Woof! Anyone else smell cranky grognard? Alignment is a balancer the way crystal meth is a depressant.Alignment isn't the primary balance factor with Paladins.
The STRICT rules and the codes are an issue.
Like I said, a Lawful Good can lie, a Paladin can't.
Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.
The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.
Actually, the biggest problem in the line is this:
I don't have to defend Paladins needing to be LG. That isn't something I have to prove there is a need for.
You have to prove that there is a need for TN Paladins. If you can't prove a need, then all you are saying is something you want that isn't necessary.
Um, no, you are wrong there. Neither I nor anyone else have to prove anything to you or you to us. I think that is where you're getting confused in all this.
There is as much, or as little, need for paladins as there is for an anti-paladin, a neutral paladin, a green paladin, a holy warrior or anything else. There is a want for such things .. see also articles in the Dragon numerous times, third party products and threads like these where people suggest that they'd like to see a "holy champion sort of like a paladin" for other alignments.
Now, you are free to not like people wanting that. You are free to suggest that the only true paladin is the One True Paladin Accept No Substitute. But that doesn't change anyone's desire for something different.
Finally, for someone who doesn't have to defend paladins needing to be LG you have expended a great deal of time in a number of threads doing just that, extolling that they MUST be LG or else .. what? The world ends? Or they lose some of the mystique that has been built around them and they are just another class like any other?
Actually chaotic and evil alignments are pretty much the definition of liberalizing a code. It is when anti-paladins put restrictions on Their own behavior by doing good deeds that they get in trouble...the opposite of what you are inferring.
They can choose healing or harming for lay on hands, like a pure neutral cleric sort of. They can smite extreme alignments. They can call for a warhorse, ect.
Without the feature? Absolutely. Without the feat? No. That is why we have feats though to choose them.
You really believe that? In my 16 years experiences with 3.PF I've come to learn that players NEVER use "options" that have significant drawbacks. Ever seen characters successfully dual-wield, use poison, trip, grapple, or sunder on any consistent basis WITHOUT the corresponding specialized feat or feature? I sure haven't. The risk of losing your weapon, having the effect turned on you, and the significant penalties are rarely worth your use of a Standard Action.
I'm unaware of a feat that allows free poison use. But you're missing the point here, it's the fact that anyone can attempt to do this however it never happens because Game. Making it a fake option.
You gave it 3 more opposing alignment (excluding NG and NE for some reason?) but halved the damage and limited the amount of DR it ignores. So the versatility it gained lost it some class features AND a lesser smite. Two penalties for versatility =/= balanced. Especially when Paladins get ANOTHER bonus to specific creatures (undead, demons, etc). I think you put TOO strong an emphasis on how great versatility is.Versatility is a MASSIVE advantage and if you can't see that then you've never played with a GM who actually made players follow the Paladin rules and the codes.
Sure they did, however default Paladins rarely, if ever, dealt violently with those of a mostly Good alignment. In most cases, using skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive will get you a non-violent outcome (if your DM is actually any good at same-alignment conflitcs). Thus there is often no need for that "vaunted" versatility. I just don't see why it's nerfed in addition to the other things they loose?
They can target:
Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good.Paladins can target:
Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil
Yeah, just one additional option compared to the default. Big whoop...
Most of the time DR isn't even an issue in this game, then many of them have DR 5 or less. This isn't as much of a flaw as you think. The real advantage of the Paladin's Smite Evil isn't the damage, or even the DR (most of the time), most of the time it is the to-hit and AC buffs.
Of which the Balance Paladin is still getting shafted on. And again, why? Wasn't the instant loss of 3 auras, a nerf to the 4th, & nerf to Divine Spirit enough or worth....what Lying??
I'm looking forward to revisiting this conversation in six months.
But that would be NECROMANCY! You Fall, obviously.
Objectivism is neutral evil? Interesting view.The closest thing we're probably ever going to see to a Neutral Paladin is the Insinuator Antipaladin archetype. They can be Neutral Evil.
They're essentially the Objectivist version of a Paladin.
Yeah, it's definitely Interesting.
Lots of stuff worth thinking about in how alignment translates to real-life philosophy.
Rather poorly for the most part. Alignent is meant to be a simple flag for wargaming purposes. Real life is generally more complicated.
But I will readily agree that Objectivism is simply a poor excuse for a philosophical outlook whose sole purpose is to justify being a self-absorbed, self-entitled, greedy PITA.
he gained xp while being forced by mythic level magic into a body not his own and with twenty class levels not his own, qualifying for the latter purely by epic magic, I.e. story fiat.
When it all goes away, he had still gained xp, and it went into the onlt class it was permitted to go at the time.
And now he is an ex-monk, has forgotten virtually all the monk powers except the ones his xp earned, and no, he is not Lawful.
So he isn't Lawful and wasn't Lawful, gained XP, and that gained XP went to levels in Monk despite not being Lawful. So he's a Pathfinder character who gained levels in Monk while not being Lawful.
But God forbid a player see that and want to emulate that. No, he should expect the third degree over what interests him. Play a Rogue or a Fighter or a Ranger with whatever personality and motivations? Sure. But for the unmitigated gall of deciding that he wanted his character to be using fists and ki instead, he must be expressing an implicit invitation for others to put him under a magnifying glass and subject him to a looming Sword of Damocles. And to think the poor little SOB paid money for gas to go and be subjected to this.
How is this sort of thing healthy? Or warranted? Or worthy of us as decent human beings?
And novels bend the rules, they don't establish them. The excuse here is epic level magic. If you want to spend wishes to replicate the effect, it is up to the GM if you get to be the exception to the rules everyone else has to live by.
This seems to be an accusation of Special Snowflake Syndrome.
Is it SSS to want to drive a blue F-150 rather than a red? No one, not me, not you, not the OP of the thread below this one (and I don't even know who that person is), should have to have their F-150 be red, though if they want to, more power to them.
No one, not you, not me, not anyone, should have to have their character have blue eyes just because it says Witch on their character sheet, though if they want to, more power to them.
And it's not I who shouldn't have to have my character be Lawful just because I want a ki-using Monk. It's no one on the face of the planet. How is it SSS to say that neither I nor anyone else should have have to live by crappy rules?
How is it SSS to say that stress ulcers should not be an expected part of the game? I mean, I don't get it. How do you defend that? "This causes misery and we are all better for it." Why? How? How do what I should still assume to otherwise be decent human beings who can presumably still sleep at night advocate this crap?
The problem with really making the "True Neutral" Paladin, or the:
Full BAB possessing 4 Level divine Spellcasting Class that also receives special divine bonuses in exchange for behavioral requirements.
Is that, you end up with a: "Why?"
-----
Now, I am going to go more Lore-ist here, than mechanical talk.
Mechanical people often seem to have the same argument, the class abilities are class abilities and as such should be available to any player regardless of role-playing choice or flavor.
Generally the argument being that to do otherwise mechanically penalizes players who chose to engage in a different form of roleplaying and that roleplaying and class mechanics should remain separate.
I can't argue that.
Why?
Because when looking at things from a rules-based standpoint this is a valid argument. I disagree at the core idea of looking at the classes from a rules-based position.
From a Lore Perspective is where I have an issue.
-----
First:
Why the Antipaladin is a bad idea:
An Antipaladin is a complete self-serving being. This is a selfish monster who acts for his or her own best personal interests without care or regard for the interests of another. The idea that a Chaotic Evil, or even Neutral Evil, deity would share power with someone that they know isn't going to act in the deity's best interests unless they align and will always act in their own best interests if there is ever a conflict between the two. A Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil deity is just as selfish and as such the two beliefs wouldn't be compatible and thus empowerment through deific intervention would be far less likely.
So the only way the Antipaladin could work is if their own self-green, their own inner evil as it were, somehow was the sustaining source for their powers.
-----
Second:
Why the True Neutral Paladin is similarly a bad idea:
The TNP could only work in the grounds that the God that empowered them had a vested interest in keeping the balance between Good and Evil. They can't be the typical self-focused person, like Iori, who seeks self-perfection is diametrically opposed to granting power in the manner of a Paladin as it goes against the concept of self-perfection. No self-focused deity could empower a being who was similarly self-focused.
This narrows the kind of deity who could create such a Paladin.
Then we have to have the same kind of behavior in the form of the empowered being.
Meaning a God that is focused not-on-the-self or self-interests but is still True Neutral would have to share power with another being that is focused not-on-the-self or self-interests but is also still True Neutral.
So the only logical option would be that person who is interested in the balance for the balance. Thus the deity would give power, and the person's goals align with it.
-----
Third:
Why the Lawful Good Paladin works:
The Lawful Good Paladin does what they do, specifically for the case of promoting the cause of Lawful Good and not on the self. The Lawful Good deity has similar interests. Thus they align.
The LG Deity has no problem giving power.
The LG Paladin's goals align with that deity's goal.So you have a Paladin.
From a Lore-perspective...
What is a True Neutral Cleric/Inquisitor/Warpriest of Gozreh, Nethys, or Pharasma devoted to? Does the lack of LG's similarity of interests prevent these TN deities from sharing their power with their TN servants? Does the lore somehow suffer if the Clerics/Inquisitors/Warpriests in question also have levels in Fighter or Cavalier interspersed, for example, the Warpriest becoming more War than Priest (closer to full BAB, and only 4/9 spellcasting than the 6/9 spellcasting a normal Warpriest uses)?
Why would it suffer or even succumb to a slight hiccup just because, instead of patching together a conglomeration of classes to achieve that result, we used a class built from the ground up to be Full BAB/ 4/9 spellcasting?
he gained xp while being forced by mythic level magic into a body not his own and with twenty class levels not his own, qualifying for the latter purely by epic magic, I.e. story fiat.
When it all goes away, he had still gained xp, and it went into the onlt class it was permitted to go at the time.
And now he is an ex-monk, has forgotten virtually all the monk powers except the ones his xp earned, and no, he is not Lawful.
So he isn't Lawful and wasn't Lawful, gained XP, and that gained XP went to levels in Monk despite not being Lawful. So he's a Pathfinder character who gained levels in Monk while not being Lawful.
But God forbid a player see that and want to emulate that. No, he should expect the third degree over what interests him. Play a Rogue or a Fighter or a Ranger with whatever personality and motivations? Sure. But for the unmitigated gall of deciding that he wanted his character to be using fists and ki instead, he must be expressing an implicit invitation for others to put him under a magnifying glass and subject him to a looming Sword of Damocles. And to think the poor little SOB paid money for gas to go and be subjected to this.
How is this sort of thing healthy? Or warranted? Or worthy of us as decent human beings?
And novels bend the rules, they don't establish them. The excuse here is epic level magic. If you want to spend wishes to replicate the effect, it is up to the GM if you get to be the exception to the rules everyone else has to live by.This seems to be an accusation of Special Snowflake Syndrome.
Is it SSS to want to drive a blue F-150 rather than a red? No one, not me, not you, not the OP of the thread below this one (and I don't even know who that person is), should have to have their F-150 be red, though if they want to, more power to them.
No one, not you, not me, not anyone, should have to have their character have blue eyes just because it says Witch on their character sheet, though if...
forgive me, but at this point you have devolved into whining. "The rules don't let me play any character I can conceive of, so these rules suck!" is not really flying with me.
Like I said, if your dm is willing to sign off on someone using epic-level magic forcing you to level up as a monk despite the fact you don't qualify in any regard, more power to you.
Other then that...well, yes, I think you have a severe case of special snowflake syndrome. "I want, I want" isn't a compelling argument in my book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horse crap.
It doesn't DO anything. If anything, it expands the flavor and consistency of the world rather than sticking to an arbitrary ruling that was created 30+ years ago for one version of the game and that hasn't advanced with the times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it doesn'T DO anything, then it shouldn't matter that you cannot have it. Play a warpriest, it's why they were made.
For some of us, it really does do something, and it does matter. I know the current video game mindset is to simply grant powers and to heck with good, evil, holy or unholy, what and why and how and who gets them.
But this ain't a video game. Paladins are fine staying LG. If you don't like it, play some of the many and even 'better' options.
If it doesn'T DO anything, then it shouldn't matter that you cannot have it. Play a warpriest, it's why they were made.
For some of us, it really does do something, and it does matter. I know the current video game mindset is to simply grant powers and to heck with good, evil, holy or unholy, what and why and how and who gets them.
But this ain't a video game. Paladins are fine staying LG. If you don't like it, play some of the many and even 'better' options.
No, if I don't like it I have the power to change it. You see, the book isn't some divine mandate that doesn't permit change. If I, or someone else, wants Neutral Paladins or LE paladins or CG paladins or whatever else .. you can have them.
It doesn't matter what I, you, them or anyone else thinks. These discussions on the boards are entertaining ways to pass time but they don't have any ability to stop people from wanting things and indeed having them. See also caster-martial problems, different fighters, things PFS won't let you have and more.
And, darling, crying for Paizo to change it, and for everyone to give you rousing support isn't going to work, either.
So make your cliched neutral paladin, you can't be stopped, right enough. Just don't expect cheers from everyone as you do.
Now, if you made a good Paramander conversion, that would be something else.
You must be mistaking me for someone else. I haven't asked Paizo to do anything. I've managed quite admirably for years to adjust this and other games for my needs.
Additionally, I've yet to see myself or anyone else ask for cheers over it. People are discussing it and others seem hellbent to jump up and down to decry any change to the base paladin, as if allowing something similar in other alignments will hurt the paladin's feelings in some way.
Likewise, announcing it on the boards is then silly and useless. The fact it is being posited here is proof enough of a desire for change by some.
My version of Golarion is fairly close to Paizo's. Paladins are LG. There are no neutral "paladins". Others can do whatever they like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, silly. Much like the conversations over changing anything in the game, or discussing what people would like or dislike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original poster, Phasics, wanted to know if it could exist and, if so, how? OR can another class fall in line with the TN-Keep the Balance brigade? The question is vague because it lacks context. Is this for a Pathfinder setting? If so, is the DM ok with the idea?
Generally speaking you can make a TN Paladin adhering to Balance strictly via mechanics, if HWalsh's underperformed versionis any indication. Alternatively you can roll up a Warpriest that fits the bill as well. I guess you could even use the cleric as a chassis too. The paladin, however, is probably the easiest of the three to play and has some interesting role-playing aspect that should be considered for the role.
To those who just say "No, LG-Only." Your voice is noted but I don't understand the need to keep repeating it? Isn't the Core Rulebooks, "extraordinarily famed" James Jacobs word, and tradition enough to for you to keep on keepin'-on? Why not let us "dissenters" enjoy the theorizing and house-rules we're obviously creating?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember those days. The "lore" was mostly "because". The same reason was used for giving females lower strength as well.
As I recall, level limits were one of the many things that were house ruled out as many people find "because" less than a great reason.
As for losing things you care about .. you don't. You don't lose anything unless and until squads are deployed from the game companies to force you to play in a certain way. So far I've been lucky and avoided the assassins sent out by Wizards, Paizo, and TSR before them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember those days. The "lore" was mostly "because". The same reason was used for giving females lower strength as well.The reason wasn't "because"
The reason was actually that because the other races lived longer lives they had a lack of motivation to improve to truly exceptional levels that required more than simple training but a specific obsessive dedication that was granted to the humans (lore-wise) by the Gods of Grayhawk in honor of their willingness to burn more brightly due to their much shorter time on this plane.
The lifespan issue was very problematic as there were many monsters that, when striking a player, could age them 1, 5, or even 10 years. Also spells like Haste and Wish drained years off of the caster.
As I recall, level limits were one of the many things that were house ruled out as many people find "because" less than a great reason.Hardly. More like many people didn't bother to read the lore.
As for losing things you care about .. you don't. You don't lose anything unless and until squads are deployed from the game companies to force you to play in a certain way. So far I've been lucky and avoided the assassins sent out by Wizards, Paizo, and TSR before them.Unless we play in PFS, or the RPGA, or join a new group.
These things being in the main rules allow us to be fairly confident in what we can and cannot expect.
Mmm. Except not everyone played Greyhawk, so that bit works about as well as saying something is because of how it is on Golarion .. which people commonly dismiss as the rules should be setting neutral.
People read the lore. People understood that there was a manufactured reason that they didn't agree with. People didn't agree with the limits on female strength as well, and I don't recall much in the lore about that.
If you play at another table, or PFS, or RPGA (does that still exist?) then you accept table variation. That's been a truism since games began.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those who just say "No, LG-Only." Your voice is noted but I don't understand the need to keep repeating it? Isn't the Core Rulebooks, "extraordinarily famed" James Jacobs word, and tradition enough to for you to keep on keepin'-on? Why not let us "dissenters" enjoy the theorizing and house-rules we're obviously creating?There are a number of reasons why we "keep on" and basically it is to provide a counter-point.
Its the same reason you dissenters keep posting about the things you post about.
Its the same reason we had to have a thread about all of the caster martial threads. Its the same reason that you say yes every time we say no.
Also there is a very legitimate reason for us to keep on defending what we see as the proper way to do things.
That legitimate reason is to make it clear to the Powers-that-Be™ that there is a counter-point. When the dissenters run unopposed this creates a false perception that this is a universally agreed on thing. This happens all the time.
Here is a perfect example:
In early editions of AD&D it was ruled that non-human PCs had class limits based on races that were explained in the lore of the game world. This added flavor to the game world. It added a stark contrast.
Also early on non-humans could Multiclass, humans could not, but humans could dual class whereas non-humans could not. Again, this created specific mechanics that were woven into the lore.
This created lore flavor.
Then, because there were a lot of dissenters, who complained about those limits and because the traditionalists didn't really rise up, this got nixed. Flavor lost because people wanted mechanical homogenization.
So... We have to oppose. If we don't, we risk losing what we care about.
Yeah I don't buy ANY of that. Do you wanna know why Paladins in 5e (and 4e) aren't restricted to a specific alignment? Because polls and surveys were released and the majority concensus was to remove them (at least as they were in pre-4e days). To me, that's democracy at its finest. And, as it stands, you don't have to agree or even comply! How's that for ya, everyone can get what they want? But here's the thing and it's a topic that was rehashed hundreds of times, people want their preferences validated in the big book. To me, if a DM wants to ban/restrict classes then be an actal DM and DO that. Todays DMs are far stronger in their convictions than older DMs mainly because they don't hide behind rules for their preferences.
Explain why the current rules of the game are actually good ideas and therefore morally defensible in light of the toes they step on,
Or explain zilch and try to sell it as taking the high road.
forgive me, but at this point you have devolved into whining. "The rules don't let me play any character I can conceive of, so these rules suck!" is not really flying with me.
Like I said, if your dm is willing to sign off on someone using epic-level magic forcing you to level up as a monk despite the fact you don't qualify in any regard, more power to you.
Other then that...well, yes, I think you have a severe case of special snowflake syndrome. "I want, I want" isn't a compelling argument in my book.
The reason you're not seeing my "surprised" face is because I'm not. Hell, I'm not even disappointed. To be disappointed, I'd have to have an expectation of a result and get a worse result than expected. Didn't get that. I would have liked to have been pleasantly surprised, but I knew better than to hold my breath. You had the opportunity to actually explain why these game design decisions that "seemingly" step on player's toes without call are really good choices that are morally defensible and, in fact, serve to the betterment of everyone involved, despite being really (really, really, really) well-disguised. Why they're really to be embraced rather than reviled. I'm honestly curious whether there even is such an explanation.
Instead, bupkiss. Not surprising. I've asked this before. "My grievances against alignment, alignment restrictions, and these other such design decisions are BLAH. Let us assume there actually is a perfectly good rationale behind them and call it BLANK. What is BLANK? Please define BLANK." And to date, no one can define this mysterious BLANK. Instead, I just get some tired variation on "It's the way it is, and it's just the way it is. So there. Nyah-nyah. It works for me, so the fact that it doesn't work for you is no skin off my nose. Sucks to be you, so stop whining." Nothing new this time.
Regardless, I'd still love to hear from someone what this BLANK is (giving the benefit of the doubt that there even is a BLANK).
Because you are acting like granting spells is the same as creating a Paladin. James Jacobs, for example, in his thread on here has confirmed lore-wise that only certain gods *CAN* do it.
This isn't something that just anyone can do. You have to have a special person, then a special god, that decides there is a special bond.
For example:
Jacobs was asked, in his thread on here, about a Paladin of Asmodeus. His response was along the lines of, "Even if Asmodeus could somehow lure someone with the proper spark to him, he can't make a Paladin."
I never said anything about making a Paladin; I'm talking about a whether a character can exist in Pathfinder who is devoted to Nethys or Pharasma or Gozreh. With abilities expressed mechanically as a patchwork combination of Cleric or Inquisitor or Warpriest in conjunction with something more mundane like Fighter or Cavalier. And why changing that behind-the-scenes mechanical expression of said character means diddly regarding what's going on in-universe.
You didn't answer my question.
In a setting-neutral game that makes no assumptions about the specific setting lore that said game will be used for...
Let's say we have one player who wants to play a Fighter using a sword and another player who wants a Fighter with an axe. And put them in three situations.
1) By default, the rules only allow for sword-Fighters, and while there is a setting out there that actually has lore explaining why axe-Fighters aren't a thing, no one in the world said anything about these players even playing in that setting. One person happy, one person unsatisfied. So why is this ideal?
2) The rules allow for both sword-Fighters and axe-Fighters. Both players can walk up to a game with this game system with the default assumption of having to constantly fight an uphill battle. Two people happy, no one dissatisfied. Why is this not ideal?
3) The player wanting a sword-Fighter only wants the game to support sword-Fighters and can only be satisfied when any prospective axe-Fighter-playing players either can't play what they want or have to fight an uphill battle to do so. No matter whether the game supports both sword-Fighters and axe-Fighters or only sword-Fighters, only one player will be happy while the other is dissatisfied (the sword-Fighter-player happy and the axe-Fighter-player unsatisfied or the axe-Fighter-player happy and the sword-Fighter-player unsatisfied because the axe-Fighter-player is happy). Yes, it's unfortunate that no matter which way the game rules are, someone's unhappy and the game rules aren't ideal, but since one case involves the game implicitly encouraging some rather selfish behavior, isn't the other case still more ideal than that?
Pathfinder only has either LG or (L,N) CE Paladins (or insert whatever name you want here). The players who only need that without care one way or the other are satisfied. The players who only need that at the expense of no Paladins of other alignments are also saitsfied. The players who want something else are not. Changing the game to accomodate the players who just want to play what they want to play can only happen at the expense of the players who don't want that. So why not change the game? Why defend and encourage selfishness? What is the mysterious BLANK that makes the game accommodating players who want their Paladins the way they currently are at the expense of other players so much more a worthy endeavor than the game where players can play what they want, even if some players have to grudgingly acknowledge their fellow players' right to do the same?
I want to see this BLANK explained and defended.
IM atherosclerosis retains that if ou hadn't a democratically decided setting, whee you just went with the most popular choice for each setting design would probably end up ironically a unpopular feckless mush of a system.
Democracy may be a superiors form of government but that doesn't necessarily make it a superiour method of game design.
All I need to do is point straight at 5e to completely invalidate that assertion. I was involved with the 5e Playtest from the very first release (5 pre-generated characters advancing to only 2nd level) and involved with every survey up until the initial release of the actual game. In that time span they:
• polled class balance, what worked and what didn't.
• polled every class on how it worked, did it differentiate from other classes, and how thematic was it to the core ideal of that class.
• how fast combat was, how engaging was it, and whether or not Theater of the Mind was more commonly used than not.
• individual class features
• individual races
From there they tweaked the "Core" or Basic game. This was your elf, dwarf, human, and halfling along with the Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Lets just say just THAT process took almost a full year to compile and institute. And I think they learned a lot, from not wanting a HUGE amount of mechanics thrown at the game early on (3e, PF, and 4e problem) to not wanting a LOT of bookkeeping from turn-to-turn (4e's problem) and fiddly bits (loads of minuscule modifiers, ie. 3.PF problem).
Then they started with a more broader class selection, and this is where the Paladin came in. Initially with the Paladin it was required to just be Lawful. Any Lawful, but lawful-something. And people howled. LOUD and a LOT. The boards raged with discussions JUST like this one, not only so-called "balance" but the whole identity the class had come to be. Many people were mad it was JUST Lawful and not required to be good, thus sullying the name. Others yelled that being lawful was far too restricting, wrecking interesting role-playing concepts. Additionally the Monk also had to be Lawful as well, which gained a slightly less heated argument, mostly because the monk never generated as much alignment controversy as the Paladin did.
Finally the devs, after two additional releases of play-test material (with the Lawful tag still required) it was removed. It took two additional playtest releases without the Lawful tag before people realized that the alignment restrictions on both the Paladin and Monk (and subsequently the Barbarian and Druid) would be a thing of D&D's past, much like 5 different saving throws, THAC0, gender attributes, and weapon speeds (at least as default goes).
So basically 5e is a direct result of the player base nudging and pushing design of the entire system, from classes and races and feats and backgrounds, and features into the direction of popular opinion. Why do you think SO much 4e-isms still snuck their way into the design space? At-will scaling cantrip damage with character (and not class) level, using hit die healing (similar to Healing Surges), full HP on 1-night rests, no alignment restrictions, battle master maneuvers, non-magical healing (mostly prevalent in 4e), etc.
So far 5e has been doing fairly well for itself, as most can clearly see.
Regardless, I'd still love to hear from someone what this BLANK is (giving the benefit of the doubt that there even is a BLANK).
I can only surmise that the rationale behind the good reasons for blank are two-fold:
1. Identity. Despite the fact that there have been paladins of other alignments officially printed by WotC and in Dragon mag the imagery of the Crusader/Holy Knight is something of an appealing concept. Lancelot, Galahad, Knight Templars, and chivalry in-general conjures this picture of purity and justice (reality shows us it's anything BUT) clad in shining plate mail with lance or sword held high on a charge to fight evil head-on. COOL! You get all these COOL powers but you have to uphold the code of chivalry and honor. Your dedication to truth and justice cannot waver, even in the more dire circumstances.
yadda-yadda....
Basically early version of the game gave us this AWESOME imagery and a lot of nifty things to go with that. It was strictly better than the Fighter. It was hard to become a Paladin (due to racial/stat requirements) and thus not everyone could roll one up. Plus it's the whole cliche "With Power comes Responsibility..." blah blah. The alignment was, at the time, a nice safety valve for the DM to pull (in convoluted Catch-22 scenarios) if the Paladin player was hogging too much spotlight.
2. Traditionalism. You said it yourself LOADS of people point to earlier parts of D&D and the game and say that it's always been like that. This tradition helps with point #1 in continuing it's identity. None of the mechanics need the alignment restriction. The Paladin, as I've seen it since 3e til now, isn't anything BETTER than other classes and is actually quite dwarfed mechanically against things like a Cleric or Cleric/Fighter. Truthfully it serves to keep traditionalists and classicists happy and content with things they've grown up to believe as unwavering truth. Many of these same people also dislike more modern approaches to the game, especially player options. They're just as likely to hate things like Tieflings and Drow characters as PCs because of tradition. And of course to these same ones, there's NO clear indication of martial disparity plus most extraordinary feats and abilities go against their sense of verisimilitude as well.
Hope that helps!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your pretentiousness aside, tectorman, what you just asked is "what are the mechanical justifications for an alignment restriction?"
Which is basically trying to argue away alignment because you can't put a number on it.
To your demand for BLANK, I've got a few counter demands.
What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to lie?
What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to cheat and steal?
Of not being able to use poison?
Of not being able to make a bad moral decision and just shrug it off?
Of being pious? Humble? Charitable? Friendly? Generous? Merciful? Tolerant? Faithful? Honorable? Courageous?
Noble in the truest sense?
To uphold the letter and spirit of the law?
To be a paragon of virtue?
Break down the modifiers from the rules for me, since you seem to want to boil it all down to numbers.
And then let me say that the answer to your question is that you qualify to be a paladin if you want to be.
That's the benefit.
It's not about mechanics. It's about reality and expectations.
It's about the classic trope of being rewarded for goodness, be it a holy saint, a pious knight, an enlightened monk, or a pony with the power of friendship. It's the trope that in a magical world, not being an amoral bastard has benefits all its own.
The paladin makes that trope a fact of life. To a lesser degree, the monk does for self-discipline and an ascetic lifestyle. If you go back to the original classes, whine all you like about paladins were better then fighters, but do you remember they had to tithe away half their earnings, and could only one ten magic items at a time? And that monks could own even less?
All those restrictions are there to emulate the fact that acting as a proper paladin was hard, and furthermore that failing lost all your cool stuff from being a paragon of virtue, back to being like everyone else.
But hey, you no longer had to give away half your loot, could own a golf bag of gear, could lie cheat and steal if you liked, do whatever. You just couldn't be a paladin.
If all a paladin was, was about the numbers, nobody would care. Pretty every other class is just about numbers.
The paladin is your reward for playing a true blue traditional hero, of the toughest kind to play.
And if you're going to say the paladin is just about the mechanics and anyone can play one...then you don't understand what it represents, at all.
=====================
And the &^/#&%=#%_# reason women had lower str scores was to reflect reality. Women have less upper body strength on average and at maximum then men do. Do your mothers and sisters go screaming at nature for the reality of that? No. The game reflected what is real, and it was the only ability score impacted, much against the prejudice of medieval eras where women were considered inferior in all respects.
Women could still wear gauntlets and girdles and be as strong as the men who wore the same things, so eventual equality at the upper end was built right into the system, and it had no impact whatsoever at the average level! Forgive gygax for modelling actual reality rather then video game reality when he set the stat ranges in!
Wow... That's awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your pretentiousness aside, tectorman, what you just asked is "what are the mechanical justifications for an alignment restriction?"
Which is basically trying to argue away alignment because you can't put a number on it.
Except that the restrictions were placed on it specifically due to numerical IMBALANCE it created mechanically. For the most part that mechanical imbalance is now gone. The "rarity" of making Paladins is gone. So yeah, give a numerical justification for the alignment restrictions other than nostalgia and lore.
To your demand for BLANK, I've got a few counter demands.
What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to lie?
Relatively small
What are the mechanical benefits for me being unable to cheat and steal?
Heavily depends on whether or not you have the skills to achieve such. Just because you can (like anyone can *try*) doesn't mean you will based solely upon your skill set and chance of success. But I'm sure your non-Paladin characters, wearing full-plate ALWAYS try pick pocketing....
Of not being able to use poison?
Same as above. Only in the most rarest of occasions are players going to even attempt to use poison without the Poison Use feature.
Of not being able to make a bad moral decision and just shrug it off?
Of being pious? Humble? Charitable? Friendly? Generous? Merciful? Tolerant? Faithful? Honorable? Courageous?
Noble in the truest sense?
To uphold the letter and spirit of the law?
To be a paragon of virtue?
ALL of this is just pure fluff and role-play. What about those non-Paladins who do this? What numerical benefit to they get from acting this way??
Break down the modifiers from the rules for me, since you seem to want to boil it all down to numbers.
And then let me say that the answer to your question is that you qualify to be a paladin if you want to be.
That's the benefit.
Being able to lie and use poison are rather "blah", mechanically speaking, in the overall scheme of the game. Talk about pretentious...
It's not about mechanics. It's about reality and expectations.
Aaaaaaand this is where you lose me. Reality? C'mon, man.
It's about the classic trope of being rewarded for goodness, be it a holy saint, a pious knight, an enlightened monk, or a pony with the power of friendship. It's the trope that in a magical world, not being an amoral bastard has benefits all its own.
And somehow Paladins of other alignments take this iconic notion away? How? Explain why, if Paladins were open to other alignment it restrictions YOU from playing this paragon of virtue? Tell me how this somehow hurts your ability to do you own thing? Because someone, somewhere is playing the game differently? This has SOOO MUCH wrongbadfun attached to it, it's sort of scary...
The paladin makes that trope a fact of life. To a lesser degree, the monk does for self-discipline and an ascetic lifestyle.
Yea, the monk discipline is moronic on it's face. You know what takes serious discipline? Studying magic. Therefore and under that logic ALL Wizards should have to be Lawful too. Except there not. You can have CG, CN, CE wizards who still somehow hold onto "reality" and discipline long enough to grasp cosmic magical energies to bend to their will.
Basically Discipline =/= Lawful and it never has.
If you go back to the original classes, whine all you like about paladins were better then fighters, but do you remember they had to tithe away half their earnings, and could only one ten magic items at a time? And that monks could own even less?
Sure, if DMs forced this upon you. And those mechanics are now gone. I wonder why, hhmmmm....
All those restrictions are there to emulate the fact that acting as a proper paladin was hard, and furthermore that failing lost all your cool stuff from being a paragon of virtue, back to being like everyone else.
See DM Safety valve with Catch-22 scenarios.....
But hey, you no longer had to give away half your loot, could own a golf bag of gear, could lie cheat and steal if you liked, do whatever. You just couldn't be a paladin.
If it's for the greater good, Paladins of Freedom could. And you can do the same thing in 4e and 5e.
If all a paladin was, was about the numbers, nobody would care. Pretty every other class is just about numbers.
The paladin is your reward for playing a true blue traditional hero, of the toughest kind to play.
Bwhahahahah, reward? Yeah like we said back in the day you were rewarded for being lucky for rolling good stats. Nowadays, however, none of that applies. Try again?
And if you're going to say the paladin is just about the mechanics and anyone can play one...then you don't understand what it represents, at all.
No, we do it just doesn't match up with your nostalgia-tinted glasses.
And the &^/#&%=#%_# reason women had lower str scores was to reflect reality.
Wow.....um I'm pretty sure you do NOT want to travel down this road..
Women have less upper body strength on average and at maximum then men do. Do your mothers and sisters go screaming at nature for the reality of that? No. The game reflected what is real, and it was the only ability score impacted, much against the prejudice of medieval eras where women were considered inferior in all respects.
*sigh* and I'm sure you heavily use this in your games, right? Because reality is something EVERY D&D game must adhere to...[/sarcasm]
Women could still wear gauntlets and girdles and be as strong as the men who wore the same things, so eventual equality at the upper end was built right into the system, and it had no impact whatsoever at the average level! Forgive gygax for modelling actual reality rather then video game reality when he set the stat ranges in!
I really don't have to forgive him for anything. Do you seriously wonder WHY these rules don't exist today? Yea, modeling reality is something D&D has been SUPER amazing at!!
That's sarcasm BTW....
Paladins are a classic reminder that you should roleplay a character as if the character wasn't just a fantasy version of you. People don't want to be challenged to take the high road anymore because it's too difficult for them to reconcile their own 'my way' attitudes with the ideals a Paladin is supposed to represent.
The solution? Remove the lawful good alignment and code requirement from the Paladin and just let anyone play it any way they want to. Can they do it? Sure! It's your game, after all. Does it take away from the flavor and challenge of the class? It absolutely does! It's damned difficult to play the straight man in real life. It should be equally challenging in a fantasy game. That's what's so fun about it.
Paizo has already provided a bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments be they druids, clerics, warpriests, etc. All of these classes are awesome. So, why all this fuss over the Paladin? Because people want that sweet sweet full BAB? lol Please..