One of the fundamental issues regarding the Paladin class is the lack of rules for the support of an Anti-Paladin. This would be a different role than the "fallen" Paladin or Blackguard.
If the good gods have the ability to empower some of their chosen, then why wouldn't the evil gods have the same ability?
I understand that class bloat is a problem, but I believe this needs to be addressed. I don't think there should be a Paladin "flavor" for each alignment because most deities don't have the commitment of the LG or CE warlike ones.
A Paladin needs some sort of nemesis that can provide a challenge, as evil outsiders, dragons and undead have become trivial imo.
I do not think you need one, but if you do it's easy to make. I myself have a great dislike for blackgaurd is a paladin but powers are evil. Kinda cheapens the blackgaurd for me to make him nothing but an imitation
If I remember correctly, there was a specific reason why blackguard was not included in the Core Rules; someone at Paizo mentioned that they felt the class should be made into a full 20-level base class, possessing unique powers and abilities but also filling the role of the lawful evil anti-paladin concept. I believe it was indicated that it would be released sometime after the core rules hit the market, but the how and the when have not been made known.
One of the fundamental issues regarding the Paladin class is the lack of rules for the support of an Anti-Paladin. This would be a different role than the "fallen" Paladin or Blackguard.
If the good gods have the ability to empower some of their chosen, then why wouldn't the evil gods have the same ability?
I understand that class bloat is a problem, but I believe this needs to be addressed. I don't think there should be a Paladin "flavor" for each alignment because most deities don't have the commitment of the LG or CE warlike ones.
A Paladin needs some sort of nemesis that can provide a challenge, as evil outsiders, dragons and undead have become trivial imo.
I think pathfinder failed with the paladin, going way overboard with special powers, particulary smite evil. too much.
It brings things to a point where as a dm an encounter with a large wild animal is more dangerous than a mighty fiend.anyway, I do not think an inherently evil (core)class should be in the core rulebook, since the use would be too limited. very few adventuring parties would have a place for the unholy warrior that actively promotes evil.
I do not see how the Paladin is to overpowered considering you can only use smite evil 1 time a day.
Most cases your going to be fighting 20+ monsters before you leave your questing area or whatever.
Unless you play in one of those groups were your in the middle of the UnderDark and your party says "ok were resting for 24 hours" 2 seconds later DM goes ok your rested.
Yeah if you play that way, then a Paladin will be over powered because his smite evil will always be charged but also so wont wizards and other classes that need 24 hours to rest to regain there "ownage" skills.
|
I do not see how the Paladin is to overpowered considering you can only use smite evil 1 time a day.
Most cases your going to be fighting 20+ monsters before you leave your questing area or whatever.
Unless you play in one of those groups were your in the middle of the UnderDark and your party says "ok were resting for 24 hours" 2 seconds later DM goes ok your rested.
Yeah if you play that way, then a Paladin will be over powered because his smite evil will always be charged but also so wont wizards and other classes that need 24 hours to rest to regain there "ownage" skills.
Valid point, just pointing out that you need only 8 hours rest to regain class features. Clerics on the other hand, have an appointed time when they pray for their spells, and regardless of sleep cannot recharge until that time comes.
As for Paladin smite evil, thats a can of worms in the rules forum, and lets just leave it at this;
The old version was very eggs in one basket. This created problems where a paladin could blow his load and get NO return on it, ever.
The new Smite is more forgiving to the paladin and creates a rather cinematic theme for his smite, giving him a boost. Most of the arguments its too powerful, usually stem from the double damage argument, and the use of multiple attacks.
Something that can be easily controlled by smart DM's.
As for the blackguard question;
Its coming as a 20 level core class. They felt it was rather cheesy to base the Blackguard off the Paladin, always making him a fallen version of the former, when its possible that you CHOSE to be one from the get go. What happens when you choose evil and choose to be the scion of that evil god?
That should be what a blackguard is.
The reason there weren't anti-paladins is very simple - the reward for being evil is being able to do anything you like, no matter how reprehensible, in pursuit of your goals.
The Paladin operates with a strait-jacket on. He has his powers because he doesn't have unlimited options. His powers are the reward for adhering to the most restrictive code of conduct in the game...they are, in essence, a role-playing reward.
Making an Evil class the 'equal' of a paladin is not equal. The anti-paladin can stoop to murder, theivery, lying, extortion, rape, genocide. The paladin simply cannot DO those things. That puts him at an inherent disadvantage, and once you 'give' his abilities, the rewards of virtue, away, he becomes once again an also-ran.
Reward your evil bastards with the fiendish or half-fiend template. Pretty much all the reward they need, complete with upgraded stats, magical abilities, and even a smite.
===Aelryinth
|
The reason there weren't anti-paladins is very simple - the reward for being evil is being able to do anything you like, no matter how reprehensible, in pursuit of your goals.
The Paladin operates with a strait-jacket on. He has his powers because he doesn't have unlimited options. His powers are the reward for adhering to the most restrictive code of conduct in the game...they are, in essence, a role-playing reward.
Making an Evil class the 'equal' of a paladin is not equal. The anti-paladin can stoop to murder, theivery, lying, extortion, rape, genocide. The paladin simply cannot DO those things. That puts him at an inherent disadvantage, and once you 'give' his abilities, the rewards of virtue, away, he becomes once again an also-ran.
Reward your evil bastards with the fiendish or half-fiend template. Pretty much all the reward they need, complete with upgraded stats, magical abilities, and even a smite.
===Aelryinth
I agree with your assessment of the paladin compared to other classes, and the need to stress good over evil.
The D&D order is that Good beings are powerful, while Evil ones are numerous. So the world should have many blackguards, but they aren't as powerful as paladins. So a blackguard class should still have some restrictions, but not simply be an "anti-paladin" in terms of abilities.
I think the problem is that the Paladin is not supposed to be the generic holy warrior. It's a specific kind of holy warrior. It's supposed to represent the honorable, heroic knight in shining armor. Thus it is supposed to be lawful good. That's an intended part of the design, not an oversight. However, they're may be room for variations on the theme, maybe a dark paladin (LE, with all the paladin's chivalry and honor, but turned towards evil), an anti-paladin (CE, bereft of both the paladin's honor and goodness), and even a chaos paladin (CG, as good hearted as any paladin but more free spirited and devoted to freedom). However, these would not just be carbon copies of the paladin, but would have unique differences.
I think the problem is that the Paladin is not supposed to be the generic holy warrior. It's a specific kind of holy warrior. It's supposed to represent the honorable, heroic knight in shining armor. Thus it is supposed to be lawful good. That's an intended part of the design, not an oversight. However, they're may be room for variations on the theme, maybe a dark paladin (LE, with all the paladin's chivalry and honor, but turned towards evil), an anti-paladin (CE, bereft of both the paladin's honor and goodness), and even a chaos paladin (CG, as good hearted as any paladin but more free spirited and devoted to freedom). However, these would not just be carbon copies of the paladin, but would have unique differences.
Chaotic good 'paladins' only work in adventuring bands. You have to realize the chaotic alignment focuses on the self. A Chaotic Good Paladin isn't an 'us' person, he's a 'me' person. He's all about covering himself in glory and honor and refusing to follow others, the epitome of the Chaotic freewheeling good hearted bastard alignment. He'll do what he likes, when he likes, and as long as nobody gets hurt, all's right with the world. He might be patronizing to lesser folks, follow my example and all will be well with the world, but he won't give a snit for any rules or laws that don't mesh with his own personal code of honor.
He'd make a great adventurer. But a hero? Maybe a Champion, determined to cover himself in glory with his prowess, continually getting sent on grand quests for King and Kingdom, cowtowing to his ego and larger-then-life image of himself.
Such a person would only interact with society for the rewards it offers, finding 'official' stuff hopelessly stultifying and spirit-crushing.
A Paladin of 'Freedom' is a paladin of a cause, and could be summed up with the LG alignment and a code of honor that rigorously forbids slavery. Free will is not Chaotic, nor is Independence. You can make the choice to being LG, and be independent of a throne and still be LG. Being CG is shunning law, codes and discipline that you don't personally respect. It's you against the machine, even when it's a benevolent machine.
=Aelryinth
Chaotic good 'paladins' only work in adventuring bands. You have to realize the chaotic alignment focuses on the self. A Chaotic Good Paladin isn't an 'us' person, he's a 'me' person. He's all about covering himself in glory and honor and refusing to follow others, the epitome of the Chaotic freewheeling good hearted bastard alignment. He'll do what he likes, when he likes, and as long as nobody gets hurt, all's right with the world.
You're describing Chaotic Neutral, not Chaotic Good. The classic example of Chaotic Good is Robin Hood, who was very much NOT a "all for me" persona. It's even that way in 3.5 ("Soverliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good" -- tell me that's not an intentional copy of Robin Hood).
The Law-Chaos axis is about control, not about morality. Lawful people bow to authority (although what they regard as authority may change -- their deity, their lord, their vow to themselves, their mother, whatever). They believe, truly believe, that rules are made to be followed. Chaotic people are generally unwilling to bow to authority (although they may acknowledge the authority, they're not going to just obey whatever it tells them to do unless it coincides with their own agendas) and believe that people should be free to make their own decisions.
A chaotic person can be just as much an "us" person as any lawful good paladin. Actually, the case can be made that the LG paladin's extremely strict code prevents them from being as much of an "us" person as the CG adventurer. After all, if the paladin's authority tells them not to do so something, they either won't do it, or they become a fallen paladin. A CG "paladin of freedom" is free to act in whatever way he thinks will do the most good for the most people.
Robin Hood was not Chaotic Good. He was Neutral Good, and could be argued as Lawful Good. He was a deposed noble who took good care of his people and led them against the man who stole his lands. When his rightful king arrived, he went with him without question, and his men followed without question.
I wasn't describing Chaotic Neutral, because a CN person is out for himself, and doesn't particularly care one way or another about the fallout from his actions (CE actively pursues negative fallout). I specifically said "doesn't hurt anyone" and "good hearted bastard." A solo theif who robs from the rich, and spends most of it on himself with drabs to the poor while tweaking the noses of the rich is CG. A Pirate who flaunts all authority, but brings his spoils back to the acclaim of his people and the growth of his legend is CG. A bard who regularly mocks the establishment and proposes wild ideas to society is CG. Adventurers who go insanely dangerous places for thrills and the growth of their own legends, as well as an honest thumping of Evil, are CG. Independent Highlanders who won't swear fealty to a King they've never met or believe in, but will loudly rise to the defense of their homeland, are CG.
Chaotics are free-wheeling, emotional, undisciplined, and rely extremely on personal experience and connections. Lawful people are disciplined, respect authority, recognize laws for what they are and why they are. Being Good or Evil entirely determines how they respect certain laws...a LG person is under absolutely no impetus to obey a Law they find immoral or corrupt, and the same with a ruler. Indeed, a LG paladin faced with a LE ruler is under pressure to depose them, or bow to Evil! You're making the mistake as classifying Paladins as Lawful Stupid. Not obeying a Law is a minor Chaotic act, and probably not even that if it goes against the Paladin's moral code. Obeying an Evil order is what causes a Paladin to fall...not nerfing Laws.
==Aelryinth
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html
I agree with Pathfinder's descriptions more than I have agreed with any other published take on the alignments that I've seen. And while I agree with several of Aelryinth's examples of chaotic good, I also agree that the first one really was more chaotic neutral.
A solo theif who robs from the rich, and spends most of it on himself with drabs to the poor while tweaking the noses of the rich is CG. A Pirate who flaunts all authority, but brings his spoils back to the acclaim of his people and the growth of his legend is CG. A bard who regularly mocks the establishment and proposes wild ideas to society is CG.
No, no, and no.
The Good vs Evil axis describes who the character seeks to benefit through his actions. Good = other people (even if it means he gets no benefit himself), Evil = himself (and no one else), Neutral = other people, as long as he sees some benefit as well (or, alternately and closer to the Evil side, himself, but if other people benefit as well that's OK).
What you describe in those three are all quite Neutral; the thief's main concern is with spending money on himself, the pirate's concern is with his image, and the bard doesn't give two shakes about anything. You could actually make the argument that the bard is CE, depending on how wild the "wild ideas" are.
Indeed, a LG paladin faced with a LE ruler is under pressure to depose them, or bow to Evil! You're making the mistake as classifying Paladins as Lawful Stupid.
No, you're making the mistake of either thinking me stupid or not reading what I wrote. I said the paladin's authority. In most cases, that means the paladin's deity, but I wrote "authority" (and explained it in prior paragraphs) to cover for paladins that follow an ideal, not a deity.
If you're a paladin of Abadar, Abadar tells you not to do something, and you do it willingly and without magical coercion, you fall. Simple as that. You're not a paladin any more. It doesn't matter if what Abadar tells you is "wrong" according to you -- he's your God, and he just gave you an order. You cannot "respect authority" as the paladin code of conduct requires by disobeying an order.
EDIT: Note that my moral alignment paragraph above is, of neccessity, brief. There's obviously more depth to it than that (including what you do as well as why you do it), but that much was all I needed to illustrate my point.
|
The Good vs Evil axis describes who the character seeks to benefit through his actions. Good = other people (even if it means he gets no benefit himself), Evil = himself (and no one else), Neutral = other people, as long as he sees some benefit as well (or, alternately and closer to the Evil side, himself, but if other people benefit as well that's OK).
I can follow that, as it is what I have long held to be the case. Personally I have mostly been NG with minor NN tendancies. I see the place of Law(read Security) and I see the place of Freedom. We need both to some extent in most circumstances.
However, with reguard to paladins, they are Good first, Lawful second. Their moral compass guides them more than the legal one. At least in any description I have ever seen.
And, while they might not do something they were told to do by their diety, and lose their paladin powers, if they believed it was the right thing to do, i.e. for the greater good, they would suffer their dieties wrath humbly, they would not even try to justify it. "God wills it." would be the only comment. That is what a paladin is about, doing Good no matter the cost.
(as an aside, most GM's never play Good dieties right anyhow, they really play them as LN/LE despots who demand everything and never explain. Stupid. )
Personally I have mostly been NG with minor NN tendancies.
I'm pretty sure that if somehow a scientific study of this were done, NG with true N tendencies (or vice versa) would be by far the most dominant alignment. Most people are willing to break an inconvenient law if the chance of getting caught is low and/or the penalty is light (example: most people have no problem speeding, since getting caught is rare and the penalty isn't harsh), and most people aren't so self-absorbed that they begrudge helping others.
EDIT: About the paladin thing, that's incidentally why I severely dislike the implementation of paladins throughout the editions. It's waaaaaay too easy to get caught in a true "fall if you do, fall if you don't" situation. Following through on my example, Abadar is a LN god who has paladins. It's quite possible that Abadar may well support the rightful, but LE, ruler of a city because they are the best option available and anything else would lead to anarchy (incidentally, there's an example of this in one of the Adventure Paths). However, the paladin of Abadar is obligated to oppose tyranny. If he supports the tyrant, he's supporting evil and falls. If he opposes the tyrant, he's opposing the will of his deity and falls. No-win. Most DMs I know fudge this in the way you describe, by emphasizing the Good axis more than the Law axis and allowing the paladin to act against the tyrant without falling (perhaps with an atonement spell, but that spell's such a cop-out anyway...).
Personally, I'd argue that eliminating the ruler of a city and letting it fall into anarchy isn't very "paladiny".
In my view, the option the paladin should take in that situation is to set up an alternate goverment that can swiftly seize power and organize a quick and relatively painless coup, rather than eliminating the leader and forcing everyone else to suffer the consequences.
|
|
Personally I have mostly been NG with minor NN tendancies.I'm pretty sure that if somehow a scientific study of this were done, NG with true N tendencies (or vice versa) would be by far the most dominant alignment. Most people are willing to break an inconvenient law if the chance of getting caught is low and/or the penalty is light (example: most people have no problem speeding, since getting caught is rare and the penalty isn't harsh), and most people aren't so self-absorbed that they begrudge helping others.
You are likely right on that. ... as for speeding... it's one of my pet gripes... lol... how many seconds a day do people save speeding like they do? Most of the people I see every day only beat me places we are both going by under 30 seconds over the course of 10 miles. And if they are caught, it costs about $280 locally. Is that half minute of your life really worth that much? About the only place it makes sense is long distance driving. Meh, don't mind me... I'll jump off the soap box. lol
I don't allow atonement myself, but then, I do not allow anything but LG dieties to have paladins, so it usually is not a problem.
rather than eliminating the leader and forcing everyone else to suffer the consequences.
Who said anything about that?
Who said anything about that?
That's implicit in the "fall" the paladin takes if he chooses to act against the tyrant, no?
If the reason the paladin's God opposes acting against the tyrant is because of the harm a power vacuum would cause (which is the case in the situation you postulated), then acting against the tyrant in a way which does not leave a power vacuum would not result in a fall.
|
|
Personally, I'd argue that eliminating the ruler of a city and letting it fall into anarchy isn't very "paladiny".
In my view, the option the paladin should take in that situation is to set up an alternate goverment that can swiftly seize power and organize a quick and relatively painless coup, rather than eliminating the leader and forcing everyone else to suffer the consequences.
Okay, lets say that you do this in Riddleport.
You mean to tell me that total anarchy would not happen if you pulled a painless coup as a Paladin?
Just because you THINK a coup is painless, doesn't mean it truly is.
The fallout could take as little as a day, and as much as a month to show up.
That's implicit in the "fall" the paladin takes if he chooses to act against the tyrant, no?
No, not at all. That's "he'll fall" as in "he'll become a fallen paladin, one unable to access any of his paladin class abilities ever again".
|
|
Who said anything about that?That's implicit in the "fall" the paladin takes if he chooses to act against the tyrant, no?
If the reason the paladin's God opposes acting against the tyrant is because of the harm a power vacuum would cause (which is the case in the situation you postulated), then acting against the tyrant in a way which does not leave a power vacuum would not result in a fall.
Actually I would think going against your gods will is explicitly a case of breaking lawfulness.
Because, you knwo you promised to uphold your god's orders and ideals.
You'll fall and get the HORRIBLE atonement quest requirement if you ever want to be counted as one of your gods holy knights.
Personally, I'd argue that eliminating the ruler of a city and letting it fall into anarchy isn't very "paladiny".
In my view, the option the paladin should take in that situation is to set up an alternate goverment that can swiftly seize power and organize a quick and relatively painless coup, rather than eliminating the leader and forcing everyone else to suffer the consequences.
And when the tyrant's penalty for plotting treason (and it is treason the paladin is plotting) is having your head on a pike, your body sold to necromancers, your spouse sold to a brothel, and your children, depending on the whim of the ruler and their virginity, either sacrificed to demons or sold to mad wizards for experimentation? That's the full extent of the law, and the tyrant may show his mercy by commuting the sentences, only cutting out the conspirator's tongues and selling the children brothels rather than the mad wizards and demons.
I am, of course, assuming that the commandment against acting against the tyrant is "don't cause total anarchy by killing the existing leader".
If the commandment is instead "Disregard my general commandment to act against tyranny and instead just ignore this guy for now", then I don't see how said paladin would become a fallen paladin by not acting.
|
|
I am, of course, assuming that the commandment against acting against the tyrant is "don't cause total anarchy by killing the existing leader".
If the commandment is instead "Disregard my general commandment to act against tyranny and instead just ignore this guy for now", then I don't see how said paladin would become a fallen paladin by not acting.
Its not that so much as "This is a necessary evil my son. Take note and heed, one day you can act, but that day is not today, let it go."
|
Re : the Custom paladins, above, In the Arcanis world, there was a class called the Holy Champion, which was specific to each deity, with powers matching the deity interests.
Say for instance the Holy Champion of the god of thievery could shadow walk and use Stealth.
This is a good concept, that could easily be adapted to Golarion.
|
|
What is wrong with making an Evil version of the Paladin class again? I seemed to have missed this. There's nothing to keep anyone from doing exactly this. In fact, I've always run the Paladin class as either LE or LG with the alignment setting the class abilities to either good or evil similar to the Cleric's channel energy feature. I've always found the evil villain with a code of honor to be one of the cooler villains.
So why would we waste 1 slot of only 6 new base classes to add to the entire game by having a class for Blackguard? I've never understood this! Not when the perfect opposite to the Paladin is right there already in the core book.
I really, really, hope one of the new base class slots is not taken up by this. I don't see a blackguard base class adding a whole lot more to the game than the Paladin class already brings mechanically/class feature-wise.
So no, I really don't see Blackguard being a new base class. An option to customize the Paladin class to suit a fallen paladin? Yes, totally see that. Anything more than that would be a waste of base class slot.
I'm certain a third-party publisher will be releasing an Anti-Paladin class in a future update. I believe the idea is that they'll be CE - devoted to Chaos and Evil with the same fervor that a Paladin embraces Law and Good. Not only should an Anti-Paladin be devoted to an Evil god, but also to spreading destruction, instability, disorder, hate and fear. Alignment isn't just rules and divine decree, it's about ideals and motives.
The way I understand it, LN Paladins, when allowed, are committed entire to the notion of keeping order and upholding the law, regardless of whether the law is good or evil. It's about maintaining order, not the ideals of justice and good.
A solo theif who robs from the rich, and spends most of it on himself with drabs to the poor while tweaking the noses of the rich is CG. A Pirate who flaunts all authority, but brings his spoils back to the acclaim of his people and the growth of his legend is CG. A bard who regularly mocks the establishment and proposes wild ideas to society is CG.No, no, and no.
The Good vs Evil axis describes who the character seeks to benefit through his actions. Good = other people (even if it means he gets no benefit himself), Evil = himself (and no one else), Neutral = other people, as long as he sees some benefit as well (or, alternately and closer to the Evil side, himself, but if other people benefit as well that's OK).
What you describe in those three are all quite Neutral; the thief's main concern is with spending money on himself, the pirate's concern is with his image, and the bard doesn't give two shakes about anything. You could actually make the argument that the bard is CE, depending on how wild the "wild ideas" are.
Indeed, a LG paladin faced with a LE ruler is under pressure to depose them, or bow to Evil! You're making the mistake as classifying Paladins as Lawful Stupid.No, you're making the mistake of either thinking me stupid or not reading what I wrote. I said the paladin's authority. In most cases, that means the paladin's deity, but I wrote "authority" (and explained it in prior paragraphs) to cover for paladins that follow an ideal, not a deity.
If you're a paladin of Abadar, Abadar tells you not to do something, and you do it willingly and without magical coercion, you fall. Simple as that. You're not a paladin any more. It doesn't matter if what Abadar tells you is "wrong" according to you -- he's your God, and he just gave you an order. You cannot "respect authority" as the paladin code of conduct requires by disobeying an order.
EDIT: Note that my moral alignment paragraph above is, of neccessity,...
No, no, and no, yourself. Your argument promptly switched from Lawful Stupid to Stupid Good. It is perfectly Good to get treasures and spend them on yourself. By spending money, you are helping others. While being Charitable is a Higher Good, it is by no means 'neutral' to upgrade your gear, throw one Heavenly celebration, pay a bard to sing about your conquests over Evil, and the like. Indeed, spending money that supports you and acclaims of the victory of Good over Evil is spreading Joy, definitely a Good act.
As for Authority, you're obfuscating the issue with a LN deity giving orders to LG men, who are OBLIGATED not to obey those orders. The deity is either stupid or doesn't want paladins, i.e. the DM is being a jerk. A God willingly forcing his paladins to choose between Falling and staying true to a paladin's code because they disobey them, or Falling because they obeyed an order against their code, is a classic case of DM "I hate Paladins." I'm sure the Paladin can find a more reasonable god in short order.
Personally, I'd just go for creative interpretation of the Deity's orders, with that LG spin on it instead of the LE ones that Devils use. Adabar won't care either way.
And Chaotic acts don't make you Fall. They just require some atonement. Unless your God is an unforgiving bastard who shouldn't have paladins anyways, he'll be happy to forgive you and welcome you back into the fold. ON the other hand, if you never violated the Paladin's Code, just his arbitrary ruling, you haven't even Fallen...he's just denying you your powers in a snarky fit. Petty, really. Obviously NOT a god of Paladins.
==Aelryinth
Zurai, I'm afraid you're mistaken on the 'good vs evil' context, at least as far as designer planning goes. (I'm all for redefining things for the sake of personal use). But the developers have said it themselves, evil is not self-centered. Evil is the active desire to destroy, corrupt, and despoil life and goodly things. (I read this as eating babies and kicking small, cute animals). Good, on the other hand, is trying to preserve, defend, and respect life in (most) of its forms. Your 'evil' is probably closer to their 'neutrality,' which could be either a lack of commitment towards good or evil (but still fully interested in helping themself) or an active commitment to preservig the balance between the two. Mind you that this whole axis has nothing to do with the law vs. chaos axis.
For good measure, the designer's 'law' is focused on authority through some specific mandate, usually divine. So, one who is 'lawful good' would be focused on preserving, defending, and respecting via the rules and regulations before him. If the laws are set by an evil person, then the LG in question (specifically a paladin) is obligated to set up (through whatever means his code allows) an authority whose mandates are in line with his good alignment.
As for LG paladins of LN deities, my stance is that the pally is probably devoted to "Righteous justice," and therefore would be opposed to "legal tyranny." If the God in question has specifically decided to favor a LE ruler, then A) the god would probably consider a LG replacement to be fair game (since he's supposed to be neutral in that regard), or B) the pally would probably do well to find a new god (or, as a player-friendly DM, have a new god find him) to whom he could swear fealty. After all, a LG god who saw a paladin devoted to justice would not likely turn away a potential holy warrior/servant.
I'd say Aelryinth has a pretty good description of chaos there. You're still focused on your good/evil/neutral alignment, but you don't frankly care what laws might be there to dissuade you from it. Neutral on this axis would probably be something like 'I'll follow the laws as best I can, but I don't see how this little smuggling operation is hurting anybody...'
And, as I said earlier, if you prefer a different interpretation in your own games, go for it! But you can't expect the designers to make new things with your specific viewpoint in mind. (Note, I'm not directing this at anyone specific, just stating it aloud.)
I myself have tossed most of the pantheon out the window, replacing it with my own ideas, and have an alignment system to match.
Zurai, I'm afraid you're mistaken on the 'good vs evil' context, at least as far as designer planning goes. (I'm all for redefining things for the sake of personal use). But the developers have said it themselves, evil is not self-centered. Evil is the active desire to destroy, corrupt, and despoil life and goodly things. (I read this as eating babies and kicking small, cute animals). Good, on the other hand, is trying to preserve, defend, and respect life in (most) of its forms.
You're oversimpifying and ignoring part of the write up. According to the description on p. 166, evil also includes the conscienceless, who don't go out of their way to destroy, corrupt or despoil life or goodly things, but don't care if they do. Those are two rather different flavors of evil: The first, if they find Baby-on-a-Stick on the menu, will order it with glee, whereas the second will simply wonder if it's any good and just as happily order the tofu surprise.
It also gets into the Martin Luther question of whether good deeds count, or only good deeds done with a joyous heart, and on the flipside, whether evil deeds count, or only evil deeds done with a joyous heart. Somehow I think that the fiend running around eating babies is a little more troublesome than the assassin who will only kill people if you give him money.
Zurai, I'm afraid you're mistaken on the 'good vs evil' context, at least as far as designer planning goes.
You need to read my edit. I already covered this. You also need to read the description of Good vs Evil in the PFRPG; it supports what I've said. So do the LE, NE, and CE writeups.
As for Authority, you're obfuscating the issue with a LN deity giving orders to LG men, who are OBLIGATED not to obey those orders. The deity is either stupid or doesn't want paladins, i.e. the DM is being a jerk. A God willingly forcing his paladins to choose between Falling and staying true to a paladin's code because they disobey them, or Falling because they obeyed an order against their code, is a classic case of DM "I hate Paladins." I'm sure the Paladin can find a more reasonable god in short order.
As I said, this issue actually comes up in one of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths. Unless, of course, you're accusing F. Wesley Schneider and James Jacobs of being paladin-hating DMs? There's also an article in that same issue that goes into a little detail about paladins of Abadar. I suggest you read it. (issue 8, "Seven Days To The Grave")
In my experience, writers flub up handling paladins as much as any other people do. WoTC had an excreble book where the Harper protaganist is dealing with a Paladin order who perform outright evil deeds, and look about as intelligent as an orc. Do you really think most writers are smarter then you or I, or better able to figure out complex philosophical issues?
I don't have the issue, sorry, so you'd have to reprint or give me access to it. But I'll stand by my word that a god who forces a Paladin to make a choice between obeying his god and Falling for violating the Paladin moral code, and disobeying his God and losing his powers because the God is displeased, is not a God any paladin should have.
Above all things, a Paladin has to be true to the LG alignment, not the LN alignment. Asking him to violate that is asking him to violate what and who he is, and gods don't get to waive that rule.
==Aelryinth
In my experience, writers flub up handling paladins as much as any other people do. WoTC had an excreble book where the Harper protaganist is dealing with a Paladin order who perform outright evil deeds, and look about as intelligent as an orc. Do you really think most writers are smarter then you or I, or better able to figure out complex philosophical issues?
Though I have not read that particular book, I should point out that just because someone claims to be a paladin does not mean they are actually a paladin. And if you have a whole order of paladins fall, rather than all becoming blackguards, they may just be a band of fighters who say they're paladins and use multiple ranks in Knowledge Religion (which they did not lose) to produce theological twaddle to justify whatever it is they want to do.
And honestly, if you cross the Knights Templar with the Spanish Inquisition you'd get something like how a whole lot of people play their paladins.
|
|
In my experience, writers flub up handling paladins as much as any other people do. WoTC had an excreble book where the Harper protaganist is dealing with a Paladin order who perform outright evil deeds, and look about as intelligent as an orc. Do you really think most writers are smarter then you or I, or better able to figure out complex philosophical issues?Though I have not read that particular book, I should point out that just because someone claims to be a paladin does not mean they are actually a paladin. And if you have a whole order of paladins fall, rather than all becoming blackguards, they may just be a band of fighters who say they're paladins and use multiple ranks in Knowledge Religion (which they did not lose) to produce theological twaddle to justify whatever it is they want to do.
And honestly, if you cross the Knights Templar with the Spanish Inquisition you'd get something like how a whole lot of people play their paladins.
NO ONE EXPECTS....
Now that I have that out of my system.
Yes, Paladins have to play lawful good, but its also part of a trust relationship there buddy. I happen to know EXACTLY what the other person is talking about. If you tried to take care of it immediately it would indeed cause so many problems that you could not BEGIN to fathom the depths of the sink hole you've built yourself.
This is a case similar to OoTS where the paladin THOUGHT she was doing good, and ended up doing the exact opposite.
I assure you you can trust a GM who tells you to keep the guy alive for now, and that justice is coming. If you lose your paladin powers because you weren't ready to KILL the bastard, that's bad GMing.
But they can hand waive that rule when its obvious that there are factors that the paladin doesn't know
You are ASSUMING you know ALL the issues as a paladin, which as in real life, you cannot possibly BEGIN to fathom the reality of the situation.
Yes, stay true to your alignment, but I hardly think its good DMing just to say that since the level 6 paladin doesn't immediately go after the level 27 monstrosity and gets himself killed, he falls.
The rejoinder being that paladins should always know the tricks to thwart them, and how to get around THEM. Oh, but paladins are lawful stupid, and can't think one step past the prevention process. Detect Good IS (or at least, was) a paladin spell, and when you can't sense it on this 'respected elder', what does that tell you? Why would he hide his aura from his brothers? Furthermore, why would their god tolerate it, because the idiot was a fallen paladin, and Tyr somehow didn't know it?? Paladins never bother to check their own, because they are all above corruption? That they never balance the commands of their elder/superiors against their own moral code?
Performing evil acts in zealous pursuit of a Good is not an excuse. A Paladin is supposed to know better. Slaughtering folk who are just defending themselves from a raider, and defending a child, of all things, it just turned my stomach to see that. Nothing Good in that dead at all, and even if they were evil, they were actually being protective, not harming.
And not letting the level 6 paladin attack the level 27 big meanie is not the issue. Not letting the level 27 paladin remove the level 6 cumquat of an evil king from the throne is more the issue.
Crossing the Knights Templar (LN) with the Inquisition (LE) is certainly not playing a paladin by any stretch of the imagination.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The rejoinder being that paladins should always know the tricks to thwart them, and how to get around THEM. Oh, but paladins are lawful stupid, and can't think one step past the prevention process. Detect Good IS (or at least, was) a paladin spell, and when you can't sense it on this 'respected elder', what does that tell you? Why would he hide his aura from his brothers? Furthermore, why would their god tolerate it, because the idiot was a fallen paladin, and Tyr somehow didn't know it?? Paladins never bother to check their own, because they are all above corruption? That they never balance the commands of their elder/superiors against their own moral code?
Performing evil acts in zealous pursuit of a Good is not an excuse. A Paladin is supposed to know better. Slaughtering folk who are just defending themselves from a raider, and defending a child, of all things, it just turned my stomach to see that. Nothing Good in that dead at all, and even if they were evil, they were actually being protective, not harming.
And not letting the level 6 paladin attack the level 27 big meanie is not the issue. Not letting the level 27 paladin remove the level 6 cumquat of an evil king from the throne is more the issue.
Crossing the Knights Templar (LN) with the Inquisition (LE) is certainly not playing a paladin by any stretch of the imagination.
==Aelryinth
I love how confrontational, and degrading you make the argument become with your post here.
I was pointing out, that Paladins can't possibly knwo all the circumstances, and should trust their god to see them through. If a DM strips your powers for trusting your god, he's a dick and you should find a new one. The Paladin powers are a bond of trust between you and your god. This isn't a question of you falling based on alignment, as your god would only say "let him remain" if its truly important.
I think, in contrary to your opinion, your god would know if you were going to do it regardless of his opinion. The gods tend not to give those people the powers, as they're too loose canon. He's going to give his powers to a guy he can trust, and while he will know his paladin's tendencies, he should really only step in to stop him if its detrimental, in which case, you prevent the fall for doing an evil act inadvertently.
Saying the paladin's a dumbass because he doesn't always suspect his elders or brothers is BS dude.
That's you throwing something because a good point was brought up. Paladins are going to trust their brothers, and while every once in awhile something questionable come down, they understand that they might not know everything their superiors do. Its when this becomes more than a once a year thing that you get suspicious, even monthly is too often for it to be anything else...
But say the evil guy is smart, he only asks each paladin under his control to do something once in a great while. Even in different units, so there is little to no interaction between the dupes. So long as it isn't too bad, just moving towards bad, a paladin may never know they did something wrong, because their powers aren't being stripped for the acts. Its the subtle corruption, until something happens big, and it gets blown out that causes Paladins to fall en masse.
Also, nowhere under the paladin's companions section does it say a paladin can't work with neutral people. It just says they won't stay with people who offend their code repeatedly. If these neutrals don't offend their code, then the Paladin has no reason to object to their presence. There are fighters that work for churches too you know...
That's a very interesting discussion. I might add however that I do not believe evil paladins should exist, and although I do like the idea of holy champions, it is questionable too.
It's valid to remember that in the begining of it all, it started with only ONE God being able to "make" paladins, that one was Tyr. He and only HE had the power to imbue a warrior with paladinhood. And I do think it's a valid point and it's cool storywise.
Not every God can create "chosen" or something like that or Banelars, or Baneliches and whatnot, so, I would like to see it being kept for only a few Gods, or at least only the Good ones.
Ah, accusations of being snitty when the other person is being snitty. Keep ramping up the conflict level, go on.
Sense Motive can be a de facto detect alignment, and you aren't going to make the bluff check forever. Prot/Chaos and Evil can reveal an Evil person by their inability to do something as basic as shake your hand. Detect Lies can either catch them out of sorts, or let you instantly know they've warded themselves if you know they are lying and the spell doesn't go off. Various Holy effects will actively work against them even if they've hid their alignment.
A Paladin lives in a world of infiltration, possession, and mind control. Being suspicious of your brothers isn't the motivating force...it's making sure they are still pure and free of foreign, outside influences. If you just happen to catch a traitor in the process, good for you!
Detect Evil's ability to sense Evil is absolute. Now, the Evil may not be INTENSE...but it doesn't have to be. Any Evil at all contaminating a paladin is grounds for something wrong going on, and foul magic at work!
A paladin should be almost obligated to help his brothers remain free of the taint of evil by assessing them. Make it really, really hard to infiltrate the order with a smiling face and a Bluff check, and petty wards against Detect Evil. Paladins know the limitations on their abilities and should plan for it. Praise the Gods for what they do, and trust in your own abilities, the gods will help if they choose to. Supplanting 'trust in the gods' for competence is more thinking Paladins are Lawful Stupid and can't think on their own.
People who play paladins as Dudley Do-rights with no brains behind them annoy the heck out of me. We're talking a world of magic, and no PC-class character is going to ignore the implications thereof, or the willingness of Evil to exploit all the tricks they can. Paladins have to be ready for them, faith and sword in hand, not ignore them and be ready for the gods to rescue them.
Eesh.
===Aelryinth
I think the problem is that the Paladin is not supposed to be the generic holy warrior. It's a specific kind of holy warrior. It's supposed to represent the honorable, heroic knight in shining armor. Thus it is supposed to be lawful good. That's an intended part of the design, not an oversight. However, they're may be room for variations on the theme, maybe a dark paladin (LE, with all the paladin's chivalry and honor, but turned towards evil), an anti-paladin (CE, bereft of both the paladin's honor and goodness), and even a chaos paladin (CG, as good hearted as any paladin but more free spirited and devoted to freedom). However, these would not just be carbon copies of the paladin, but would have unique differences.Chaotic good 'paladins' only work in adventuring bands. You have to realize the chaotic alignment focuses on the self. A Chaotic Good Paladin isn't an 'us' person, he's a 'me' person. He's all about covering himself in glory and honor and refusing to follow others, the epitome of the Chaotic freewheeling good hearted bastard alignment. He'll do what he likes, when he likes, and as long as nobody gets hurt, all's right with the world. He might be patronizing to lesser folks, follow my example and all will be well with the world, but he won't give a snit for any rules or laws that don't mesh with his own personal code of honor.
He'd make a great adventurer. But a hero? Maybe a Champion, determined to cover himself in glory with his prowess, continually getting sent on grand quests for King and Kingdom, cowtowing to his ego and larger-then-life image of himself.
Such a person would only interact with society for the rewards it offers, finding 'official' stuff hopelessly stultifying and spirit-crushing.
A Paladin of 'Freedom' is a paladin of a cause, and could be summed up with the LG alignment and a code of honor that rigorously forbids slavery. Free will is not Chaotic, nor is Independence. You can make the choice to being LG, and be independent of a...
I disagree completely.
Why? Look at (actual) anarchist theory.
The arguement, summed up as best as I can, goes like this: Law, any law, is oppression. Law is made and enforced by other mortals, who are just as fallible as you are. Being just as fallible, they have no more right to tell you how you should act or live your life then you do. They make mistakes, and every one of their systems is flawed, always will be. Also, anarchist believe that "The world that we create is the one we must live in" (i.e. if anyone's freedom is limited in any way, everyone's freedom is limited, or at least threatened to be limited).
With that in mind, could you not see a chaotic good champion fighting for the good of all, even if it is for the selfish reason of "if they tell that guy he can't do it, then they're probably gonna try and stop me to."
Your idea that chaotic good characters are selfish to the point of flies in the face of the very definition of "good." Chaos is merely the lens that a CG character uses to see what he would believe to be the most good.
Your statement that a Chaotic Good person is not an "us" but a "me" person also flies in the face of over a hundred years of anarchist organization and activism.
Oh, and you wanna talk about slavery, just look at the institution of work and employment.