Neurophage's page

366 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Keychain of Creation back when it was still being updated. Exalted hasn't had a lot of visibility in the tabletop scene, and having a webcomic so perfectly about what Exalted is (or was during, late second edition) about was a real treat.


So, Index III is really bad, and I think it's really weird that it's really bad, but it's also not all that difficult to understand why it's really bad.

Index III is doing this thing where J.C. Staff are absolutely hell-bent on spending no more than three episodes per book of the novel, no matter how badly doing so messes with the pacing of the show. I could understand doing that for volume 14 because nothing really happened in it besides a boring antagonist that no one liked (Terra) dying and Accelerator blowing things up in France. And I guess Itsuwa was also there. But it doesn't make any sense to put so little effort into doing a good job with the first arc of the new season. Index II was eight years ago. That's a really long time for fans of the series to have to wait and J.C. Staff couldn't project any harder just how much they want to speed through the source material so they can make something that makes money instead. Volume 15, while largely self-contained, has the most going on it out of any single book in the entire series. It's starting to show the cracks in Academy City as well as the beginning of GROUP breaking free of the Board of Directors's control. And almost everything of relevance to that arc except the fights was cut out (and even the fights were made pretty underwhelming). And volume 16. Oh my god. If any arc of the series deserved to be at least four episodes, it was Rules of Nature. Doing the whole Acqua fight in only three episodes is nothing short of a tragedy. In any just universe, the British Magic Civil War arc would be the major conflict taking up the majority of the second cour of a 24-episode season. The end of the Old Testament saga of the novel series deserves to be its own 24-episode season, not hastily
crammed into the last third of one.

So, Index III is bad largely because of its pacing. But pacing problems have been part of the Index anime from the very beginning. Remember ten years ago in season 1, when J.C. Staff spent six episodes adapting volume 1, one more episode that went into adapting the Sisters Arc where they introduced Accelerator? Or when they cut out subplots from volumes 2 and 4, one of the three stories from volume 5 (all of which were decisions I ultimately agree with), and then hastily shoved that story into the beginning of season 2 (which I completely disagree with)? Or hen they put the adaptation of SS1 at the end of season 2 instead of making the better decision of putting it at the beginning of season 3? Or how about how both seasons of Railgun are half a meandering adaptation of an arc of the manga with a bunch of filler, with the second half being original content that's worse than what came before it?

So, yeah, Raildexverse anime have pacing problems, but usually those pacing problems involve spending too many episodes on some material, not too few. In the end, Index and Railgun are still J.C. Staff anime, so I can't say I hadn't set my expectations fairly low. But to fall below even those low expectations is just... disappointing.


The Artificer is one of the most complicated classes in d20. By far, the Artificer's most important class feature is Craft Reserve. In 3.5, crafting a magic item requires an expenditure of XP. Craft Reserve is a pool of points the Artificer spends instead of or in addition to XP to craft items. Points of Craft Reserve are not carried over between levels. If you don't use them, you lose them. Don't worry about taking Item Creation feats. The Artificer gains them automatically. Item Creation lets you craft an item if you don't know the spells it requires to craft it, so long as you make a fairly easy Use Magic Device check. Artificer Knowledge, Artisan Bonus and Disable Trap are pretty self-explanatory in terms of what they do.

Level 5 is the game-changer for Artificers, because of Retain Essence. Retain Essence lets you take a magic item, break it down and add the XP used to craft that item to your Craft Reserve. What this means is that every single magic item in the entire game is useful to an Artificer. This completely breaks the clause on Craft Reserve about points not carrying over between levels. To the Artificer, every magic item is a battery for storing Craft Reserve. The party no longer sells magic items they don't need anymore. Just give them to the Artificer and let them turn the obsolete junk into something new.

Your key responsibility as an Artificer is to jack your Use Magic Device bonus as high as you possibly can. It is the end-all be-all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So long as some people are talking examples, I have one.

One of my favorite evil characters I've ever played was an Infernal Pact Warlock in 4E. His whole thing was that he was the scion of a noble family in a country whose entire noble class and royal family had made bargains with Hell. In exchange for bargaining with devils that their lives would be cut short and their souls claimed by Hell, they received enough magical power to turn their country into a paradise. The people of his country, even the commoners, enjoyed a higher standard of living than almost anywhere else in the setting, all at the cost of the lives and souls of whatever creatures the nobility cursed in order to extend their own lives (that was part of the bargain. Your devil caseworker can and will kill you the moment your time is up, but you can extend your time by laying curses on other creatures, which damns their souls to the Pit when they die).

This guy was arrogant, absolutely convinced of his own superiority and more than willing to give each and every one of his enemies to the devils, not just to keep himself alive, but also because he'd made a deal with his contracted devil to help her advance in the infernal hierarchy in exchange for even more power should she succeed (this was how I represented his Hellbringer Paragon Path and Prince of Hell Epic Destiny). He was also intensely loyal to his party members. As far as he was concerned, there was an "in" group and an "out" group. All of his horrible magical power was for the sake of supporting his friends and countrymen (which is to say, the "in" group), as well as for destroying anyone who got in their way (which is to say, the "out" group). When he served someone, he made them a king so long as their ambition was genuine. When he served alongside someone, he conspired to make their work effortless so long as their efforts were stout-hearted. When someone served him, be basked them in marvels and riches so long as their service was to his standards. He was leal servant, dark confidante and uncompromising-but-rewarding taskmaster.

Was he evil? Only if you consider making pacts with devils, sacrificing your enemies to those devils and supporting an empire that does the same on a mass scale evil. But just because you're an unstoppable force of evil on a quest to become a Lord of Hell and turn your imperial capital into paradise on Earth doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it.

He was even a member of a mostly-good party. And why not? Good people on a journey tend to fight bad people, and bad people tend to not only have a lot of good stuff, but are also usually bound for Hell already, which just makes the whole process so much smoother. As far as he was concerned, if you're going to sacrifice people's souls to the Pit, you might as well do it to other bad people. The party's already murdering those bad people, and they're evil people so they're probably headed for Hell anyway, so does it really make any difference if it just happen to have this warlock's devil patron's name attached to it? The good people get to beat up the bad people and the scheming devil-worshiper who works with them gets what he wants, too. Everyone wins.


False King Allant from Demon Souls. Every time he hits you with his unblockable grab attack, you lose a level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Why not just house rule your own weaknesses then? I'm pretty sure that no GM would ever say you CAN'T be unoptimized. Start with crappier ability scores. What's really stopping you?

Oberroni Fallacy, 10 yard penalty.

Just because the GM can fix it doesn't mean it wasn't broken in the first place.

You can't call something "broken" for failing at something it wasn't trying to do in the first place.


I can't believe this complaint even exist. Wizards get spells, which are better than skills in basically every way to the extent that their limited uses don't make up for it. They also main Intelligence, which means they're already getting a pile of bonus skills. Wizards don't need any more help.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:


I thing that this will give too much power to higher level characters over lower level encounters.

It's a feature, not a bug. Lower level encounters should be trivial to higher level characters, and quickly so.

Igor Horvat wrote:


the +1 per level needs to go ASAP.

flatten it down to +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

And remove it from AC.

No and double no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because higher-level people aren't normal.


Let me revise: am I the only one here who actually likes +level to all skills?


Am I the only one who actually likes +level to skills?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whatever. I love it. Hell yeah. Craft all the things.


Agreed. At the very least, every character should get to just choose a skill off-list as a Signature Skill. It would be one thing if you just couldn't get Legendary except from your Signature Skills, but being unable to even Master non-Signatures is just killer.


Signature Skills feel wonky to me, too. At the very least, I'd like to see every class get get to pick one skill from off-list to be a Signature Skill. The big breaking point for me there is rituals. As much as I love the idea that you don't have to be able to cast spells to use rituals, the way the Signature Skill lists work functionally locks Fighters, Barbarians and Rogues from ever using them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boojumbunn wrote:

It was explained to me that the Character Wealth per Level table listed the total value of your gear plus your money, and your character wasn't supposed to have more. Also, that I had to discard the extra gold/items if it did.

You were lied to.

Boojumbunn wrote:
Da Rules wrote:
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Boojum

"Expected" is the operative word. Most adventure paths are also expected to have 5 PCs at 15 point-buy, but I've never done that before, either. A party that exceeds wealth by level is obviously going to be punching above their weight class, but so is a party whose ability score point-buy totals out to 55. And yet that's the array I give my players. Wealth by level, like the ability score generation rules, was always intended to be a loose measuring stick rather than a hard-and-fast rule.


Boojumbunn wrote:

Sorry, I'm and old fogey and I am having an "everything was better in the good old days" moment. Has anyone noticed that the life of adventurers seem to get grimmer and grimmer as more versions come out? As in, everything that makes life living for a person seems to be getting stripped out and actively discouraged.

When was the last time one of your characters attended a birthday party for their niece? Or their sister? Or HAD a birthday party? Do your character actually have a family written in, much less visit and say hello? Did your non-bard learn to play the guitar because it was fun? OH noo, don't play a non-optimized character or everyone will die! No family, no home, no life other than the daily grind of kill things, get healed, kill things.

This is an adaptation to defend against a particular problem behavior epidemic among GMs. What's point in investing time and effort into giving my character a family if their first actual appearance just has them be murdered for cheap drama? They never understand that it's not engaging or interesting. It's just disheartening. Like, why did I waste all that time in the first place? Sure, you can tell your GM that your character's family is off-limits, but how often does that work?

Boojumbunn wrote:
Now, a new version is coming out. To prevent combat abuses, lets have resonance on magic items so you can only use/have so many. Ok.. so no magic items just for fun? The magic cat who I can play with 3 times a day now costs a resonance point each time I play with it? My character has 50,000 gold pieces, and is homeless. My character has gems and jewelry, but no wife/husband/children to support. Look, I'm rich, but I have no parents to send money to so that they do not loose the farm because they had a bad year.

As a GM, I would probably rule that a magic item that does literally nothing wouldn't cost resonance. If you want a house, a family, then fine by me. If you want to invest in them, then good. You'll be rewarded commiserate to your investment, because that's how I like to do things.

Boojumbunn wrote:

"Wait!" People answer. "But that's just roleplaying! You don't need rules for that.. You can just mail off the money! You can just pretend you have a husband who needs support!"

Exactly my point. The games seem to be getting designed to discourage roleplay in favor of being, almost, a first person shooter. You will be given rules on crafting that no one can make a living at... lest some adventurer get a combat advantage from crafting. You will have a maximum cost of gear you can own... so that no one can buy their way to power... but now you can't dress in silks and satins because that all counts towards your maximum cost.. and heaven forbid if they add the cost of the home you purchased in town.

There has never been, and likely will never be, a maximum cost of gear you can own. Maybe the culture of the boards is distorting your view of how people play, but the people on the internet generally want to discuss mechanics because mechanics are objective. They're an easy place to establish common ground between people who may otherwise have wildly different experiences. Personally, I always run well ahead of wealth-by-level, but a lot of that extra is in intangibles: property, convenience, clothes and art, expensive rare books and chess sets, houses and castles, things that are not easily liquidated, sometimes not easily transported, but exist to add richness to the world and help the party be of prominence. I can't speak to anyone else's GMing style, but I can't imagine it's all that uncommon to give PCs a little something extra once their level-appropriate adventuring needs have been taken care of. And crafting has never provided a livable wage in d20, because the game's money system wasn't built on the assumption that normal people use it. If it were, then some prices would be way higher than they are in PF, and some would be way lower. It was build with the idea that player characters, the kinds of people who go through magic swords, potions and spell scrolls like toothpicks, cheap beer and toilet paper, would be the people making use of it. I don't think it discourages roleplaying. It just leaves it up the party.

Boojumbunn wrote:

I understand the desire to power balance characters, but I am starting to feel burned out on the new gaming systems stripped down characters who all start feeling the same. Different characters come from different lives for the character. Without the roleplaying aspects every character becomes highly optimized for whatever roles they will have, and then adventures will be designed so that if you are not highly optimized, you die.

Sorry, that was my rant moment. I know not everyone agrees with my view of rpgs. I would just really like to see more R built into the new rpgs coming out, including PathFinder 2nd edition.

Boojum

So, maybe this is just me, but the burden of the RP side of RPG has always been on the players, at least with respect to d20. The system has never done all that much to encourage it. Maybe it's done what it could to not get in the way (personally, I disagree with this. There's been some level of obstruction in nearly every edition I've had the chance to read), but almost all encouragement thereof has been at the level of the individual table, not at the level of the system.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Item level has me a bit squeamish. I wasn't a fan of how it worked in SF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Bardess wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:

The Chaos Codes submitted by and large? Strike me as very, very NG because things appear to be blurring into one another. That is:

* Focusing on one element of L & C, rather than multiples
* Focusing on preferred traits, ...as though this concept of mercy or humility is only a Chaotic trait.

This overall just furthers the idea tha perhaps the L-C axis shouldn't be part of PF in the future, as "things I identify with or prefer over the other" seem more closely ascribed to it, and in that vein things become overly squishy. This isn't meant as an insult--it's a respectful concern that has been buzzing about for some time, and I hope it will be seen in that vein.

Maybe we should just say that a paladin is any good, and most of them can follow the same code, regardless their position on the L-C axis.

Then, lawful gods will stress some particular rules, and chaotic gods some others.
I've been championing that idea for a while now.

Same, save for gods.


I don't even think Chaos necessarily has a problem imposing their will on people, because Chaos doesn't shy away from conflict. If you shove enough people with loud, passionate personalities into the same place, sooner or later someone will have a problem with someone else. Even fighting is, in a narrative sense, a conflict born of two groups of people trying to impose their will on each other. So what? It happens. Conflict, once resolved, brings about change, and change is part of Chaos's bag. Nobody's perfect, so everyone always has the potential to change for the better. So, a paragon of Chaotic Good wouldn't so much avoid conflicting with someone else's will or freedom (while asserting their own will and freedom, naturally) as they would try to turn as many conflicts as they could into engines of positive change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, with regard to how Chaotic Good interacts with societies and laws, I'd like to bring up something from Eberron: the nation of Breland and its Chaotic Good king, Boranel. King Boranel, believing in the people's right to independence and autonomy, gave the legislative duties to a democratically-elected parliament, who revised the Galifar Code of Justice and made it the nation's constitution, making Breland the continent of Khorvaire's first constitutional monarchy (of course, it wouldn't be a fantasy constitutional monarchy without a Lawful Evil Prime Minister). The Brelish seriously value their great political experiment, as it allows local laws to be voted upon by public assembly and anyone with enough support to be voted into parliament. They are a people who believe that no man is born superior to any other, than different is just different, and that anything can change. Your average Brelish is Chaotic Good, but they're accepting of most other creeds and attitudes, so long as those attitudes don't infringe upon the autonomy of others.

So, yeah. Chaotic Good can totally support nation-building and even laws, so long as those nations and laws foster the independence, free thought and autonomy of the people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

It would include an externally imposed Code. But who says that Paladin Codes are externally imposed? I've always gotten the distinct impression they were something that the Paladin sought out or possibly even came up with themselves.

One obvious version is for anyone who abides by a certain Code perfectly develops Paladin powers. That's always been my impression of one way Paladins happen: Someone is just so Good and Righteous that they start channeling the power of Goodness itself and becomes a Paladin.

It's interesting how paladin codes work, and how they're developed. Your interpretation is certainly a valid one, but mechanically, there's nothing that immediately springs to mind as to "spontaneous" (for lack of a better word at the moment) paladinhood. They're pretty much all tied to gods, if memory serves. Sure, you could do all the things that would allow you to become a paladin of Abadar, and then Abadar smiles down upon you and you're a paladin. But, that god-tie still exists.

Outside of examples entirely specific to Golarion, there also isn't anything mechanical that contradicts it. It's certainly always been my interpretation that paladin codes are internally-enforced, and I've never encountered any resistance to the notion until extremely recently.

Bodhizen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Believing in one's own Code of behavior is totally a valid way to be a Paladin in PF1. And if Chaos were really as against following anyone else's dictates as you imply here, Chaotic Clerics couldn't exist.
That's not necessarily true. Clerics aren't held to the same standards that paladins are (for some inexplicable reason). Plus, there isn't a strict set of behavioural guidelines for clerics either (again, for some inexplicable reason). For some reason, if you want to be a priest and spread the gospel of Bob, Bob doesn't care overmuch about how you act when you're wearing his robes, but if you want to smite that demon, Bob's all up in your business about what you did with that prisoner you were holding last week. It's one of the reasons that I'm glad that they're introducing the anathema mechanic in PF2. However, Bob cares (again, for some inexplicable reason) more about the power he grants to smite evil than he does about the power he gives away to cast goodberry.

Discussion of clerics is kind of out of the wheelhouse, so I'm not going to touch that one.

Bodhizen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chaos is not inherently against every possible restriction anyone could ever impose, not on a human scale anyway. A CG person, for example, is pretty okay with laws against torture and slavery existing. Someone Chaotic will want as few rules as possible in order to achieve the end of disallowing torture or slavery, but they aren't inherently against the idea of such rules existing.
You're right. Chaos isn't inherently against every possible restriction anyone could ever impose (on a human scale). They're still against those restrictions applying to "me" (the chaotic character). I apologize for getting political for a moment (and I'm not trying to bring politics into it, but just to use a convenient example), it's a very "libertarian" point of view. I don't like those rules, so they shouldn't apply to me, and you can't make me follow them. There's a bit of conflation of "good" spreading over into chaos. Sure, the chaotic good person would be against laws allowing torture and slavery, but the chaotic neutral person wouldn't necessarily be, and the chaotic evil person would be glad that torture and slavery happen without regard to the legality of it. It's more a concern for good over chaos.

Chaotic characters are not children. They understand the nature of personal responsibility. In fact, it's part of their thing. Owning yourself means owning your actions. If what you (a Chaotic character) does makes someone mad, it's their right to be mad at you. If it makes the police mad, then it's similarly their right to be mad at you. When people break laws, the consequence is that those people get arrested (so long as they're caught). Chaotic characters might not let rules and restrictions get in their way, but they understand that what they do has fallout, and some of that fallout might be related to rules and restrictions.

Different Chaotic characters interpret this differently. One Chaotic Good character might peacefully surrender to arrest in a Good-aligned society because they understand that it's just the consequence of breaking laws. Even if what you did was Good, it wasn't permitted. Getting busted is just the cost of doing business. Another might decide that if you manage to catch him, then getting thrown in the slammer is fair game. Until they catch you, you're a free man. But once they do catch you, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions. Another still might accept long-term cosmic-level consequences, but not short-term ones. Evade the cops, break out of prison and skip town. You'll get yours when the time comes and they balance the scales, but until then, nothing ties you down except your own sense of morality.

Bodhizen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I actually went into that in my previous post responding to you. It comes down to someone philosophically devoted to the ideal of freedom being willing to give up a small amount of personal freedom to safeguard the freedom of others. Good is partially about a willingness to engage in self sacrifice, after all, irrespective of its ties to Law or Chaos.

For someone truly CG, rather than simply CN, the freedom of others is more important to them than their own freedom (or at the very least the freedom of others is more important than the small amount of freedom the Paladin Code causes them to give up).

That would certainly hold true... If the law-chaos axis was more suggestion than ethos. I see the "lawful" or "chaotic" part of the axis as bearing equal weight to the "good" or "evil" part of the axis. Your interpretation seems to prioritize good over chaos. In an equivalent manner, the chaotic character might not be willing to give up any freedoms and seek alternative means of achieving a "good" outcome. It's a valid form of play. I see no issue with "good" working within the context of a code; that part we seem to agree upon. So, let's leave the good/evil out of the discussion, because it's not the salient factor. The chaotic character is all about personal freedom (full stop). Personal freedom is not congruent with the concept that one must follow a code of behavior at all times.

Bolding for emphasis by me.

The extent to which a given character prioritizes the ethical portion of their alignment with respect to the moral portion is entirely up to the player. But I want to focus on the portion I bolded there. As I've expressed previously, I don't see Chaotic as being all about personal freedom. I see them as being all about agency, self-ownership, self-determination. It's easy to conflate that with full-stop personal freedom, but like I said, Chaotic characters understand that actions have consequences. They're not children. They know that being without external control also means being without external protection, and they accept it and everything that comes with it. So, they instead have internal control. Their best qualities are theirs to express, however they see fit. So, to that end, a Chaotic character could certainly follow a code of behavior, but only because see the tenets of that code as part of who they are. They're never going to use that code as an excuse for doing or not doing something, because that isn't Chaotic. If they do something, and someone asks why, they'll say that it's because that's who they are. If they don't do something and someone asks why, they'll say it's because they wouldn't have been able to live with themselves if they did. The reason they'll live by their code and resist breaking it isn't because they need order and stability in their life. It's because they looked inside of themselves and realized the code was what was written in their heart, and breaking it would send them into an identity crisis of self-loathing and existential angst. Their oath is part of who they are. If they break their oath, when they betray themselves, their heart breaks too.

Bodhizen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This assumes, once again, that Chaotic characters object to all rules (which I still think is an exaggeration), and that the code is externally imposed (which I wouldn't assume).
I also think it's an exaggeration (and a misrepresentation of my position on this issue). Chaotic characters object to having to follow rules because rules exist, not because the intended outcome of the rule is something they wouldn't choose to do anyway. As to your other point, when "god" says, "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" in exchange for power, it's an externally imposed ruleset. If the power comes from within, and has nothing to do with any deity or their rules, that's something different than a paladin (holy warrior devoted to a deity). That's a design space that has a lot of potential that doesn't really work well if you try to shoehorn it into the design space of "paladin".

I'm going to paraphrase the only intelligent thing any Assassin's Creed game has ever said, from Revelations and with respect to the latter half of the code "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." To say that "everything is permitted" means that we must be the shepherds of our own societies and fates, and accept whatever consequences come of our actions, be they glorious or tragic. We can't hold out our laws and orders and use them as excuses for action or inaction, because the choice or whether or not to act ultimately comes down to us. Chaos doesn't object to rules (at least, not inherently). They just don't see the value in using rules as an excuse or justification for anything, because people themselves are ultimately the arbiters of what they do. A law doesn't stop you from acting. You stop you from acting. A law doesn't compel you to act. You compel you to act. That is Chaos.

If a Chaotic character's god said "Thou shalt" and they wanted to do it anyway, then they'd still do it. If the god said "Thou shalt not" and they already weren't going to do it, they'd wonder why the god's wasting their breath. You see the paladin as "holy warrior devoted to a deity," and I think it's a shame that Paizo seems to see it that way as well, because I've never seen it that way. I've always seen paladins as oathsworn heroes empowered by their devotion to a cause bigger than themselves. They draw their power from a light within, a light that exists inside of every good heart (if only they knew it themselves), a cosmic force of good that is divine in equal measure to the gods, but is simultaneously part of them and separate from them. The light cannot abandon a paladin. When a paladin falls, it's the paladin losing sight of the light, and only atonement allows them the perspective to forgive themselves. I've never gotten any pushback for that interpretation before. It's always been a valid interpretation of the paladin. It's totally the paladin's design space. It's just that the design space has recently become artificially limited, and I don't think I stand alone in hoping that fake restriction gets removed.

Bodhizen wrote:
Best wishes!

You as well.


Kudaku wrote:
Evan Tarlton wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
One thing just occured to me. If we assume that CG paladins follow the same tenets as LG paladins in regards to deity worship (worship a deity within one step of your own alignment) it would mean that we could have both LG and CG paladins of a NG god like Sarenrae or Shelyn. Two groups that both seek to advance the same causes and reach the same goals but do so using radically different approaches, potentially butting heads in the process. I think that could be a springboard for some really interesting adventures!
This is one of the things that most intrigues me about the possibility of a CG paladin. We can see how a paladin might conflict with a CG cleric of either goddess, but a conflict between paladins would have a very different feel.

I'm actually playing around with a short adventure based around this now!

A small LG country in the River Kingdoms where the color purple is reserved for royalty and his personal guard as a memento of a long-dead king, and it's a crime to wear or use the color without cause. Since the king is a popular historical figure and an anchoring point for the tiny kingdom's sense of self the more recent government, eager to promote their patriotism, have been expanding the law to also include magenta and violet. Some radical politicians even call for the ban of blue and red, since they're the primary colors that form purple. LG Paladins of Shelyn respect this law as best they can so they make a point of not using the prohibited colors in their public art pieces, remove purple dye when they hand out free paint kits on feast days etc. On the other hand CG Paladins of Shelyn find the law ridiculous and needlessly oppressive and see no point in limiting the expression of their art, so they flat out ignore it.

Local governance puts pressure on the church of Shelyn to straighten things out, who are caught between a rock and a hard place. They turn to the PCs - in a conflict where both sides are Good with a capital G and oathbound not to back down, how can they resolve the conflict?

The color thing is a bit silly and I'll probably swap it to something a bit more relevant (depicting a holy person? Reclaiming a controversial symbol?) but I think it has some potential. :)

Conflict over depictions of a holy person has a particularly-fun solution: non-iconic art. A good number of religions around the world admonish depicting the gods in their art, believing that art is a kind of creation and that humans, incapable of making use of the power of creation, are stepping on the toes of the gods by depicting them in their art. Non-iconic art naturally cropped up as a way of representing the gods and their works through abstract representation in visual art and architecture. Islam in particular takes issue with artistic depictions of Allah, and some of the religious art in mosques is seriously kicking-rad. While I think any in-world religion that had a rule against depicting a particular holy person or persons would've already figured out non-iconic art, it would certainly be interesting for a group of PCs to bring about a renaissance of religious art.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I still feel like losing their powers for breaking their oath is appropriate. I realized earlier today that I really like the imagery of a self-sworn oath being something you make a part of yourself, and that you can't against with damaging your self-image to the point of existential crisis. It's like "You swore this oath because this is who you are. You said the words because the virtues they represented were written in your heart. When you betray yourself, when you break your oath, your heart breaks, too."


Deadmanwalking wrote:


The issue with this is that, first, the fourth tenet of obeying any lawful authority is both an intensely Lawful part of the Code and utterly inappropriate for a CG champion.

I can respect that. I think we arrive at different conclusions from the phrase "Respect legitimate authority." Respect, to me, does not imply obedience. You can respect someone and their position while disagreeing with them. You can even do it while disobeying them. After all, they have a hard job and it's made harder by disagreeable elements like Chaotic Good people going off and doing good without their authorization or approval. If that means the good king has to have you arrested, then that's fair (you know, so long as they can catch you). They probably had a good reason for telling you not to do whatever you did, and you probably jeopardized something or another by doing it anyway. A Chaotic Good person owns their actions, as well as the consequences of those actions. If the consequences of what they did is that they're considered an outlaw, then it's only fair.

Deadmanwalking wrote:


Secondly, the third tenet, the one regarding honor and fair play, also strikes me as pretty Lawful rather than Good. I think Robin Hood should make a solid CG Paladin, and he resorted to ambushes and the like pretty much as his go to plan, lied regularly, and so on and so forth.

It's possible I've also been too narrow in how I think of paladins. Personally, I don't see maintaining a standard of honor as being inherently Lawful, but I guess the decision of whether or not to lie, cheat, or steal (as a last resort to protect the innocent from the forces of tyranny) should be a personal one. I still think even a Chaotic Good paladin should get to choose whether or not they get the standard paladin code or the CG-specific one (what with agency being so important to Chaos), but if a variant code helps more people fully commit to their vision of their character, then I'm in support of it.


Personally, I see no reason a Chaotic Good paladin couldn't still follow the same code as the base paladin, save that any clause specifically referencing the term "Lawful Good" simply be changed to "Good." I've always felt that the code is sufficiently-broad that it could apply to all of the Goods. I suppose is if there were to be a code that exclusively applied to Chaotic Good, the latter of the proposed codes would be my preference, though I do think that seven clauses might be a bit too many.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

See, here is one question...

If Chaotic is the alignment of honor, dedication, honesty, and all about following codes... Which is what it seems like the argument here is...

Then what does Lawful mean?

No one said it was. Both Law and Chaos are equally capable of honor, dedication, honesty and following codes. They just follow codes for different reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

Falling is a good point gustavo.

Falling from grace is a huge part of the paladin's identity. They can cease to be the class because of their actions. They can become an anti-paladin or a blackguard.
This is iconic and cool and the constant challenge of being a paladin. Doing the right thing or risking damnation. It's a unique part of the class that really should be retained.

But...

If a Chaotic Good paladin broke their oath, would you have them fall?

Yes, because the oath is a solidification of part of who they are. In violating the oath, they've betrayed themselves.

Jester David wrote:
What would a CG paladin have to do to cease to become a paladin and be rejected by their god?

Betray their own heart (which, in this case, is the oath). Chances are, a Chaotic god would want their followers to follow their own conscience and never compromise what they saw as right. Never let anyone, not even your god, tell you what's right and what's wrong, because you already know it. If they stopped doing that, if they went against their own conscience of their own free will and said it was just because they were doing what someone else told them to do, then that would be enough to drive a Chaotic Good god to disgust.

Jester David wrote:
If CG paladins are given more leniency in actions than LG behaviour then it is mechanically advantageous to be a CG paladin as you don't have to walk the moral tightrope.

They wouldn't be given more leniency. Not everyone who follows the code sees it as a tightrope, not even Lawful Good people.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Bardess wrote:
Han Solo could be trusted to never leave his friends in danger.
But what oath would he swear? What cause would he dedicate himself to? What are the tenants anbd

He could swear an oath to never abandon his friends if they're in danger, obviously.

Jester David wrote:
Bardess wrote:
As a CG person (as I like to describe myself) I would not ever deviate from my ethics, even if I may change if I get to know better. And I made many oaths to myself in my life, even if I wasn’t always able to keep them all the time.

I'm more Neutral Good myself. I like good laws, but don't feel compelled to obey all laws all the time. Because some laws are stupid. But that doesn't mean all laws are stupid. And I also feel that my minor civil disobedience isn't going to lead to anarchy.

(I think most people are probably in the range of NG...)

Being LG isn't about keeping all your oaths. It's about honestly trying to keep all your oaths. And believing that laws are worth having.

CG, by it's nature, is selfish good. It's about yourself. And selfish people aren't big on causes or things larger than themselves. They're not going to work for a god.

Chaotic Good isn't selfish. Chaotic Good is just as devoted as the other Goods to bringing out the best in people. It just has different ideas about what "best" means. Chaotic Good prioritizes agency. It prioritizes self-ownership, being free from control, but unable to use external influences and complications as a shield and taking full ownership of one's self and one's actions. Chaotic Good believes that people are at their best when they don't betray themselves; when they're given the freedom to express who they are without having to worry about their best qualities being suborned by anyone or anything else. Chaotic Good would want to encourage other people to be free, to create a society where no one has to feel like they're not allowed to be who they are or try and become who they want to become.

Chaotic Good is just as likely to value causes larger than themselves as the other Goods. A Chaotic Good character dedicated to fighting evil would do so with all of their heart, because that's who they are. Fighting evil, protecting the innocent and safeguarding the world is the cause in their hearts. If they did anything else with their life, it would be not only a betrayal of who they are, but a rejection of their self-hood. If you're one of those people who thinks that the only acts of real altruism require not wanting to help people but feeling obligated to, then sure. I guess you can call that self-centered. But I think that most people would consider someone who sees helping people and stopping villains from doing bad things to be part of who they are to be a good person.

Chaotic Good would follow a god who they felt aligned with their own views and goals, if they followed one at all. They wouldn't take orders, because they wouldn't need to. They and their god care about the same stuff and want to do the same stuff. Orders are redundant. If their god communicated with them at all, it would probably just be a revelation to make information available. How their adherent goes about making use of that information is to their discretion. Any god that has a problem with one of their adherents following their own path of justice probably isn't very chaotic in the first place.

Jester David wrote:

As an example:

What does a paladin of Cayden Cailean look like? What tennants of faith are expected from that paladin? What is their cause and holy quest?

I don't care. I'm the guy who wants paladins to be free from gods altogether.

Jester David wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Jester David wrote:


They're never going to swear a personal oath. A personal code is the best you could get, and likely one descriptive and variable. Or personal ethics that amounts to lines you don't cross.
That is not true.
Then what is a good example of an oath that would be sword and kept by someone who doesn't believe in laws and acts primarily out of self interest?

You're mis-characterizing Chaotic Good, so this line of questioning is invalid. They would swear the same oath that any other paladin would, but only because they really and truly believe in it at the core of who they are. Free from external influence, this is the kind of person they want to be. They won't let anyone else tell them how they should live or who they should be, but they will do everything in their power to live the kind of life that's most true to who they are and be the kind of person who's most true to who they want to be. The tenets of the oath are what they found when looked inside of their own heart. Breaking that oath means betraying themselves. When that oath breaks, so does their heart.


Xerres wrote:

The other thread up about what it would be cool for Paladins to have had some very cool ideas that would both be envied by people who really don't want to be stuck with a single alignment class and some of which seem like a nice step forward for more 'Mundane' characters to have.

So first, I want to suggest a compromise for the Paladin alignment and have it rejected. Everyone else got theirs rejected, I want to have a turn:

Paladins in the Core book are either listed as Lawful Good and have a sidebar that says many DMs and certain settings open that to other alignments (Maybe just usggest Any Good, or only Chaotic Good, or only Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral, I dunno) and its suggested that if a player request that, the DM discuss it with them to reach an agreement.

Or

Paladins are listed as "Any Good" and have a sidebar or flavor text noting that in Golarion and many other settings, Paladins are only Lawful Good with very few exceptions, and it will be a common house rule for DMs to not allow Neutral or Chaotic Paladins.

Either way, in PFS, since its Golarion based, they're limited to Lawful Good, but you can get a special exception (Boons? I don't know, I don't play PFS, someone help me.) to play a different alignment. So that Lawful Good players aren't bother with constant Chaotic Paladins, but players that are really into it have a shot.

If anyone can explain in detail why I is dum and they reject that idea, I'd appreciate it.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. Option 2 is just fine for me. I basically never play or run in Golarion and the only games where I've ever had to twist anyone's arm about running a Chaotic Good paladin were games I wasn't too thrilled about being in anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like, so long as we're talking supernatural powers, every martial character should eventually have the ability to use or manipulate something like qi to create supernatural effects, but monks should be able to do things beyond what the others can. A fighter or barbarian could strike a distant foe through the air or invoke their own inner fire to set their soul alight, and a rogue could steal something from across the room and put out an aura of "I'm not even here," but a monk who simultaneously embodies harmony with all things and the oneness of self should be like a qi wizard.


It's possible that this ability will just exist on its own, but I'd be interested in seeing the paladin have easier access to it, given that they're being tooled as the "durability" class: Mettle. I don't remember if the ability exists in PF1, but in 3.5 it was a feature that maybe four classes in the game got that was evasion but for fortitude and will saves and while wearing medium or heavier armor. I think the rationale behind why Mettle gave you that feature for two saves when Evasion was just one was that there were fewer things in the game that targeted fortitude and will than there were for reflex (at the very least, almost every trap was reflex-based).


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
No, my point is can a Chaotic character live by a Code of Conduct that in itself seems to be very Lawful. So however one answers that question tells me if they want a solely LG Paladin or an any alignment Paladin. But in a way I am relieved to see that you want something more than multi alignment Paladin. Each alignment class should be flavourful in its own way.

I say the answer is yes. A Chaotic character absolutely can abide by a Code of Conduct, even one as strict as the paladin's. I think that a Chaotic Good character who swore the oath would consider it a cause worthy of them. Yes, even the "Respect legitimate authority" part. You can respect someone's authority while still thinking they're wrong. You can respect them while telling them they're wrong. I even think you can respect them while breaking their laws (naturally, the cause would have to be really important), so long as you respect their right to enforce them and surrender peacefully once the deed's been done. (this doesn't reflect my thoughts on the Code of Conduct as it applies across the board. It's just the sort of thing I wouldn't rule provokes a fall as a GM) Others may disagree with me, but I also see paladins as paragons of moral courage, and moral courage means taking action for moral reasons in spite of possible consequences.

I don't think they'd swear an oath to a king or a god or anyone else, but they'd swear one to themselves. Chaos is about owning yourself, so betraying themselves by breaking their oath is something they'd never dream of doing. For the record, I support opening up the paladin, with all of its abilities and Code of Conduct, to any character of a Good alignment. I don't want multiple paladin variants for multiple alignments. One chassis applicable to any hero who swears the oath.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever happens, I hope we keep a huge lists of minutiae. I have something of a soft spot for how crazy long the gear list was in PF1, especially by the time of Ultimate Equipment. It's another form of character expression. An adventurer having a stove can, a journal, a chess set and a shaving kit paints a completely different picture than the guy whose only significant non-adventuresome possessions are a religious text and a bottle of wine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:


A magus would be a magus in mine. Ofc, again, you can call yourselves whatever you want and honestly none of what you said had to be a lie. But let's say you called yourself a wizard, THEN you are lying.

Would they be? What if all of their formal magical knowledge came from studying at a wizard's college, from which they graduated (if only barely)? They cast arcane spells using their intelligence modifier, prepare them out of a spellbook and have to use material components barring taking the Eschew Materials feat. Would it still be a lie for them to claim to be a wizard? Because if that was my magus's background, he would definitely call himself a wizard.

Nox Aeterna wrote:


Point is, you can't jump on other classes , without lying anyway, cause they are in world things, but you sure call yourself things that go beyond your class without issues.

And if that's how you want to do things, then more power to you. But if I don't want to, I don't think the game shouldn't assume that I do. How you do things shouldn't have to conflict with how I do things.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

To make a simple analogy.

That Razmir for example.

If you have a sorc who is a priest/follower...

If someone ask "Are you a priest/follower... of Razmir" Assuming the sorc is one, this isn't a lie.

But if they ask "Are you a cleric of Razmir" and they say yes, then they are rolling a bluff check.

Would they still need to if their principle responsibility at their temple was clerical work? If their primary function in the temple of Razmir where they serve is to provide general support and assist in the ongoing functioning of the temple in an official capacity, then I think of them, in the most literal interpretation, as a cleric of Razmir.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hopefully classes will be even better defined now come PF2.

I hope for the opposite. Few things in a class-based game irritate me more than character classes being in-universe terminology. The only purpose it serves is to limit what concepts and character types are allowed to be expressed by which classes. Like, my favorite class is the magus, but not a single one of my magi has ever referred to themselves as a magus. They've been knights, swordsmen, spell-fencers, scholars, magicians and just wanderers, but never magi. I've never defined a single paladin as just being a paladin. Demon hunter? Sure. Crusader? Sometimes. Hero? Only on one occasion. As far as I'm concerned, the class name is for the players' convenience and nothing more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I dont know where this "everybody knows you are a paladin" thing came from.

Nowhere. It was invented from basically nothing.


If there's any rational feedback during the playtest, they'll just make the paladin's required alignment Any Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:


It changed the status quo because the paladin is not a divine champion for me. So we took out the Round Table knight class and introduced a class with an entirely different flavor, if that makes sense. Similar mechanics, different flavor.

Okay, here's where I can make my first clarification about my intent. I see this as a false dichotomy. The paladin isn't a divine champion for me, either. It also isn't a Round Table knight. But all of those are things the mechanics of the paladin can represent, even as they stand right now. The champion of the divine can differentiate themselves from the Round Table knight and the oathbound hero driven and empowered by a higher purpose even if they use the same base mechanics. It's the same for every class. The alchemist can be the mad shapechanging chemist, the terrifyingly-calm bomb-maker, the slave-driving reanimator or the focused scholar depending on how the player decides to build and play them. The barbarian can represent the hardy survivor from the wastes, the hot-blooded gladiator or even a werewolf. I think it's weird and kind of wrong to restrict the paladin to such a narrow band of what kind of character the class is allowed to represent.

Malachandra wrote:
In a four corners option, I sacrifice the 100% unique paladin. I'd be up for a subclass for each alignment, I just think that's a lot of work and space, and I kind of like the idea of paladins (or exemplars maybe?) being hard-line (two non-neutral aspects) for alignment.

I don't have anything to say here that I haven't said a dozen times already.

Malachandra wrote:
For the warpriest plus paladin prestige class option, I'm trading in a base class for a prestige class. That's a LOT to give up. But I also offered to let the paladin wait a book. That's also huge (not sure whether it gives up more or less than making the paladin a prestige class).

I'm also not in favor of making it a prestige class, even if it does remain locked to one alignment. It's a character type that should be playable from the world go. I hate having to houserule in something I want to play that I think really shouldn't be out of reach in the first place (especially given that it's much easier to houserule away extant options than to houserule in new ones) but if that's what I have to do to play the character I want to play from level 1, then I will never stop complaining about how absurd it is that it's my only option.

Malachandra wrote:

So I've given my minimum, and offered multiple options that would meet that minimum and take steps toward opening the class up. One of them (the prestige class option) would be very painful for me. So I think I can say in confidence that I've sacrificed points from my position and made a solid attempt at compromise.

Problem is, I've been at this point of the conversation before. Previously, what I've heard in reply is "No, those compromises don't work, we want any-Good and that's not to much to ask".

Because it really isn't much to ask.

Malachandra wrote:
And we go around in circles as I explain why that won't work for me.

Because, at least to me, those reasons don't make any sense. Near as I can tell, your objection is based on a singular vision of the kind of character the class represents. The thing is, fulfilling that vision doesn't become impossible by opening it up. You want an order of Round Table knights, all of whom are Lawful Good paladins? Fine, it's yours. No one wants to take them away from you. But please explain, clearly and in detail, how that is being damaged or restricted by other people being able to fulfill a different vision of the class, which is already fully supported by the rules save for a single point. How does it become impossible for you to play and run your paladins as Round Table knights if someone else is able to play and run them as the divine warriors, or if I'm able to play and run them as oathbound heroes? Because clearly there's something one of us isn't seeing.

Malachandra wrote:
So my urge is to simply not compromise. I have what I want in PF1, and I have what I want in the PF2 Playtest (sort of, I'd like to see other options tested). I don't like the balance of the other options in PF1 (Antipaladin, Gray Paladin, etc.), but that's not my problem to solve (because if everyone thought like I thought, there would be no need for those options). I want to compromise, because I want people to have fun options and enjoy the game and because I accept that not everyone feels the way I do, but with the way the conversation has been going, why should I?

Great. You have what you want. But we don't. And us getting what we want does not preclude you getting to have what you want, no matter how much you claim that to be the case. And until we do get what we want, this will never end.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Well, since said paladin is Chaotic, he doesn't give two hoots about any rule or oath and can simply ignore any point he believe to be interfering with his cause of a greater good. So we can skip bothering with the code altogether.

Chaotic Good cavaliers of the Order of the Sword disagree with you.


Athaleon wrote:
Neurophage wrote:
It's not often I find myself on the same side of an argument as HWalsh, but... yes. A paladin would gamble on their divine backing, martial prowess and every iota of their ability to get the job done the hard way. Otherwise, why do they have that divine ability and martial prowess in the first place? I don't think a paladin would automatically be willing to make e sacrifice, and I don't think they should fall just for making a choice unless they think they should. It's not a sacrifice of personal honor or morality. It's a sacrifice of lives. Kill one to save a thousand sounds plenty reasonable on paper, but who's going to save that one while the paladin's busy saving the thousand? Who care's about a villain's ultimatum? Saving one person today means a thousand will die later? That's convenient. It means they have until later to save all those people. There is no big picture. There's only an artificial big picture created by a collage of smaller pictures. And every one of those smaller pictures that burns or fades or gets stolen diminishes the big picture. The only way to protect the big pictures is to keep all the smaller ones as intact as you can. You can't let evil get away today in order to do more good tomorrow because you can't promise that there'll even be a tomorrow. You've got to do today's good today and trust tomorrow's you to handle tomorrow's good.
Much depends on the specific circumstances, which is why the corner cases are always the thorns in the side of every ethical system from Alignment to the Categorical Imperatives.

Of course corner cases are difficult. It wouldn't be called moral courage if the answer was easy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
I think a Paladin would consider a million lives more important than his personal honor and powers, and would press the proverbial button even at the cost of falling.
I do not think a Paladin would, well they could, but they would fall. It is supposed to be part of what makes a Paladin a Paladin. The Paladin doesn't not do evil to keep his powers, a Paladin believes that not doing evil is right, that not doing evil is more important than those lives. That is what it takes to be a Paladin.

And that's a far more narrow and rigid view of how to play The One True Way than many people hold, even among the Paladin's fans. Of course Paladins don't refrain from doing evil in order to keep their powers, but for them the act must be a sort of spiritual martyrdom: Sacrificing one's soul, rather than one's body, for the greater good. And what kind of Paladin would realistically weigh the moral cost of one evil act against killing three Absaloms and an Oppara and decide the world's better off with the latter? Or that he, with his divine backing and martial prowess, would gamble on his ability to get the job done the hard way? What is that if not vanity?

It's not often I find myself on the same side of an argument as HWalsh, but... yes. A paladin would gamble on their divine backing, martial prowess and every iota of their ability to get the job done the hard way. Otherwise, why do they have that divine ability and martial prowess in the first place? I don't think a paladin would automatically be willing to make e sacrifice, and I don't think they should fall just for making a choice unless they think they should. It's not a sacrifice of personal honor or morality. It's a sacrifice of lives. Kill one to save a thousand sounds plenty reasonable on paper, but who's going to save that one while the paladin's busy saving the thousand? Who care's about a villain's ultimatum? Saving one person today means a thousand will die later? That's convenient. It means they have until later to save all those people. There is no big picture. There's only an artificial big picture created by a collage of smaller pictures. And every one of those smaller pictures that burns or fades or gets stolen diminishes the big picture. The only way to protect the big pictures is to keep all the smaller ones as intact as you can. You can't let evil get away today in order to do more good tomorrow because you can't promise that there'll even be a tomorrow. You've got to do today's good today and trust tomorrow's you to handle tomorrow's good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You didn't answer the question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spiral_Ninja wrote:


Second: A question for those of you wanting multiple alignment 'paladins'.

Do you actually want the full package? Do you want to find your character tied to tenets so important that you can lose everything by violating them? Because, to me, that potential sacrifice is part and parcel of a Paladin.

Also (and slightly tongue in cheek) do you really want to be responsible for multiplying the should my Paladin have fallen threads by 9?

Yes and absolutely. With the exception of having to be and stay Lawful Good, I have absolutely no qualms with any of the tenets of the Code of Conduct, especially now that the tenets are listed in order of importance. The other Goods can follow a Code of Conduct just as well as LG. When I say I want the paladin open, I mean with all the good and bad that comes with it.

I would also personally open a Paladin Confessional thread encouraging people to question if they should've fallen. Might as well consolidate all of the misdeed-confessing into one place.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


I know this is mostly you venting and not a serious post, but if I can ask... what bothers you so much about the Paladin?

It's one class, for traditionalists, it's one of the few things for them in the system.

In your case, it's that every argument you've made (really, that anyone makes) against opening up paladins even just to Any Good has been, to me, completely hollow. The argument has been, to my understanding, that they just can't handle the idea of the class having the ability to be played outside of a fairly narrow range. No one will ever be forced to play a non-LG paladin if they don't want to. No one will even necessarily be forced to play in the same party as a non-LG paladin if they don't want to. Hell, PFS could ban non-LG paladins and I doubt most of the people who want to open them up would even notice. You say that something's being taken away from you from opening up the paladin, but that something, the only conceivable thing that would go away, is exclusivity. You say that the playerbase is split evenly on the subject, but the boards probably represent a minuscule percentage of the playerbase. In my experience, people insufficiently-devoted to a tabletop RPG to post in its dedicated forums are also insufficiently-devoted to take personal offense to minor rules changes. I'm sorry, but that exclusivity isn't worth being defended. If the thought that someone on the other side of the country, hell, someone from the other side of the planet, plays this class outside of the unreasonably rigid way of which you approve somehow personally offends you, then I guess people houseruling away alignment restrictions makes your skin crawl, too. In which case, you're just going to have to deal with it because I'm not going to stop doing it until I don't have to anymore. You don't have to deal with them. You don't have to talk to them. You don't even have to look at them if even that's a bridge too far. But that something that is harmless to probably a majority of the playerbase because they either approve of it or just doesn't care is being denied to them because the last vestiges of resistance to it just can't handle it personally offends me, if only because of how staggeringly petty it is.

My problem is that the only argument against opening up paladins doesn't make any sense and any attempt to call that out is responded to with the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting until whoever disagrees with you gives up and goes away.

Also, tradition on its own isn't worth being protected. Times change, people change and traditions that don't prove valuable enough to stand the test of time are discarded and forgotten, the way they should be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Pantheon worship is under supported imho.

I mean, the line in the blog that I find most objectionable is "Paladins are divine champions of a deity" which suggests to me that the Playtest Paladin is not someone who can be devoted to 2 deities, or 7 deities, or 0 deities, but must be devoted to 1 deity.

I would like to see this changed.

Same. Whether my paladin seeks the unity of all the good gods, is the champion of one of them or thinks that the cosmic principle of good is bigger and more worthy of veneration than all of them put together should be my call.


Serum wrote:
If anyone wants to see what non-lawful codes can look like, might I suggest reading some that are actually published by paizo? For example, see Shelyn's or Sarenrae's. Remember that these codes replace the default one. We also have an example of how to convert that into P2E, as the edicts and anathemas for Shelyn's clerics line up pretty well with her P1E paladin code.

Or, hell, the edicts for the cavalier Orders, which aren't specific to any alignment (though obviously some are more of a challenge than others. An evil cavalier will find it difficult to maintain compliance with the Order of the Sword or Shield). Order of the Sword is only one whose Order abilities make reference to alignment, and even that is an alignment of your choosing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
If chaotic doesn't have to mean freedom for everyone, then maybe law doesn't have to mean law for everyone? But again, that's just cheapening the whole Law/Chaos axis.

What you call cheapening, I call adding nuance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:


More or less, yes. I'd say the main thing is that Chaotic Good doesn't want to bring out the best you that you can be. They are more concerned making a place where you can be happy and can do what you want to do. They don't want to guide you though, because that would be them influencing you which messes with your freedom.

I don't agree. It is totally within Chaotic Good's wheelhouse to want to bring out the best "you" that you can be. They just think that the best "you" that you can be is someone who wholly and fully takes ownership of themselves, without having to have their best qualities suborned by anyone or anything else. Restrictions and artificial choice limitations are what turn good people into bad people or force good people to do things they don't believe in. They'll give advice if asked, and guide people to discovering their own self-actualized sense of self-ownership if both parties are amenable to it, but that teaching isn't something to be forced onto people. If someone doesn't want to, if their best possible self happens to be someone who needs to be part of the system or even just someone a little less extreme than their philosophy of total and complete self-ownership, then that's fine. It's their choice. The important thing is that they know themselves well enough for that choice to be informed.

Malachandra wrote:
I keep hearing and answering this question. There are plenty of posts above.

I've looked through every post you've made in this thread. If you've given a clear and well-explained answer in there to the question "How does opening up the paladin to Neutral Good and Chaotic Good preclude the flavor of a Round Table-style knight?", I haven't seen it.

edit: needed to eliminate a typo


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Are you though? I've pointed out what the paladin would lose by switching to any alignment, yet you continue to say that it would be a compromise. To go back to the druid example, if we made druids not nature oriented, they would no longer be druids.

To use your example, I can really see a CG nature themed Druid, without being forced to be neutral.

I don't want to change the paladin theme. Just want to open his alignment.

Quote:
But paladins are no longer Round Table knights
Yes, they still are. Just not all of them are Sir Gallahad.

The thing is, their Alignment, to us is part of the theme. If you take that away, you take away part of the theme, and I don't think that is avoidable.

I don't think any of the Paladin players don't want you to have your own special CG Champion. We just don't want it to be a Paladin or have the Paladin class abilities.

I'll be honest: if that's really where the line is, if that is genuinely the hill to die on, I can't see it as a position worth defending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If they don't have religion, then in my opinion things like divine grace or Litanies and divine spells should change or disapear. In that case, the class start to look more like Cavalie, sort of.
Why, when the following divine classes didn't need to be religious to a deity for their divine power in 1e: Druid, Onymoji, Oracle, Paladins, Ranger, Shamans, and Shifters?
Already answered this question in other thread, but I think "primal" magic should have different flavor, closer to sorcerer in style. I think Paizo will go that route, with the thing they told about 4 kinds of magic, and wizards and Clerics having 2 of them. Druids, rangers or shamans should use this kind of spiritual, /material magic , and not divine. However, if Druids and others stay divine, then yes, in my opinion they should pick one of the multiple nature gods

Okay, but until I see any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that druids still have divine magic and don't need to worship a god. Oracles still notably do not have to worship a god, but still use divine magic and divine abilities. As far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough for a paladin to not need to.

1 to 50 of 366 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>