Aldern Foxglove

Xerres's page

176 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Xerres wrote:
I am down for restricting the name Paladin to LG. But I think giving CG a name that is too narrow can put someone in a certain headspace about origins and so forth. "Elysium Knight" tied to planar energy, "Avenger" being kind of aggressive.

So one of the reasons I like Elysium Knight is that it reflects a symmetry with Paladin and Anti-Paladin- the latter being so named because it is a perversion of the former. So the Elysium Knights are mostly just taking the piss out of the Hellknights.

I prefer a strong through-line of Eristic Dada in my "good aligned champions of chaos", plus they can make a point of telling hellknights "the name of your organization isn't even accurate, since it's pretty clear some of you are headed to Axis."

You would choose a name for Champions of Righteousness based solely on petty name calling? Well, I'm sold.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think it's pretty likely we get the 4 corners knights in this edition, since it seems like the best compromise solution. I just hope we don't call the CG one a Paladin (I like "Elysium Knight" or something).

Give the CG one more offensive and fewer defensive powers too.

I am down for restricting the name Paladin to LG. But I think giving CG a name that is too narrow can put someone in a certain headspace about origins and so forth. "Elysium Knight" tied to planar energy, "Avenger" being kind of aggressive.

That being said, my ability to think of a better name is highly questionable. Bordering on useless... now officially useless. Elysium Knight it is.

11 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

They are a class.

They are Lawful Good.
Let us just move on.

"I got what I want. Stop asking for something else or maybe you'll get what you want instead of me."

Self-Interest is well and good, but since its your self-interest and not mine I don't feel any conviction to do it.

Devs: Paladins of Any Good, please and thank you. Or sidebar encouraging discussion of other alignments.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Knight class!!!!

Hellknights as a base class option.

No waiting for book 2 to get blackguards!!!!

Paladins are not unique, if we can get alchemist in core then we can at least get blackguards/antipaladins. They are considered the same class in PF1 anyway.

And there's multiple alignment variants.

I want hellknights and smite chaos as a base class.

Yes! A class for when you really believe the crap out of something, and want to make it everyone else's problem! I'd be super down for that.

HWalsh wrote:

Whenever people seek to dilute the core that is the Paladin...

Wherever the forces of Good cry out for a hero...
Whenever the forces of darkness chaos seek to eclipse the forces of Law and Good...

There I shall be.

I shall not waiver, I shall not bend, I shall never give in, I will fight to my last, I will fight with my heart, I will not go quietly into the night, I will not quit without a fight, I will raise my keyboard high and I will lead the charge!

Now! Who among you will stand with me? Who shall become the light in the darkness? Who has the courage? Who has the strength to do what's right? Come with me! Once more unto the breech!

Now! Toggle your caps lock on! Whip out your second edition player's handbook! Slam down some Mountain Dew! Munch your Doritos! And follow me to glory!

For Gygax and gaming!


When we came upon the shores of eternal night, we despaired that we could not see the sun. We thought the promise that the dawn would always come had been broken, and left bare in the shores of Abaddon. But when the enemy fell upon us, and we drew our steel to meet their charge, we found the light. It had carried with us. A there was no boundary of rigid diligence, or unfettered well of innocent piety that need be tapped. The crude differences we demanded between us fell away, as we carried the dawn forward and brought end to the fell darkness.

No matter how often we are told that we are but waves crashing upon the eternal shore, we will come crashing upon them again. And no matter how long we're bound within this eternal night, we will look within and find the sun, for Hope shines bright!

--- --- --- --- ---

Them speeches is why I love Paladins. Sarenite Paladin in a Wrath game is basically shouting out the same speeches constantly. Saying "I do not fear the darkness and I will bring an end to eternal night! I am a servant of the Dawnflower, and where I walk, the Dawn walks with me!" is like my favorite thing ever. Players being told to screw off from having the cool "Light in Darkness" type powers because they don't gel with Lawful cheezes me off. As well as other alignments just in general apparently not being Good enough. Which is absolutely what "The Champion of Light and Goodness" class being only Lawful implies. Goodness, do I hate that.

I love Paladins and I want other people to love it too. So I'll continue to pester for a more open and accepting class that will get more players Championing the Light. If the books finally hit the shelves and its still LG only then that's when I'll accept defeat and kindly screw off. I just want to see the same effort put to both sides of the 'Good' axis, at a minimum. No real expectation that I'll get to have that, but I don't see a reason to stop asking.

Paladins of Any Good please! Or just a sidebar that says lots of gamers prefer Paladins to not be restricted to LG only, and tables may want to discuss the idea among themselves.

HWalsh wrote:
The war is over though. The die is cast. Let's let the argument die. Paladins are Lawful Good only. Now let us move forward.

A struggle against one's oppressors is never pointless! Vive la Resistance, Any Good Paladins forever!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a feat I think, but maybe just a sidebar for an alternate rule or something. "You aren't really your Gods normal cup of tea, but gosh darn it, you're just adorable they love you anyway, so they give you the powers of their Clerics!"

A feat that just lets you bypass alignment rules is annoying for the people that hate alignment. Archetypes that let you do special things tied to being a Heretic of that Deity would be fun for later though.

"A Lawful Neutral Cleric of Asmodeus, the Dark Prince appreciates someone lying so convincingly they even fool themselves and has a use for you! Congratulations, your suffering will be legendary even in Hell, but maybe you'll lie your way out of that one too."

"A Chaotic Good Cleric of Gorum, Our Lord in Iron finds your gumption charming, and is interested to see just how well you'll do in your seemingly hopeless battle. And maybe you'll cheese off a Demon Lord or two and they'll be stupid enough to fight Gorum himself! Fun!"

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Dracala wrote:
Rysky, Life is about shades of gray, shades of gray bring far more nuance and ambiguity than hard lined black and white dichotomy between good and evil... Sure there's neutral in between, but know what? Everyone has their reasons for doing things, and no person is an island for we are All shaped by chance and circumstance.
And Pathfinder is a fantasy game. Where you can have unambiguously good and evil things. And all the grey in-between.

One benefit of alignment I notice for myself is that there is far less effort to 'subvert' the image of a 'Good Guy' and draw everything toward that center grey. Easy example: Superman. Yes, I'm aware that because of his horribly expansive library of stories, you can always find one where he sucks, but as a baseline, he's an All Loving Hero who wants to save the world. Hooray! So in Pathfinder, he's Good aligned. Which good, debatable, but there he is. When you strip out alignment, there's so much temptation to say "What skeletons does Hero Person have in his closet." because they don't have to maintain their Good alignment. So you can say he's actually the Plutonian, and he's going to snap and go nuts because he's actually a villain mad with power!

Eberron has moral ambiguity, where a Good aligned leader wants to restart a horribly devastating war, and an Evil aligned leader is desperately trying to keep the peace. But having those alignments forces you to think deeper about them. You can't just say "She wants war, what a horrible person she must be!" How does she maintain that Good alignment even with those intentions? She doesn't want to rule with an iron fist, the post-war landscape of Khorvaire is vulnerable and broken. It has to be re-united so it can heal, by some views. And the Evil guy may want peace, but he is going to do horrible things to keep it.

And I'm not saying alignment is perfect, but I've never had any trouble with moral ambiguity when using it. The turning everything into shades of grey is... boring. I only ever see it really used to muffle things down and make it seem like no one is actually a decent person. Can't trust anyone, any good person will die/turn out to be a Doombot. Its terribly uninteresting to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:

So I was looking at Gorum's Edicts and Anathema...

Edicts: attain victory in fair combat, push your limits
Anathema: kill prisoners or surrendering foes, prevent conflict
through negotiation, win a battle through underhanded tactics
or indirect magic

So let's see. He wants you to fight fair, and gets upset if you kill those who are at your mercy or use underhanded tactics... Someone remind me, why does he support Evil and not Good? Because those tenants seem borderline Good-leaning to me.

If you’re not stabbing peace negotiators when they keep on trying to negotiate, Gorum is going to abandon you pretty quickly.

I guess they'll change things to make Gorum more simplistic, but from Inner Sea Gods:

"It is more pleasing to Gorum to see a soldier fight a score of battles in his lifetime than die in the first, and if compromises or truces mean warriors live on to fight again, he supports diplomacy over seeing every soldier fight to a pointless death, but he doesn’t care for negotiations and quickly loses interest when tempers cool and blades are sheathed."

His overall stance always seemed to be fighting others willing to fight, not senseless murder of anything in your way. It actually does make sense, for old Gorum, that he'd favor Good aligned worshipers over Evil because they are more likely to accept surrender, will refuse to fight the defenseless, and frankly siding with them gives a MUCH bigger challenge to face. Far more war when you're battling the unending tides of the Abyss. No where near as many beings willing to fight over nothing when you invade Elysium. Gorum really doesn't want to go chasing down harmless souls fleeing in terror from him.

Though it goes back to understanding why he has so many Evil followers when it says Gorum will swing at a child with a table knife if that child is willing to fight. Though just what he expects of Clerics blurs things. If he'll denounce a Good aligned Cleric for ignoring a challenge from a near helpless opponent, it would seem certain that he'd denounce an Evil Cleric who gets too caught up in the frenzy and kills someone who surrendered or never put up a fight to begin with.

So really, if you go stabbing Peace Negotiators, you're probably pissing Old Gorum off by fighting people who don't want to fight. You're supposed to ignore the Peace Negotiator as a coward unworthy of your time, and go fight the people still willing to fight. And hopefully inspire others to also ignore the negotiations, and spread the glory of battle.

But maybe they're changing things so that Gorum isn't as complicated anymore. I would not enjoy that, but it could be happening. Regarding Anathema though, wouldn't that mean that you, the Cleric, are the one not allowed to negotiate peace? Or is it something you can't let anyone do. If its just you, makes sense for Gorum. He's just saying that if you come across two tribes killing each other over an ancient mix-up of stupid proportions, you aren't supposed to be telling them to stop killing each other. Doesn't matter if its for a stupid reason, they chose to fight, now let them fight.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

No CG Cleric of Gorum seems silly to me.

CG Gorumite: "I embrace war and conflict as a means to strengthen the body, mind, and spirit. I will fight alongside others, or in their stead. And seek to inspire them to fight against the coming tide of darkness."

Suggester Person: "Worship Cayden Cailean then!"

CG Gorumite: "I am not a drunkard starting bar fights. There are literal armies of Evil waiting to prey on the innocent. I will stand against them."

Suggester Person: "Worship Iomedae, she likes that stuff."

CG Gorumite: "She's a stuff shirt blowhard who believes the only way to be a Hero is to follow The One True way. She rejects those who carve their own path, and is of no use to me."

Suggester Person: "Desna fights Evil."

CG Gorumite: "War comes to the followers of Desna by happenstance, not by choice. They embrace wonder and joy, not hardship and struggle."

Suggester Person: "Sa... Sarenrae?"

CG Gorumite: "Too much talking, standing by while others suffer in the hopes of redeeming the wicked. I will take action, not wait in contemplation."

Suggester Person: "Torag? Erastil?"

CG Gorumite: "Just as soon spit at me as look at me."

Suggester Person: "Milani?"

CG Gorumite: "One of the good ones, but her focus is in the uprisings. In toppling the old regimes. Good work, needs to be done, but my place is on the front lines. Meeting the endless horde and cutting my way through it."

Suggester Person: "So why follow Gorum, he's empowering those who do Evil as well as you."

CG Gorumite: "Because Gorum is a path to strength, and a path to mastery. If I meet his followers working for my enemy, then I will fight them as well. My battle is not something that will end, not by my actions. All I can do as a single soul is fight as hard as I can against all that preys on those I protect. There is a fire within me that demands I spill blood, that I meet my enemy's blade with my own. Gorum will teach me to master the tools I must use, but I will choose the path I follow and the enemy I face. They are unending, and so is my battle. As pleases Our Lord in Iron."

--- --- ---

I actually had an idea of a former Cleric of Sarenrae that turned from her faith because of the Cult of the Dawnflower and prevalent slavery of Qadira, and embraced a faith in Gorum instead, because Gorum made no promises of justice or fairness. Only that he would give strength to those willing to fight. A CG Cleric of Gorum is probably more grim than a Cleric of Cayden, but they're doing dirty work. In a multiverse with the Abyss and Hell, there have to be those willing to fight and die against it. And no matter what nonsense those Paladins try to push, you don't have to be LG to be a Hero. Or even nice.

I love me some Eberron, and one of the Gods in that setting is the Mockery, Dol Azur. One of three war deities. Dol Arrah is the LG Paladin deity, and looked to for Tactics and Strategy. Dol Dorn is CN Normal Warrior deity, looked to for Strength and Skill. Dol Azur, the Mockery, is the NE Underhanded deity, known for dishonorable combat.

I wondered for awhile why anyone cared about the Mockery, when Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn seemed to have the better paths to follow, until Keith Baker explained the idea behind the Mockery in a blog post. Namely, that the Mockery is the path to victory at any cost. He is not strong, and is not more powerful than his enemies, but he will WIN, and he will teach you to win if you follow him. Obviously Gorum is a Warrior deity, and he wants you to be more straight forward, prefers you wear heavy armor and fight head on, but I still think of the Mockery when contemplating why a CG character would worship Gorum. Because Gorum doesn't have the same limits that Cayden or Desna hold to, but also isn't forcing anything on you as a worshiper. He just wants you to fight, however you know how, and in following Gorum you will learn the path to victory. Cayden is brave but foolhardy, Desna is clever but flighty, Sarenrae is empowering but hesitant. There is value in following a path that strips away other concerns and focuses only how you will win, Keeping your morals intact is a struggle for the individual to decide, as befits a CN deity, but I don't see a reason to exclude it entirely.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't say that I'm completely against nerfing casters a bit, but I'm far more interested in lifting the non-magical characters up.

High powered characters that decimate armies and challenge demigods is exactly what I want higher levels to be. I have the lower levels to frolic in when I want to enjoy more harrowing fare. Third party could at least scratch that itch for martial characters in PF1, but I'd hoped for more impressive things martial characters could so in this one.

Monks get access to the one Ki power that creates a swell of wind around them I guess. Having an aura of power that makes it hard for anyone to even walk toward you is cool. More stuff like that please. Go further with it, more cool stuff that does a thing.

I think there is mention of an idea to make Occultist a Resonance focused class. If going with the idea to use Spell Point mechanics for Magus, then I think that could be an interesting path to follow. Perhaps Magus expands what they can do with Spell Points, how many they have, how they can get the points back.

Its why I personally lean toward the 'Interact with Magic on fundamental level." concept. A somewhat bland/non-descript pool of points that they do something interesting with. Wizard throws a Fireball, Magus raises her hand and turns the Fireball into strands of light that then coalesce on her weapon, which she then stabs a person with. Less high-concept use of magic, but still some interesting to do with it. And still going with the concept of a Magical Warrior. Arcane Equivalent to a Paladin. Fighter/Wizard multi-class is a guy in armor that knows spells, but likely can't get the feeling of "Warrior Suffused With Magic" across. A Magus should have "Badass Warrior Person With Mystical Powers" as its fundamental identity, something you can feel in all its mechanics.

I don't think a Fighter/Wizard multi-class will really carry that concept of Mystic Warrior. Monk/Sorcerer could come closer though, some far off day.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh, Paladins don't need to exist with Cleric/Fighters. Rangers don't need to exist with Rogue/Druids. Bards is just some lute kook Rogue/Wizards. Why does the Alchemist exist if he's just making potions like a Wizard? An Oracle can just be a set of feats that gives Cleric weird curses, a Witch can be a set of feats giving Wizards interesting Curse magic. There is a certain point where that reductionist view must meet a cut-off.

Lore of Magi predating Wizards is unnecessary, but "Uses magic as a fundamental energy instead of structured spells." is about as reasonable as "Bards play the music and the thing happens." Of course others can say "That idea is stupid." and I can't argue anyone into thinking its interesting, but I'd say its about as valid a concept for a class as Ranger (The 'Loves Nature, but not as much as Druid I guess" Class) or Oracle (Cleric, but it was forced on you.)

As to why Magi has flavor redirected to "Uses vague magical energy over traditional spells"? Mostly because of their Arcane Pool. They used it to charge up their swords, charge up themselves, counter magic, breath water or walk on it, change targets of spells, blah blah yap yap drivel drivel drivel.

I think it'd be an interesting concept for a class, to be talented at manipulating magic on a fundamental level, but lacking the more complex applications of it without multi-classing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously need to find out how the spell point stuff works, but it could be fascinating. I like the notion that a Magus is interested in magical energy at a basic level, and comes up with fascinating uses for that. Like imbuing weapons/armor, creating weapons from nothing, negating magical effects of others. If they can use spell points to create some classic magical effects (elemental damage, be invisible, minor illusions, haste, I don't know) then it could replicate some of the feel of the old class.

While I'm certainly fond of the 'Perfectionist in melding magic and might' angle, being that I love all Gish to pieces, I agree that Magus needs to have a more unique approach to magical theory. If Wizard is high science, pushing the boundaries, and Sorcerers are unbridled bundles of magical energy, ready to burst, then I think Magi could be more interested in magic at its fundamental level. Like it'd be cool if they can dispel magical effects, suck up that energy, and then use it for something else. Less capable of the complicated spells of a Wizard or grand overtures of a Sorcerer, but flexible and innovative in quick fashion, maybe with a slight focus in anti-magic if they can mess with other people's spells on a fundamental level.

Maybe the lore could be that Magi predated the Wizard, which is why there's still more ties to weapons and fighting for them. People following the Magi path are less interested in the absolute limits of what magic is capable of, and more focused on how it interacts with the world and themselves. I freaking love Star Wars and the Jedi, so having Magi be more about attuning themselves to the cosmic flow of energy and having less interest in trying to be its masters would tickle me pink.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magus ties with Paladin as my favorite class in Pathfinder, not counting Third Party Stuff, so I do certainly agree there's a lot to it that I'd like to see brought over.

I am somewhat conflicted in making it a class just for the sake of it. Fighter/Wizard with some specific feats can cover much of it, but I do like the Magus as a legacy of innovating how magic was used and applied. If it is made a class in the new edition, its a good idea to focus less on "This is a class made because Fighter/Wizard doesn't work that well." and more "The Magus is a class with a unique interpretation and application of Magic."

A Fighter/Wizard or Wizard/Fighter is someone with armor and weapons training who is also a smart cookie studying magic. They are clearly better at one of these things, but they're smart enough to hedge their bets on multiple solutions to problems. I think the Magus could cover a conceptual area of "Magical Maverick", a prodigy taking short-cuts, or just someone that couldn't hack it fully as a swordsman or a mage and put them together to throw others off their guard.

This guy is a better swordsman than you, throw magical sand in his eyes and then stab him while he can't see you. That mage is countering your spells, channel it into your sword so that he doesn't see it coming this time. That guy with the huge hammer is going to smash your skull, fortify your helmet with magic and take out his legs after he swings. That snooty son of a gun Necromancer sure does know a lot more about killing spells than you do, but since you've spent so much time figuring out the magical matrix involved in swiftly enchanting items, you understand magical energy on a fundamental level that he hasn't considered and can dissolve his magical energy. That'll make his skull a lot easier to split in half!

I mean, arguments can be made that some kind of Wizard should be the maverick, but I always play Magi as character who couldn't really cut it as a fighter or wizard, and decided to 'cheat' instead and use magic and weapons in ways the more dedicated types didn't because they don't have to. I guess I tend to think of Magi being to Wizards as Rogues are to Fighters: less capable in a 'fair' fight, but insulted by the idea that they were going to fight 'fair' in the first place.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
It's one thing for taste to vary. It's another thing for one version of a class to be strictly better than another version. Would you regard it as okay for there to be two sorcerer bloodlines that offered the same abilities but one had an anathema and the other did not?

Deadmanwalking has some good ideas for a CG code that keeps restrictions that are still in line with the alignment. So I think its feasible to have a CG Paladin that isn't easier to play.

Or just keep the same Code you have the follow regardless. I don't support any Paladin ideas that don't have them following a Code, but I don't think Lawful is harder to play than Chaotic. Its just a matter of taste, so I prefer not viewing it as a real restriction on behavior.

ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

As things stand, the Paladin is my favorite class to play, and I like to be a lawful good one. If NG and CG opened up, I would probably begin to play NG and LG pallys in roughly equal measure, favoring NG.

However, had that been allowed from the beginning, I would have only ever played NG and CG paladins and ever touched the LG one due to the fear and stigma surrounding them. I wouldn't have discovered Gadrian the Kind, one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I don't want to see people cheated out of LG characters in general because they never have a reason to try one despite the stigma.

I would prefer an environment where that stigma didn't exist and all alignments could have Paladins, but the current environment seems to be such that the day the Chaodin drops is the last day a LG paladin other than Seelah is played by a newbie.

Amusingly enough, my first Paladin was a Paladin of Freedom from the 3rd Edition Unearthed Arcana, the CG variety of Paladinner. I think it was easier for me to think of a character when I could do something more free-form as I started in the hobby. Time went on, I experimented with other characters and ideas, and I can't think of a non-insulting way to say that I moved on from the kind of character ideas people tend to come up with in High School. And that's also about the time I got more and more interested in Lawful characters over Chaotic or Neutral.

Which is not to say Lawful is more mature, just that I was an edgy teenager and that works with Chaotic. Now, I really suck at playing Chaotic characters in all honesty. My best current effort is Neutral, because I value my plans and consistent organization of power structures too much.

But what I personally feel is just that people need to be allowed to feel out what they enjoy about the game without being guided to a correct viewpoint. I wouldn't mind trying to give examples of how Lawful can be fun to play, I just don't want anything pushing people like "If you want to have the super cool Divine Champion then you HAVE to be LG! Mwhahaha!" I figure the people that will enjoy Lawful characters will find their way in their own good time, and it doesn't actually feel super important to keep the two sides balanced if that doesn't happen. People having fun and playing the game needs to take precedence.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

So I want to go ahead and say some thoughts I've had about this.

The reason I don't like the prospect of a non-LG paladin is because I'm worried a NG or CG paladin will be the same as the LG one, but with a less restrictive code, and therefore strictly and objectively better.

In the Paladin blog, we learned that and how the LG code is being made less restrictive. If this version proves to be more popular than the PF1 one, and people prove less hesitant to play it out of fear of having to be LG, I'll be a lot less fearful that people will abandon LG paladins altogether.

As things are there's such a stigma around paladins that I once saw a thread where someone panicked and asked the whole forum what to do because one of their players wanted to be a paladin, in roughly the tone that would have been appropriate if they'd wanted to play a CE Gargoyle cleric of Rovagug in a non-evil campaign. In the meantime, every LG character I have ever seen has been either a Paladin, a Monk, or played by me. The only LG wizard I've ever seen is mine. Likewise with my LG bard. I'm sure you play a party of four LG rogues and a LG Cleric of Sarenrae, but it seems overwhelmingly the case to me that LGs are super uncommon.

I think the real problem is that as things stand, being chaotic perceived as being better than being lawful in general. I think the real fix isn't to disallow CG paladins forever, but to figure out what makes LG characters in general so unattractive and fix it. As of now, I think it's the perception that LG characters are disadvantaged because they have fewer options in a situation. We need to either figure out a corresponding advantage (better reputation/relationship with society?) or, and this is the worse of these two options, slap Chaotic characters with some limitation. (Inherently worse reputation? Being treated more harshly by most authorities?)

I love me some LG characters, but I have to say I really don't understand this viewpoint of trying to enforce what alignments people play. Like I don't like it for Classes in general, but I can still consider it reasonable, whereas when it comes to just trying to stop people from playing Chaotic characters in general I am wondering why anyone cares so much.

You've got an alignment, you like your alignment, you think other people would like it. That's all great, but there's no need to enforce or reward alignments as a mechanic. People play their characters however its fun to play them. There's certainly really common tropes to playing Chaotic that are infuriatingly annoying, same with Lawful, but that's more about just getting players to play in a way that doesn't impede fun for everyone else.

But if some alignments are more popular than others, then they're just going to be more popular and that's it. We can't go trying to 'Balance the Scales' because we think other people aren't playing a diversified enough array of alignments.

My own stance on Paladins is that I don't like LG getting more than other alignments, I don't like anything placing it above others. Having "Everything NG/CG gets, +Paladins." makes it the 'Special' or 'Best' Good alignment and I don't like that. I am not willing to lose gracefully on that issue at present, I far prefer to make a big scene and get beaten by security before they steal my phone and toss me in a dumpster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
UlrichVonLichtenstein wrote:

Reading through this issue again, and going over some of the comments and designer replies therein, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of what is a blatant Feat tax to play interesting and diverse characters.

I might be missing an obvious flaw with what I'm about to suggest, and I'm sure somebody will point it out if I am, but wouldn't a better alternative to this -again- blatant Feat tax, simply to allow players to create Half-bloods without paying any sort of tax?

i.e. Take the Human Ancestry, replace two features with that of the Elf (the exact function of the Heritage Feat) without actually needing to spend a Feat. Then I still have my Ancestry Feat available to me at first level. This would, in theory, quell the need to give *everybody* an additional Ancestry Feat at 1st level.

And before anybody cries "House Rule!" at me, I'm not a Dungeon Master. I'm a Player, therefore it's not my place to establish House Rules or make such requests of a Dungeon Master who hasn't had the opportunity to vet the idea for game balance. And why should I have to House Rule it, anyway, when 90% of people in this thread *CLEARLY* want their Ancestry Feat back?

Question: how is this not making half-bloods literally better than humans in every way?

I am in a loop of pondering this myself, even in regards to "Give everyone two ancestry feats!" suggestion.

It seems like the option Humans get that's really rustling the jimmies is the extra Class feat. Its probably good stuff. General feat probably too. But, if everyone gets two ancestry feats to start then Humans either get an extra Class and General feat at the start of the game, which is probably too much, or the "One of them has to be a Heritage feat" notion is pressed, and then whatever Heritage feat the Human has access to has to compete with "Gain access to all of another ancestries non-Heritage feats."

Even the current state is delayed gratification, trading the ability to jump-start a build for the ability to (Possibly) perfect it later. So Half-Whatever seems like a stronger choice over the long-term, over either parent. Though I can be missing something myself.

Still, many of the suggestions put forward look to me like making a choice of 'Human' far less useful that being Half-Something. I'm not actually super pleased about the way Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are being handled, I prefer them being their own thing. But along with the Half-Races I play Humans predominantly, so I am still wary of my own primary stand-by becoming the "Not as Good as Mixed-Blood" option.

I am aware that Humans were probably overtuned in PF1. I'm fine trying to even that out, but I don't want to see them falling behind either. I could be wrong that these suggestions would do that, but since I imagine "Humans get an extra Feat or two." is pretty much going to be their only selling point, as before, having others freely cherry pick that option seems like it will greatly diminish any point of playing one.

I'd still do it anyway, because my problems are the opposite of Arachnofiend's and I spend too much time with Orcs and Half-Golems and Gargoyles. Being 'Normal' makes me the odd man out, but I shall not falter in the face of those cocky so-and-sos.

I do imagine the best that can be hoped for regarding Fighter vs. Fighter-Spellcaster is an equivalence to Fighter vs. [6th Level Spellcaster].

6th level casters are pretty flatly better than normal Fighters and such, but weren't so massively above that no one ever used them. I mean I'd sooner eat the book and spend a night in the emergency room than play a Pathfinder Fighter, but I've been told other people still enjoyed playing them and they had advantages in damage or killing or something.

If a Fighter that doesn't do multi-classing gets [Super Cool Sword Technique] or [Totally Boss 'I Do The Thing Because I'm So Cool.' Ability] then I can imagine its not going to be horribly rare to see straight Fighters. And if Fighters do not have anything cool like that to tempt away from using the multi-classing, then I think that's an issue with Fighters.

I do use third party martial character stuff, like Path of War and Spheres of Might, because then martial characters can do stuff that's really cool. Spells are still better, my 6th level caster characters have out performed my straight martial Path of War characters frequently, but those characters are still really cool and contribute fine so I don't care. For a straight Fighter to not be overshadowed by Fighter-Spellcaster, it has to actually have cool stuff to do. Not even specifically something that makes it narratively amazing, just something that's really cool. If a straight Fighter can let someone play Kenshin or a Monk lets someone play a family man like Guile, and it actually feels cool and interesting to do it, then I think its okay if the spellcasting is mechanically superior. Fighter just needs to be fun to play.

Speaking soley for myself, my experience with the 3.5/PF Fighter left a barren wasteland where my hope should have been, and I will probably Gish all the things and claim characters without magic are foul witchcraft elves descending from the moon to steal my eyes. The probability that I am correct in this is too high to risk otherwise.

Bardarok wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
So I guess this confirms there is no more level dipping in 2e. Personally I'm really happy about that. They can now give characters really powerful 1st level class abilities and not worry about everyone dipping into it for every build by just making sure those abilities aren't available in the archetype.
Yah I wonder if Dex to damage will be in the Rogue multiclass archetype. It would be almost too good of a feature to not get for a Dex focused build.

According to the Reddit person posting it all, Rogue multi-class gets Sneak Attack, not Dex to damage.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It also requires a 16 in the appropriate score and a specific Skill trained per Class, apparently.

I very much like that little detail. Not for any real balance reason, just feels charming for some reason. Assuming a Wizard multi-class needs 16 Intelligence and Lore, or Arcana, or whatever it is, I enjoy it. You're smart and and you study the thing, so you can learn magic.

Its kind of silly that you can start as a Wizard with lower Intelligence (I assume?), and it does interfere with a concept like an Intelligence 12 guy who just figures out some hedge magic. But for some reason, it tickles my fancy and I like it. Maybe you just have to be smarter about it because you are picking it up faster, without the benefit of years to study in a quiet place with all the books and resources you need.

Maybe a Wizard has to get jacked if they're going to start swinging that sword around without real training first. And run wind-sprints a lot. I wonder if reality just occasionally looks at people with 16 Charisma and thinks "Aw shucks, you really are swell aren't you? Go ahead and manifest some magic you crazy kid." I can imagine many people being annoyed, and I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, but I like that detail.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Unlike VMC, you can apparently spend 4 Feats and cast 8th level spells on your Fighter (Wizard Archetype), so they're potentially very powerful archetypes as these things go.

That sounds interesting, and I love the Gish so I hope it works out cool, but just makes me extremely suspicious that it will get smacked hard with the nerfs if it becomes the obvious choice for every non-casting class.

If it doesn't change, it does create an interesting situation of multi-classing a non-casting class with a casting class possibly being the equivalent of the 6th level casters of yore.

I have some disappointment with the seeming passing of old multi-classing, which I deeply enjoyed, but the ability to pursue your normal class while still getting something actually worthwhile from another class is still a perk.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also means you have guidelines you can cling to, an established hierarchy you can appeal to, your choices are much more pre-selected and you don't need to justify them as hard. You know what's right, and what's wrong, what injustices you're allowed to let stand and when you're allowed to fight.

An argument can be made that a Paladin, or Lawful Good character in general, has it easier because they don't need to think for themselves as much. They have things they have to adhere to, but they also have excuses for what they can let pass in the name of the Greater Good.

Like flim-flam'n Qadira and its slave trade operating right under the Church of Sarenrae's nose! Warble warble, forever shall I bemoan that.

And I'm not trying to insult Lawful Good, its my favorite alignment. Its my default. Having to think within restrictions stimulates my imagination, and I really like having depths to supposedly strict and dull characters. A Samurai who spends seemingly all day every day training his body in grueling fashion and standing in service of his Lord, surprised everyone when his idea for a first date was to magically empower his paramour with flight, and fly through the Northern Lights. Because he's a worshipper of Shizuru, so he bases his romantic ideals on a love story between Gods.

Playing a Chaotic character though? That's hard for me, because I feel like there's less to base my actions on. I feel directionless, its hard to figure out a real path I want to be on. Best 'Chaotic' character I've had so far is True Neutral, because I can't commit fully to the Chaos and free thinking, I have to organize my resources and keep a clear gameplan, even if I let it change constantly, there has to be one.

So, much as I get insulted by people saying Lawful Good is somehow Evil (Its not. Its Good aligned, right there in the name pal.), I also get confused/insulted by the notion that Lawful Good is the 'Hard' alignment. Lawful Good is the alignment that already has the answers, and often faces uncomfortable notions in following those answers through. Chaotic Good is looking for the answers, because they're certain there's a better one out there.

A character who has to find that faith and that devotion inside themself, keep that flame burning without the support of their hierarchy or a long established tradition of belief, that's inspiring to me. Its something I've touched on with a few characters, but I've never really dived into something like "I don't have the answers, that's something I have to find. I know there's a Light, but how to bring it to the world is the challenge." Something I think I'll try to cook up. If Paizo allows for the Chaotic Paladins, I think I might finally try to step up to the plate on that idea, and take the plunge into Chaos to find them answers.

And then totally have a rocking party between the Lawful characters and the new Chaotic guy. Lawful plays bass, Chaos needs them vocals. I should name the Chaos Paladin Lou Gramm, be easy to get the inspired then.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of Divine Champion archetypes for deities, I think that's a great idea. Still want to see Chaotic Good 'Paladins' as a Core option because Lawful Good gets a class built around its ideals. We can be sure the Anti-Paladin will do that for Chaotic Evil, and since they stretched that to Lawful Evil last time there's a reasonable position to say they'll likely do it again.

Lawful Good is my favorite alignment, but I really don't like it getting special treatment or being the only alignment that gets the "Super Good at being Super Good" class. I don't want Chaotic Good to only get a token archetype to make the 'Chaotidin' supporters shut up, so the idea can be abandoned to continue funneling more support into the Lawful Good Paladin.

I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually. And never receiving the same support the Paladin does, so just continuing the standard of Lawful Good living by the "All alignments are equal, but some alignments are more equal than others." mantra. The Paladin being some unique phenomenon that only Lawful Good can produce is so set against the very idea of Paladins and Lawful Good to my thoughts. I've never liked it, even though it doesn't technically affect me because I like playing Lawful Good more anyway.

I understand that other people really, really care about the tradition they're used to, and I won't argue up or down about it. Just think that more people overall would be happy if it were opened up, and it'd be a more fair approach to the alignments. Lawful Good getting more stuff just irks me.

I liked Iron_Matt's suggestion for the Chaotic Code having several possibilities being put together by the one that follows it/their God. That helps with some of the "Chaotic Individuality" notion. Very clever.

Lawful Paladins wondering why they can't choose their Code could be an issue, I guess, maybe that balances to Lawful being an assumed 'Default' state while Chaotic is the one that requires the GM permission. If that were to happen. Or maybe the GM can decide the order of importance for the Chaotic Code tends to shift around, or the bottom tenet switches between three different ideas at unusual times. The Player gets told whenever there's a switch, but they then have to follow it. But it'd still be from a list they agreed on with the GM.

Probably not workable, but an interesting idea, for Chaotic Paladins to have their rules changing on them for reasons they aren't exactly aware of. (But hopefully are intended by the GM/Forces of Chaotic Good to enact the best possible outcome.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Immunity to Fear I see as a Chaotic trait more than a Lawful one. The God of Bravery is CG in Golarion after all. Immunity to Disease and Divine Grace seem decidedly Neutral to me. Auras I could as more Lawful I guess.

Deadmanwalking has presented a great Chaotic Paladin Code. I like it a lot. As has been pointed out a few times, the having to respect others autonomy and not force them into anything or allow them to be forced into something has interesting possibilities for making a Chaotidin's life hard.

Not expecting to 'convert' anyone in the LG only camp. Same as no argument yet made against CG Paladins holds any water to me. The opinions in the two camps are strongly held, no budging there.

That said I really like the idea of Deities having archetypes of classes 'aligned' to their interests for worshipers to follow. It does not slake my Chaotic Paladin lust in the slightest, and I see no more issue with Cayden Cailean having a heavily armored warrior worshiping him (Like the iconic Fighter for instance) than I do Erastil having the same.

But completely independent of CG Paladins, 'Deity Archetypes' would be something cool I'd like to see.

Post Deadmanwalking's Code again:
1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

4) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to. Except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets, of course (ie: jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

Is a good'un. Excellent for inspiring 'Vive la Resistance!' tendencies without making the Chaotidin about 'FREEDOM!' over Good in general.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep, the real sting in the pants of the Paladin is that in Pathfinder it was focused on opposing Evil. You had to use an archetype to oppose Chaos over Evil. The mechanics of the class were: Heal the Injured, Protect the Vulnerable, and Defeat Evil. To a great many people, the Paladin does not come across the "Champion of Lawful Good", its comes across as "The Champion of Good, Who Happens To Be Lawful."

A new class just to have a Chaotic equivalent is then scratching its head going "The Paladin kind of already has all the traditional elements of the Good aligned Champion." and then there's going to be pushback if you try to make it an actual Champion of the Good alignment. Because that's the Paladin's thing, and this has to do something else.

If Paladin remains the "Best at facing Evil" class then people that want Chaotic Good 'Paladins' aren't going to be satisfied with something 'appropriate' to CG like "Opposes tyranny.' because that's such a limited scope and something LG Paladin is supposed to do already. There's no good track record for making a CG Champion, because the Paladin is already claiming the key elements to a Champion of the Good Alignment, and trying make a CG Champion different just leads to it being less of a Good Aligned Champion.

I think the people that see the Paladin as "Champion of Good Who Happens To Be Lawful.", just want a "Champion of Good Who Happens To Be Chaotic." Not a class that has to fit some criteria of "Are these abilities Chaotic enough?" because the Paladin doesn't have that microscope focused on it be sure its abilities are Lawful enough.

It doesn't satisfy everyone, but to me the best solution really is to just have a sidebar with a Code for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good, or just Chaotic Good. Says "Many players and GMs prefer Paladins open to alignments other than Lawful Good. In such case this/these code(s) can be followed by Paladins of other alignments." The LG Paladin supporters can be happy that their version is the baseline, Paizo can figure out if they exist in Golarion or not, and CG supporters can be happy that the book acknowledges they exist and gives them a Code they can use as a baseline.

Then, down the road, if you want to have a more "This is really CHAOTIC!" CG Paladin, its just an archetype that has to use the CG Code.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MuddyVolcano wrote:
...this is, as an aside, why I'd love to see a CG good warrior class built from the ground up, with mobility, teleport, and so on to leap them across the battlefield. In that way, its mechanics from the ground up have the opportunity to explore multiple definitions. It also avoids the "carbon copy of the paladin, but different" than the antipaladin kinda was. The anti had some neat abilities, but always felt a little cheap bc of that association (even though other elements were awesome), and I don't want that, here.

Not saying that's bad to want, or not something interesting to shoot for, but I do actually like the idea that a Chaotic class wouldn't be pushed away from Heavy Armor and Tanking.

Monks are Lawful, but they are the 'No Armor, Moving Free' masters (when magic isn't overshadowing everything, so they get a good three levels of it). So I don't think it follows that Chaotic is to be more focused on the moving and slippity bippities. I'd be happy with the Paladin focus on protecting others not changing between Good alignments.

Teleporting light armor stick em up being an archetype for Paladin would be great though. And I wouldn't be torn up if Chaotic was light armor by default, I just prefer they be as capable of tanking in heavy armor as the Lawfuls.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

That is a reason I like Deadmanwalking consistently pointing out that the Lawful Paladin Code holds Good above Law. Chaotic equivalent is much easier when its interpreted as "Do Good in a Chaotic way." the same as Paladin is just "Do Good in a Lawful way."

Also, Deadmanwalking's Code will still produce endless arguments about whether a Chaotic Paladin imposed on someone's autonomy enough to fall. Combined with eternal arguments that a given character isn't being Chaotic enough to keep their alignment, the Chaotidin will fulfill the same purpose as the traditional Paladin: Endless arguments about whether a Player got screwed by their GM, or if the GM has been cursed with Players who don't understand the class at all.

I think that's what really matters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
A bunch of stuff

Yes, you've made your view that you believe in the alignment triangle quite clear.

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?

Following external codes as opposed to internal ones.

Regardless, take your alignment debate elsewhere, this isn't the place for it.

I am sorry for helping to clog your thread. It may be a good idea to start a different thread with the current two front-runner ideas for a Chaotic Good Paladin Code, and make a provision of the thread that its not a place to dictate whether they can exist. Just for people who think they can to discuss it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:
Chaotic good is, by no means, inept. But, there are distinctions for reasons, and I see a lot of "chaotic" get confused for "neutral", and vice versa. Lawful is a lot more clearly defined (because it really is easier to define).

I find that basically everything can be Neutral for some reason or another, unless it is utterly extreme.

Bodhizen wrote:
You say "will". I've repeatedly said "can".

Okay, my mistake. But Lawful "can" break their Codes, and do so, creating Fallen Paladins.

I can likely agree Lawful is less likely to break a Code on the principles of "I didn't write it, ain't my Code!" and that Lawful characters will accept what the Code says on the basis its the Code.

But I think when a Neutral or Chaotic character accepts a Code, it is not a flippant commitment. Less likely to accept a Code? I can certainly agree. But once its their Code, I think they follow through on it.

Easiest example: Gorum's followers being brave in battle. They're allowed to retreat from a battle they can't win, but to show outright cowardice in the face of the enemy is something I would say is vanishingly rare among Gorum's devoted.

Bodhizen wrote:

It isn't, but then again, you're not the arbiter of how much weight my arguments hold for a chaotic good code beyond your game table.

As I've repeatedly stated (in various forms), the chaotic good character will do good for goodness sake, but won't do good deeds because someone tells them that they have to. If they choose to do something that someone told them to do, "Rescue the princess, Mario!", it will be because they choose to do so, not because they're required by any sort of "anything at all that says that they must". This includes a "code".

I'm not that arbiter at all, no. But I can definitely take your argument, say "This doesn't line up with any of the basic descriptions of alignment in the game." and then follow with "Since this is incongruous with everything established about the alignment we're discussing, I don't think it can really have any logical application to using said alignment." Just without the aggressive connotations it had before.

They'll do good deeds because they told themselves to though. "I chose this Code, I believe in this Code. This Code is mine, and I'm not giving it up no matter how much the world wants to break me from it."

You can't force a Code onto a Chaotic Good character, that's absolutely true. But you can't force one out of them either.

Bodhizen wrote:
That's where we're at odds. Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Chaotic characters are more likely to believe in their own inner strength or judgment, or awesomeness, or rightness of purpose than any external factor (such as a god's rules) simply because they do what they want to do, when they want to do it. That's pretty much the nature of the chaotic part of alignment, and it's supported by the alignment definition of chaos that you were kind enough to provide earlier in the thread. It's not that chaotic characters cannot have strength of purpose, but they do so by their own personal ethos rather than by the rules of some god.

I believe "Chaotic characters will not follow a code, because a code is rules, and "rules are for f***sticks", so "damn your rules, 'cause I'm gonna do what I wanna do". Is a needlessly extreme interpretation of the alignment. I am going to respond with a needlessly extreme interpretation of Lawful to illustrate that I believe you're handicapping CG.

"I am Lawful, and so I follow the rules. If there are no rules, I do nothing, because without rules telling me what to do, how do I know if I'm allowed?"

Chaotic characters will follow the rules they agree with, and fight against the ones they don't. I agree Chaotic characters will believe in their own judgement, but I think that they can judge a Code to be right and proper, and then choose to follow said Code.

Bodhizen wrote:
These rules would work out pretty well for a neutral good character. The fact that these rules even exist would put a chaotic (anything) character into a tizzy of "I challenge your authority, and you can't make me follow your rules."

Outside the provision about following Laws, and your own belief that Codes are for Lawful characters, can you explain how the current Paladin Code is not just as well suited to a Neutral character? Because Neutral characters are the ones that basically get to do whatever they want without any real chance of someone arguing their alignment. So its really easy to say something fits them.

The fundamental divide I can determine is that I think Chaotic characters can't be forced into following rules, but they can absolutely decide to do it on their own. I think your view of Chaotic as an alignment is needlessly extreme.

And I also now realize that willuwontu wanted to stop continuing this debate. Should probably be a different thread made for arguing it.

Steelfiredragon wrote:
ho ho ho ho- with french accent

You're a poet Steelfiredragon, when we find the Singularity, we're going to send you in to describe it for us.

willuwontu wrote:

After giving this thread some time and coming back to it, I see the alignment debate is still ongoing.

Guys (and gals), can we please stop this alignment debate in this thread.

This thread was made to get ideas of what a code for a CG paladin would look like, not to debate the in's and outs of alignments, please take your discussion on L vs C elsewhere (I'm sorry for contributing to this earlier).

If you feel that C characters can't have a code, respectfully know that I disagree, then don't post and move on.

If you feel that you want to contribute to the threads topic, please help continue it.

Last I checked, this was the code last proposed

Bardess wrote:

All right, I tried to put in all your best suggestions. It’s becoming beautiful!

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it.

3) You should treat others with courtesy, dignity, and respect. Do not cheat, steal, or lie to others unless it is necessary to protect the life and freedom of innocents.

4) You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.

5) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and privation of liberty, unless this violates a higher tenet.

6) You must be a beacon of hope, show mercy, be compassionate and sow joy in this world. How these are done is less important than leaving the world a better place than it was during your lifetime.

7) The greater good and the lesser good are not mutually exclusive. You must strive to find a solution that benefits both the community and the individual. No single life has more weight or importance than any other, and a single individual has the same importance on the cosmic balance as the destiny of a world.

I rather like this edition of it, any ideas on additions or changes to it?

I'm thinking 4 and 5 could be combined into

-4) You must stand against tyranny, unjust impositions and deprivation of liberty. You must not violate another's free will, neither allow others to violate your own free will.-

I suppose they do cover a very similar ground. Though the hierarchy of tenets made violation of Free Will a more pressing issue than the Tyranny and Unjust Impositions. I kind of like that, it forces a Chaotidin to act in more direct and impulsive ways, when they can't sideline smaller injustices to affect wider scale change of tyranny. Not easily anyway.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I more or less stand by my proposed Code on the first page. Possibly with some better phrasing.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

My advised list would be something like this:

1) You must never willingly commit an evil act, such as murder, torture, or casting an evil spell.

2) You must not take actions that you know will harm an innocent, or through inaction cause an innocent to come to immediate harm when you knew your action could reasonably prevent it. This tenet doesn't force you to take action against possible harm to innocents or to sacrifice your life and future potential in an attempt to protect an innocent.

3) You must always defend the autonomy of innocents from those who would violate it. If one person is forcing an innocent to do anything against their will, you must attempt to stop this act, using words if possible and force if necessary.

4) You must personally respect the autonomy of others, never forcing them to engage in any particular course of behavior. You may advise and admonish, but never actually force them to do as you wish them to. Except as necessary to fulfill the higher tenets, of course (ie: jailing a criminal who harmed or violated the autonomy of innocents is acceptable in order to prevent such behavior).

Its definitely more concise, and covers the general bases effectively. I do like your last provision there. Being unable to push other people into things has some interesting potential.

Question: Would you be allowed to concoct a situation where they were otherwise forced into something? Petty thief, stole [Important Item] that you need. He hasn't really hurt anyone to get it, but he's refusing to say where he put it. Chaotidin can't Zone of Truth him, and since he's fairly harmless (We'll say that [Important Item] didn't seem like a big deal to Petty Thief.) the Chaotidin doesn't want to hand him over to be brutalized by the guards.

Can Chaotidin let someone else Zone of Truth Petty Thief? Can they concoct some other circumstance of scaring him into thinking that he'll be turned over to the guards or a thumb breaker of some sort?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:
what it seems here, and it may not be so, but itdoes look like alot of Lawful stupid and chaotic dumb going on....

A struggle against one's oppressors is never dumb! Vive la Resistance!

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Edit: If you want me to in-depth respond to any other part of your post then I'll do that without issue. But your tone is plenty insulting to me as well. And fair enough, I 'fired first' there. If this post comes across as snarky, then snark back so I don't get the last snark. But then I'll admit I started it and just let it go.

Bodhizen wrote:

In the greater context of the debate going on, I say I see Lawful Good Paladin supporters marginalizing Chaotic Good as inept or less 'Good'. And then I used your example for Caydenite Paladin, which was a gloriously shining example of what I was talking about, and I've outright said its the thing I take issue with.

Since you're saying that Caydenites, Sarenites, Shelynites, and etc that aren't Lawful Good will abandon any 'Code' when it suits them, I did take your example as a standard presentation of how you use alignment.

If you'd said "Okay, Caydenite example was a bad one, let me use a different one." then I'd have dropped the bone. And hey, I was aggressive so defending the point is a natural reaction. Fine. But since you seemed to want to defend it as a legitimate point, I continued with it.

If that example is your typical definition of Chaotic Good, then indeed, I don't think your words have a lot of weight for a Chaotic Good Code. If that's not your typical definition, throw out another one, and I'll not be aggressive or use bolded text. Or if you don't want to, I won't keep mentioning it.

--- --- ---

So I'll start fresh with my base position:

Chaotic characters will follow a Code if they believe in the Code. The same as Lawful characters. And the power of a Chaotidin would work exactly the same as a Paladin: their strength of belief in their Code gives them power.

If a Chaotic character stops following their Code, its because they stopped believing in it, and so they lose their power.

I see no reason this conflicts with the flavor of a Paladin, outside following Laws in the Code, so I am interested in the purpose of this thread, to think of a 'Chaotic' Code for them to follow.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:

Paladins follow the codes they do not because they're hard, but because they believe that living by that code is the right thing to do. They don't get rewarded for their obedience half so much as they get punished by failing to live up to that obedience. From an in-character perspective, they receive power for obedience (or loyalty, if you will), but from an out of character perspective, they automatically gain their powers and lose them due to disobedience. Paladins gain power because they're obedient, not because they give up their free will. Players voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the class abilities that paladins are granted. Paladins aren't in it for the power; they're in it for the faith. Players are in it for the power.

Having said that, when we go to the chaotic cleric, "God" doesn't expect as much from their clerics. Yes, PF2 introduces anathema to address some of that, but the fact of the matter is, God isn't expecting the cleric to go out there and bring the faith to the people by force. We're not expecting our Catholic priests (or priests of whatever religion) to be the holy warriors of old; we actually expect the opposite from them. I'm not saying that chaotic priests couldn't follow a code, just as I'm not saying that lawful priests couldn't break a code. They'd be completely unlikely to submit to a code in the first place because that's not in their nature. Ain't nobody gonna break-a my stride. Ain't nobody gonna hold me down, oh no, I gotta keep on movin'!

Again, going by posters saying that the Code is hard so they need a reward, that's why Paladins follow them.

Bodhizen wrote:
Actually, no it's not absurd. The neutral character explicitly gets to pick and choose when they want to follow the law (or a code) because it suits them, and when they don't want to, without violating their belief system. The chaotic character would actively avoid being put into a position where they have to follow someone else's rules because "f*** that". The lawful character is the guy who follows the speed limit because it's the law. The chaotic character is the guy who doesn't follow the speed limit because "f*** speed limits!" The neutral character is the guy who chooses to follow the speed limit when he feels like it, and when he's all alone on the road with little to no chance of getting caught, opens up the throttle. Can the lawful character speed? Sure, but not without violating his ethos. Can the chaotic character follow the speed limit? Sure, but he wouldn't just because the limit exists. He'd do it simply because he made the choice to do so, not because some damn sign said to do it.

Minor-ish things, yeah, I'll agree Neutral or Chaotic are more likely to break them. Not because they can, but because they think that have to or should.

But a Code, something core to a character's sense of identity? No, they wouldn't break that flippantly. They can corrupt their Codes, like the Cult of the Dawnflower corrupted Sarenrae's mercy and redemption. But that isn't saying "Lol, screw the Code, I do what I want!", its specifically altering/corrupting it to fit a new purpose. A purpose they still hew to strongly.

Bodhizen wrote:
I can see that this line of logic is upsetting to you, but it doesn't put lawful up on a pedestal. Lawful is hard. Following the rules all the time is hard. You don't get to break the rules every now and then and still be counted as having followed the rules 100% of the time (which is the expectation that the paladin is held to). In this context, you get some special toys for following the expectation, and if you break the rules, those toys get taken away from you (at least until God decides that you've learned your lesson).

No it isn't. I play Paladins, and I play Lawful characters who follow even stricter Codes without any rewards. I do that because its fun, really fun. Characters with that sense of discipline and steadfast willpower are wonderful. And by playing Lawful I get the support of the community, I am more trusted, people feel they can rely on my characters, I am an upstanding citizen. And the duels! I love duels, and Lawful characters get to have that honorable one-on-one combat so much easier.

Chaotic is hard, at least for me. Less structure, less support. Always on the move, no foundation. Playing some wanderer leaves less of an identity for who you are, what you're really willing to stand for. I honestly flounder with Chaotic when I try to play the way you suggest they act.

But anyway, you're absolutely putting Lawful on a pedestal if you say Chaotic Good can leave people to die so they can get drunk. Because then Chaotic Good is for worthless lay-abouts who care for nothing but themselves, and Lawful Good is for the ones willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all.

Sacrifice for others was supposed to be a Good aligned trait, not Lawful Good. Trying to squirrel it away from the other alignments is just cobbling together a fine pedestal for Lawful Good.

Bodhizen wrote:

No, it's not that people want Lawful Good to be the "best good" or "true good". It's that chaotic good does good because they want to, not because they're expected to, or because someone tells them that they must. They wouldn't want to follow a Chaotic Code (again, chaos in this context and code are incompatible) because they don't want anyone telling them what to do.

So, that follower of Cayden Cailean would be unlikely to abandon the villagers, but (to use similar emphasis to yours) they could if they want to and it wouldn't violate their alignment one iota, unlike the paladin followers of Sarenrae who, by abandoning the villagers, would explicitly violate their alignment and Sarenrae's code.

What's actually insulting and what's actually absurd is that you made a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't in my games, that you seem to want to strawman and paint other posters with the "no true Scotsman" brush, and then there's your use of BIG BOLD TEXT in the context of a civil conversation (even with a difference of opinion), not the fact that we have different views. If that's too "insulting" for you, then you're welcome to see your way out. If you'd like to calm down and have a civil discussion, I'm happy to oblige.

Whether its what they want or not, its what they are presenting. Saying that its Chaotic Good to leave innocent people to die because you want a drink creates a system where-in it is a lesser 'Good' than Lawful Good. And frankly not even on the scale of Good alignment at all by any reasonable measure.

Abandoning people to die so you can get drunk is not Chaotic Good. You can't save them? Okay, then you retreat. You're afraid? Weird for a follower of Cayden, but okay, fear overrides your morals. But you just want to get plastered more than you care about their lives That is not Good aligned. Its not a strawman on my part to say there's no Chaotic Good in your games, if you can say "You can abandon the innocent to die because you were thirsty, don't worry about your alignment."

And I want to know, truly, how I'm using 'No True Scotsman' anymore than you or anyone else in this thread is. You say Chaotics can't follow a Code, you say Chaotics can't do this, can't do that. I'm saying that if you think that letting innocent people die so you can get a drink is Chaotic Good, then you don't know what Chaotic Good is.

I mean seriously, the Cayden bit is the only real contention I have with you, because its what shows how this view of alignment leads to "Lawful Good = Best Good" whether its intended or not. So here's the definition of Good I'm picking from the Core Book:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

So that's straight from the Core Book there, nothing in Chaotic Good opposes that. With your view that a follower of Cayden can abandon the innocent to get drunk we can scratch off altruism.

Protect innocent life? Hahaha! Oh man, that's a good one.

Concern for dignity of sentient beings. The example given doesn't address that, so moving on.

Make sacrifices to help others. In your version they won't even sacrifice a beer, so we can scratch that off.

No respect for life if its not worth more than a beer, so lets check the totals.

We're left with Caydenites maybe having one out of five aspects attributed to the "Good" alignment. And that's a shaky maybe.

You may be insulted that I said it, and my bold text may be over the line, but going by the Core description of alignment, your idea of Chaotic Good is not 'Good' at all. And I stand by my assertion: You don't have Chaotic Good in your game if they can abandon the innocent to get drunk without it changing their alignment. And that's a fine thing if that's how you play the game, honestly it is! I'll straight up apologize about my bold text and say it was an overreaction. But your view of Chaotic 'Good' is at odds with the alignments as portrayed in the Core book, so I find them drastically less relevant in discussions about a Chaotic Good Paladin Code.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:

A CG Paladin would fight all the things a LG Paladin would fight.

The concept is just as broad.

I have to imagine that's why there's such a push to open the class alignment. If it were more like a straightforward "Knight" that was a Fighter, but different, unlikely people would care. Be like the Barbarian, some interest in removing the alignment constraint, but overall people just going "Yeah, whatever, its not that big a deal."

Like the Monk I guess. Not often to have drag out fights about lifting the Lawful part, though I do see those arguments made. And personally agree with them.

Paladin though, having the 'Champion Against EVIL!" slot, really draws that "I want to do that my way!" sentiment like a lightning rod. And resentment that their Good isn't Good enough to have those powers. Dispute about why Lawful Good does the thing and others don't aside, and the eventual Warpriest sort of doing what people wanted. Paladin is such a cool class and idea, all kinds of cool places it can go. I understand why so many want in, just without being told their way is wrong.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MuddyVolcano wrote:

I'm going to try and spread this out a little bit. Man, I hear you. ...have you considered though, the impact of this on others?

I mean, deliberately or not, rereading others' thoughts and words into this interpretation of them can feel like it pushes them into a stereotype. I understand that isn't intentional but--

--it can come across as pretty belittling. Again, I know it isn't intentional.

I'm more saying that their ideals about alignment, put into practice, have an end result that I consider distasteful. That being Lawful Good on top, Chaotic Good sometime nonexistent. There is a lack of respect for Chaotic Good, a blanket acceptance that it doesn't get as much and that's fine, and sorry to say but it cheeses me off dude.

MuddyVolcano wrote:
It's more than that, though, because that act can have a greater effect on cooperation, which I'm concerned about.

When it comes to Non-Lawful Paladins, there is little to be had in the way of cooperation. Has been made abundantly clear by many posters, compromise is not acceptable. And fair enough, they feel what they feel, but I don't have to just accept it.

MuddyVolcano wrote:
Why? Well, it risks ignoring the work and enthusiastic support others have given to a Chaos Knight/Warrior/Incinerator. It risks putting down anyone who's said they're willing to wait, just so that others could be happy. It risks putting down anyone who'd express story and tradition concerns, and rewrites--

And yet not bringing it up risks those ideas becoming/remaining the standard. With Chaotic Good being the realm of people that throw their morals away on a whim, and Paladins the shining example of Good.

Chaos Knight is a super cool idea, but it doesn't embody the Good alignment, which is the issue at hand here.

MuddyVolcano wrote:

--rewrites those into "you're just being arrogant." ...and again, I know you don't mean to do that. It's just that it can come across as belittling efforts and that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what you're trying to do.

Whew. Anyhow, I respect the ideas and thought you put into things, man. Just, this concerns me and I wanted to bring it up--because I think the different perspectives and ideas are important to have.

I read a serious lack of respect for Chaotic Good, and its just infuriating. I can get behind your sentiment here, and you may be right in the end. But when there's a suggestion that a follower of Cayden Cailean would get drunk instead of save innocent lives, that means something. That's the end result I'm talking about, where 'Chaotic Good' becomes an oxymoron and the alignment means nothing anymore.

Call me out whenever you feel a need to, because I honestly appreciate someone telling me to slow down and consider what I'm suggesting. I still think that my point is valid, that Chaotic Good is being marginalized and Lawful Good is shown favoritism, but I accept your points and think you could be right. Thank you for taking the time to make your thoughts heard, its good to have posters with sympathy to both sides.

MuddyVolcano wrote:
Xerres wrote:

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with.

Then let's make sure they get more than scraps.

I've started to wonder if a Pirate/Swashbuckling Sky Warrior might not be more excellent and fun in some ways. Once the rules come out, we'll be free to propose whichever chassis we want.

I'm writing this after a grueling day at the hospital getting scans, because I believe that fun is awesome. :)

I had a bit of a tangent about romanticizing Pirates, but its not really needed. Safe to say: Pirates were nothing close to Good by any definition, but Swashbuckling Sky Warrior sounds utterly delightful.

And believe me, if there was any ball rolling for such a prospect I'd be on it. I don't have hope in seeing anything like it, but I'd be tickled pink to be wrong.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

As someone who prefers LG Paladins, I can understand the feeling that some or all of us consider Lawful Good the Best Good in some way.

The set of ideals I associate with the paladin align solely with a LG alignment. Putting "any good" on the class would cheapen it in my view. I can understand that others view things differently.

A LG paladin doesn't mean that CG can't have nice things. I'd like to see a distinct CG champion class that is focused around different ideals than the paladin and that has similar, but distinct powers to reflect that difference.

I prefer Lawful Good myself, and love my LG Paladins, which is why I get worked up by (As I see it) Lawful Good being held above the other Good alignments. Lawful Good to me is about fairness, and that's not fair, so off I go losing my mind.

I'd be happier with Lawful Good only Paladins, and a unique class for Chaotic Good. But not only do I believe a unique class for Chaotic Good has the same chance of showing up as a snowflake in Arizona, I also worry that because of how broad the Paladin is then the Chaotic Good class will get cheapened.

The most common focus for a Chaotic Good class I've seen says they go after tyrants and slavers. Meanwhile the Paladin is opposing ALL EVIL, which conveniently includes tyrants and slavers more often than not. Paladin just has such a broad base, and a hold on several aspects fundamental to the Good alignment. Opposition to Evil, protection of the innocent, healing the sick, empowering others.

With Paladin having all that, a Chaotic Good class getting some left over scraps would be an insult. Even assuming they ever got anything to begin with. With the Paladin so much more focused on Good than on Law, it seems like a far more likely solution to open it to "Any Good".

Its not perfect, but I think its far more fair. And that really matters to me.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Furthermore, I will ask you to politely stop this "Best Good" stuff. I have never said that, in fact NOBODY on the LG side has said that. You are saying that we have been making an argument that none of us have made. It isn't very honest to do such a thing.

I will first say that I understand it is stressful to be the focal point on which arguments are made against, as you are the most vocal advocate of your side on this debate. And I'm not trying to add to any stress you're feeling about defending your point against multiple posts at a time.

But I will continue to contend that "Best" Good, even if not directly stated, is a fair interpretation of what your, and many other's, view on alignment creates.

From all arguments and posts I've seen, the set up Pro-Lawful Good Paladin Players have puts Lawful Good and Paladins on the top of the "Good" scale. And sometimes Chaotic doesn't make the scale at all.

I am not claiming that you're stating Lawful Good is Best Good. I don't think any "Pro Lawful Good" poster has said it. But I absolutely will continue to contend that in practice, that's what the views suggest by said posters amounts to. Intentional or not, I see Chaotic getting the short end of the stick in favor of the posters favored alignment.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Nobody is saying that the NG and CG would abandon innocents.
Bodhizen wrote:
Here's where the chaotic-good paladin fails, though... The chaotic-good paladin of Cayden Cailean, when confronted with Cayden Cailean's cardinal rule of "do good deeds" (if that's his cardinal rule) might say, "Y'know what? Screw that! Imma get (more) drunk. Those villagers can save themselves."

--- --- ---

Your example is about orders, not a Code. About fitting into an overall organization, not a guiding set of principles your follow.

So yes, I agree that Chaotic characters do have difficulty fitting into an overall structured organization. And are going to be prone to creative interpretations at the best of times. Their ideal scenarios would be along the lines of Hannibal at Cannae, using creative and unexpected tactics to surprise a staid enemy. Their worst scenarios would be like Rommel in North Africa, wasting resources on pointless campaigns because they're too full of themselves to listen when their superiors tell them they're too incompetent for the Eastern Front and are being put in a back theater to be out of the way.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

It's VERY convenient that the best favored alignement has positive outcomes for good and bad, but neither of the other examples does.

How far into the Atlantic are the goalposts by now?


Historically, General Patton had this option during the Battle of the Bulge, and relieved the defenders of Bastogne.

Arguably, it was a Chaotic Good 'because they are our guys and we need to bail them out' sort of move... but that was a positive outcome!

Wait... what?

A Chaotic maneuver having a positive outcome? Stop the presses!

hahaha! I swear I mentioned Rommel before I saw this post! Honest I did!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

\\that is so true Xerres.

NG and CG would not abandon the innocent.
a cg paladin of cayden cailean would get drunk afterwards.

Preach! We need Chaotic Good Champion so they can defeat Evil and then throw rocking parties.

And I'll just throw out my stance on Chaotidins following Codes again:

Chaotic characters follow what they believe in. If they believe in the Code they'll follow it, and if they don't believe in it they won't follow it.

Lawful characters are the same, they'll follow a Code until they don't.

And that's it.

johnlocke90 wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I feel some people don't understand the lawful/neutral/chaotic alignments.

So, to that end, I'm bringing in the definition of lawful, chaotic, and neutral as it was intended:


"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

But lawful characters can be flexible, adaptable and support freedom. They can even ignore authority if they view it as illegitimate. I And chaotic characters can have honor and trustworthiness.

Exactly, because alignment is worthless as a straight jacket or a box to keep other players playing the 'Right' way. They're useful as guidelines, I find, and I frankly like the spells and mechanics that use them. But when its just "This is your Box. Stay inside this box." then there's no value to it all anymore.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The utter lack of respect for Chaotic Good as an alignment is staggering to me. And absolutely why I think it needs to get representation in the Paladin or otherwise, as a Champion of Good, a Champion against Evil, for the innocent, for the helpless.

Not a Champion of "Screw them, I got mine." like I so often see suggested.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:
So... Sure, chaotic clerics are still going to have anathema, because anathema are more linked to the idea of, "If you do this, you piss God off" more so than "you're a goody-two-shoes all the time" or "you do what you feel like". Anathema are more about what you have to do in exchange for your power because God will take it away if you don't follow his/her commandments, even if those commandments are whimsical by nature. "Don't step in a turd on the third Tuesday of the month when the purple moon is in its waxing phase" might be oddly specific, and never happen... Except when it does, and that whimsical god might just say, "Whoa, buddy... You broke the one rule I had. Get ready for a whoopin'!" Might seem like something very "lawful" because of its specificity, but really just be that, "Even God didn't expect that to happen. Imagine that. He might just laugh it off... But he's probably going to kick your kiester."

Going by the many arguments of "Codes are hard, they must be rewarded." then the trading obedience for power is why Paladins follow their Codes in the first place.

Unlike noble Samurai, who follow their Codes of service without expectation of gain, Paladins are only in it for the power. Shiftless thieves, the lot of them, they'd steal a baby's lollipop if it gave them another use of Smite Evil.

And less jokey, Paladins still only follow the Code because something happens when they do. Or, if we accept that Chaotic Cleric submit themselves to the will of their Gods out of belief and devotion, accepting the 'rule' or 'guidance' of a higher power... then saying they can't follow a Code they believe in is absurd.

Bodhizen wrote:
The neutral character would violate their "code" whenever it suits them.

No they wouldn't what are you even talking about? I am sorry, but this is absurd. A follower of Sarenrae does not turn away others seeking redemption on a whim, or whenever it suits them! A follower of Shelyn doesn't stand in the way of love when they can make a few bucks!

I apologize in advance for being rude, but this line of logic is upsetting to me, because its putting Lawful on a pedestal, and using alignment as an instrument to bludgeon other characters into their boxes. "You have [Blah] Alignment. You can't follow a Code. If you choose the same breakfast two days in a row you're Lawful."

A Paladin can break their Code whenever they feel like, its how you get Fallen Paladins. They can decide the wind blew against their cheek too hard, and now the Code is out the window. There is nothing that stops them from breaking it, or a Chaotic character from keeping it. If we followed this extreme interpretation of what's Lawful and what's Chaotic then Chaotic Good wouldn't exist because not murdering the innocent is far too stable a position for a Chaotic character to have.

Bodhizen wrote:
Here's where the chaotic-good paladin fails, though... The chaotic-good paladin of Cayden Cailean, when confronted with Cayden Cailean's cardinal rule of "do good deeds" (if that's his cardinal rule) might say, "Y'know what? Screw that! Imma get (more) drunk. Those villagers can save themselves."


This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say people just want Lawful Good to be Best Good, or True Good. A Chaotic Good character, especially a Chaotic Good follower OF THE GOD OF BRAVERY AND HEROISM! Does not abandon the innocent TO GET DRUNK!

I am very sorry, but this is the most absurd argument against Chaotic Codes I have ever seen. This is insulting a personal level to anyone who follows the Chaotic Good ideals. If Chaotic Good doesn't exist in your personal games then that is fine, but that is not the default of Pathfinder.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I don't really want Wuxia in the game.

It wasn't in PF1, a 3pp that adds it isn't really it being in PF1, it is just a 3pp that has it.

The lore of Golarion is more down to earth. There are some extreme powers, but they are straight Ki, and even then they don't go into the Dragonball Z levels.

And yet it is something many other people would be excited to see. Hence why I suggest compromises, so that it can be included or excluded based on what an individual group wants.

You can get hung up on the fact I mentioned Path of War if you want, but Path of War was a response to people wanting Wuxia in Pathfinder. Something they had in 3.5, albeit toward the end.

My compromise is that the 'Mundane' Fighter guys get what they want first. And then I get options to put some Wuxia in his shoes. Options that you can ignore at your leisure.

But I'll definitely push to have the Monk start Wuxia, so that there's a basis for it and better chance of it being a supported idea.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
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.

You fiend! Did you not read the title of the thread? How dare you bring this positivity into a Paladin thread!

Begone with you!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Jester David wrote:


It’s easier to grant permission than take it away.
A sidebar where the GM is encouraged to allow non-LG paladins is fine, but I like making the baseline tied to an alignment.

Fighters are like Batman. They’re defined by their lack of superhuman abilities. Aka magic. If the fighter starts being able to do fantastic things, it’s like Batman having the ability to read minds or fly. It defeats the whole purpose. They lose what makes them special.

A magical fighter is cool. That’s a magus or eldritch knight. But that’s not the baseline. Wuxia is cool, but sometimes you want to play Lord of the Rings, Willow, or Robin Hood.

I'd be happier if the baseline fighter was more scalable things like i pointed out, with archetypes for the jump over a mountain/throw wind slashes etc.

Edit: the logic behind that is that, much like archetypes for divine champions, its easier to add supernatural things with an archetype, than it is for someone wanting grittier realism to sift through all the options and narrow them down.

Xerres wrote:

I know that people want Fighters at least to remain more 'Normal', which is why the compromise I suggest there is just that if a Fighter or any other given 'Normal' class starts to do the mythic feats of legend, they're use Ki or Rage Juice. They're using something Supernatural to accomplish their goals.

Also that its explicitly done through feats/archetypes, so that its a deviation from standard Fighter path. Creating Demiplanes is out of the picture, but punching the ground to make shockwaves and throwing out kamehameha waves is at least really freaking cool. And that satisfies many people like myself who want that nonsense.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I do hope I'm on the same page and just not being clear about it.

Fighter is normal Fighter, the 'mundane' class who is the Lord of the Rings bound sort. That's the standard Fighter that is presented.

Lots of people, including myself, want the Fighter to do more outrageous stuff. Truly, truly, truly outrageous. My suggestion is that it be made available in feats and/or archetypes.

Problem with that? The peeps that like their Fighters non-magical want to know how those Fighters are doing that. My solution is to say the feats/archetypes explicitly say "Fighter is using Ki like a Monk dude, they have supernatural power because of this feat/archetype."

The "I'm just a normal guy!" Fighter is still there. He's the standard, he's the one you have by default, and hopefully that default is the really cool technique driven warrior Ryan suggests. He only gets supernatural if you get feats to use Ki Power/Rage Juice. That is the "Compromise" I see between the 'Mundane" Fighter camp, and the "Jem" Fighter camp. Fighter is "Mundane" to start, but later people can make it outrageous and justify the flavor by saying its Monk/Barbarian training/power.

I guess the way I'd sort it is the say that Core Monk gets the crazy "Anime/Wuxia", and Core Fighter gets "Mundane But Please Oh Please At Least Be Cool This Time..." And then in the equivalent of Advanced Player's Guide gives feats and such to let the Fighter in on that Wuxia jam. And for the Monk to lose the Wuxia and just be a guy who trains to punch things I guess, like a Brawler.

I mean, I could still be screwed and there's nothing close to Wuxia in the game at all. In which case I'm just boned and have to remain in PF1 Town with Path of War, which is unfortunate for me. But if the Wuxia is there, that seems like a fair way to handle it.

willuwontu wrote:

A paladin feat that lets them attack an enemy using manacles or rope to bind them up and take them prisoner.

A feat to let their smite attacks deal (small) damage in an area, around the smited foe they attack.

Those both sound cool beans.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>