Spyglass Archon's page

HWalsh wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I think HWalsh you are not understanding the core difference between the concepts of "may" and "must." My change doesn't advocate any "musts" to anyone. It only allows "mays." Your position is one of a "must." I can see why you think that reduces things to a black and white binary but nearly every one else is argueing from a different paradigm. I've been a "must" before in some areas (I was deeply against including in depth materials for playing Sabbat characters in V:TM feeling it would dilute the monstrous nature of that faction. I was wrong.)

Incorrect.

Your assertion is that non-LG main Paladins MUST be allowed. Though you try to soften that with, "You may play non-LG Paladins."

It is still a must.

Not at all true. Just your paradigm of binaries. It is an extremely restrictive world view. I mean if it is a "must" it is a lesser "must" than yours as I'm not going to swear off the entire game if I don't get my desires. So really for me it is a double may. They may remove the restriction they may not. One will make me slightly less happy than the other. Therefore at the very least there are more than 2 states of arguement and your position is invalidated.

Once again how in any way does my "may" reduce your options, except that your dogma dissallows it. Logic not emotion arguments.

I believe we have reached a misunderstanding, we see this as an object being moved from its proper position to an improper one, you believe that an object is being moved from an arbitrary position to an equally arbitrary but more personally desirable position. This is significant because to you we must seem completely unreasonable because of our unwillingness to compromise. But you must realize that while moving that object to a halfway point may be a satisfactory comprise for you, we preserve it as equally improper to your position and thus would be an equal loss.

So what is about the Paladin class that specifically needs to exist separate mechanically from other holy warrior classes like an Inquisitor or Warpriest?

Because to me as long as you have an option to RP (which you would) I'm not sure what the issue is aside from wanting certain mechanics.

Mechanics which may not transfer into 2.0.

Because Paladin isn't really do the "Holy Warrior" thing as well as it does the "Romantic Hero" which you could argue was its original niche.

So to prevent this from sliding back into another class-specific thread, in a class-general sort of concept, is it a bad thing to ask for a separation between alignment and character class requirements?

1. Classes that have ethics/morals have those internally, not bound to an alignment.
2. Alignment is a personal choice outside of class choice and neither directly impacts the other?
3. Ancestry likewise is not bound to an alignment.

Do these sound unlike unreasonable goals/requests?

Some codes of conduct are inherently tied to some alighnments, because the act of following a consistent code is inherently and (in my personal opinion) exclusively lawful. It's not that only lawful good individuals in past editions could be paladin but rather that the nature of the class demand a set of actions that made an individual lawful good. If you take away the LG restriction but keep the code of conduct the same, like 5e (not counting any oath that is clearly supported to be a stand in for the anti-paladin/blackguard) then you haven't really dropped the restriction.

There has been a lot of talk about the future of Paladins so I decided to make a poll. Simply favorite the post you want to vote for. Please wait as I make all of the posts.

1. Paladins should be LG paragons with lawful and good energy coursing through them.

1. Always preferred the paladin gaining power through moral virtue, this lets players apply the class to any romanticized cultural hero instead of just the knight errant (Though it's a personal favourite).

Then perhaps it's time that some of that narrative weight be shifted to other heroes and a true and proper evolution of Pathfinder happens?

The narrative power a paladin possess's only exists because of the restrictions placed on the class and disappear with it. If 2e added a class feature saying that wizards could speak only truths, that use of sorcery slowly warps your physical appearance, or that clerics who switched deities had to earn back his spells one level at a time THEN they would add to their narrative power.

Spyglass Archon wrote:

Comic book characters are always bad examples because of author change ups and alt-timelines/realities. The point is not every heck not most LG characters are going to bow to a LE authority just for the sake of order, they just wouldn't want to throw the country into chaos by immediately starting a violent revolution they would likely consider that a last resort to be pressured after other options have tried and failed.

Yet we see so many threads that come up on these very forums that hit on this very point -- the GM does the 'Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't' passive-aggressive approach to not allowing Paladins in their game.

Better for the community to just grow up and move beyond this. Goodness need not know law, nor chaos, nor the undetermined, it's just Goodness.

EDIT: "Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about." -- Natasha Kerensky, Clan Wolf

We also have stories of players playing paladins disproportionate to other classes, how many tales within D&D communities are about paladins. Paladins carry a narrative WEIGHT with their restrictions this is their true power. Here's an example(Not Mine):

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDGreentext/comments/21ohis/dnd_paladins_force_of _will/

https://goo.gl/images/VWi3Qw

https://goo.gl/images/SeSbZK

https://goo.gl/images/KMhp1A

https://goo.gl/images/6douxU

And I could find a lot more if I tried, BUT I can't say the same of many other classes.

Spyglass Archon wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

What Paizo should do is have LG-only Paladins and then state in the description of LG that this is the alignment that grudgingly permits torture, capital punishment, slavery, child marriage, FGM and discrimination, as long as they are legal and grounded in laws enacted by the sovereign, while at the same time stating that NG and CG don't permit said activities. :)

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean external law, Batman is typically considered LG because he follows an internal and consistent code just Sups or Captain America. LG essentially just means paragon from Mass Effect.

Batman is Lawful Neutral.

Comic book characters are always bad examples because of author change ups and alt-timelines/realities. The point is not every heck not most LG characters are going to bow to a LE authority just for the sake of order, they just wouldn't want to throw the country into chaos by immediately starting a violent revolution they would likely consider that a last resort to be pressured after other options have tried and failed.

Spyglass Archon wrote:

Texas Snyper wrote:

Or: Unshackling paladins from a stupid restriction doesn't prohibit those who want to play LG paladins from still playing LG paladins.

Replacing ghost peppers with chilli peppers doesn't mean more people can stomach ghost peppers it means that their eating chilli peppers.

That makes no sense. Letting "not LG" be an option has no effect on the LG option.

Yes it does, on flavour. If someone asked you if they could play a wizard who drew their power solely from a magical ancestry would you let them? Personally I would direct them to the sorcerer class because if I allowed it it would cheapen the flavour of both classes suddenly a wizard is no longer a guy who gained control over magic after years of study and a sorcerer has no real niche no reason to exist in the world suddenly there's no mechanical differentences between learned and innate magic.

Like wise if the Paladin is a spell casting martial paragon of their deity than what's a warpriest? Image having fighter being "a guy who fights good" alongside a class called champion who is a "paragon of combat and warfare" even if they have completely different class features and are perfectly balanced one will always come off as a diet version of the other. Who in this world would choose be fighter(warpriest) if a champion(paladin) is fluff-wise everything they should desire to be? You can't even say they do the dirty work/are failed Paladins because Grey-Paladins/Inquisitors fill that narrative niche.

What Paizo should do is have LG-only Paladins and then state in the description of LG that this is the alignment that grudgingly permits torture, capital punishment, slavery, child marriage, FGM and discrimination, as long as they are legal and grounded in laws enacted by the sovereign, while at the same time stating that NG and CG don't permit said activities. :)

Lawful doesn't necessarily mean external law, Batman is typically considered LG because he follows an internal and consistent code just Sups or Captain America. LG essentially just means paragon from Mass Effect.

Or: Unshackling paladins from a stupid restriction doesn't prohibit those who want to play LG paladins from still playing LG paladins.

Replacing ghost peppers with chilli peppers doesn't mean more people can stomach ghost peppers it means that their eating chilli peppers.

Igwilly wrote:

Trying to explain one more time (last one for today).

Specific alignment mechanics are irrelevant. What the Paladin has is his ethos and moral standards. These are *essential* to the class. If a "paladin" stops having that, it's not a paladin anymore.
By lifting down this ethos and moral, and turn the class into a "champion of whatever we feel like it" is Not changing the class, or "broadening its reach", or anything like that. It is *destroying* the original class, and building *another* one from the ground up, and stealing the name of the previous class, to add insult upon injury!
I'll never accept that, and I'll always speak against this.

But why do these "ethos and moral standards" that are *essential* to the class have to be tied directly to just alignment? Why can't their ethos and moral standards be tied to their deity? The direct source of their power and reason for action. Why should a paladin of Calistria or Desna be LG?

A paladin should be a paragon of their deity. They should be a mortal representation of these ideals on the material plane and in the battlefield. The best way to do that is to properly represent their deity and alignment should be one of those aspects.

Because a Paladin doesn't necessarily NEED a god, the reason Desna and Calistria never made anyone a paladin is because they couldn't, it would be like making them a monk or a summoner, THEY don't supply people with ki or eidolons they maybe could change how someone uses those powers but that's it. Iomedae isn't what lets you smite but she is the only goddess that knows how litany of righteousness works. A paladin CAN follow a god and that god CAN effect their powers but they probably wouldn't choose someone like Queen B or Space Butterfly.

A paladin isn't just some gods personal ballistic missle that's the warpriest/cleric/inquisitor/oracle/druid(maybe). A paladin may be a virtuous, romantic maybe even holy warrior but if a paladin was a "paragon of their deity" than why did they HAVE the LG restriction in the first place.

Alignment mechanics are pretty much irrelevant to me. What I want is The Paladin.

That is, the paladin class should have the same psyche, the same ethos and moral, and so on. The Paladin is Not the "Warrior of a specific Deity". These are two very different concepts and need separate classes. Same thing applies to Druid, Monk, Cleric, and so on.
It's not about the words "LG-only". It's about having the same class I loved from the very first days of my hobby, without losing its special shine.

I think where a lot of people go wrong is by treating the Paladin as though it's meant to represent the zealous medieval crusader when that's more the cleric/warpriest's thing, the paladin is more in line with romantic cultural heros like knight errands, wuxia, noble swashbucklers, warrior-saints, or that one guy in cowboy movies with the white hat and gleaming six-shooter.

Spyglass Archon wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that 5e Paladins are still kind of restricted to lawful good once they hit level three, I mean it's hard to argue following an internally consistent code of conduct isn't lawful. Even the oath of vengeance should probably be called oath of justice given its wording and comes off as "Lawful Good not Lawful Nice".

Assuming that actions shape alighnment and not the other way around then surely someone following a code that instructs you to fight evil, help the victims of your enemies, protect art, inspire joy and/or speak with honestly would end up LG eventually.

Uh...

Xanathar's Guide to Everything added the "Oath of Conquest," which hews much closer to Hellknights and Lawful Evil Antipaladins than Lawful Good. You could probably still play one as LG if you really wanted (because a lack of restrictions is good!), but their code is based on authoritarianism and inflicting fear.

I forgot to specify in the PHB I would however point out that Conquest and Oathbreaker are almost certainly the 5e equivalent to Pathfinders (and other editions) Anti-Paladin alternate class and would consider them Paladins in the someway an Anti-Paladin is a Paladin, Kind Of, Not Really, Sort Of.

In the long of it: If you do not like something, you do not have to play it. The more restrictive you make something, the less satisfying it is to more people. You can still play a Paladin your way, but making /everyone/ play your way will disappoint more people, and potentially drive them away from something they may love.

I view the paladin class kind of like really spicy food, if the majority of the food at the party is really spicy then most people aren't going to enjoy the party, buuuut that doesn't mean that if you only have one or two spicy dishes you should mellow the flavour so that everyone can eat it because at that point it becomes just like everything else being served. Sure it may SEEM like it's better because more people can experience it but the fact is all it means is that NOBODY is experiencing the flavour it's expected to have.

Increasing something's inclusivity is good but it can be considered objectionable when it changes what made that thing so special in the first place. The video game industry has tons of examples of this type of thing, not necessarily making things worse but definitely more generic or homogeneous.

Devil's Advocate. I like the turns 5e took with the Paladin and Antipaladin. Essentially made them all Oathbound, and tied the Oaths to three alignments. Lawful Neutral, Lawful Good and Neutral Good. They each had different oaths and codes.

My most fun with a Paladin was LN, steering towards LG. Her oath was always about the greater evil, and that she may have to occasionally stain her hands, but that was okay. It led to a moral quandary where she didn't like the party's thief, but the thief and her were working together to stop a greater evil.

Antipaladins were Oathbreakers, and were not resigned to being chaotic evil "murder hobos" as it were. Said same paladin above I'd written was actually a clone, the true her having been lawful good and interpreted her code that she needed to rid the world of evil. She killed three corrupt nobles when she caught them conspiring evil and her herself became a lawful evil executioner. Those that did not fit her standard of good, she slew by her own hand, and her god abandoned her because she had become corrupt.

I've always been of the opinion that 5e Paladins are still kind of restricted to lawful good once they hit level three, I mean it's hard to argue following an internally consistent code of conduct isn't lawful. Even the oath of vengeance should probably be called oath of justice given its wording and comes off as "Lawful Good not Lawful Nice".

Assuming that actions shape alighnment and not the other way around then surely someone following a code that instructs you to fight evil, help the victims of your enemies, protect art, inspire joy and/or speak with honestly would end up LG eventually.

Steelfiredragon wrote:

get rid of the holy cow

No. Just keep them Lawful Good only.

Agreed, the Paladin is supposed to represent a VERY specific heroic archetype and think that having to build a character around that leads to some cool roleplay opportunities that other classes just don't provide. Sure it means that a lot of Paladins may come across kind of formulaic but it will also give a bit punch to unorthodox character concepts like a wuxia-inspired traveling hero instead of the standard western knight errant. The LG restrictions means that people may have to look beyond the usual fantasy tropes if they want to add in some verity.