Unearthed Arcana has chaotic evil and lawful evil paladins.
They should at least be able to be lawful neutral, to account for those paladins who do go ahead and off the orc babies because of the trouble they probably will cause when they grow up.
A paladin is lawful good.
A holy champion would be the alignment of his or her god and would be a cleric. You could call this holy champion a "Justicar" or a "Blackgaurd" or a "Avengelion", or a whole host of other names... but a Paladin is lawful good. These are the Knights in Shining Armor of lore, sworn to uphold all that is good and wholesome along with the laws of the land.
A paladin might worship a god, but that is not where his powers come from. The paladin's powers are a result of his unwavering faith and support of both Law and Good indeed not just the seperate concepts of both but the combined concept of Lawful Goodness. They are not just part of each of these seperately but the combined power of both supporting each other. Nothing else has that level of trust and support in its composite parts to achieve the level of power that Lawful Goodness can. Chaos by definition cannot be completely trusted, and anything less that complete good cannot be relied upon to support you even at great cost to itself.
He doesn't rebuke undead by the wrath of a deity but by the simple fact that undead defy the laws of death and do so in an unwholesome matter that the very concepts that he embodies actively repeals the undead. He doesn't heal wounds through faith but through virtue of the fact that the wounds are unlawful in nature (that they are not the perfect form the creature is supposed to have) and evil in that they cause pain and suffering (the virtue is found in not caving into suffering... endurance of suffering, suffering itself is not good). The paladin looks for the correct perfection in himself that he strives to embody and through his link with that perfection can form others (in small ways) platonic forms of themselves.
Most of these ideas do not readily fit into the modern world anymore. People no longer believe there is such a thing as absolute good, or absolute perfection, and in many cases believe that the mere belief in such things is almost a hypocrisy of the person that strives for them. Imperfection is expected and encouraged which results in people not striving for more. The paladin rejects these notions, and while understanding that they can (and will) still fail, that doesn't excuse them from still trying as hard as possible to meet the perfection they seek. The easiest way to get a paladin to fall is to turn his attention from the persuit of perfection towards the workings of good and law individually, for when he sets them against themselves in such a way he has divided his house, and it is sure to fall.
/ rant over sorry.
|
Am I alone on this one?
Evidently not, since 4E accepts paladins of all alignments.
Why do good guys get Paladins and bad guys just get evil clerics and fighters (or multiclass there-of for an "evil pally" feel).
Because that is the heritage of your game. The works of fantasy and fiction which inspired the authors was such that the holy fighter was a man of a righteous god. The anti-hero archtype was only just beginning to come onto the scene and gain popularity. In the thirty years since, concepts of western fantasy have changed dramatically, which has been largely addressed with the setting changes in 4th Edition. The paladin you have left over in 3.0/3.5 still has its basis in the 1970s and earlier.
If you want to be an evil paladin just work it out with your DM. Me, I think there is enough "bad boy" representation in the game as is. It would be nice to have just one "good guy" left.
They should at least be able to be lawful neutral, to account for those paladins who do go ahead and off the orc babies because of the trouble they probably will cause when they grow up.
Only a crap DM is going to put a paladin in such a situation because they think they need to make a point (and I've played with all too many of those). Good DMs that know the game and know their players can introduce much better "on the knife's edge" moral choices that stimulate the player and the game to new levels.
Personally, I have always hated the fact that Paladins are restricted to Lawful Good. I have found it strange that only gods of the Lawful Good alignment can have such faithful servants.
IMHO, I like it that "paladins" are only LG. Brings back the days of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table for me.
That said, if you can get your hands on a copy of Green Ronin's "The Book of Righteousness" it covers Holy Warriors, ie. "paladins", of all alignments. This is generally the only book besides core that I allow.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Edit: Here is a link to the GR store and if you look at the bottom of the page it appears to be on sale for $5.00. I am going to order mine now as a backup for the hardcover book that I have.
http://www.greenronin.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001& amp;Product_Code=grr1015e&Category_Code=
|
|
However, I must also admit that I disagree. I see Paladins in a different light. To me ... Paladins are the holy champions of the gods.
This is a correct statement.
(and my understanding of the game) Paladins are the holy champions of the gods.
Your understanding is incorrect. While it may be your personal interpretation, it is NOT the premise of the game rules (pg 42, PHB 3.5, first paragraph under PALADIN.)
I still say all you have to do, however, is houserule it and move on.
From a personal standpoint, I don't understand why an evil character would devote themselves to a holy ideal. I could imagine an evil character brokering deals, making power plays, etc., but whole devotion? Why? You can't multiclass without losing the ability to gain any more paladin levels, and there are much more powerful classes and combinations to play. But hey, if you want them, make them.
Lawful Good has never sat well with me for someone who commits mass murder in the name of their god.
I've always felt paladins should be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, but rarely if ever lawful good.
In my mind, the modern paladin is the suicide bomber / terrorist. To the infidels, they are the epitome of evil incarnate. To themselves and their fellow fanatics, they champions of a holy cause upholding the good of devotion to their god at any cost. Divine martyrs.
I've never been able to sit down to a paladin in past versions of DnD as I just couldn't logic how they could be good. I'd see the class description, and I'd think of the inquisition. My character should be dragging peasants out of their homes and burning them for withcraft, going on crusades, and creating pyres from the bodies of orcs of all sizes, ages, colors, and creeds because, to a champion of the god of law, they are vile creations.
The paladin is the jack-booted thug of fantasy. The SS storm trooper.
To me its about the ultimate villain: the one who has the powers-that-be on their side. You believe you're a hero, but you're really a fanatic.
Even in the most generous interpretation, most beneficial to trying to see them as good, they are still missionaries who convert by the sword. Something very much evil.
At least, that's where I saw them, and have, as far back as when I first read the description in 1981. It didn't make sense as lawful good to me then, and it still doesn't. Playing a DnD paladins the way I envision one, the way I play my paladins in WoW, is probably the only thing I look forward to about 4E DnD... :)
|
|
In the end, yes, it basically comes down to what each DM sees for their game and how they want to run it. If it comes to it, I will simply "houserule it and move on." I simply wished to get feedback from the gaming community.
Thanks to all for the feedback.
I'll see if I can find some links as we had some heavy discussion on this during the earlier parts of playtesting. You might enjoy them.
Lawful Good has never sat well with me for someone who commits mass murder in the name of their god.
I've always felt paladins should be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil, but rarely if ever lawful good.
In my mind, the modern paladin is the suicide bomber / terrorist. To the infidels, they are the epitome of evil incarnate. To themselves and their fellow fanatics, they champions of a holy cause upholding the good of devotion to their god at any cost. Divine martyrs.
I've never been able to sit down to a paladin in past versions of DnD as I just couldn't logic how they could be good. I'd see the class description, and I'd think of the inquisition. My character should be dragging peasants out of their homes and burning them for withcraft, going on crusades, and creating pyres from the bodies of orcs of all sizes, ages, colors, and creeds because, to a champion of the god of law, they are vile creations.
The paladin is the jack-booted thug of fantasy. The SS storm trooper.
To me its about the ultimate villain: the one who has the powers-that-be on their side. You believe you're a hero, but you're really a fanatic.
Even in the most generous interpretation, most beneficial to trying to see them as good, they are still missionaries who convert by the sword. Something very much evil.
At least, that's where I saw them, and have, as far back as when I first read the description in 1981. It didn't make sense as lawful good to me then, and it still doesn't. Playing a DnD paladins the way I envision one, the way I play my paladins in WoW, is probably the only thing I look forward to about 4E DnD... :)
See that's not what a palaidn is supposed to be though. Yes they can fight but that isn't supposed to be the very first response that comes into their head. The "general Jerk that kills everyone" doesn't meet the requirements of being lawful good.
And while a paladin would be perfectly fine with sacrificing his life to save others (not to kill others) he wouldn't allow doing so to take out other innocent lives.
What you discribe here isn't a paladin, at all, the closest it comes is a blackguard.
It's this fundemental inability to accept someone could have nothing other than the want to raise others up and strive for perfection himself that causes people problems with paladins.
Sure if you edit them completely out of context, or grab one that's just about to fall this might be what you see, but that isn't supposed to be the exemplar of what a paladin is.
See that's not what a palaidn is supposed to be though. Yes they can fight but that isn't supposed to be the very first response that comes into their head. The "general Jerk that kills everyone" doesn't meet the requirements of being lawful good.Lawful Good has never sat well with me for someone who commits mass murder in the name of their god.
The paladin is the jack-booted thug of fantasy. The SS storm trooper.
To me its about the ultimate villain: the one who has the powers-that-be on their side. You believe you're a hero, but you're really a fanatic.
Even in the most generous interpretation, most beneficial to trying to see them as good, they are still missionaries who convert by the sword. Something very much evil.
Where that the case, it wouldn't be a platewearing sword and board knight based off of a crusader / inquisitor. It'd be a burlap sack wearing wandering preacher - based off of the mendicant saint model.
It's this fundemental inability to accept someone could have nothing other than the want to raise others up and strive for perfection himself that causes people problems with paladins.
I can perfectly accept that archetype. But it isn't a holy warrior. Not in my mind.
Those who convert by the sword convert for evil. No exceptions. You're evil whether you fight for my cause, or against it - if you kill in the name of a god.
The paladin's fundamental source archetype is flawed. If you wanted the holy beacon, the champion of good, you'd be looking for a different source archetype - once again, the mendicant saint.
You want Saint Christopher or John the Baptist, not Joan of Arc or Richard the Lionheart.
The problem with restricting the alignment of paladins to lawful good is that it doesn't allow for a notion of good that fits with a modern morality. 70s fantasy authors were still enamored with the idea of race and faith warfare as holy causes...
The paladin is more easy to justify under any moral system as a beacon of lawfulness. They champion order, or the establishment, or their cause. But they are armed champions, killers of unbelievers and undevoted, not mendicant preachers - they are not good.
Hmmm ... while traditionally the paladin has only been Lawful Good, in Golarian I do believe there's a bit more leeway. In Crimson Throne they mention the Paladins of Abadar, a decidedly lawful neutral diety. Now while the paladins of the order may all be LG, I don't think they're going to be as extreme as some that might be devoted to other gods.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
Lawful Good has never sat well with me for someone who commits mass murder in the name of their god.
This is a very poor interpretation of what the character class was supposed to be.
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of the paladin." - 1st Ed PHB, pg 22.
"The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world." - 2nd Ed PHB (1995), pg 38.
"The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil ... the paladin is the final hope that cannot be extinguished." - 3.5 PHB (3.5) pg 42.
Funny ... I don't see a single reference to jack boots at all.
The inability to play good without being stupid or cruel or meglomaniac is not a fault of the class or the alignment system, but of the players' and DMs' inability to interpret what good is. These poor players and poor DMs have translated the concept of ultimate good into an unthinking, compassion-less monster riding around the countryside, forcing the populace to their unbending will and killing anything that disagreed with them.
However, the paladin was intended to be the "Gandalf" standing on the bridge, confronting the balrog and shouting "Thou shall not pass!" while the rest of the party ran to safety. To be a paladin was to embrace a life of service, that your entire existence was devoted to the safety and well-being of those around you, and the powers and abilities you were given were supposed to help to meet those ideals. Perhaps this is what led Gygax into making the basic requirements for this class so difficult to attain - to be a paladin was supposed to be special, a rare privilege that came around only once in a rare while.
It's a shame we can't embrace that concept any more.
The problem with restricting the alignment of paladins to lawful good is that it doesn't allow for a notion of good that fits with a modern morality.
Which is why 4E breaks with the old alignment system and the alignment-restricted paladin.
Lawful Good has never sat well with me for someone who commits mass murder in the name of their god.
Then don't have paladins who commit mass murder.
Problem solved! :-)
If you are looking for inspiration or examples of Paladins, I wouldn't look at Arthur's Knights, and I certainly wouldn't look at the Crusades or the Inquisition.
Of the Knights of the Round Table, *maybe* 3 were Paladins, and one fell and lost his powers. Lancelot, Galahad (who achieved perfection in this life and was called back to God), and Percival, who found the Grail. Lancelot fell from grace when he betrayed his best friend and committed adultry with Guenivere.
Instead, I would look at "The Deed of Paksenarion" for an amazing description of Paladins, and how one in particular came into her power. Or another example is Michael, Knight of the Cross, in Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files."
I always sort of felt that Paladin should be a prestige class, that people had to earn.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
"Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of the paladin." - 1st Ed PHB, pg 22."The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world." - 2nd Ed PHB (1995), pg 38.
"The compassion to pursue good, the will to uphold law, and the power to defeat evil ... the paladin is the final hope that cannot be extinguished." - 3.5 PHB, pg 42.
... the paladin was intended to be the "Gandalf" standing on the bridge, confronting the balrog and shouting "Thou shall not pass!" while the rest of the party ran to safety. To be a paladin was to embrace a life of service, that your entire existence was devoted to the safety and well-being of those around you, and the powers and abilities you were given were supposed to help to meet those ideals. Perhaps this is what led Gygax into making the basic requirements for this class so difficult to attain - to be a paladin was supposed to be special, a rare privilege that came around only once in a rare while.
It's a shame we can't embrace that concept any more.
Well put sir, well put. I do miss Ye Olde Requirements of yesteryear, as it put the realization that one was facing down a Paladin or Monk meant that you were in deep trouble.
One of the 'tragedies' that came about as a result of 3e in my experience was the sudden deluge of character classes that before 3e required some actual commitment from a player. Do you cash in that sweet ability score set to play a paladin, or roll out a butt-kickin' 'regular fighter' (or whatever)? Hrmm ... tough call to make, as a paladin's specific requirements were often not to one's advantage as a player, even if 'just' playing through published adventures of the time in 1e and 2e.
Now in 3e and 4e, any one can (theoretically) play paladins, rangers and other previously hard to qualify-for character classes. In and of itself this is not a bad thing - but it seems to have cheapened the mystique of the Paladin a bit, for me, in some intangible and difficult-to-express fashion.
|
(and my understanding of the game) Paladins are the holy champions of the gods.Your understanding is incorrect. While it may be your personal interpretation, it is NOT the premise of the game rules (pg 42, PHB 3.5, first paragraph under PALADIN.)
Not in PFRPG. The description of the Paladin and his powers explicitely states that they come from his god.
It's this fundemental inability to accept someone could have nothing other than the want to raise others up and strive for perfection himself that causes people problems with paladins
Or maybe it is seeing lots of people playing paladins or jedis or whatever just for the powers and the social status : the awe factor. And then behaving as thugs while explaining it away as their particular brand of Lawful Good.
No need to blame modern western culture. Just blame human nature ;-)
Even in the most generous interpretation, most beneficial to trying to see them as good, they are still missionaries who convert by the sword. Something very much evil.
Those who convert by the sword convert for evil. No exceptions. You're evil whether you fight for my cause, or against it - if you kill in the name of a god.
I believe that this is where you are mistaken. I have seen no one else on this thread and no one in my gameplays who advocated that a paladin should forcefully convert people.
I see paladins as defenders of truth, justice, piety (and maybe the Andoran way ;-)). Not as agressors against other faiths, though some paladins, imperfect mortals as they are, may mistakenly take this path and soon lose their paladinhood.
And in a world where demons and devils come aknocking, the lawful and good do need armed defenders.
To the OP, I believe that Paladins have historically been required to be Lawful Good because it is commonly seen as the most restrictive alignment (even called Lawful Fool sometimes). You have to operate under a strict adherence to the law AND a continual pursuit of the utmost virtue you can manage (ie Good), which greatly reduce your possibilities of actions. And if you succeed at that extenuating balancing act, then you can enjoy your powers and the reverence given you by the people.
Why should there be a reward to play a character who does not care about rules but his own satisfaction (ie Chaotic) or one who enjoys bringing misery to others with no regard for their feelings (ie Evil) ?
|
|
Not in PFRPG. The description of the Paladin and his powers explicitely states that they come from his god.(and my understanding of the game) Paladins are the holy champions of the gods.Your understanding is incorrect. While it may be your personal interpretation, it is NOT the premise of the game rules (pg 42, PHB 3.5, first paragraph under PALADIN.)
It is a very subtle difference that I am specifically pointing out here. I'm not saying the powers don't come from a paladin's god. What I am saying is that the paladin class is not defined as an enforcer of the gods. It would probably have helped if I had posted the entire quote from the OP to help illustrate my point more clearly, but I attempted a paraphrase for brevity.
First off, terrorists, jihadists, crusaders, conquistadors, inquisitors, no matter what you call them, their acts and deeds were never LAWFUL and RARELY good.
Paladins are not ZEALOTS, all the above mentioned ones are.
It is widely known that the crusaders were land wards raged over property, wealth and politics.
Starting a war, for personal or national gain is clearly a chaotic act (if not evil)
Conquistadors (literally conquerors) took what did not belong to them for personal gain (sounds like orcs to me)
Inquisitors tortured, imprisoned and assassinated all those who did not beleive as they did (sounds evil to me)
Terrorists, while not ALL evil, per se, are certainly not LAWFUL, because by definition, to be a terrorist, one must break international laws.
To be a lawful good paladin, one must protect those who cannot protect themselves. A paladin may fight to protect chaotic neutral pygmies from lawful neutral overlords who over tax them and take their lands from them.
Not go around saying "chaotic neutral is one step away from chaotic evil, they get what they deserve"
Right and wrong ARE clearly defined. There is NO difference between MODERN morals and ancient ones, except that modern people like to justify the fact that they have few, if any morals at all.
The interpol officer in "Lord of War" would be much closer to a "lawful good" type than any terrorist. Even though he wants to catch the guy, and comes so close so many times, he doesn't break the law to do so.
|
|
Right and wrong ARE clearly defined. There is NO difference between MODERN morals and ancient ones, except that modern people like to justify the fact that they have few, if any morals at all.
If Right and Wrong were so clearly defined, we would not have so many conflicts, both big and small, in the past and in current days, about ethics, religious differences and so on.
And do not believe that our ancestors were lesser hypocrits than their modern descendents.
I will give as an example a passage from the Bible stating that among the four sons of Noah, "Cham would be a slave to his brothers". This was used some centuries and even mere decades ago to justify slavery and segregation against African people (also called Chamites, as they were supposed to be the descendents of Cham).
A lesser known but very interesting fact is that the original passage was introducted several thousand years ago by rewriters of the Old Testament as a way to justify the Hebrews' invasion of the land of Canaan (whose inhabitants were supposed at that time to be the descendents of Cham).
And I am certain that we can find this kind of religious and "moral" justifications for atrocities in any place, in any culture and at any time in our history.
Nothing new under the sun, really ;-)
In my game all paladins serve a specific god. A paladin must be the same alignment as the god they serve. A paladin is a warrior for his god and his god's ideals. So requirements, strictures and the like vary from god to god.
To me this is not that hard of a concept to put into practice.
Thanx!
Erik
Instead, I would look at "The Deed of Paksenarion" for an amazing description of Paladins
Except, that particular series provides just as much justification for non-LG Paladins as it does the traditional D&D type. Paladins are simply warriors (who are usually if not always either knights or priests) chosen by the Gods and/or the Saints to wield extra powers. Although technically only Gird's clergy has Paladins that are called such, ALL of the religions have paladins in fact, and Paksenarrion fights a couple of the evil ones.
|
Instead, I would look at "The Deed of Paksenarion" for an amazing description of Paladins, and how one in particular came into her power. Or another example is Michael, Knight of the Cross, in Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files."
I'm sure it's been said a million times before, but I think Sparhawk in Eddings' Elenium and Tamuli series is another good example of a playable, interesting paladin.
In my mind a Paladin has to be Lawful because he is (in my games) part of a hierarchical, in most cases religious, organization.
These organization can be sponsored by a LG, NG or LN god, but the organization has to be LG, maybe focusing on just on aspect of the god.
A neutral or chaotic hero of good would be more independent, a paladin is restricted by the laws and codes of his organization.
And a Paladin at my table has to show his good side, just being lawful isn’t enough. And being good means being merciful, a paladin should never kill if it is not necessary.
Why do good guys get Paladins and bad guys just get evil clerics and fighters (or multiclass there-of for an "evil pally" feel).
I don't think it has to be balanced.
Our fictional D&D worlds are not a chess match, with good and evil each having identical sets of 16 pieces.
Evil gets assassins. Evil gets necromancers. Evil gets way more rogues than good will ever dream of.
I think, with all the many options available to evil, it's probably OK if good gets at least one thing that evil doesn't.
Besides, Blackguard is becoming a core class (not a prestige class) in Pathfinder.
That should nearly balance the scales on the holy/unholy champion front, leaving evil far ahead with races (drow, duergar, illithids, etc.), classes (see above), spells (contagion, soul bind, etc.), poisons, curses, undead legions, and many other wicked options that good doesn't have a "balanced" answer for.
Pretty much the concept of paladin is that as a champion of lawful goodness he/she IS restricted. Otherwise he/she would be a fighter.
The concept of "holy" is lawful good in a nutshell. The concept of "unholy" is chaotic evil. There are many alignments in between neither of them holy or unholy. The two concepts are opposite extremes.
The paladin is meant to fight the demons and devils and other horrible monsters of the world. His antithesis comes in many forms, rarely mortal. Those monsters in and of themselves have special powers and abilites in congruency with the concept of unholiness.
The evil cleric is merely the herder of those evil forces, not necessarily the embodiment of it as a concept.
The paladin is humanities (meta/demi humanities) answer to the demons/devils and other abominations of evility.
He does not adventure for fame or fortune, but exists as a opposite to that which would not have a direct opposition without him.
In that respect he is not a champion of his alignment or god but a champion/protector of all.
Which is why his actions and choices are so restricted and governed by higher morals and purpose.
This concept would not work, if there was one for every alignment.
That being said,making pacts with demon lords or dark gods would suffice to reason the existance of a anti-paladin/blackguard. But surely as a story tool and as a PC class.
I played a fallen paladin once, he made it all the way to 11th level as a paladin. The rest of his rather lengthy career was as a Lawful Neutral fighter. ITmight ave been neat to see himfal all the way and play him as a CE Anti Paladin in an Evil Group, but such rules didnt exist at the time.
Basically I didnt want to create another character, and our group had gotten involved in making castles, claiming lordship over lands and ousting those we didnt want within our kingdom. Not really the paladins meant and drink. as I started to hoarde treasure to buildmy castle and finance my nation building, and ruthlessly enforce laws and taxes, I slipped away from the paladins path (and pretty much had agood time playing the LN alignment I never really understood before)
And just becuase a religion has justifications for what it has done in the past doesn't make those acts good. If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.
The concept of "holy" is lawful good in a nutshell. The concept of "unholy" is chaotic evil. There are many alignments in between neither of them holy or unholy. The two concepts are opposite extremes.
Completely false. "Holy" and "Unholy" are diametrically opposed concepts, yes, but they don't map solely to "LG" and "CE". As a matter of fact, they'd map FAR closer to "NG" and "NE" - those alignments strike closer to the purity of action that encompasses holiness. Regardless, ANY Good entity (and quite some Neutral ones) can be holy and advance a holy cause for holy reasons, and any Evil entity (and quite some Neutral ones) can be unholy and advance an unholy cause for unholy reasons.
Is a Devil any less unholy for being Lawful rather than Chaotic? Is a Leonal any less holy for being Neutral rather than Lawful? No, they aren't.
If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.
Also false. Take an example: invading a country. Without context, that is, at best, a Neutral action. In order to make it a Good action, it has to be done for a reason, and that reason has to be a Good one. That's a justification.
If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.Also false. Take an example: invading a country. Without context, that is, at best, a Neutral action. In order to make it a Good action, it has to be done for a reason, and that reason has to be a Good one. That's a justification.
Your concepts of true and false and definitions are confined to your opinion.
Gygax invented the system, Gygax defined the rules. LG is "holy", CE is "unholy" those are the sacred cows, they have existed since the beginning and the dawn of the DnD paladin.
Your abstract views of true/false and holy/unholy are irrelevant.
|
|
And just becuase a religion has justifications for what it has done in the past doesn't make those acts good. If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.
You imply that there is an absolute definition of Good and Evil. That it does not change based on the times, the culture or the individual.
This implies then that people who do evil things do them knowingly, in full awareness of the fact that they are committing an evil act. I do not believe this is the case. Most of the times, they feel justified by their own morality for what they are doing. As the very old saying goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
Your concepts of true and false and definitions are confined to your opinion.
Gygax invented the system, Gygax defined the rules. LG is "holy", CE is "unholy" those are the sacred cows, they have existed since the beginning and the dawn of the DnD paladin.
Your abstract views of true/false and holy/unholy are irrelevant.
Please note that though the alignments have been given to us by Gygax from the very beginning, people have argued about what they should encompass for at least as long.
I feel that the posts here are getting needlessly belligerent. Let us all breathe slowly, settle down and at least agree to disagree.
We can even sing kumbaya all together, if you wish ;-)
And just becuase a religion has justifications for what it has done in the past doesn't make those acts good. If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.You imply that there is an absolute definition of Good and Evil.
To be specific, he's implying that in D&D there's an absolute definition of Good and Evil. That's purely dependent on the DM and the campaign.
What i noted for a long time is that the problem doesn't come from the paladins or their alignment.
No, the problem comes from the players who play them as integrist jerks, pretending they are pure and hold the truth and use that as a justification to act like fanatic psychopaths.
From experience, i prefer to have in the group a cold blooded assassin rather than a zealous paladin.
What i noted for a long time is that the problem doesn't come from the paladins or their alignment.
No, the problem comes from the players who play them as integrist jerks, pretending they are pure and hold the truth and use that as a justification to act like psychopaths.
I have to admit that I've seen a few paladins that are more like Torquemada than Mother Teresa.
|
|
You imply that there is an absolute definition of Good and Evil. That it does not change based on the times, the culture or the individual.
This implies then that people who do evil things do them knowingly, in full awareness of the fact that they are committing an evil act. I do not believe this is the case. Most of the times, they feel justified by their own morality for what they are doing. As the very old saying goes, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
While this may be true in the real life, it has nothing to do with the interpretations in the game world. One of the biggest issues we've had with interpreting the concepts of D&D alignments is that we try to make game world concepts fit real world concepts.
D&D is a game. In D&D there are tangible absolutes. We can't accept this in the real world because we muddy the waters with "Well, I think ..." The aspects of alignment really aren't that hard to interpret if we stop trying to see them with real-world eyes, and put them into the universal standards for which they were written.
Good and Evil have, in 3.5 terms, been 'Set in Stone'TM by way of the two "18+" books, BoED and BoVD respectively.
The Book of Exalted Deeds contains the D&D definitions of what it means to be Good. Characters that do not hold up to such behavior are therefor Neutral or Evil, mostly Neutral.
PF Beta copies the 3.5 PHB text regarding the matter:
"Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment ... Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison and so forth), help those in need (provided the do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends) and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
Alignments, pages 121-122 of Pathfinder Beta:
"Lawful Good, "Crusader": A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful Good ... combines honor and compassion."
About the only significant difference between the class' code of conduct and the alignment itself is the addition of respecting legitimate authority and a re-emphasizing of honor.
A paladin is described in 3e as accepting one's destiny or answering a call. "No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will. It is possible to fail to recognize one's own potential... [and] occassionally one who is called to be a paladin denies that call and pursues some other life instead." 3.5 PHB page 43
This keystone element of a paladin's background - to me - sits directly and counterintuitively to the remaining elements of the class regarding training - especially with the possibility of being called to one's destiny at a later point in life.
I posit that the alignment requirement is, in 3e terms, in place precisely because of that "call" - one who is not Lawful Good simply is not called. If one can not become a paladin through practice, one would not really be called into a role that REQUIRED practice. Rather, as with any spontaneous caster, one's abilities unfold over time and with experience.
A Lawful Good character already possesses the majority of the 'code' as an integral part of their character. Accepting the destiny of a paladin reinforces that (based, presumably, upon the calling agency).
If anything, it can be reasonably stipulated that a paladin receives a built-in moral compass (along the lines of the phylactery of faithfulness) as part of that calling/destiny. One does not call the weak-willed and morally-flexible - one calls Crusaders!
@ the OP:
No, you are not alone.
Paladins (the concept) may be based on the singular idea of what people here are terming the "paladin" (and meaning something besides just "holy warrior"). I'm of the opinion that therefore, there should never have been a Paladin class in the first place; there should've been a "Holy Warrior" class, the Paladin being the term typically used to describe the LG version (with the other eight versions going by their own name or just being unnamed).
Why? Because, IMO, any successful class, while possibly inspired by one singular archetype, should not be limited to just that archetype. Just because something is a good idea for one person doesn't mean it's okay for everyone, and a base class should be expansive enough to allow for multiple takes on the class.
For example, my most successful homebrew class was the Psi-Fighter, which I created because I wanted a working Monk class. However, just because I want a working Monk class doesn't mean I should gear the whole class towards just that archetype. So I also outfitted it with multiple paths towards melee unarmed fighting, melee armed fighting, and ranged weapon fighting. Then, when I saw someone on Enworld become inspired by my class and work with it, I knew it had made an impression.
But to answer your question, Pathfinder has already created the Holy Warrior class. Take the Cleric, take away his two Domains, and give him a full BAB and a d10 HD (this is the variant in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting). Bang. You now have a class that can represent pretty much anything the Paladin class can represent and as a bonus, you don't have a Code of Conduct to worry about (just stay within one step of your deity's alignment).
@ the OP:
No, you are not alone.
Paladins (the concept) may be based on the singular idea of what people here are terming the "paladin" (and meaning something besides just "holy warrior"). I'm of the opinion that therefore, there should never have been a Paladin class in the first place; there should've been a "Holy Warrior" class, the Paladin being the term typically used to describe the LG version (with the other eight versions going by their own name or just being unnamed).
Why? Because, IMO, any successful class, while possibly inspired by one singular archetype, should not be limited to just that archetype. Just because something is a good idea for one person doesn't mean it's okay for everyone, and a base class should be expansive enough to allow for multiple takes on the class.
For example, my most successful homebrew class was the Psi-Fighter, which I created because I wanted a working Monk class. However, just because I want a working Monk class doesn't mean I should gear the whole class towards just that archetype. So I also outfitted it with multiple paths towards melee unarmed fighting, melee armed fighting, and ranged weapon fighting. Then, when I saw someone on Enworld become inspired by my class and work with it, I knew it had made an impression.
But to answer your question, Pathfinder has already created the Holy Warrior class. Take the Cleric, take away his two Domains, and give him a full BAB and a d10 HD (this is the variant in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting). Bang. You now have a class that can represent pretty much anything the Paladin class can represent and as a bonus, you don't have a Code of Conduct to worry about (just stay within one step of your deity's alignment).
Curious, why make a "holy warrior" class out of a full bab cleric? Why not just play a fighter who follows a god?
|
Personally, I have always hated the fact that Paladins are restricted to Lawful Good. I have found it strange that only gods of the Lawful Good alignment can have such faithful servants.
I would like so see a ruling where the Paladin must be of the same alignment of their chosen god or goddess and their channeling/lay on hands power is derived the same way as a Clerics (ie: evil paladin's can sear the flesh from your bones with a touch or steal the life from their foes by calling out to their god).
Am I alone on this one?
Why do good guys get Paladins and bad guys just get evil clerics and fighters (or multiclass there-of for an "evil pally" feel).
I've always felt Paladins should be Lawful (any). Showing that they follow the laws (and laws of the deity) while being able to be good, neutral or evil.
Curious, why make a "holy warrior" class out of a full bab cleric? Why not just play a fighter who follows a god?
How do I then get the divine spells (and good Will save) that let me have something to back up what I'm claiming my character can do? Sure, you can just play a Fighter and call him a Cleric (or Holy Warrior or what have you), and you can even refluff your feats to make them more "diviney", but you can do the same thing with the Fighter class and calling him a Paladin. And yet we also have a separate Paladin class.
If the acts where good they wouldn't need to be justified.Also false. Take an example: invading a country. Without context, that is, at best, a Neutral action. In order to make it a Good action, it has to be done for a reason, and that reason has to be a Good one. That's a justification.
Even at best it's a neutral action. Invasion and war for whatever reason doesn't become good for that reason, it simply means that it isn't evil.
I think we've got a twofold problem here: The first part is that the iconic paladin is supposed to be a shining beacon of virtue; the second is that gods are supposed to be able to do whatever they want, and if that doesn't include making someone a paladin, then they're not much in the way of gods, are they?
The easiest way I've found to deal with it is to assume some sort of civilized diplomacy on the part of the various gods where the gods have agreed that the LG gods get the paladins, the CE gods get the blackguards, and all the other gods have agreed not to make knock-offs of those classes for their followers.
Of course the gods don't always play by the rules they've agreed upon. LE types are always finding some loophole where they get to do an "Evil Green Ranger" gambit where they give some idealistic sort all the powers of a paladin except that all these powers are tainted because they're from Hell, and they send the patsy after the real paladins while telling them those are blackguards as part of a classic temptation gambit. End result usually means killing a few paladins and sometimes getting a blackguard if the patsy really wants to keep the power, with a small outside chance that the paladins save the patsy and he does something actually noble and good and the LG gods decide to make him a real paladin.
Alternately, you can go with a Manichean Good/Evil split where paladins are empowered by Good, the blackguards are empowered by Evil, and that's about the end of it, except it makes everyone wonder what the gods are doing if there are these impersonal forces out there that never bother to incarnate as anything.
Then again, you can take the words of whatever edition you like as cannon, except that Rule 0 means you're allowed to change that if you don't like it.
Your concepts of true and false and definitions are confined to your opinion.
And yours aren't? Your views are more "confined" than mine are, since you restrict yourself to the utter impossibility of anything but LG=Holy and CE=Unholy.
Gygax invented the system, Gygax defined the rules. LG is "holy", CE is "unholy" those are the sacred cows, they have existed since the beginning and the dawn of the DnD paladin.
Actually, that is provably false (so stow that "abstract views" bullhockey). Gygax never equated holiness exclusively with LG and never equated unholiness exclusively with CE. Those are your own inventions. In actuality, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil did not even exist in Gygax's original D&D. The only alignments were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic; Good and Evil were left undefined. It was generally assumed that Law=Good and Chaos=Evil, but that wasn't a strict rule; Elves, for example, were always Chaotic, but not necessarily evil.
Even at best it's a neutral action. Invasion and war for whatever reason doesn't become good for that reason, it simply means that it isn't evil.
So the invasion of Germany in WW2 to stop the Holocaust wasn't Good?