| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet Space of Publishing!
Could you IMAGINE how much space you'd free up if you got rid of all the alignment?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet Space of Publishing!Could you IMAGINE how much space you'd free up if you got rid of all the alignment?
I do love me some Eberron, which doesn't really care about alignments nearly as much. But kooky crazy coincidence, Keith Baker's take on Paladins in Eberron is that their having to stick to their alignments and Codes is all the more important, because in a world of grays they stand out as being an example of absolute Good.
I don't think that Good needs to be Lawful, but the sentiment about Paladins from Keith does make me giggle like a school girl whose crush noticed her in the lunchroom. And you totally know it was pizza day too.
Though I'm not for or against alignments, I just like things to seem fair if they're included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet Space of Publishing!Could you IMAGINE how much space you'd free up if you got rid of all the alignment?
I do love me some Eberron, which doesn't really care about alignments nearly as much. But kooky crazy coincidence, Keith Baker's take on Paladins in Eberron is that their having to stick to their alignments and Codes is all the more important, because in a world of grays they stand out as being an example of absolute Good.
Which is silly as in Eberron they can and do worship evil gods and belong to evil cults and Churches. Really there is no one to strip their power way, as long s they don't think they have fallen, they really haven't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is silly as in Eberron they can and do worship evil gods and belong to evil cults and Churches. Really there is no one to strip their power way, as long s they don't think they have fallen, they really haven't.
Nope, that's Clerics. In Eberron, you have an Aura that corresponds to your God. Like Cardinal Krozen, he's Lawful Evil, but because he follows the Silver Flame he has an Aura of Lawful Good. That was actually added in so that plotlines about corruption in Churches couldn't be resolved by screaming "DETECT EVIL KROZEN! ARE YOU GUYS IDIOTS!?!"
Since Clerics get their powers the way you say, but just believing REALLY hard, they can indeed keep their powers as long as they still believe hard enough. Krozen is an evil man that is abusing his power, but he still believes he is acting in the greater interests of the Silver Flame and the nation of Thrane. He thinks he's still the Good Guy. Because Eberron is wonderful like that.
A Paladin has to follow that Code, and maintain their alignment. Eberron gives them no special treatment, if anything the rest of the setting being morally grey makes things harder on them. They can be part of nominally evil Churches though, you're right about that. Blood of Vol being an example, you could have Paladins of that. But they still can't do anything Evil or allow Evil from others, because unlike Clerics they have to maintain their Code and alignment. How you resolve that with Paladins of the Blood of Vol and all them undead they make is a personal thing. Requires more in-depth explanation of that religion if I were to toss my own take at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[
Nope, that's Clerics. In Eberron, you have an Aura that corresponds to your God. Like Cardinal Krozen, he's Lawful Evil, but because he follows the Silver Flame he has an Aura of Lawful Good. That was actually added in so that plotlines about corruption in Churches couldn't be resolved by screaming "DETECT EVIL KROZEN! ARE YOU GUYS IDIOTS!?!"
Since Clerics get their powers the way you say, but just believing REALLY hard, they can indeed keep their powers as long as they still believe hard enough. Krozen is an evil man that is abusing his power, but he still believes he is acting in the greater interests of the Silver Flame and the nation of Thrane. He thinks he's still the Good Guy. Because Eberron is wonderful like that.
A Paladin has to follow that Code, and maintain their alignment. Eberron gives them no special treatment, if anything the rest of the setting being morally grey makes things harder on them. They can be part of nominally evil Churches though, you're right about that. Blood of Vol being an example, you could have Paladins of that. But they still can't do anything Evil or allow Evil from others, because unlike Clerics they have to maintain their Code and alignment. How you resolve that with Paladins of the Blood of Vol and all them undead they make is a personal thing. Requires more in-depth explanation of that religion if I were to toss my own take at it.
I know what the book says, but they also do serve evil faiths there are paladins of Vol. The books makes zero sense as like Clerics they grant themselves their own powers. It simply makes zero since they could fall, as nothing in Eberron grants them power, just like all other divine classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always seen Superman as LG also. I think that is also why I've never played a paladin. I tend to play my characters more as NG no matter what I write on the paper.
Correction: Since the time has passed for an edit. I did play a paladin once. He offered everyone a chance to surrender. I even gave an NPC money so he wouldn't have to return to a life of crime. If they didn't stand down he was fairly merciless. I coup d graced a guy whom I'd given a 2nd chance to surrender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Chaotic character can have a code, but to stick with a code absolutely is lawful. Chaotic characters do what they feel is right, even if it contradicts what they've previously sworn they would do. They do not stringently follow codes in the face of competing priorities that are more important to them.
That's absolutely untrue.
An anarchist that fights the stablished status quo HAS a code. And they adhere to it, strictly. Ut is just their code is about bringing down stablished order, which they find to be harmful for most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On further thought I think my issue with many flavors of Paladins is that I can't see 9 people of all of the alignments all being equally admirable, honorable, virtuous, honest, righteous, principled, wholesome, and morally upstanding. Sure "Lawful Good" does not have a monopoly on these things but "we're gonna do the right thing and we're gonna do it in the right way" gives LG a leg up. Saying "Neutral Evil is every bit as valid as Lawful Good" is a step too far in the moral relativism department for me, since Neutral Evil is alternatively the "evil over everything" or "Just in it for me" alignments" and neither of those are even remotely admirable, and "being an admirable person" is core to the identity of the Paladin.
A Chaotic Good hero who breaks the rules whenever it is expedient in order to get the desired outcome can be every bit as heroic, but misses the central tension in playing a Paladin- that sometimes doing the right thing and doing things the right way are in conflict. I'm not sure how you could reproduce that for LN "paladins" (who just want to do things the right way, ends don't matter) and NG "paladins" (who just want to do the right things, even if they have to bend the rules to do it). If you throw away the tension at the core of the class you lose the best thing about it, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are we still arguing this? I thought we went over this. How is a class similar to Paladin with specializations for different alignments not the desired outcome? The LG specialization is Paladin and has the iconic Paladin features. The CE one is Antipaladin, and has those features. The others are called other things, and have similar but slightly altered features. Writing up 9 different specializations would be a bit much, I agree, so perhaps we limit them to the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are we still arguing this? I thought we went over this. How is a class similar to Paladin with specializations for different alignments not the desired outcome? The LG specialization is Paladin and has the iconic Paladin features. The CE one is Antipaladin, and has those features. The others are called other things, and have similar but slightly altered features. Writing up 9 different specializations would be a bit much, I agree, so perhaps we limit them to the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE).
Absolutists who think that the existence of the variants makes the original LG Paladin invalid (e.g. "5e has no Paladin")
How are we still arguing this? I thought we went over this. How is a class similar to Paladin with specializations for different alignments not the desired outcome? The LG specialization is Paladin and has the iconic Paladin features. The CE one is Antipaladin, and has those features. The others are called other things, and have similar but slightly altered features. Writing up 9 different specializations would be a bit much, I agree, so perhaps we limit them to the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE).Absolutists who think that the existence of the variants makes the original LG Paladin invalid (e.g. "5e has no Paladin")
I'm the one who said that, by the way. I'm suggesting a class with Paladin as one of the options within it, not a Paladin that can choose any alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the one who said that, by the way. I'm suggesting a class with Paladin as one of the options within it, not a Paladin that can choose any alignment.How are we still arguing this? I thought we went over this. How is a class similar to Paladin with specializations for different alignments not the desired outcome? The LG specialization is Paladin and has the iconic Paladin features. The CE one is Antipaladin, and has those features. The others are called other things, and have similar but slightly altered features. Writing up 9 different specializations would be a bit much, I agree, so perhaps we limit them to the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE).Absolutists who think that the existence of the variants makes the original LG Paladin invalid (e.g. "5e has no Paladin")
I didn't know you said it. I was thinking of a few others who have apparently adopted it as a slogan, and have stamped their feet and yelled no at that idea already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New option for the poll: Add a brand new paladin-equivalent class for each of the other 8 alignments. Think of the possibilities, guys! Eight additional classes!
That are all just new names for paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That are all just new names for paladins.
Unless they are all conspicuously unpaladinesque in their class mechanics. Like if the Neutral Evil one is a CON-based arcane spellcaster with minimal weapon and armor proficiencies, nobody's going to mistake it for a Paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That are all just new names for paladins.Unless they are all conspicuously unpaladinesque in their class mechanics. Like if the Neutral Evil one is a CON-based arcane spellcaster with minimal weapon and armor proficiencies, nobody's going to mistake it for a Paladin.
Which is what no one but the "Badwrongfun paladins re LG only!" group wants. What people are wanting is a freaking paladin, not something that looks nothing like a paladin. Because, that will not fix the issue of wanting to play a non LG paladin. That just adds more class bloat over something no one asked for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Writing up 9 different specializations would be a bit much, I agree, so perhaps we limit them to the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, CE, and LE).
I'd be fine with this. They should share the basic framework (full BAB, bonuses to saves, casting), but the other powers should be different. Lay on Hands, for instance, should heal hp for both LG and CG paladins, but where LG gets mercies, CG could grant bonuses to their allies or chances to reroll saves at higher levels.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to pop back into make a note about the Paladin code we have.
It has six clauses.
The Paladin has to be lawful good.
They can never willfully* and knowingly* commit an evil act*.
They must respect* legitimate* authority.
They must act with honor*. (Not lying, not cheating, and not using poison are given as examples.)
They must help* those in need*, provided they do not use the help for chaotic* or evil* ends.
They must punish* those who harm* or threaten* Innocents*.
*Term is subject to interpretation.
A lot of the discussion above about whether or not a paladin could help a Slave, indeed a lot of discussion surrounding paladins in general, is based on the pretty much unfounded presumption that the honor and Authority clauses trump the protecting the Innocent and punishing the wicked clauses by default. I think it's important to remember that this isn't the case. A paladin can lie to protect the innocent just as easily as they can fail to protect the innocent in the name of never lying. What they must do however I strive to keep both of those whenever it might be possible.
Going back to the murderer at the door scenario I brought up, it occurs to me that the most likely thing of Paladin would do to maintain every part of their code is fight the murderer then and there, to protect the innocent without having to lie and getting to punish someone who threatens an innocent person at the same time. But if that was unquestionably a doomed Prospect, I don't think lying to the murderer is any more violation of their code than telling them where the innocent person is, and I don't think it should be any more likely to cause them to fall.
This is in addition to all of the bits that can be interpreted differently. For instance, you don't have to obey legitimate Authority, you just have to respect it, whatever that means to you.
I've observed that the people who most badly want paladins to be changed seem to be the people who have, or fear that others have, the least flexible view of their codes. I, and all of the GM's under whom I've played Paladins, have interpreted it more loosely, with the Paladin's own judgment permitting them to resolve contradictions in accordance with their own nature and out of their deity. I've never fallen or had someone under me fall as a result
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've observed that the people who most badly want paladins to be changed seem to be the people who have, or fear that others have, the least flexible view of their codes. I, and all of the GM's under whom I've played Paladins, have interpreted it more loosely, with the Paladin's own judgment permitting them to resolve contradictions in accordance with their own nature and out of their deity. I've never fallen or had someone under me fall as a result
It's open enough that you can't point to the code and say the narrow read isn't correct. For instance, you see an escaped slave duck into an alley and seconds latter guards come up and ask 'did you see a slave come by here?'.
Does the paladin fall because he doesn't respect a 'legitimate authority' and makes a lie of omission? Or does he fall for not helping 'those in need'? Both are legitimate readings of the code and this is a situation that isn't contrived in the least and it creates a catch 22 in the code where the paladin has no good option: it's even less tenable if the DM is out to create these kinds of encounters.
|
|
I've observed that the people who most badly want paladins to be changed seem to be the people who have, or fear that others have, the least flexible view of their codes. I, and all of the GM's under whom I've played Paladins, have interpreted it more loosely, with the Paladin's own judgment permitting them to resolve contradictions in accordance with their own nature and out of their deity. I've never fallen or had someone under me fall as a resultIt's open enough that you can't point to the code and say the narrow read isn't correct. For instance, you see an escaped slave duck into an alley and seconds latter guards come up and ask 'did you see a slave come by here?'.
Does the paladin fall because he doesn't respect a 'legitimate authority' and makes a lie of omission? Or does he fall for not helping 'those in need'? Both are legitimate readings of the code and this is a situation that isn't contrived in the least and it creates a catch 22 in the code where the paladin has no good option: it's even less tenable if the DM is out to create these kinds of encounters.
I started to say that that DM is just a dick, but then I remembered how much I hate that argument when people apply it to the new pc goblins. I think the best thing to do would be to address the fact that situations like that can come up, and make it clear that paladins have a choice in how to resolve them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's open enough that you can't point to the code and say the narrow read isn't correct. For instance, you see an escaped slave duck into an alley and seconds latter guards come up and ask 'did you see a slave come by here?'.
Does the paladin fall because he doesn't respect a 'legitimate authority' and makes a lie of omission? Or does he fall for not helping 'those in need'? Both are legitimate readings of the code and this is a situation that isn't contrived in the least and it creates a catch 22 in the code where the paladin has no good option: it's even less tenable if the DM is out to create these kinds of encounters.
If the guards ask him "did you see a slave come by here?", then it's a lie of *commission* to say, "No".
A lie of *omission* is if the guards ask the crowd, "Did anyone see a slave come by here?" and the paladin does not say anything.
The difference between those kinds of lies has fueled ethics textbooks for millennia
|
|
It's open enough that you can't point to the code and say the narrow read isn't correct. For instance, you see an escaped slave duck into an alley and seconds latter guards come up and ask 'did you see a slave come by here?'.
Does the paladin fall because he doesn't respect a 'legitimate authority' and makes a lie of omission? Or does he fall for not helping 'those in need'? Both are legitimate readings of the code and this is a situation that isn't contrived in the least and it creates a catch 22 in the code where the paladin has no good option: it's even less tenable if the DM is out to create these kinds of encounters.
If the guards ask him "did you see a slave come by here?", then it's a lie of *commission* to say, "No".
A lie of *omission* is if the guards ask the crowd, "Did anyone see a slave come by here?" and the paladin does not say anything.
The difference between those kinds of lies has fueled ethics textbooks for millennia
Fun question: Is it disrespectful to the guards to help them commit an evil Act? Such a thing would defile their very soul, and the Paladin might have learned from his Bard friend that it would have negative consequences for them in the afterlife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best thing to do would be to address the fact that situations like that can come up, and make it clear that paladins have a choice in how to resolve them.
I don't think that'll help as I've seen several of these situations and while they 'had a choice', those choices all would result in a fall. And it doesn't require a DM trying to make you fall: just a casual read can bring you to that escaped slave situation without malice and also not seeing a way the paladin gets out with his abilities. IMO saying 'I can read this in such a way that it isn't an issue' doesn't mean the code doesn't have issues.
A lie of *omission* is if the guards ask the crowd, "Did anyone see a slave come by here?" and the paladin does not say anything.
I'm talking about the guards asking the paladin DIRECTLY. Quibble if you want over the lie, it's still NOT respecting legitimate authority to ignore their questions.
Fun question: Is it disrespectful to the guards to help them commit an evil Act? Such a thing would defile their very soul, and the Paladin might have learned from his Bard friend that it would have negative consequences for them in the afterlife.
But is it an evil act to follow the laws as written? What if we substitute an intelligent animal/creature instead of a humanoid slave? Are the guards now evil for trying to capture someone's smart pet? It's not a nice and neat, black and white situation and most others aren't either.
|
|
I think the best thing to do would be to address the fact that situations like that can come up, and make it clear that paladins have a choice in how to resolve them.I don't think that'll help as I've seen several of these situations and while they 'had a choice', those choices all would result in a fall. And it doesn't require a DM trying to make you fall: just a casual read can bring you to that escaped slave situation without malice and also not seeing a way the paladin gets out with his abilities. IMO saying 'I can read this in such a way that it isn't an issue' doesn't mean the code doesn't have issues.
A lie of *omission* is if the guards ask the crowd, "Did anyone see a slave come by here?" and the paladin does not say anything.I'm talking about the guards asking the paladin DIRECTLY. Quibble if you want over the lie, it's still NOT respecting legitimate authority to ignore their questions.
Fun question: Is it disrespectful to the guards to help them commit an evil Act? Such a thing would defile their very soul, and the Paladin might have learned from his Bard friend that it would have negative consequences for them in the afterlife.But is it an evil act to follow the laws as written? What if we substitute an intelligent animal/creature instead of a humanoid slave? Are the guards now evil for trying to capture someone's smart pet? It's not a nice and neat, black and white situation and most others aren't either.
When I say you would make it clear that Paladins have a choice, what I mean is that you would make it clear that no choice would necessarily make them fall. They can choose amongst the precepts of their code when they come into conflict, and they don't have to worry about defensible choices causing them to fall. What is defensible would depend on the ethos of the specific God or other Force giving them their powers.
In my book, that would be an evil Act. If you're holding out for some Cosmic objective morality, you're going to be quite unsatisfied. In any case, the fact that this would vary from Paladin to Paladin is a good thing. It's what stops all of them from being the same.