Deyvantius Dragonsong's page

I'm excited simply for a new edition. I happen to think the new game will be just as confusing (high level play will suck and take forever with too much math) and the power level will still be ridiculously slanted toward magical superiority (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) as the current edition. BUT it will be NEW and that's good enough for me

Because that is not what is being said by everyone. The "bs" code is a part of the class. Some people are suggesting that there be different codes for the different alignments/orders of paladin-like beings.

Moreover, some are even suggesting that "I want to play something like a paladin, but dedicated to another alignment because it is a neat idea."

The counter to all this has been, in some quarters, a remark that people wanting to do this are in it for the mad powers that the class has without any of the restrictions -- a remark that misses what has been said a number of times.

I want a code...

I didn't say everyone, but I do understand the argument and respect it when it's valid.

However, the central premise of this thread was simply -

"How do you feel about PALADINS who are of neutral or chaotic good alignment?"

Not about Champions of different alignments.

Furthermore, the one archetype that offers the chance of a "Paladin" with a different alignment was cast off as weak and basically worthless.

The fact you claim you "probably" won't even play a CG specific class, just want this change implemented because you want "the playing field between alignments balanced" and the fact you made clear you don't respect other people's opinions on this matter doesn't paint a pretty picture, IMO.

And he's the second one to say as much.

Furthermore, this thread is called Chaotic and Neutral Good Paladins.

Yet some are claiming that they are only arguing for champions of different alignments not Paladins of different alignments...."champions" that have the same powers as a Paladin...but they aren't trying to say they want Paladins of different alignments....and it not about mechanics...but they want the same mechanics...but they'd probably never play one...they are just concerned about the "unfairness" of the alignment system to chaotic people.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "I want to play a paladin, but I don't want to deal with the bs code. I wish they would remove the restriction"

Deyvantius Dragonsong wrote:

avr wrote:

In general I'm uncertain about the praise you hand out for 1st-2nd level spells received as boon SLAs....They're not useless, but they're not much value either.

couldn't disagree more. self buffing is rarely "not much value" for a martial. divine favor at 10 is +3 luck bonus to hit and damage.

As a pure martial you probably won't be taking the prestige class, so level 13. At that level an archer or a pouncer gives up 4-6 attacks to spend a standard action buffing. A vital striker is giving up less but gets less from the buff. I guess maybe a reach control build thinks it's OK?

And that's probably the best level 1 SLA from all the empyreal lords. i.e. be careful extending experience from lower levels to the teens.

In my personal experience, most people can get one buff before most epic combats. The times when you drop divine favor and kick open the door to fight the BBEG.

Why do I have to be be one step next to my deity?

Why do I have to choose domains from my deity?

Why can't paladins be CN?

Why can't my Fighter cast 9thevel spells.

Any more parts of the game we ant to change while we are under the hood?

I'm all for fixing broken things, but complaining about an alignment restriction? People will complain about anything. I swear 80% on these boards would have designed a prefect role playifng game if they just had the time.

A CG fighter -> chevalier with believer's boons and believer's hands, plus a few feats for extra lay on hands has the following

1. immunity to fear and poison
2. smite 1/day
3., and lay on hands 1 + xxx times (extra lay on hands).
4. + 1 to 3 for hit and damage for the first few rounds of every battle depending on traits and such

why is this not good enough for all the people who want to play non LG paladins....that's right.... MECHANICALLY it's not the same. and that's what we are really talking about here.

you can't play a LG barbarian either so LG loses on that, but let's ignore what doesn't fit your argument

As someone who has never played a Paladin and has no interest in playing one ever regardless of alignment but still think they should not be alignment exclusive. I would like to stand as living proof you are wrong and by assuming that your assumption is write and then disregarding everyone's argument and thinking you can tarnish everyone with the same brush is not only wrong but also obnoxious.

....

So you're both wrongbadfun guilty and he is is also guilty of flatly ignoring people.

what am I wrong about?!?!?

I said "most" of the time.

Please explain to me why you want a "paladin" not tied to LG, without referencing mechanics?

you want a "divine warrior" play a martial cleric. you want a "champion of good" play a LG fighter, want Lay on Hands then take believer's hands and believer's boons. immunity to fear = chevalier, want non LG paladin play a gray one

BUT NO

you are specifically calling for a class that does what pAladin does without being LG. You want the mechanics without the ties to alignment. you are seeking an advantage or "removal of rp requirement" which is essentially an advantage.

Nobody is being badwrongfun or whatever the hell that is you are referencing. you and many like you, just want to bend the rules for an advantage and don't want to be called on it. and if you have no intention of playing a paladin, and never would, why post in the thread as much as you have

@HWalsh yeah man

6 pages of talk about alignment, character options, the history of "real paladins", various iterations of D&D, who gamed with Gary Gygax, etc just for some dude wanting a mechanical advantage.

ahahahahahahahah

these boards are funny

I'm of the opinion that, most of the time, when people want to alter rules, they are doing it to gain a mechanical advantage. This scenario seems to fit the bill. Dude could easily play a Gray Paladin or Chevalier, but since both are mechanically weaker than a standard Paladin, he starts asking for rules changes.

All that talk about freedom, describing his pc, and whatever else mumbo jumbo talk are just lame attempts to get the benefits of a paladin without being lawful good.

furthermore, not that anybody was asking, in all my years of gaming, I have found the majority of the "words of wisdom" on these boards to be wrong.

traps are easy, in-combat healing is worthless, rogues suck because xxx, wixards cant be stopped, etc. just a bunch of random people online theory crafting, very little of which, when the game starts and the dice start rolling hold up to be true

In general I'm uncertain about the praise you hand out for 1st-2nd level spells received as boon SLAs....They're not useless, but they're not much value either.

couldn't disagree more. self buffing is rarely "not much value" for a martial. divine favor at 10 is +3 luck bonus to hit and damage.

Where I'm from there is a saying "If you have to ask, you ain't down"
I believe, that fits the script here.

IF you have to ask this board what's exciting about a bard, you probably

1. don't have the "system mastery" to enjoy playing one,
2. are only focused on combat/"power", or
3. you understand the system and power curve but aren't keen on what the bard brings to the table.

Either way it's probably a sign that you shouldn't be playing one.

This whole set-up seems ridiculous. I'm all for moral hazards and such but killing kids is something I would never find acceptable or morally plausible. Forget that guest GM and just retcon the whole thing. Whoever ran that game was a sick individual.

MY only fear of the seeker is poor reflex saves and they never get evasion. I love the full spellcasting (always good) and customize options.

I'll check the Ankou Shadow too

Honestly my favorite classes are Inquisitor, cleric, and Bard. In fact those are the only classes I have played in Pathfinder Nd I have been relatively active since day 1 of the system. So now I have a chance to branch out with this big and good group with an awesome gM. Stuck between something new. Like Oracle, simple like Slayer, or staying with old faithful and gong with Inquisitor.

Only way I can choose is get as much input as possible, so I threw it up on the boards.

Haunted Seeker Oracle of Battle is my current lean, but I'm not convinced of it at all

So my 7th level archaeologist bard just bit the dust and I don't believe in resurrection so I'm making a new PC.

The party consists of Ork Barbarian, Aaasimar Arcanist, Human Kineticist (Earth), Tiefling Summoner (Synthesist), and Suli Cleric.

Yes... the GM said he was cool with anything and so the cheese started in full.

I'm pretty much narrowed down to slayer, sanctified slayer inquisitor, or seeker oracle. Basically anything with trapfinding beside rogue and archaeologist bard.

Trapfinding trait from Mummy's Mask is available but this GM tends to buff traps so I'm not really trying to go in half-ass like that.

What do you guys think would be the best bet to fill any holes you might see in group composition.