|
While reading a Society Message board thread discussing the legality (or lack there of) behind a Paladin of Asmodeus, I was reminded of something I really enjoyed about Paradigm Concepts' Arcanis setting. In this setting, deities had no alignment; particular sects/churches/interpretations of the faith were what determined the actual alignment at hand.
Still, many deities did not mesh well with Paladin. So in their 3.5 update, base classes for "Holy Champion of X" were made for each deity that stuck to the flavor of a given faith to allow for a martial champion who was not necessarily a cleric/priest. Paladins were just considered virtuous paragons within a given faith. I really liked this approach because it let you be a divine character who was not a pure spellcaster or a Paladin.
Obviously, I have no intention of advocating for base classes representing holy champions for all of Golarion's deities, prestige classes, or even just one or the other for the major deities only. But the APG presents a new way to approach this: Archetypes.
What about archetypes which modified or adjusted Paladin in small ways (Smite Law vs. Smite Good, code of conduct differences) that allowed for a holy champion of a less than lawful good faith? Many have criticized anti-paladin as not filling the role Blackguard once held due to it's Chaotic Evil focus. What if Blackguard was such an archetype?
|
|
While reading a Society Message board thread discussing the legality (or lack there of) behind a Paladin of Asmodeus, I was reminded of something I really enjoyed about Paradigm Concepts' Arcanis setting. In this setting, deities had no alignment; particular sects/churches/interpretations of the faith were what determined the actual alignment at hand.
Still, many deities did not mesh well with Paladin. So in their 3.5 update, base classes for "Holy Champion of X" were made for each deity that stuck to the flavor of a given faith to allow for a martial champion who was not necessarily a cleric/priest. Paladins were just considered virtuous paragons within a given faith. I really liked this approach because it let you be a divine character who was not a pure spellcaster or a Paladin.
Obviously, I have no intention of advocating for base classes representing holy champions for all of Golarion's deities, prestige classes, or even just one or the other for the major deities only. But the APG presents a new way to approach this: Archetypes.
What about archetypes which modified or adjusted Paladin in small ways (Smite Law vs. Smite Good, code of conduct differences) that allowed for a holy champion of a less than lawful good faith? Many have criticized anti-paladin as not filling the role Blackguard once held due to it's Chaotic Evil focus. What if Blackguard was such an archetype?
Just wanted to toss in that according to pages 65-66 of Bastards Of Erebus, Asmodeus does indeed have Paladins. Lawful Good Paladins.
Just wanted to toss in that according to pages 65-66 of Bastards Of Erebus, Asmodeus does indeed have Paladins. Lawful Good Paladins.While reading a Society Message board thread discussing the legality (or lack there of) behind a Paladin of Asmodeus, I was reminded of something I really enjoyed about Paradigm Concepts' Arcanis setting. In this setting, deities had no alignment; particular sects/churches/interpretations of the faith were what determined the actual alignment at hand.
Still, many deities did not mesh well with Paladin. So in their 3.5 update, base classes for "Holy Champion of X" were made for each deity that stuck to the flavor of a given faith to allow for a martial champion who was not necessarily a cleric/priest. Paladins were just considered virtuous paragons within a given faith. I really liked this approach because it let you be a divine character who was not a pure spellcaster or a Paladin.
Obviously, I have no intention of advocating for base classes representing holy champions for all of Golarion's deities, prestige classes, or even just one or the other for the major deities only. But the APG presents a new way to approach this: Archetypes.
What about archetypes which modified or adjusted Paladin in small ways (Smite Law vs. Smite Good, code of conduct differences) that allowed for a holy champion of a less than lawful good faith? Many have criticized anti-paladin as not filling the role Blackguard once held due to it's Chaotic Evil focus. What if Blackguard was such an archetype?
That caused quiet a ruckus on another thread, lol. I think a paldin should just be a holy warrior selected by his deity, but they must conform to their deities desires. The difference between a paladin and a cleric would be, to an extent, is that you can choose to be a cleric, but you have to be chosen to be a paladin, which is why they are held to a higher standard in their deities eyes. I also know the setting, IIRC says you don't need a deity. In that case the forces of the cosmos choose you, and it is up to you and the DM to to develop a strict code to follow, kind of like the 3.5 kensai had to do.
|
|
That caused quiet a ruckus on another thread, lol. I think a paladin should just be a holy warrior selected by his deity, but they must conform to their deities desires.
Yeah, but if the diety's desires are that this particular group of worshippers don't act exactly like him, and serve as a bastion against the forces of chaotic evil agendas, like Lamashtu, then a LE god would be strongly motivated to empower a group of Paladins. In a Blood War Planescape type setting, it would make all kinds of sense for Dispater, Asmodeus, etc. to build up legions of Paladins to send against the forces of the Abyss.
Indeed, the dieties of myth and lore here on earth very strongly discourage their worshippers from acting like, emulating or comparing themselves to the gods in any way, with a very strict set of 'do as I do, not as I say' laws and commandments, and the Greek gods, in particular, viciously punishing any mortal who even gets favorably compared to a diety, let alone deliberately acts like their patron god. Even 'good' gods like Athena and Apollo would curse, transform, afflict with plague or flat-out kill a follower that acted like them.
Similarly, a god of tyranny, discipline, slavery, etc. could very justifiably be *chaotic* evil, even if he ruthlessly commands that his followers obey a rigid and inflexible set of laws, and structure themselves in a heirarchy of dominance. He considers himself far above the laws and commandments he laws down upon his followers, and while his church is lawful to an extreme, he does whatever the hell he wants, because he's not just a Cleric of the god of tyranny, he *is* the god of tyranny, and he makes the rules, he isn't shackled by them.
It's a pretty radical departure from the D&D standard, where dieties appear to incapable of deviating from their own alignment (which any *mortal* can do), or changing alignment, or encouraging their followers to 'do as I say, not as I do,' making them, paradoxically, less free-willed and powerful than *my mom.*
Kind of an odd setup, to have a bunch of free-willed mortals following the dictates of a bunch of non-sentient automata, for the most part incapable of making moral or ethical choices, bound by strictures that do not apply to mortals.
That caused quiet a ruckus on another thread, lol. I think a paladin should just be a holy warrior selected by his deity, but they must conform to their deities desires.Yeah, but if the diety's desires are that this particular group of worshippers don't act exactly like him, and serve as a bastion against the forces of chaotic evil agendas, like Lamashtu, then a LE god would be strongly motivated to empower a group of Paladins. In a Blood War Planescape type setting, it would make all kinds of sense for Dispater, Asmodeus, etc. to build up legions of Paladins to send against the forces of the Abyss.
Indeed, the dieties of myth and lore here on earth very strongly discourage their worshippers from acting like, emulating or comparing themselves to the gods in any way, with a very strict set of 'do as I do, not as I say' laws and commandments, and the Greek gods, in particular, viciously punishing any mortal who even gets favorably compared to a diety, let alone deliberately acts like their patron god. Even 'good' gods like Athena and Apollo would curse, transform, afflict with plague or flat-out kill a follower that acted like them.
Similarly, a god of tyranny, discipline, slavery, etc. could very justifiably be *chaotic* evil, even if he ruthlessly commands that his followers obey a rigid and inflexible set of laws, and structure themselves in a heirarchy of dominance. He considers himself far above the laws and commandments he laws down upon his followers, and while his church is lawful to an extreme, he does whatever the hell he wants, because he's not just a Cleric of the god of tyranny, he *is* the god of tyranny, and he makes the rules, he isn't shackled by them.
It's a pretty radical departure from the D&D standard, where dieties appear to incapable of deviating from their own alignment (which any *mortal* can do), or changing alignment, or encouraging their followers to 'do as I say, not as I do,' making them, paradoxically, less free-willed and...
Most deities promote certain beleifs. I would think if he acted outside of his belief(or spoken beleif) he would lose followers, maybe not over night but you can't pull the wool over people's eyes forever.
In short you can't fool all the people all of the time.
I would also think that a god of tyranny would have rules on how tyrants should act the same way the diety of war(mind blank right now) has rules(beliefs) on how he expects people to behave when a fight breaks out or is about to.
|
That caused quiet a ruckus on another thread, lol. I think a paldin should just be a holy warrior selected by his deity, but they must conform to their deities desires. The difference between a paladin and a cleric would be, to an extent, is that you can choose to be a cleric, but you have to be chosen to be a paladin, which is why they are held to a higher standard in their deities eyes. I also know the setting, IIRC says you don't need a deity. In that case the forces of the cosmos choose you, and it is up to you and the DM to to develop a strict code to follow, kind of like the 3.5 kensai had to do.
You recall correctly, and Paizo have actually snuck an answer to the 'Do paladins have to worship a specific deity?' question into the APG: The Sacred Servant alternate paladin.
Direct quote: 'Paladins, as a general rule, venerate the gods of good and purity, but some take this a step further, dedicating themselves to a specific deity and furthering the cause of the faith. [..blah blah devotion = powers..] A sacred servant must select one deity to worship. This deity's alignment must be lawful good, lawful netural, or neutral good.'
Of course, you can worship a deity without taking the Sacred Servant alternate class, but the blurb also outright states that basic paladins don't ned to follow a specific deity.