A paladin is LG, an option that makes it something else might as well make it a new class.And you would be wrong. Those are not paladins. They are hollow mockys's of a paladin,nothing but inmatations. Not paladins, but wannabe's lacking what it takes to be a paladin.
Those would never be allowed in any games I run. Ya want to play a paladin, then man up and play a paladin.A paladin is the line in the sand. He is tied to his concept in way no other class is. You simply can not take away the point and the core of the class and still keep it the same class.
Then the point of Bards is to be wandering minstrels who can obey no law.
See I can be obtuse too.
Actually, you could very easily file off the Lawful part. NOTHING AT ALL in his abilities has jack-crap to do with Lawfulness except for his code of conduct (which isn't an ability, but rather just an extension of the alignment restriction), and even there it's under-represented.
That's kind of the point, though. The Paladin Code is what defines the Paladin.
Everything else is dependent on the game system, tangible existence of alignment, etc.But the Paladin concept is not simply an amalgamation of mechanical abilities, it is about the STORY of the Paladin.
Paladins are supposed to out-Lawful Good Lawful Good. They are an alignment paragon, in other words.
Even Lawful Good Dieties don't demand all of the Paladin's Code from their Clerics (or at least they don't in the default game setting). You could say that a Lawful Neutral Paladin could loyally follow the Paladin Code to it's hilt, but their soul couldn't really be into it as fully as a Lawful Good Paladin's would be.
The point of the class is also the CONFLICT between doing Good and doing good by the Law (or Code), and the Paladin's struggle to follow that fine path in a complicated world.
It will be great to see other variant-Aligment Paladins, but I've gotten a good feeling from the APG Playtest's Inquisitor which can at least fill in for those roles until true variant "Alignment Paragons" can be done justice. I think Paizo made the right choice in postponing those to allow other, non-Paladin class variants to make it into the book.
Eh.
I see paladins as being lawful good and only lawful good.
Certainly you could talk about variant paladins or UA or replacing words, but...well, to me, and to a large number of others, those just aren't paladins.
Lawful and Good are the two things I put together to make "Paladin." Anything else just misses the mark.
As for holy warrior, yeah, that's what a cleric is. Want a holy warrior? Take the War domain ;p
|
Uh would this be a bad time to mention that I would still really prefer the name Blackguard to anti-paladin (rather random I know but still thought I would mention it.
I like Blackguard as well. Just calling all 'holy warriors' Crusaders or Champions or something would be cool.
I generally don't like two word class names like 'Holy Warrior' or Dragon Shaman, or compound words like Warmage or Duskblade.
Blackguard and Warlord get a pass, since they are pre-existing ancient compoundings, and not more recent inventions like Soulblade or Spellthief.
I hope it's called Blackguard and not Anti-Paladin.
(If they are described in passing as being the anti-Paladin, that's fine)
"Blackguard" sounds like something from a story mothers tell their scare their childrenr, even when those children are grown and powerful warriors of the good church. Anti-Paladin doesn't really cut it for that purpose.
The point of the class is also the CONFLICT between doing Good and doing good by the Law (or Code), and the Paladin's struggle to follow that fine path in a complicated world.
What conflict? There is absolutely nothing in his code of conduct that requires him to be "more Lawful than Lawful". Paladins must maintain LG alignment and must "respect authority" and "not lie, not cheat". That's the entire extent of the Law/Chaos axis restrictions. Note that you can be Neutral or even Chaotic and still respect authority, be honest, and not cheat.
The ONLY element of the Paladin class that has anything to do with the L/C axis is the fact that they must be Lawful. They certainly don't have to be "more Lawful than Lawful". As James Jacobs has already said in this thread, the Law side of their alignment is basically ignored and has always been basically ignored. Paladins are paragons of Goodness that just happen to be required to be Lawful as well as a legacy issue, even though Lawfulness has nothing to do with anything in the flavor text, powers, or extra restrictions.
Creative Director
|
The chaotic evil variant in the Advanced Player's Guide is indeed called the antipaladin. I know there's some folks who think that name's silly, but a lot of folks like the name and it's got some unmistakable nostalgic value to it.
That said, and assuming my request gets followed through on, the introduction to the antipaladin WILL mention that the class might be called by any number of names depending upon the actual nature of its faith or world-specific factors, so there'll be some alternate names for folks to call them in their games.
But if you're talking about them in public on these boards, you'll need to call them antipaladins if you want us at Paizo to immediately know what you're talking about. ;-)
|
Creative Director
|
As James Jacobs has already said in this thread, the Law side of their alignment is basically ignored and has always been basically ignored. Paladins are paragons of Goodness that just happen to be required to be Lawful as well as a legacy issue, even though Lawfulness has nothing to do with anything in the flavor text, powers, or extra restrictions.
The reason paladins have a lawful component is due to their code. Adherence to this code, as well as the implications of honor and chivalry and all that, are how a paladin's lawfulness manifests. None of that is really strongly supported by their class abilities, although some of their spells support their lawful alignment component.
In any event, we aren't going to change things around so that paladins can be any alignment. The lawful good requirement is here to stay. If we DO ever want to remove it, we'll just cut the paladin class and rebuild it as a "knight" class or something with different powers.
The chaotic evil variant in the Advanced Player's Guide is indeed called the antipaladin. I know there's some folks who think that name's silly, but a lot of folks like the name and it's got some unmistakable nostalgic value to it.
And Pathfinder is nothing if not nostalgic.
|
You know, I read through this thread and I saw the same post over and over again for the entirety of the first page- "a paladin isn't a paladin without LG alignment." What would really be so bad about having differently aligned churches with competent holy warriors with their own paladin-esque suite of abilities? For me there is no other paladin than the CG one, who doesn't let any stupid laws or "codes" get in the way of what is good and right. But I also never play lawful characters because I model that alignment in real life and it is utterly boring, so most everything I make in D&D is chaotic or bust.
I was fairly surprised to see just how adamant some people were about their position though, especially Seeker's claim that any non LG paladin was power-gaming, even though alignment is pretty much only a role-play element...
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to use the Inquisitor to make my any-alignment holy warrior. Paladins spawn too many alignment arguments anyways, and god knows nobody can be civil during those :P
I can understand why people can say Paladins are only LG and that varients are not paladins, but then it is only a name and they are only called NG paladins or CG paladins because they copy the paladin class.
I think playing a CG paladin could be interesting because he would be often find himself at odds with his order or go a bit too far and have to be punished or even have to go on quests for an atonement. He would have to try to act lawful but would be naturaly chaotic.
Alas, it's looking like the Advanced Player's Guide is not going to have much room to talk about paladins who are something other than lawful good (with the exception of the antipaladin as a chaotic evil variant, of course). It just ended up being too complex to solve in the limited space we had for paladins in the book—it would have meant NO variant paladin support for lawful good paladins, and that's not really an option.
So we might address non LG/CE paladin/antipaladin options with some product (and again, hellknights are a good example), but that product isn't going to be the Advanced Player's Guide, it looks like.
No Templars? Thats very very disappointing to me
My opinion only, and not trying to convince anyone else, but in my games...
Paladin's are LG and only LG. The Arthurian legends are what I base my opinion on.
I do however agree that "Holy Warriors" need to be of all alignments and for that I use Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous (PDF) which I have in both hardcover and PDF.
As always, YMMV.
-- david
Papa.DRB
You know, I read through this thread and I saw the same post over and over again for the entirety of the first page- "a paladin isn't a paladin without LG alignment." What would really be so bad about having differently aligned churches with competent holy warriors with their own paladin-esque suite of abilities? For me there is no other paladin than the CG one, who doesn't let any stupid laws or "codes" get in the way of what is good and right. But I also never play lawful characters because I model that alignment in real life and it is utterly boring, so most everything I make in D&D is chaotic or bust.
Because, once again, paladins aren't "holy warriors." Those are clerics. Differently aligned churches already have competent holy warriors. Clerics. They get medium armor and weapon proficiencies for a reason.
You know, I read through this thread and I saw the same post over and over again for the entirety of the first page- "a paladin isn't a paladin without LG alignment." What would really be so bad about having differently aligned churches with competent holy warriors with their own paladin-esque suite of abilities? For me there is no other paladin than the CG one, who doesn't let any stupid laws or "codes" get in the way of what is good and right. But I also never play lawful characters because I model that alignment in real life and it is utterly boring, so most everything I make in D&D is chaotic or bust.Because, once again, paladins aren't "holy warriors." Those are clerics. Differently aligned churches already have competent holy warriors. Clerics. They get medium armor and weapon proficiencies for a reason.
Then what is the point of Paladins? To be completely insane personifications of LG?
|
|
Then what is the point of Paladins? To be completely insane personifications of LG?You know, I read through this thread and I saw the same post over and over again for the entirety of the first page- "a paladin isn't a paladin without LG alignment." What would really be so bad about having differently aligned churches with competent holy warriors with their own paladin-esque suite of abilities? For me there is no other paladin than the CG one, who doesn't let any stupid laws or "codes" get in the way of what is good and right. But I also never play lawful characters because I model that alignment in real life and it is utterly boring, so most everything I make in D&D is chaotic or bust.Because, once again, paladins aren't "holy warriors." Those are clerics. Differently aligned churches already have competent holy warriors. Clerics. They get medium armor and weapon proficiencies for a reason.
To dream the impossible dream
to fight the unbeatable foeto bear with unbearable sorrow
to run where the brave dare not go
to right the unrightable wrong
to love pure and chaste from afar
to try, when their arms are to weary,
to reach the unreachable star.
Then what is the point of Paladins? To be completely insane personifications of LG?You know, I read through this thread and I saw the same post over and over again for the entirety of the first page- "a paladin isn't a paladin without LG alignment." What would really be so bad about having differently aligned churches with competent holy warriors with their own paladin-esque suite of abilities? For me there is no other paladin than the CG one, who doesn't let any stupid laws or "codes" get in the way of what is good and right. But I also never play lawful characters because I model that alignment in real life and it is utterly boring, so most everything I make in D&D is chaotic or bust.Because, once again, paladins aren't "holy warriors." Those are clerics. Differently aligned churches already have competent holy warriors. Clerics. They get medium armor and weapon proficiencies for a reason.
Paladins are the line in the sand. They are the harbingers of truth and justice, they fight the good fight, they right the wrongs, they do not compromise, they do not waver. They walk the long hard road others can not, they put there mettle to the test and do not flinch, they do not back away from the hard choices. They are the embodiment of goodness and honor and a shining example of just what that can be.
They are the unwavering knight, with a code and unbend-able belief in the spirit of good.They are the embodiment of the ideal of good and honor.
Right. So they're holy warriors.
That is a cleric.
Z - Paladins are holy warriors
Sos - Clerics are holy warriors
Z - Paladins are holy warriors
Sos - Clerics are holy warriors
Z - Paladins are holy warriors
Sos - Clerics are holy warriors
Z - Paladins are holy warriors
Sos - Clerics are holy warriors
Z - Paladins are holy warriors
Sos - Clerics are holy warriors
etc, ad nauseam...
Can we all just agree to disagree.
The phrase "holy warrior" is not mentioned *anywhere* in the Core Rule Book so it is open to be defined by each person as suites there gaming group.
Thanks
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
The phrase "holy warrior" is not mentioned *anywhere* in the Core Rule Book so it is open to be defined by each person as suites there gaming group.
Thanks
-- david
Papa.DRB
Does the Paladin's capstone ability "Holy Champion" count? :D
Paladins are the line in the sand. They are the harbingers of truth and justice, they fight the good fight, they right the wrongs, they do not compromise, they do not waver. They walk the long hard road others can not, they put there mettle to the test and do not flinch, they do not back away from the hard choices. They are the embodiment of goodness and honor and a shining example of just what that can be.They are the unwavering knight, with a code and unbend-able belief in the spirit of good.They are the embodiment of the ideal of good and honor.
So they are the insane personification of LG, good to know.
Because from the very first incarnation of the paladin in the game, they've been lawful good. It's part of what defines the character class, and has been from the start. MANY of the paladin's abilities work off of this flavor, granting them thematic abilities that one would expect a lawful good crusader/knight to have, and if we removed the lawful good alignment restriction, then we would have had to rewrite and change those classic abilities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe before 3E Paladins were also a human-only class. There are certain things that should be eliminated over time.
To all those who claim that anything that isn't lawful good isn't a paladin:
I don't know who sold you the rights to the word "paladin", but you should try to get your money back. Paladin is not a D&D exclusive concept. There were paladins in Diablo II, there are Paladins in WarCraft, there were Paladins in "The Letter for the King" of Tonke Dragt. Some of them were blatant rip-offs of the D&D-paladin, others were just knights from a specific kingdom and let's not forget the original meaning of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
Now let's focus on the D&D paladin. The paladin in D&D is a christian cliché. The brave knight who slays dragons, demons and everything else that looks evil with the help of god. The problem with that? It doesn't work in a polytheistic world. Only gods who can have lawful good followers can empower mighty champions?
There are a bunch of chaotic good gods who were allowed to have paladins, but it makes of course a whole lot of sense that said chaotic god would strip a paladin of his powers for helping someone furthering a chaotic cause. Yeah.
Neutral and Evil can't have champions at all. Sure Evil has the blackguard. The blackguard is the half-assed evil answer to the paladin. Half-assed because it has only 10 levels instead of 20 and can only be as strong if they manage to make a level 10 paladin fall. The only good thing about that? The code for good paladins is so dumb that it should drive more than enough recruits for Abyss and Nine Hells crazy.
Now with the Advanced Players Guide we get an anti-paladin... So somehow chaotic evil gods have found a way to replicate the process to make paladins. Yay, they're not completely stupid. Now only chaotic good, lawful evil and all neutral gods are. Isn't it ridiculous that a lawful good or chaotic evil lesser god can empower Paladins while a neutral greater god can't?
Now what's a Paladin to me? I think the first two lines of the capstone say it best:
Holy Champion: At 20th level, a paladin becomes a conduit for the power of her god.
That's what a Paladin is. He's a champion and direct representative of his god. Inquisitors are the ones who are allowed to bend the rules when needed, clerics are the ones who are supposed to follow the rules and teach them but are still fallible. Paladins are the guys who live and breathe the creed of their god. They are (depending on level) on the same step of the hierarchy as any outsider who acts as a divine messenger.
The Paladin is really supposed to be the epitome of "Good", their flavor, their powers, and their position in relevant fiction support this.
So it's always been strange to me that a Paladin is LG. The ultimate good would be NG.
Consider this: A stereotypical Paladin comes across a tyrannical government and a rebellion of good freedom fighters resisting the tyranny.
Is the Paladin conflicted on which side to take? Perhaps he cannot support either because he must choose between evil and liberty? Are both these values in direct conflict with his position as a Paladin?
I figured that the Paladin has no problem choosing between Good and Law. Good every time. Maybe that's just me.
I realize the LG restriction for Paladins is traditional. However, based on what a Paladin is, I always figured the unabashed or restricted good of NG fit the Paladin better.
|
|
The Paladin is really supposed to be the epitome of "Good", their flavor, their powers, and their position in relevant fiction support this.
So it's always been strange to me that a Paladin is LG. The ultimate good would be NG.
Consider this: A stereotypical Paladin comes across a tyrannical government and a rebellion of good freedom fighters resisting the tyranny.
Is the Paladin conflicted on which side to take? Perhaps he cannot support either because he must choose between evil and liberty? Are both these values in direct conflict with his position as a Paladin?
I figured that the Paladin has no problem choosing between Good and Law. Good every time. Maybe that's just me.
I realize the LG restriction for Paladins is traditional. However, based on what a Paladin is, I always figured the unabashed or restricted good of NG fit the Paladin better.
+1
So they are the insane personification of LG, good to know.
If you choose to play one lawful stupid that's up to you. Nothing I said is lawful stupid. If you do not understand, then you never will and the paladin is not the right class for you.
Can we all just agree to disagree.
The phrase "holy warrior" is not mentioned *anywhere* in the Core Rule Book so it is open to be defined by each person as suites there gaming group.
Thanks
-- david
Papa.DRB
I am fine with agreeing to disagree, however the cleric was made to fill just that role. The crusader/holy warrior is just what they always have been.
Lets be honest here, if your just a preacher, you do not need armor or weapon proficiency or med BAB or even a d8. They are the warrior arm of there faith, where as paladins are not just champions of their god, but champions of the embodiment of good and right and fairness itself.
So it's always been strange to me that a Paladin is LG. The ultimate good would be NG.
Consider this: A stereotypical Paladin comes across a tyrannical government and a rebellion of good freedom fighters resisting the tyranny.
Is the Paladin conflicted on which side to take? Perhaps he cannot support either because he must choose between evil and liberty? Are both these values in direct conflict with his position as a Paladin?
I figured that the Paladin has no problem choosing between Good and Law. Good every time. Maybe that's just me.
I realize the LG restriction for Paladins is traditional. However, based on what a Paladin is, I always figured the unabashed or restricted good of NG fit the Paladin better.
NG would bend his code if he needed to, He wouldn't care if he bent a law here or there, he would not care if he broke an order {even just ones} now and then
Simply put NG is not a paladin. As a paladin does not compromise, does not brake a rule here and there just because it's easier to do so. Ng can be fast and loose at times with rules and orders and "codes" and just does not fit the paladin.
To me anyhow
If you choose to play one lawful stupid that's up to you. Nothing I said is lawful stupid.
So they are the insane personification of LG, good to know.
If you translate "insane personification of LG" to "lawful stupid," then everything you said is lawful stupid. And that's once we ignore that your description makes Paladin the codification of a role-playing role. Play Paladin and you ALWAYS have to play it the same. Why? Because it was like that in the old days! Pathfinder is nothing if not pointlessly nostalgic. Do you guys want to be your own thing or want to be a 3.5 update of a 1/2E?
If you do not understand, then you never will and the paladin is not the right class for you.
Thank you for your input, D&D police.
NG would bend his code if he needed to, He wouldn't care if he bent a law here or there, he would not care if he broke an order {even just ones} now and thenSimply put NG is not a paladin. As a paladin does not compromise, does not brake a rule here and there just because it's easier to...
As I already wrote: You don't own the word "paladin", don't act as if you do. There are many incarnations of paladins that don't have anything to do with law. And do you have any idea how many scenarios exist where the paladin you describe can be forced to act against his code? Especially if we consider that not doing anything can be evil too. In fact it's probably the most common kind of evil.
I never said I owned the word, but what some folks here are saying just do not match up to what a paladin has always been in D&D and now pathfinder. The word is used in many games and shows and books but ya know we are talking about this game. And in this game paladin IS LG and nothing else. Bring up what a paladin is elsewhere is as useful as using a white wolf wizard to talk about pathfinder wizards.
y'all want NG paladin like homebrew classes, cool but do not expect me or a lot of other folks to accept them as paladins when they are not.
what ya allow in your homegames is up to you.
also Navarion,name me three written sernaos that "brake " the code as written.
|
Don't mind me, just kicking the fire. :)
This has to be repeated: Paladins don’t get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good.
LG and LN are not the same thing. LG does not mean MUST FOLLOW EVERY LAW EVER. No it means he sticks to his code without bending, without braking his code.
A NG "paladin" could say "screw the code for now this is more important" and ya know what? he is just following his AL so why would he fall? Whats the harm of bending it here and there? I mean he did good by bending it and not like he does it often. So eh wheres the harm right.
Anyhow enough of the AL debate, the OP asked and has been told why. If he wishes to change that in his own game he should do just that. It is after all his game.
LG and LN are not the same thing. LG does not mean MUST FOLLOW EVERY LAW EVER. No it means he sticks to his code without bending, without braking his code.
A NG "paladin" could say "screw the code for now this is more important" and ya know what? he is just following his AL so why would he fall?
A neutral good paladin wouldn't necessarily need a code but he would be required to do the right thing in every situation. Instead of worrying about his code he would have to stray from acts of greed and anger and stuff. If he let those get the best of him, he'd fall.
|
|
A NG "paladin" could say "screw the code for now this is more important" and ya know what? he is just following his AL so why would he fall? Whats the harm of bending it here and there? I mean he did good by bending it and not like he does it often. So eh wheres the harm right.
Redacted after rereading the wording. While the meaning of 'violating the code' can differ from person to person, we won't get into that. The Lawful requirement of the Paladin is just tradition, nothing more. A NG character could be a Paladin just as easily. Because the code spells out what you can and can't do very clearly.
I guess my point is, any Good character could be a Paladin, so long as he could uphold the code.
I never said I owned the word, but what some folks here are saying just do not match up to what a paladin has always been in D&D and now pathfinder. The word is used in many games and shows and books but ya know we are talking about this game. And in this game paladin IS LG and nothing else. Bring up what a paladin is elsewhere is as useful as using a white wolf wizard to talk about pathfinder wizards.
That depends. The WoW-Paladin was realised in a D20 RPG, as was the one for Diablo II, but I have no idea what the differences were for the latter, I wasn't that much into H&S.
y'all want NG paladin like homebrew classes, cool but do not expect me or a lot of other folks to accept them as paladins when they are not.
Unearthed Arcana introduced the paladins for the other 3 extreme alignments. It was an official sourcebook by Wizards of the Coast, not third-party. So whatever you say, they did exist in 3.X. I don't need you to "accept" that there are D&D paladins that are not LG, I don't need you to accept that you need air to survive or that humans have common ancestors with monkeys. It's just a fact.
also Navarion,name me three written sernaos that "brake " the code as written.
First let's use the one of Treantmonk a bit fleshed out. We have a lawful evil tyranny that worships the Lords of the Nine Hells of Baator. On the surface everything seems nice. The towns and villages are in best order, everybody has enough to eat etc. However, all criminals and dissenters are herded in camps around the temples and are sacrificed in groups according to the ugliest rules the Book of Vile Darkness can muster. On the other hand you have a ragtag group of resistance fighters who are only united by the mutual hatred of the status quo. Chaotic good freedom fighters who want to make everything better, people who want to avenge their families, mercenaries who are in it for the loot etc. In short: Helping them would probably lead to a lot of chaos, even though it couldn't be 10% as bad as the devil-worshippers. Helping those in need sounds like what a paladin would do... However there is this ugly "provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends"........ Yeah, lesser evil is a bad bad compromise.
Then there's the nice priority question: Are you allowed to let minor evils slide if you are on a quest to save the world? Can you allow orcs to massacre a village because you have to arrive at the castle of a wizard who wants to summon a demon army in time to prevent it?
A variant of the priority question: What about a villain who has a way to transfer damage you deal to him to innocents? Are you allowed to try to kill him until he runs out of victims killing them effectively yourself or is your only chance to try and break the link, probably giving the villain time to kill way more people himself than you would if you would just hack through his extra HP?
The Lawful requirement of the Paladin is just tradition, nothing more. A NG character could be a Paladin just as easily. Because the code spells out what you can and can't do very clearly.
I guess my point is, any Good character could be a Paladin, so long as he could uphold the code.
The problem with that is that the code is the only thing about the paladin that is lawful. If you have a paladin who sticks to the code you have a lawful good character. For a purely good paladin the code would need to be changed
|
Creative Director
|
Something important to keep in mind.
Most players who like paladins actually enjoy the fact that they're lawful good and that they adhere to a strict code. Removing or lessening that restriction would be like saying dwarves are beardless and abhor alcohol.
I'm certain that a beardless dwarf or an unrestricted alignment paladin could be popular, but I don't want to change things that annoy or aggravate the bigger fans of the class or race or whatever.
Something important to keep in mind.
Most players who like paladins actually enjoy the fact that they're lawful good and that they adhere to a strict code. Removing or lessening that restriction would be like saying dwarves are beardless and abhor alcohol.
I don't know about "most players" but I doubt that it's about "lawful". In fact when I look through the web I see mostly bad stereotypes of the Paladin. "Lawful stupid" is one of the nicer things. And I didn't see the outcry when the WoW RPG made the paladin accessible for all good alignments and dropped the chaos-hate from the code of conduct. I must also have missed the burnings of the Unearthed Arcana. ;-)
I'm certain that a beardless dwarf or an unrestricted alignment paladin could be popular, but I don't want to change things that annoy or aggravate the bigger fans of the class or race or whatever.
Who wants an "unrestricted alignment" paladin? That's what 4E has right now and it's boring. However, there should be multiple kinds of paladins like in the UA. I won't touch anybodies paladin of honour as long as I get my paladin of freedom and the paladins of slaughter and tyranny for npc's. Heck, I don't even care for the names. You could name the CG version Holy Liberator after the old prestige class for all I care, but EVERY god should have the power to choose champions for him.
The problem with that is that the code is the only thing about the paladin that is lawful. If you have a paladin who sticks to the code you have a lawful good character. For a purely good paladin the code would need to be changedExplain to me why only a Lawful character can follow a code, please.
I didn't say that only a lawful character can follow A code. But only a lawful good character can follow THIS code.
The problem with that is that the code is the only thing about the paladin that is lawful. If you have a paladin who sticks to the code you have a lawful good character. For a purely good paladin the code would need to be changedExplain to me why only a Lawful character can follow a code, please.
look at kender, and you will have your answer.
Lawful good wants to take an oath, and follow that oath and that vow to do what he vowed, for the good of the church.
Neutral Good would disobey any orders or vows he felt were too restrictive, but would choose to uphold or follow most of the ones he agrees with, especially in the context of helping others.
Chaotic Good might make the vow as a joke, or a whim of fancy, then throw all orders and vows to the wind when the poop hits the fan. Ultimately the Chatic Good character would most likely abandon the vows and go it alone.
A lawful Evil character would follow the laws that best suited him, and would only break those laws if he felt he was either more powerful than the institution, or if he was certain he could get away with it.
Neutral Evil wouldn't really care about any codes or laws he took, but mostly care about what he himself could out of the deal, abandoning all vows the first time the balance shifted against him.
Chaotic Evil would probably never take a vow to a church, and if he did, it would be fleeting. The moment the power shifted elsewhere, so would the chaotic evil character.
Neutral characters would probably not even be interested in taking any vow, feeling that things like that would best be left to others. They may take the vow for a short time, but soon the strict rigidity would constrain them, or they would see something evil as justified, and that would be the end.
That's a few of the alignments, and I feel that is why the core paladin should only be Lawful Good.
|
|
I didn't say that only a lawful character can follow A code. But only a lawful good character can follow THIS code.
Okay then, explain why a Neutral Good character cannot respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm innocents?
Neutral Good would disobey any orders or vows he felt were too restrictive, but would choose to uphold or follow most of the ones he agrees with, especially in the context of helping others.
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Nothing in there mandates disobeying an order or vow for any reason. A Neutral Good character would follow the orders until he could bring about the peaceful change to it. If he could not, he would still abide by it.
I will accept Chaotic Good to feel the urge to rebel, but I believe an exceptional character (such as a Paladin) would be able to accept the code as it is, even if he disagrees with it.
Okay then, explain why a Neutral Good character cannot respect legitimate authority, act with honor, help those in need, and punish those who harm innocents?
He can do all that, however, that's not the complete code of conduct. If you look at the whole thing you see that a lot of chaotic acts are forbidden. A neutral good character is usually one whose acts are generally good and who alternates between lawful and chaotic acts because they don't mean anything to him. He's just for the greater good. Now the code doesn't allow him as much chaotic acts as lawful ones. So his alignment will shift to lawful good.
|
|
He can do all that, however, that's not the complete code of conduct. If you look at the whole thing you see that a lot of chaotic acts are forbidden. A neutral good character is usually one whose acts are generally good and who alternates between lawful and chaotic acts because they don't mean anything to him. He's just for the greater good. Now the code doesn't allow him as much chaotic acts as lawful ones. So his alignment will shift to lawful good.
Not all Neutral characters perform lawful and chaotic acts. Some only peform neutral acts. Some perform more lawful acts than chaotic and vice versa. But the Paladin only falls if he commits an Evil act. Having a code doesn't make you Lawful.
TOZ,That code does make you lawful.
Also Navarion,none of the things your brought up are issues. Doing one or the other is not a problem. Leaving the village to face the orcs is not an evil act, he can warn them. Staying to help the villagers in place of going to fight the other thing is the more foolish act, but also not evil and neither violates the code
It may bug your GM your screwing with his storyline but none of it effects his code or AL in the lest.
And AU never was official in any setting, not even eberron who were lax a bit on most AL but not paladins AL. AU was a optional rule book, full of options that were never supported by the company that made the book.
So no they are not paladins.