|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I really don't know what you're talking about. I've never had a problem playing a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
So....you find it difficult in real life NOT to lie, cheat, steal, poison others, or help those who possibly require assistance??
That really says a lot.
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..
Yea thats why
[/sarcasm]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If they were really being consistent with that theory, then women should have higher constitution and wisdom scores then men. We generally live longer, and are better at bearing pain than the lot of you, and we're less likely to take risks or start fights just to show off. And we're more willing to ask directions if we get lost.
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?
Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?
That's a fair question. If we have multiclassing and things like the Warpriest, why not Axe the Paladin entirely and just make up Archtypes for the Warpriest. A LG-ONly Warpriest with more emhpasis on smite can be called Paladin. Done...
Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?
Judging by the commentary on this thread, they probably would rejoice at more restrictions and requirements. That they don't enforce them at their table, however, just shows the level of hypocrisy that's going on.
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
A couple of vocal posters on a message board that attracts the vocal is not the same as "people".
As someone who's read ERB novels and comic books based on the same, the gender dimorphism of the Lashunta is severely diluted compared to the material that inspired it.
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
A couple of vocal posters on a message board that attracts the vocal is not the same as "people".
As someone who's read ERB novels and comic books based on the same, the gender dimorphism of the Lashunta is severely diluted compared to the material that inspired it.
I just remember that there was a kerfluffle, just not how many there were. But yes, given the source material it was a lot over nothing.
Paladin story here.
The entire battle was dictated, more or less, by the code. That is a pretty darn impactful thing to happen.
And that worked for that character. But truth be told, I have seen similar results come from straight RP of a code without the reinforcement of "Do this or fall!". A variety over the years of warriors who refused to back down from combat due to honor, of marines and solos that wouldn't leave anyone behind, characters who wouldn't lie for any reason, and so on.
The code is a good guide for being a "good" person, for a given value of good. But those aspects aren't unique to the paladin, nor are there any less interesting aspects that come along with other alignments.
It's unfortunate that some people see equality in something supposedly based on fun and imagination as bad or wrong.
smh....
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?
Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?
I never understood the 17 cha req, myself, but I adhered to it.
But really, if you hit the ability score lotto, you got to make a 1e bard. Now that was a reward for high stats.
So tossing the 17 cha req I can understand.
I'd support the tithing and magic item restricts, too, if it weren't for the fact the whole system assumes you have tons of items, and the paladin isn't designed like it was in 1e to make up for those limitations. You halve wbl and gear carried, and you have basically an NPC level of wealth on a PC. The paladin wasn't designed to overcome that huge a hit to their cash, now that WBL is so essential to a character.
In effect, you'd move the paldin from being a reward for playing a hero to a crazy downward spiral of a failure and penalty for playing one. THAT would be hypocrisy. In 1e, cash was not important. In 3e+, it is ESSENTIAL.
Paladin story here.
The entire battle was dictated, more or less, by the code. That is a pretty darn impactful thing to happen.
And that worked for that character. But truth be told, I have seen similar results come from straight RP of a code without the reinforcement of "Do this or fall!". A variety over the years of warriors who refused to back down from combat due to honor, of marines and solos that wouldn't leave anyone behind, characters who wouldn't lie for any reason, and so on.
The code is a good guide for being a "good" person, for a given value of good. But those aspects aren't unique to the paladin, nor are there any less interesting aspects that come along with other alignments.
You don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between *can* and *must.*
Yes, you *can* follow similar tenets without being a Paladin. You *must* follow them if you are a Paladin.
No, I realize it quite well. Doing good without being forced to should have merit too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every paladin can choose to fall. They have the choice as well. If you can't stomach it, don't play the paladin.
If you accumulate enough merits, you could be a paladin, too!
If you think being a paladin is about being forced, then you DEFINITELY should not be a paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: You can't call it a Paladin for the same reason your GM cannot have MindFlayers in a Pathfinder game. The name s are taken.
You can have a neutral sacred warrior class that is just as handy and powerful as a paladin, but true neutral. Your GM can have brain eating humanoids that look and act nothing like Mind Flayers, but are still aberrations.
That's for home games and play by posts not set in strict Golorion. PFS hasn't signed off on any neutral sacred warrior class. When they come out with some book or adventure path, then you can play a grey knight or whatever they settle on almost anywhere.
Hopefully it will continue to evolve so that eventually OP can play a Neutral Paladin, because seriously, why the hell not?
OP can already try to play a TN Paladin if he wants to. That doesn't mean everyone has to get on the Neutraladin Hype Train. And it certainly doesn't mean I want to see Paizo bend the Paladin to be more relaxed with regards to alignment requirements.
The only actual argument anyone seems to have against that idea is "tradition." That's a bad argument.
This is false. You have either ignored any other argument or criticism made or dismissed it with a 'why not?' As you may see in my posts, this is not a counter argument I contest. Indeed, WHY NOT? I don't have a problem with players striking out on their own and trying new ideas that aren't in published material. What I have done is brought up multiple reasons why I think this concept doesn't hold water.
The concept of a strict code of conduct does not fit non lawful alignments. The Lawful Good Paladin falls if he commits an evil act. The same conditions must be true for a Neutraladin on some level for a sense of equality to be present. There must be some action taken that will cause him to fall outright. Problem is, the Neutraladin is not the antithesis of anything. He does not strongly oppose any alignment. So what causes him to lose his powers? Nothing? Anything?
Is his code of conduct simply a 'don't be too good/evil and don't be too lawful/chaotic?' If so, this is a significantly relaxed view of a Paladin's code that I can't agree with. Any character can have a 'general set of behaviors that I sometimes deviate from'. A Code of Conduct entails consistency and strong self discipline. These are traits of a lawful person who is compelled to adhere to a set of rules. Neutral characters are not compelled in such a manner.
Then again, if you disagree with the whole strict 'Code of Conduct' thing, I totally get it. It's a different kind of challenge that makes you have to put effort into how you roleplay. As for me, I see the code as something that enriches roleplay. It gives a player that much more reason to put aside their own opinions and motivations and think things through from a different perspective.
Of course you could argue 'Why does the player even need the code to do that?' That's a good question. I think the code is there as a reminder that your actions in the game matter. It's all too easy to lose sight of your core ideals when the game starts to drag on and hairy situations present themselves. The code reminds a Paladin of the ideals he should strive to meet in order to be worthy of the divine powers of righteousness he receives.
These powers don't come from any deity, though one could choose to enlist a Paladin into a worthy cause. These powers come as a result of YOUR own actions. They come from within. The code is a reminder that every choice you make has an impact, no matter how small. It challenges you to think things through and try to stick to your guns even if it's not easy, or if it garners a few eyerolls from across the table. This is a part of the game that I appreciate. And I do not believe it fits well with most other alignments.
Antipaladins are Chaotic Evil.
They have a strict code of conduct.
Being Chaotic does not mean not being able to adhere to a personal code. You might want to re-read the alignment descriptions.
Hopefully it will continue to evolve so that eventually OP can play a Neutral Paladin, because seriously, why the hell not?OP can already try to play a TN Paladin if he wants to. That doesn't mean everyone has to get on the Neutraladin Hype Train. And it certainly doesn't mean I want to see Paizo bend the Paladin to be more relaxed with regards to alignment requirements.
Do you believe they'll go back and re-write their rules to accommodate this? MAYBE if Pathfinder 2e comes out, but definitely not now.
The concept of a strict code of conduct does not fit non lawful alignments.
Untrue, this is why there is an Antipaladin (CE, complete with a code).
The Lawful Good Paladin falls if he commits an evil act. The same conditions must be true for a Neutraladin on some level for a sense of equality to be present. There must be some action taken that will cause him to fall outright. Problem is, the Neutraladin is not the antithesis of anything. He does not strongly oppose any alignment. So what causes him to lose his powers? Nothing? Anything?
Actually, quite the contrary. He's the antithesis of extremism. This is seen in four other alignments; Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Chaotic Evil. These represent the 4 corners of the ultimate beliefs and thus the greatest paths to corruption and personal liberty. They are the antithesis to altruism and depravity.
Is his code of conduct simply a 'don't be too good/evil and don't be too lawful/chaotic?'
More or less don't let the extremes override the common. Lawful Good may take extremes, for example, to achieve what they desire, especially in places where law isn't significantly present. It's easy to see where evil lies, less so with Good but it is still there. A TN Paladin would strive, most likely, to keep peace through neutrality.
If so, this is a significantly relaxed view of a Paladin's code that I can't agree with. Any character can have a 'general set of behaviors that I sometimes deviate from'. A Code of Conduct entails consistency and strong self discipline.
Not all that difficult to create really.
These are traits of a lawful person who is compelled to adhere to a set of rules. Neutral characters are not compelled in such a manner.
Sure they are if there is a reason to be invested, and doubly so for a TN Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutralandian code of conduct.
1:Do what you must. If poison is the only way to save innocent bystanders, use poison. If an evil adamantine weapon is the only way to stop a rampaging Golem, use it then seek penance.
2:Bring people together. A dragonborn and a ranger with favored enemy dragon can together accomplish a hundred times more than either one alone.
3:Tolerance. Remember the term people means anyone or thing that has learned behavior they can always change. A Gnoll's instinct is to eat dead things. Animating dead and keeping slaves is learned. If they only animate their own kind, that's their culture, lighten up.
4:Laws should be bent, not broken. Taking food when starving is one thing. Stealing something you don't need because it's shiny shows you have a problem. Some laws are just wrong, such as cutting the tongue of a dissident out. Enforcing an unnecessary law like that is an alignment infraction.
Antipaladins don't have a strict code of conduct. They basically have a CoC that says, 'don't restrict yourself by doing nice things for good reasons. Always have an ulterior motive.' Pretty far cry from a restrictive code. Violating it is nearly impossible if you have any imagination for justification at all. About as far from 'strict'as you can get.
Antipaladins don't have a strict code of conduct. They basically have a CoC that says, 'don't restrict yourself by doing nice things for good reasons. Always have an ulterior motive.' Pretty far cry from a restrictive code. Violating it is nearly impossible if you have any imagination for justification at all. About as far from 'strict'as you can get.
Paladins don't have a strict code of conduct. They basically have a CoC that says, 'restrict yourself by doing nice things for good reasons. Never have an ulterior motive.' Pretty far cry from a restrictive code. Violating it is nearly impossible if you have any understanding of morality at all. About as far from 'strict'as you can get.
I can be reductive too.
