As for multiclassing, that right there is just penalizing to a player and in no way comes close to what a paladin is (auras, companion, LoH, etc, etc).
The multiclassing = penalty complaining occurs already in too many threads.
...and adhere to an arbitrary definition of good because if they don't they'll be a commoner w/ a good bab and weapon skills.
That is not what happens to a fallen paladin.
But according to how the class is written, you have to adhere to local laws and this abstract def. of "good."
There's nothing in the paladin that requires adherence to local laws.
You want to have different sorts of holy/unholy champions, knock yourself out. You already said it would be easy to do.
Isn't there something that says a paladin has to recognize legitimate authority?
Yes, there is. Legitimate authority does not equal local laws.
That points to the core problem (well, one of the core problems) with the game. Morality is on about the 3rd grade level.
You mean like back when most folks didn't rationalize every horrible thing they did? I taught school for over a decade. I can count on one hand the number of 3rd graders I met that I couldn't trust. I couldn't even start to count the number of adults I couldn't trust. 3rd grade level morality would be an improvement.
:p
|
Yes, there is. Legitimate authority does not equal local laws.
*sigh* now it just seems like you're being intentionally obtuse...if local laws are put into place by legitimate local authority then you, as a paladin, would be required to follow them would you not?
A paladin answers to a higher power and should be held minimally accountable to the "laws of man."
*sigh* now it just seems like you're being intentionally obtuse...if local laws are put into place by legitimate local authority then you, as a paladin, would be required to follow them would you not?
A paladin answers to a higher power and should be held minimally accountable to the "laws of man."
For the first question, no, not necessarily. Good trumps law in the paladin code. After all, an unjust law is not a law, and a ruler that seeks to compel folks to follow an unjust law is not acting as a legitimate authority.
For the second, they are.
|
|
For the first question, no, not necessarily. Good trumps law in the paladin code. After all, an unjust law is not a law, and a ruler that seeks to compel folks to follow an unjust law is not acting as a legitimate authority.
For the second, they are.
If the law came from someone the paladin views as a legitimate authority then it would stand to reason that the law would be good as well.
EDIT: Otherwise the leader would not be viewed as legitimate, correct?
If the law came from someone the paladin views as a legitimate authority then it would stand to reason that the law would be good as well.
EDIT: Otherwise the leader would not be viewed as legitimate, correct?
Not necessarily. Two different situations:
1. The paladin's view could be wrong. The leader viewed as legitimate is in fact not. Consider a King John/King Richard sort of scenario. It might appear that John is rightfully the regent, but the paladin doesn't know that John is deliberately not paying the ransom for Richard. Instead, he's lining his pockets with the taxes collected for the ransom.
2. Even a good ruler can make mistakes. What does a paladin do when Good King Louis makes an evil decree?
|
|
1. if the paladin's view is wrong he is not, by virtue of being wrong, going to know this and would act as if he was not wrong. The question then becomes is that a code violation?
2. This basically comes back to the ambiguity of good. While the common folk and the paladin might see raising taxes by 20% as an evil act, it could be the only thing to fund the ongoing war or keep the kingdom from "bankrupting."
Also there is another quagmire for paladins that follow a deity. Are they going to see any ruler, regardless of alignment, as legitimate if they do not follow the paladin's chosen deity?
1. if the paladin's view is wrong he is not, by virtue of being wrong, going to know this and would act as if he was not wrong. The question then becomes is that a code violation?
Paladins lose paladinhood for committing evil acts, not for failing to uphold the law. In the John/Richard situation, a paladin fully ignorant of John's machinations wouldn't be held culpable. But, once he knew what was going on, he'd no longer be code-bound to respect John's authority.
2. This basically comes back to the ambiguity of good. While the common folk and the paladin might see raising taxes by 20% as an evil act, it could be the only thing to fund the ongoing war or keep the kingdom from "bankrupting."
Taxation isn't an issue of good or evil in almost all cases. It is a matter of prudential judgment. A paladin would be perfectly free to balk at the tax rate. He could urge it be changed, or collected in a more equitable manner. He could go kill a dragon and give its hoard to the king. The possibilities are numerous.
Also there is another quagmire for paladins that follow a deity. Are they going to see any ruler, regardless of alignment, as legitimate if they do not follow the paladin's chosen deity?
That's a campaign setting issue. In the campaign, is the ruler in question actually also a representative of an allied god? If so, is there a hierarchy? Even if both are true, and the ruler ranks higher in the hierarchy, the paladin is still "safe" from a ruler-gone-bad because good trumps law. Again, the possibilities are numerous.
Many of them would also make for some great game sessions, paladins or not.
:)
|
|
Paladins lose paladinhood for committing evil acts, not for failing to uphold the law. In the John/Richard situation, a paladin fully ignorant of John's machinations wouldn't be held culpable. But, once he knew what was going on, he'd no longer be code-bound to respect John's authority.
Paladins fall by committing evil acts OR failing to uphold their code (gross violation wording was removed). Using a literal interpretation of the rules (which people are often inclined to do with paladins) following an illegitimate leader is a violation of the code. And as i recall, it doesn't matter if the violation or evil act is intentional or not.
Taxation isn't an issue of good or evil in almost all cases. It is a matter of prudential judgment. A paladin would be perfectly free to balk at the tax rate. He could urge it be changed, or collected in a more equitable manner. He could go kill a dragon and give its hoard to the king. The possibilities are numerous.
Overtaxation is a recurring theme of an evil ruler, but if a paladin doesn't know the whole story (as non-royals generally won't), a valid tax could be seen as evil or coming from an evil ruler and he could then not pay those taxes. For potential consequences see response one.
That's a campaign setting issue. In the campaign, is the ruler in question actually also a representative of an allied god? If so, is there a hierarchy? Even if both are true, and the ruler ranks higher in the hierarchy, the paladin is still "safe" from a ruler-gone-bad because good trumps law. Again, the possibilities are numerous.
Many of them would also make for some great game sessions, paladins or not.
:)
To the first part of this i think it would depend on how zealotous a paladin was in defending his faith (i didn't say opposing alignments, just different deities).
As to the second part i agree...i know, i'm sure i'm as shocked as you are as i believe this is the first time we've had any agreement lol.
Paladins lose paladinhood for committing evil acts, not for failing to uphold the law. In the John/Richard situation, a paladin fully ignorant of John's machinations wouldn't be held culpable. But, once he knew what was going on, he'd no longer be code-bound to respect John's authority.Paladins fall by committing evil acts OR failing to uphold their code (gross violation wording was removed). Using a literal interpretation of the rules (which people are often inclined to do with paladins) following an illegitimate leader is a violation of the code. And as i recall, it doesn't matter if the violation or evil act is intentional or not.
Anyone who makes the paladin fall because "HAH HAH THE KING WAS REALLY EVIL!" is a terrible DM that should be backhanded. Period.
Honestly, it once again comes down to the DM choosing to make the paladin fall regardless of what the paladin does. No DM would "accidentally" make the paladin fall for something so contrived.
As for deities, paladins are lawful good champions, not followers of deities. In one campaign I'm in, there's a branch of paladins that follow a chaotic good god, and another that follow a lawful neutral god. There's honestly no reason why they couldn't. Literally, there's no in game reason why they couldn't.
|
Anyone who makes the paladin fall because "HAH HAH THE KING WAS REALLY EVIL!" is a terrible DM that should be backhanded. Period.
Honestly, it once again comes down to the DM choosing to make the paladin fall regardless of what the paladin does. No DM would "accidentally" make the paladin fall for something so contrived.
As for deities, paladins are lawful good champions, not followers of deities. In one campaign I'm in, there's a branch of paladins that follow a chaotic good god, and another that follow a lawful neutral god. There's honestly no reason why they couldn't. Literally, there's no in game reason why they couldn't.
Well, somewhere there was a rule that deities could only grant paladin spells if they had paladin levels or something, but I threw that out as rubbish. A more reasonable argument would be that a CG god likely has dogma that would rub against a LG paladin, but I myself would not bat an eye at it.
Also, VERBAL backhand Prof, VERBAL. As much as we want to beat people that perform stupid acts, we need the protection from being bea- I mean, need to resolve things peacefully for the good of the group and avoid police intervention. Physical violence is never a first resort, and never a resolution to a personality problem.
|
|
Paladins lose paladinhood for committing evil acts, not for failing to uphold the law. In the John/Richard situation, a paladin fully ignorant of John's machinations wouldn't be held culpable. But, once he knew what was going on, he'd no longer be code-bound to respect John's authority.Paladins fall by committing evil acts OR failing to uphold their code (gross violation wording was removed). Using a literal interpretation of the rules (which people are often inclined to do with paladins) following an illegitimate leader is a violation of the code. And as i recall, it doesn't matter if the violation or evil act is intentional or not.Anyone who makes the paladin fall because "HAH HAH THE KING WAS REALLY EVIL!" is a terrible DM that should be backhanded. Period.
Honestly, it once again comes down to the DM choosing to make the paladin fall regardless of what the paladin does. No DM would "accidentally" make the paladin fall for something so contrived.
As for deities, paladins are lawful good champions, not followers of deities. In one campaign I'm in, there's a branch of paladins that follow a chaotic good god, and another that follow a lawful neutral god. There's honestly no reason why they couldn't. Literally, there's no in game reason why they couldn't.
What i've been saying is why can't there be champions of other alignments? There are certainly deities to back them as there are deities of every alignment. Just seems like a single alignment is very restrictive and not very representative of what the class could be if a little bit of flavor had been added to it.
If you want a class that is a martial champion of other alignments I fully support that. They just shouldn't be called "Paladin".
Quite.
A Paladin, much like Samurai, have a particular code.
They are not simply 'Divine Champions', they also roll up into the laws of the land and a range of other complexities.
LG is the ONLY alignment that works for a Paladin as written, and LE is the ONLY alignment that works for an 'anti-paladin' of sorts.
The Chaotics aren't interested/unable to adhere to such a strict Dogma, and the Neutrals see it as being distinctly non-neutral to have such an extremist set of viewpoints.
CG would more likely have as their Divine Champion a Ranger, reflecting independence, freedom and a good heart. CE might have a Barbarian champion for a similar reason. Most other Deities are well covered by Clerics and Druids.
It's not that they are 'weaker' by not having a 'divine champion', its more a case of they wouldn't have the motivations and inclinations that would require one.
...and he has to follow a code to represent that god correctly. If he misrepresents the particular deity then the deity puts him on timeout(takes his powers away).But there's the problem right there. Chaotics aren't real flash at following a said 'code', they are prepared to compromise the rule of law in order to achieve their desired ends. What end they are trying to achieve is what determines their placement along the G/N/E axis. Furthermore, Chaotic gods are too caught up in individualistic freedoms to get too bogged down in dogma. Imagine being the Paladin of the Hippy God - "everything is kinda ok man, as long as you dont get all heavy yeah, and if you kinda break the rules then thats cool too - because rules are like totally made by The Man....dude"
Paladins have a set of LAWS that they follow. A 'code' is more like a 'guideline'; just not the same thing.
I think even chaotic people have a belief set, but I do see your point. After a while you may just have a warrior with magical powers instead of a "paladin".
The way I see it is that the forces of evil get Necromancers, Assassins, hordes of Orcs and other assorted monsters, Liches, and several other things. The forces of good don't get that. They get Paladins.
How come there aren't people ranting about good aligned assassins?
Personally, I feel that the Paladin is the ONE SPECIAL THING that the good guys get. Allowing it to every alignment under the sun diminishes the concept.
I see no reason why a LE deity can't have a paladin. The good guys also have assassins. I have yet to see a group of adventures turn down money, ok maybe one. They don't often ask to many questions if you throw a big enough number in front of them either.
I see no reason why a LE deity can't have a paladin. The good guys also have assassins. I have yet to see a group of adventures turn down money, ok maybe one. They don't often ask to many questions if you throw a big enough number in front of them either.
Well I've maintained all along that LE might have an 'anti-paladin' of sorts, Mordred being a fine example!
A group of adventurers might be described as Mercenaries for Hire, sure, but Assassins is a slightly different line. Good aligned adventurers are like the A-Team - they roll in and solve problems for the good guys and make conscious decisions on the side of 'right'.
If a good party, especially one with a PALADIN in it, took a payment of 500gp to burn down a town with all the townsfolk in it 'no questions', then you'd have to really ask these guys what alignment they reckon they put on their sheets... "Something E", and probably CE.
I see no reason why a LE deity can't have a paladin. The good guys also have assassins. I have yet to see a group of adventures turn down money, ok maybe one. They don't often ask to many questions if you throw a big enough number in front of them either.Well I've maintained all along that LE might have an 'anti-paladin' of sorts, Mordred being a fine example!
A group of adventurers might be described as Mercenaries for Hire, sure, but Assassins is a slightly different line. Good aligned adventurers are like the A-Team - they roll in and solve problems for the good guys and make conscious decisions on the side of 'right'.
If a good party, especially one with a PALADIN in it, took a payment of 500gp to burn down a town with all the townsfolk in it 'no questions', then you'd have to really ask these guys what alignment they reckon they put on their sheets... "Something E", and probably CE.
Well I have not seen it taken that far, lol. I would definitely slap them with some sort of evil alignment if they did that.
|
|
I see no reason why a LE deity can't have a paladin. The good guys also have assassins. I have yet to see a group of adventures turn down money, ok maybe one. They don't often ask to many questions if you throw a big enough number in front of them either.Well I've maintained all along that LE might have an 'anti-paladin' of sorts, Mordred being a fine example!
A group of adventurers might be described as Mercenaries for Hire, sure, but Assassins is a slightly different line. Good aligned adventurers are like the A-Team - they roll in and solve problems for the good guys and make conscious decisions on the side of 'right'.
If a good party, especially one with a PALADIN in it, took a payment of 500gp to burn down a town with all the townsfolk in it 'no questions', then you'd have to really ask these guys what alignment they reckon they put on their sheets... "Something E", and probably CE.
While i was using CE as an example, i think it's totally feasible to have LG and LE be the options for paladins. The only problem i can see is that, if you read the alignment descriptions in the rulebook, LG basically says you follow the law and act like a goody goody is supposed to. LE on the other hand, allows the "lawful" part to be a personal code, so there's alot more latitude when playing LE vs. LG.
|
|
Wriathstrike, where do you get the idea that the good guys have Assassins from?Slayer of Domiel, Book of Exalted Deeds?
Wasn't that the book that said "Good, the alignment with the unique brainwashing spells"? I'm not sure I'd take it's word on what's good any more than I'd take the fetish obsessed Book of Vile Darkness's take on evil.
|
|
Wasn't that the book that said "Good, the alignment with the unique brainwashing spells"? I'm not sure I'd take it's word on what's good any more than I'd take the fetish obsessed Book of Vile Darkness's take on evil.
Was the only thing I could think of. I wouldn't take it's word either since it makes Neutral Good out to be furries. :P
I had purged all memory of the Book of Exalted Cheese out of memory, until just now that is. However, mind control and killing people for fun and profit aren't good acts no matter what sourcebook says so.
The Inquisitor class is pretty much set up to allow good aligned assassins. There is nothing inherently evil with churches murdering their foes in their sleep.
Wriathstrike, where do you get the idea that the good guys have Assassins from? The Prestige class states that it not only requires an evil alignment, but that the character needs to commit another evil act (killing someone for no other reason than to become an assassin) in order to join.
This is why I oppose the very thought of the Anti-Paladin. The villians don't need everything the players get and more stuff too. I like the idea that there is one thing that the good guys have that can't be duplicated. Not everything has to exist on every side.
I was talking about the assassin concept, but TOZ's answer would also fit.
The core game is based on the idea that killing people for fun and profit is good.
Maybe in your campaigns; but not in the last couple of decades odd of the ones I have played in...
Killing random things in order to get cash sounds too video gamish to me.
+1.
Not something that has been a part of my experience so far in RPG's - and funnily enough most MMO's/Video games etc have a storyline that explains WHY you are down a dark hole :)
Maybe in your campaigns; but not in the last couple of decades odd of the ones I have played in...
The core game is based on the idea that killing people for fun and profit is good.
I don't think it's the main idea either, but it is a big part of the game. In character the "fun" part is not there, but from a metagamey point both are factors that often spill over into the characters, but many don't notice it.
People tend to get too stuck up on the Paladin's dogma and goody-two shoes attitude, and take it way too far. A Paladin isn't going to freak out over minor details and infractions, but he can still give someone a hard time about them *if he chooses too*. I just think of them as Police...
As a cop, I approve of this. When my players are running around, I tend to judge their actions on how I (or fellow officers) would act. I ran into this most recently when a player executed an unconscious bandit when capture would have been trivial. (He was literally two feet from a general store and actually had rope on hand.) I declared it an evil act and changed his alignment. His response was, "But I'm true neutral! Killing someone isn't evil to me!"
His response was, "But I'm true neutral! Killing someone isn't evil to me!"
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over...
As a cop, I approve of this. When my players are running around, I tend to judge their actions on how I (or fellow officers) would act. I ran into this most recently when a player executed an unconscious bandit when capture would have been trivial. (He was literally two feet from a general store and actually had rope on hand.) I declared it an evil act and changed his alignment. His response was, "But I'm true neutral! Killing someone isn't evil to me!"
People tend to get too stuck up on the Paladin's dogma and goody-two shoes attitude, and take it way too far. A Paladin isn't going to freak out over minor details and infractions, but he can still give someone a hard time about them *if he chooses too*. I just think of them as Police...
Suprizingly, I don't have a problem with a player executing a criminal in the field instead of turning him over to authorities who will in turn execute him. It just saves a step. Paladins have a code of honor that prevents it. This is perfectly in character for a CG character in my mind. In fact, it can be seen in the same light as killing a lame horse; not wanting the person to needlessly suffer in prison.