or to the gods. This to me is unacceptable as it is not a paladin.
The only way a paladin could not mechanically fall would be to allow every Al to have paladins and every god to have a wildly different code or to make them arcane with no ties to anything holy or to the gods. This to me is unacceptable as it is not a paladin.
I didn't see Cirno's reply as a confirmation that Paladin can be of all alignment.
Falling should be a big deal. So much a big deal that most paladins should never recover from this. But PCs are not your average paladin (even if paladins are rare from the get-go), so the situation should be created for those even-more-unique PC paladins IMO.
Like Prof Cirno, I don't think that falling should be that of a big deal mechanically; it should be a RP thing. I must admit that I wouldn't let the player play the same character with the same powers, as if nothing ever happened, after his/her paladin fell from grace. I simply disagree with the present situation whereas after the fall of your paladin, you are limited to 1) stay significantly behind the power curve (mechanically speaking), 2) completely atone for your sins and keep going as if nothing happened and 3) turn to evil and trade your levels for antipaladin levels. My homebrewed class was a specific way to get rid of option 1, but there are other ways.
The character should be punished for falling, but the player shouldn't IMO.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed.
My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels?
Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
So I had it right. You feel a paladin can be any Al, do damned well anything and keep all its power.I strongly disagree as that is not a paladin.And your example has nothing to do with this. Not a single thing. This isn't about an old rule, but a class and how that class is built, how it functions. And is not a rule limited to the paladin.
You keep ignoring the cleric, who can fall just as well as the paladin. He also looses all his powers, just like the paladin/ He like the paladin does not own his powers. He is gifted them by a higher power and he can be stripped of them.The druid can also "fall" and suffers as much as the paladin mechanically as well. This isn't unique to paladins, but common with divine classes.
The only difference between the cleric and the paladins "falls" mechanically would be that a cleric can regain his by switching teams, as they can be of any AL and have many, many gods to pick from. A druid is just as screwed as a paladin however.
The only way a paladin could not mechanically fall would be to allow every Al to have paladins and every god to have a wildly different code or to make them arcane with no ties to anything holy or to the gods. This to me is unacceptable as it is not a paladin.
As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.
Likewise, druids do not fall easily either. Heck, even wearing the forbidden armors and such means you lose your magical powers, but you don't actually fall, stop being a druid, or anything like that; and you get them back 24 hours later.
Likewise, his question is legitimate. What does it add to the Paladin? Nothing. It adds absolutely nothing to the Paladin, just like it added absolutely nothing to anyone in previous editions where changing your alignment came with terrible penalties. It doesn't help roleplaying, and it doesn't help you tell a good story.
The only thing it is for is smacking players on the nose for saying "you're not doing it right" or giving GMs fuel to screw with players with.
Exactly what is wrong with the ability to play a Paladin who is a different alignment? We already have an Antipaladin, who despite being called out as Chaotic Evil is obviously Lawful Evil (seriously, everything it describes about the class is like textbook Lawful Evil, including spreading tyranny and loosely following a code). Exactly what is the good reason that you can't play a Paladin that, like a cleric, can shift their focus a bit.
Because you have yet to show what the current mechanics do to help roleplaying, other than just saying "Paladins fall". Ok, so...exactly why does their fall have to be represented mechanically? Why can't it be like in Warcraft 3, where the character slowly slipped over the edge and his friends and allies distanced themselves from the slowly slipping Paladin. He never lost his Paladin powers until he became an undead Death Knight, and really all they did was mirror-image over to the shadow as opposed to the Light (his abilities were nearly identical).
At no point did any of this conflict with him being pretty much the best example of a Paladin, Fallen Paladin, and the struggle to remain pure and the cost of failure, ever. The cost of failure was not power. The cost of failure was his humanity. His friends. His loved ones. His soul. It also wasn't an atonement spell away, either.
You should play a Paladin because you want to. Like the Star Wars d20 RPG discusses about playing Jedi: imagine being stripped of all your cool powers, your spiffy weapon, and all that stuff, but leave the code. Would you still be willing to play that character? If not, then you probably aren't going to enjoy playing a Jedi.
Paladins are like that. That is what I was trying to explain with the reference to my 4yo (now 13yo) brother's Fighter. He lived being a Paladin, regardless of being a Paladin. A Paladin is not a set of class features. A Paladin is a concept. An idea. A way of being. You can play a Paladin with a Barbarian, a Bard, a Cleric, even a Druid, a Fighter, a Monk, a Ranger, a Sorcerer, or even a Wizard. Because a true Paladin is more than a handful of class features.
If you allowed Good, Neutral, and Evil Paladins, called them Champions or something, it would no more remove Paladins than if you banned the class altogether. I could always pick of a Cleric and be a Paladin. Been doing it for years (especially in 3.x where playing the Paladin class - a metagame concept - was a sign of stupidity). Why? Because that's roleplaying.