I want these.
Did you ever look through Complete Warrior for 3.5? I'm flipping through a library copy and thinking of converting a bunch of the prestige classes into archetypes for the Pathfinder base classes. I'm also thinking of turning the Swashbucker base class it has into a Fighter archetype. Do you have any ideas for which prestige classes you think I should archetype?
A Paladin is a paragon of virtue, a servant of justice and goodness, who struggles to do what is fair and right, to uphold order in the service of good. That is their purpose. Having one that doesn't have to attempt to uphold order or justice is not having a Paladin. Being bound by their code is not a limitation on their power, it is the source of their power.
If you can get powers from a devotion to justice and order, why not from justice and freedom?
I love O-Chul, and I love playing lawful good characters. I just don't like the idea of NG and CG Paladins being forbidden.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
Eh. I'd classify most metallic dragons as NG. It's because they generally don't get involved unless they really have to, and despite the fluff I don't imagine any of them as being particularly lawful or chaotic, but rather as creatures that would do what they think needs to be done. I'm pretty sure my interpretation is not RAW at all, however, so feel free to disagree.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
Oh, I know. I'm not saying it should run smoothly, either. The repercussions of LG Paladins of an LN deity being around LE individuals of the same deity would be an interesting story hook.
According to the Bestiary, archons do indeed belong to a celestial government.
How can any creature be of law or chaos (or any alignment) if it doesn't act on it?
I dunno. All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.
That's no different that an LN deity having both LE and LG Clerics, and would be pretty interesting.
St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.
I never said Paladin's shouldn't have to be good. They should. My issue is with law. I like that play style, but I don't think it should be mandated for Paladin players. Just because you or me can have fun with an LG character doesn't mean that lawfulness should be mandated as the only way to create a Paladin. I think there should be more options in this arena, because that's what Pathfinder is about: playing the person you want to be. If that means a chaotic Paladin, I'm not going to stop you.
Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?
As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.
James Jacobs wrote:
Aw, I don't have anything you wrote. I've borrowed Lords of Madness from the library, and have Frostburn on hold from them right now, but I own none of these and don't plan to buy them. What I want to get is Heroes of Horror, Book of Vile Darkness, and assorted 3PP offerings.
I DO, however, own all eight hardcover Pathfinder rulebooks, so I do have something you wrote :D
James Jacobs wrote:
Can you post those or email them to me, or does WOTC own them?
The problem here is that all of the qualities listed as lawful, except for adherence to law, can be had by a chaotic character, and vice versa.
James Jacobs wrote:
I put a used copy of Book of Vile Darkness on my birthday list :D
Which official WOTC 3E/3.5 supplements did you help write?
Did you help write the core rulebooks for 3E or 3.5?
The Law as in Lawful alignments does not have to pertain to the "Letter of the Law". In this case the Law in Lawful has to do with hasty and rash decisions that fit the Chaos side more than the Law side.
I don't think that defining rashness as non-lawful is a good idea. Lawful characters can make astronomically stupid decisions without thinking. Remember Miko Miyazaki?
The rulebook doesn't cover all the possible conflicts of alignment, and it only gives a page or two to it. There has to be interpretation as a result, and interpretations, by their very nature, differ. Alignment may not be subjective in game, but it sure is out of game.
The objectivity or or subjectivity of alignment is relevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense, because if you can't tell the difference between law and chaos then they should very well not exist as rules, thus NG and CG paladins make sense, if law and chaos are different things then NG and CG paladins might not make sense.
I can tell the difference between law and chaos. I just define it different than you do, and I feel that the RAW should have a place for NG and CG Paladins. I'll still play LG Paladins on those occasions when I have to have an alignment at all, but I think they should be an option for others.
That doesn't make alignment any less subjective. I again point you to the fact that everybody has a different idea of what alignments mean.
Furthermore, the objectivity or subjectivity of alignment is irrelevant to whether NG or CG Paladins make sense.
I don't agree, however. I have a great deal of respect and affection for James, but I do not think he is correct in this matter. I don't think that this action has anything at all to do with the law. I could see an LE or NE character doing it as easily as I could see a CE character doing it. I think that it is a question regarding good and evil, not a question regarding law and chaos.
It's no different than expressing an opinion that the Rogue or Fighter has issues that should at some point be fixed or expressing disagreement with pretty much any other rule. Expressing disagreement with the RAW is perfectly valid.
James Jacobs wrote:
This is highly situational, I would say. Encountering four kobolds lazing about, I would say no—killing on sight when the target is "lazing about" is a chaotic act at the very least. But if said kobolds were actively engaged in evil, then sure!
With all due respect, James, I don't think this action is lawful or chaotic. I think it's either evil or close to it.
Kesley it seems to me that you can't define Law and Chaos and by not doing that you can't understand why it can't be (or shouldn't be) a CG or even a NG paladin, you seem to see the lawful and chaotic alignments as something subjective and nothing more than labels, well they aren't. They are defined, objective, measured forces.
I'm not seeing it. If Shelyn is willing to create an LG Paladin, she'd be willing to create an NG Paladin.
As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.
pres man wrote:
I agree with you, but I don't see it happening at the moment. Until it does, ethnic studies are better than nothing at all.
No, I don't advocate making my house rules RAW. If I did, we'd be having a whole different debate right now. What I do advocate is loosening the RAW concerning Paladins a bit, because I disagree with how strict the class is. I can play under the RAW as it is, seeing as how LG is my favorite alignment (when I use alignment at all). However, I do not agree with the RAW, even though it doesn't prevent the characters I like to play, on principle. I don't think the class should be as strict as it is, because I think NG and CG Paladins should be a perfectly valid choice from a RAW perspective, even if I myself like my Paladins LG.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'd like to expand on this. America's history is deeply tied to issues of ethnicity. You can't teach American history without covering these issues in depth without giving a completely inaccurate view. Ethnic studies are something that is needed to understand our past. Without them you aren't teaching history at all, you're teaching mythology.
There was a funny comment that I read on the Dragonlance webpage discussion boards. IIRC I think it was someone's signature. It went something like this: Why bother with what the rule's say when everything I say and want is much better?
If you don't like debating the rules, you don't have to, but I see no reason to keep silent about things I disagree with.
Paladins don't bug me. I find LG Paladins loads of fun. My issue is telling players they can't have an NG or CG Paladin. I think that's wrong.
Under my house rules alignment doesn't exist, and Paladins have to be good but not necessarily lawful. The issue is playing in games that do use alignment and having Paladins shoehorned in those cases.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I already do have house rules to that effect, but I can't use them under another GM, and I don't want Cleric or Inquisitor features. Why can't I just have the Paladin features and be NG?
I do not think that it has anything to do with the way that the class is designed and written about in the Core book. It has to do with the way people play or do not play the class. How is that the fault of the class or the book?
The reason the Paladin gets played how it gets played is because of how easy it is to misconstrue what the book says.
You got me. LG is my favorite alignment, but I don't think it deserves a place as "most noble and good". I think all good alignments deserve equal places as paragons of virtue, and if I was forced to choose only one as "most noble and good" it'd be NG, not LG, do to NG's neutrality on anything not involving good.
The problem is that you can be hardwire rigid without the code of conduct requiring it. You can be hardwire rigid and be a Fighter, even.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Not with the Paladin class features there aren't.