|
If course it's relevant if the king approves. That makes it lawful. :)A paladin obeys legitimate authority. A tyrant (i.e., evil king) is not legitimate in the eyes of a paladin. A paladin is lawful not because he mindlessly obeys the edicts de jure, but because he abides by a code of ethics.
In fact since I am feeling the devil's advocate today one could make the argument that u-boat captains during world war 1 were very much into the whole honor thing.
And they served a regime which was far from good.
You people need to stop confusing paladins with cavaliers -- the "brainless knight in shining armor" is spun off into his own base class now.
If course it's relevant if the king approves. That makes it lawful. :)A paladin obeys legitimate authority. A tyrant (i.e., evil king) is not legitimate in the eyes of a paladin. A paladin is lawful not because he mindlessly obeys the edicts de jure, but because he abides by a code of ethics.In fact since I am feeling the devil's advocate today one could make the argument that u-boat captains during world war 1 were very much into the whole honor thing.And they served a regime which was far from good.
You people need to stop confusing paladins with cavaliers -- the "brainless knight in shining armor" is spun off into his own base class now.
I have no idea what the f$## you are talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gather around a farm-house bonfire anywhere near Thistletop in western Varisia and you will hear a story of woeful woe in hushed tones. It deals with a terrible apparition atop a beast straight out of your most horrid nightmares.
The beast itself is so big that you have to step on the shoulders of a companion to be able to attack its tender parts, and the apparition sits on its back to tower over you so high that if you're near-sighted, you won't be able to see its face. Hope that you are near-sighted, because you don't want to see its horrid rictus!
The apparition is clad in the finest, first-hand non-scrap metal, Its very affluence a cruel taunt to the honest, hard-working scrapper.
This terrible monster will trample your hedge mazes, douse your fires, and abduct the man-childs from your larder to have you cruelly starve to death. The lucky ones are those who fall to its cruel, affluent steel, for they don't have to try and catch tricky sea birds for sustenance!
We can only hope that the hero-gods send us a champion that will purge the land from this dishonourable beast and let us resume our work! For far too long have the horses and dogs in this land gone unburned, and man-childs are allowed to go uneaten to such lengths that they gain nasty teeth.
|
|
I have no idea what the f#!~ you are talking about.
It's quite simple, really: paladins are not lawful-neutral -- which is how many of you here insist they behave whenever some debauched satrap issues a tyrannical edict which said paladin is then expected to have a "moral dilemma" dealing with.
It boils down to the "respect legitimate authority" line in the paladin's code. What actions, undertaken by an authority, would render said authority illegitimate in the eyes of a paladin?
-- If you've never watched the early dinner scene in Nottingham Castle in the 1938 version of The Adventurers of Robin Hood, in which Sir Robin susses out of Prince John his willful intention to usurp the throne, now is an excellent time to do so. That scene pretty much tells everything you need to know to put yourself in the proper frame of mind for playing a character dedicated to the destruction of evil and the protection of the innocent. (It might not be TACTICALLY prudent to behave like Robin did, but you have to admit that it would certainly be fun to roleplay it.)
(The knight who offers his allegiance to Prince John -- "My sword is yours!" -- is a cavalier. His lawful-neutral obedience to an unabashed tyrant takes precedent over any appreciation of the ethical consequences.)
1095 Pope Urban II incited Europeans to begin the Crusades. ... 1130 The Church banned bows and crossbows as immoral weapons not to be used against Christians. Knights considered the weapons beneath them
He also banned jousting:
14. We entirely forbid, moreover, those abominable jousts and tournaments in which knights come together by agreement and rashly engage in showing off their physical prowess and daring, and which often result in human deaths and danger to souls. If any of them dies on these occasions, although penance and viaticum are not to be denied him when he requests them, he is to be deprived of a church burial.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please just let silly threads like this die.
Discussions like this makes me wish Paladins were portrayed like "champions of their faiths" rather than pseudo knights with codes that constantly warrants discussion.
You rarely see these discussions about clerics.
As for bows not being honorable... call an Erastilian Paladin dishonorable for using a bow and prepare for a two hour lecture why longbows are the ONLY honorable weapon.
It's all point of view, and a paladin will always see his diety's favored weapon as the best and most honorable.
The pope called bows cowardly because it was so effective against his supporters and "holy" warriors.
In reality, diplomacy is the only honorable "weapon".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And another thing...
Isn't flanking dishonorable? You're ganging up on an opponent.
In 3.0-3.5 there was a class (Knight?) who's code of honor forbade him to get or provide flanking bonuses, he also wasn't allowed to strike a flat footed opponent (if my memory serves me correctly).
Honor is so abstract and shouldn't mix with the mechanics of the game imo.
1095 Pope Urban II incited Europeans to begin the Crusades. ... 1130 The Church banned bows and crossbows as immoral weapons not to be used against Christians. Knights considered the weapons beneath them
Fortunately, we don't have to play with real world religions in game, as that would be a rough problem for many, it is a sensitive issue.
Now if you find a quote of Iomeadae saying the same, that might be of some use (for paladins of Iomedae, that is).
Bushido is also a code of Honor. It dies encourage the learning of archery. Roland, the gunfighter of Stephen King's Tower books, ia a member of an order of Paladin gunnfighters. I'm sure there are a lot of other codes out there, some of them ban ranged weapons, and other might ban armor, other might ban sex while some other ban war altogether.
Honor is so abstract and shouldn't mix with the mechanics of the game imo.
I can't agree with this more.
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.
I mean, i didn't read all of those paladins morality thread stuff, because some of the comments just killed me. But seriously, this game is about creativity. You make your own reasonable paladin your-paladin-specific codes, talk it over with your gm, and guess what: if you follow it, you don't fall.
There are archetypes specifically designed around using ranged attacks. If you don't like it in your game, houserule it out. But it's absurd to argue that ranged paladins aren't RAI.
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.
Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
I mean we think guns have no place in a medieval FRP. So, in our games we don't use them. But you don;t see me chiming in on every gunslinger thread and complaining about how poorly designed the guns are in PF.
We don't like them, and so we don't use them. Nothing wrong with their design afaik.
If you don't like chocolate ice cream and you prefer strawberry, why complain if your favorite store carries both? Just eat the strawberry, and let us eat the chocolate.
Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.
People can agree with the system , but really , almost everyone got their on opinion about what each definiton actually means.
So everyone is all set to be LG , but since each one thinks LG means one thing nobody agrees.
To me the only way to actually play a paladin is talking to the GM first , since it is HIS/HER vision on what LG (+ paladin code) is that will count in the end.
Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.People can agree with the system , but really , almost everyone got their on opinion about what each definiton actually means.
So everyone is all set to be LG , but since each one thinks LG means one thing nobody agrees.
To me the only way to actually play a paladin is talking to the GM first , since it is HIS/HER vision on what LG (+ paladin code) is that will count in the end.
It is always a good idea to talk to a new DM about running a paladin. Or a rogue, or inquisitor, or Hellknight, or ninja, or gunslinger. Or CN PC, or quite a few other things. It's also not a bad idea to read up on that deity.
Heck, some DM's like to go after wizards spellbooks or familiars.
If you don't like chocolate ice cream and you prefer strawberry, why complain if your favorite store carries both? Just eat the strawberry, and let us eat the chocolate.
Because the paladin presents itself as only being one of 18 flavors it could be. A better analogy could be found. Your essentially going into the store that only serves chocolate. I'd rather go to the store that serves strawberry, chocolate, and 18 other flavors(mostly because chocolate would kill me...)
Of course alignment is optional, and that really shouldn't kill the game for you since you can always play something else. Might not work for that group, but the next one might be great! Tends to happen often enough.
To me the only way to actually play a paladin is talking to the GM first , since it is HIS/HER vision on what LG (+ paladin code) is that will count in the end.
Sometimes you get lucky and you get a GM like me who lets you make your own code. I'm pretty lax about paladins myself. I also have one who thinks you have to not flank, not lie to save your life, not CdG, not kill... and makes it nearly impossible. Talking about expectations is great.
In other news, 2011. That's some time ago. Are we beating a dead horse or an undead horse today?
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.
you can do smite evil without alignment
make it work on any alignment, change the name to "Oath of Enmity." problem solved
change "Detect Alignment" to "Detect Hostile Intent" and make it only detect creatures that you either feel hostile towards, or that feel hostile towards you
remove alignment descriptors entirely
change protection from/magic circle against alignment to protection from/magic circle against summoned monsters, which might as well be it's true use.
allow a characters personality to be determined by their actions and behaviors, don't rely on alignment to straightjacket their behavior
different paladins of different religions, have different beleifs, and tying them to the same alignment and same code of contact, makes them all too similar.
is a pragmatic and practical champion of a goddess of the moon and the hunt? any less pious than an idealistic and oblivious champion of the goddess of purity and innocence?
both should have their own champions with their own distinct virtues
the latter is closer to a typical paladin, the former is more like an honored hunter than the typical paladin steriotype
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.
Well, Hit Points are optional... Ultimate Combat provides an alternative. Spells are optional if you play a magic-free world and remove the caster classes. Pretty much the entire ruleset can be used as a pick-and-mix if you wish.
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.you can do smite evil without alignment
make it work on any alignment, change the name to "Oath of Enmity." problem solved
change "Detect Alignment" to "Detect Hostile Intent" and make it only detect creatures that you either feel hostile towards, or that feel hostile towards you
remove alignment descriptors entirely
change protection from/magic circle against alignment to protection from/magic circle against summoned monsters, which might as well be it's true use.
allow a characters personality to be determined by their actions and behaviors, don't rely on alignment to straightjacket their behavior
as I said, with the same amount of changes, you can get rid of Hit Points, Base Attack Bonus, Spells or Classes. It doesn't change the fact those things aren't optional, they are hard coded in the rules. Hero Points, in the other hand, are optional.
different paladins of different religions, have different beleifs, and tying them to the same alignment and same code of contact, makes them all too similar.
I like dnd next proposal, with paladins, wardens and blackguards being good, neutral and evil.
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
I mean we think guns have no place in a medieval FRP. So, in our games we don't use them. But you don;t see me chiming in on every gunslinger thread and complaining about how poorly designed the guns are in PF.
We don't like them, and so we don't use them. Nothing wrong with their design afaik.
If you don't like chocolate ice cream and you prefer strawberry, why complain if your favorite store carries both? Just eat the strawberry, and let us eat the chocolate.
Apples and Oranges. The Gunslinger doesn't have a pointlessly restrictive code of conduct like 'If you ever kill something without shooting it, you lose your abilities'.
Heck, that'd actually be an improvement over the Paladin code, which tries to objectify purely abstract concepts.
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.
Everything in the game is optional. EVERYTHING.
Changing Smite Evil would be simple. Just change it to 'Smite', and you can smite whatever you're in the mood for. Done.
allow a characters personality to be determined by their actions and behaviors, don't rely on alignment to straightjacket their behaviordifferent paladins of different religions, have different beleifs, and tying them to the same alignment and same code of contact, makes them all too similar.
This is why I think Paladin should just be a cleric archetype, or perhaps prestige class.
Alignment isn't optional, it's hard-coded in the rules. Things like Smite Evil don't work without aligment. You could ignore it or replace it, but then Hit Points, Base Attack or spells are optional too, you could ignore or replace all those rules.Everything in the game is optional. EVERYTHING.
Changing Smite Evil would be simple. Just change it to 'Smite', and you can smite whatever you're in the mood for. Done.
To quote the BBEG of The Incredibles... "if everything is special, then nothing is".
"Smite everything" would need a re-balance, because it's already quite good (better than Favored Enemy and Weapon Training by far) even with it's restriction of not working vs every enemy.
"Smite everything" would need a re-balance, because it's already quite good (better than Favored Enemy and Weapon Training by far) even with it's restriction of not working vs every enemy.
What makes you say that? It's already useable on the vast majority of things you run into. Topping it off with the last 5% isn't going to break anything.
In my home campaign we have alignment but it's very much watered down. 90% of all creatures in the world have no mechanical alignment. To have a mechanical alignment you must possess an alignment subtype (classes such as clerics and/or paladins can acquire the subtypes) which make you better at harming your opposition (aligned subtypes make your attacks counted as that alignment, similar to angels vs devils).
Everyone without such an alignment is treated as Neutral for mechanical purposes. Everyone has the capacity for good and evil but they aren't beings of it. This pretty much resolves 90% of the inner party conflicts of having characters with traits that are associated with different alignments and people look at everyone else as people.
This also means that 90% of the bestiary is Neutral-aligned too, because most aren't actually beings of alignments.
In these campaigns all alignment-oriented things provide some protection against Neutral alignment. For example, a holy sword deals +0d6 vs good, +1d6 vs neutral, and +2d6 vs evil. So if an adventurer finds a holy sword it's still potent against most enemies, and the same goes for unholy weaponry.
Paladin smites deal 1/2 damage (minimum +1) versus Neutral aligned creatures. The result is that Paladins now have a much, much larger pool of enemies to smite but the damage is less extreme. My players tend to like this as it's more like "favored enemy: that guy" x/day.
It has done basically nothing but good for our games and has led to a much richer roleplaying experience.
@ashiel
I find this pretty cool actually. Thanks for showing us :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ashiel
I find this pretty cool actually. Thanks for showing us :)
You're welcome. It originally came about during an online persistent world I was running being disrupted by players metagaming alignment, telling other players that they weren't playing their alignment correctly, or treating people differently because of alignment. It got kind of old and was being disruptive.
However, I like the idea of good and evil forces in the cosmos (and to a lesser extent law and chaos but frankly nobody really cares about those as much as good / evil) but I wanted players to have a world to play in that felt a bit more like their own. In this, when you're deciding whether or not to trust someone, you're doing it not because of their alignment but because of your choice to trust them (probably influenced by any activities or history you're aware of with the individual or his/her associates).
So this was the "compromise" that I opted for. However it did nothing but improve the game as far as I and my players were concerned. The metagaming among new players pretty much stopped immediately and while Paladins lost a bit of utility with detect evil they enjoyed being able to smite most anything, and both clerics and paladins of particular alignments felt gratified by actually gaining the subtype of their alignment as part of their aura class feature because it made them stand out as different from humanity that much more and gave them an edge against outsiders or their opposed theologies (since the good subtype basically means a holy cleric can penetrate a demon's DR with his fists if he wants to).
It also opened up some doors for us to begin experimenting with variants on Paladins (such as paladins for certain religious sects, ideals, or other alignments) which we typically called crusaders. Since the majority of their features would be mostly the same it created no immediate balance concerns and it felt pretty good knowing that you could have rivalries or even outright conflict between two different groups of individuals without there always being a clear good guy vs bad guy.
I'd really recommend it to anyone willing to give it a try. A few bits of advice for changing the mechanics:
- All creatures without an alignment subtype are treated as being Neutral for all mechanical effects concerning alignment.
- Effects that cause harm to an alignment cause half the harm to neutral creatures. Most spells like holy smite needn't be changed as they already do this. Effects like the holy weapon enhancement or a Paladin's smite deal 1/2 their bonus damage to enemies.
- Effects that grant bonuses against an alignment, such as protection from evil now grant their bonuses against Neutral aligned creatures and twice their bonus against evil creatures (for example, protection from evil provides a +2 deflection and +2 resistance bonus and blocks mind-control effects vs Neutral, and provides +4 bonuses against Evil creatures). This is because creatures that are mechanically aligned are rarer and the value of the spells is less for most games (it also fixes a very noticeable metagame bias between the protect from spells in regular play).
- Creatures that have the Aura class feature with a chosen alignment take up the alignment subtype of the associated alignment as if they were an outsider. Thus a traditional Paladin has the Law and Good subtypes and a Cleric of a Chaotic Evil deity has the Chaos and Evil subtypes as long as their actions would not cause them to fall out of favor with their devotions (IE - as long as the cleric acts within the usual alignment parameters of his/her deity there is no chance of losing their subtype or powers, likewise as long as the Paladin is acting generally lawful good they would retain their powers).
- Drop all alignment restrictions from the classes except Paladin and the alignment requirements for Clerics choosing their deities.
- I recommend allowing Paladins to choose their aligned cause. Just as Pathfinder Paladins are more focused on Good than they are Law, you may find it more fitting to allow Paladins to merely be Good or antipaladins to merely be Evil. They can still retain their code at GM discretion (or develop a new code with their GM appropriate to their ideals).
- (Optional) Drop the alignment requirements from ALL the classes including clerics and paladins and enjoy being able to use story tropes such as corrupted priests or paladins who serve things like lords, religions, factions, etc. In this case the Paladin's smite works against everything as though it were neutral (1/2 damage).
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
I mean we think guns have no place in a medieval FRP. So, in our games we don't use them. But you don;t see me chiming in on every gunslinger thread and complaining about how poorly designed the guns are in PF.
We don't like them, and so we don't use them. Nothing wrong with their design afaik.
If you don't like chocolate ice cream and you prefer strawberry, why complain if your favorite store carries both? Just eat the strawberry, and let us eat the chocolate.
Apples and Oranges. The Gunslinger doesn't have a pointlessly restrictive code of conduct like 'If you ever kill something without shooting it, you lose your abilities'.
Heck, that'd actually be an improvement over the Paladin code, which tries to objectify purely abstract concepts.
And you're objectifying a matter of personal taste in roleplaying choices. Just because you don't like the paladin restrictions does not mean it is not a good fit for other players.
Don't play a paladin if you don't like it. I've known plenty of people who have excelled playing the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that these arguments come up so often is just a testament to how poorly designed the Paladin class is.Just the opposite. The class is extremely well done. It's just that some can't grok or agree with the games Alignment system and must continually complain about it, when after all, they don;t need to use it in their games.
I mean we think guns have no place in a medieval FRP. So, in our games we don't use them. But you don;t see me chiming in on every gunslinger thread and complaining about how poorly designed the guns are in PF.
We don't like them, and so we don't use them. Nothing wrong with their design afaik.
If you don't like chocolate ice cream and you prefer strawberry, why complain if your favorite store carries both? Just eat the strawberry, and let us eat the chocolate.
Apples and Oranges. The Gunslinger doesn't have a pointlessly restrictive code of conduct like 'If you ever kill something without shooting it, you lose your abilities'.
Heck, that'd actually be an improvement over the Paladin code, which tries to objectify purely abstract concepts.
And you're objectifying a matter of personal taste in roleplaying choices. Just because you don't like the paladin restrictions does not mean it is not a good fit for other players.
Don't play a paladin if you don't like it. I've known plenty of people who have excelled playing the class.
To be fair, a lot of the problem with the Paladin class stems not from people disliking the fact that there are restrictions, but from the fact that there's massive table variance on exactly what those restrictions actually are. As pretty much every alignment or Paladin thread ever (including this one) shows, different people have very different interpretations on what exactly the Paladin's Code requires. Tying the class so intimately into the alignment system is problematic in my opinion, because getting people to agree on good and evil tends to be very difficult.
Might be personal experience talking, to an extent. Having a session derailed halfway through because the DM thought the Paladin did something fall-worthy, and half the table disagreed and the ensuing argument took up the rest of the game time kind of soured me on that particular aspect of Paladin mechanics.
To be honest, that situation has never really come up in the 22 years I've been playing RPGs.
The closest thing was that I had to remind a paladin of his code - I don't remember what he was planning to do exactly, execute an evil humanoid prisoner I think. I told him he wouldn't fall because of that one action, but it would certainly be a mark towards that in his deity's ledger. His character was pretty angry at the prisoner if I recall, so he did it anyway. He never did anything else that I thought the code prohibited (although he did shoot bows sometimes).
Interrupted the game for about 30 seconds.
And you're objectifying a matter of personal taste in roleplaying choices. Just because you don't like the paladin restrictions does not mean it is not a good fit for other players.
Don't play a paladin if you don't like it. I've known plenty of people who have excelled playing the class.
I like paladins so much that I gave people the option to play one of every alignment and ideal!
Alternative way to look at it is that its awesome if you have yours and I have mine and we can both have them.
What makes you say that? It's already useable on the vast majority of things you run into. Topping it off with the last 5% isn't going to break anything."Smite everything" would need a re-balance, because it's already quite good (better than Favored Enemy and Weapon Training by far) even with it's restriction of not working vs every enemy.
It isn't usable vs Constructs, Elementals, animals, and several magical beasts, aberrations and monsters. Between the lowly dire rat at level 1 and the monstruous Bandersnatch at level 20, you have a *ton* of fights vs neutral creatures. Hydras, Bullettes, wyverns, oozes, golems, elementals, dire animals are all of them common enemies in most adventures. The random CN BBEG enemy also is included here (I can remember a couple of N guys in Kingmaker for example, and also in Rise of Runelords
To be honest, that situation has never really come up in the 22 years I've been playing RPGs.
The closest thing was that I had to remind a paladin of his code - I don't remember what he was planning to do exactly, execute an evil humanoid prisoner I think. I told him he wouldn't fall because of that one action, but it would certainly be a mark towards that in his deity's ledger. His character was pretty angry at the prisoner if I recall, so he did it anyway. He never did anything else that I thought the code prohibited (although he did shoot bows sometimes).
Interrupted the game for about 30 seconds.
It was a pretty extreme case, I won't deny. Mostly because way too many of the people at the table were the sort of stubborn and/or pedantic types who would gladly hold up the game for that long just to try and win an argument. Plus some real life differences on morality got pulled into the mix—it was just a big mess all around.
But anyway, my main point was that having a class be so tied into the topic of good and evil is hazardous when people are rarely in total agreement on what those terms mean. Even reasonable people can disagree about those issues, and unless you have a very stable gaming group you've probably had to deal with at least some unreasonable players at your table at some point.
To be fair, a lot of the problem with the Paladin class stems not from people disliking the fact that there are restrictions, but from the fact that there's massive table variance on exactly what those restrictions actually are. As pretty much every alignment or Paladin thread ever (including this one) shows, different people have very different interpretations on what exactly the Paladin's Code requires.
Yes, ON THE BOARDS there is often radical differences in belief as to how a Paladin should be run. IRL, across a table, in my many decades of playing in dozens of dozens of campaigns with hundreds of players and many different rule sets- there’s been no real issue.
Oh wait- there was that one short Convention game, where the DM had some strange super restrictive paladin ideas. Never saw him again, however. Yes, we have had the debate about “killing goblin babies/prisoners’, but IC. Resoolved with no issues.
So, that "massive variance' is a very rare creature in captivity, even tho many posters seem to claim differently. Of course, often, if you press them on the details, it turns out they're not even playing D&D at all...
So, that "massive variance' is a very rare creature in captivity, even tho many posters seem to claim differently. Of course, often, if you press them on the details, it turns out they're not even playing D&D at all...
Happens all the time at mine. Expect table variance.
Really though, that's a pretty controversial statement there isn't it?
To be fair, a lot of the problem with the Paladin class stems not from people disliking the fact that there are restrictions, but from the fact that there's massive table variance on exactly what those restrictions actually are. As pretty much every alignment or Paladin thread ever (including this one) shows, different people have very different interpretations on what exactly the Paladin's Code requires.Yes, ON THE BOARDS there is often radical differences in belief as to how a Paladin should be run. IRL, across a table, in my many decades of playing in dozens of dozens of campaigns with hundreds of players and many different rule sets- there’s been no real issue.
Oh wait- there was that one short Convention game, where the DM had some strange super restrictive paladin ideas. Never saw him again, however. Yes, we have had the debate about “killing goblin babies/prisoners’, but IC. Resoolved with no issues.
So, that "massive variance' is a very rare creature in captivity, even tho many posters seem to claim differently. Of course, often, if you press them on the details, it turns out they're not even playing D&D at all...
And a lot of other people have had different experiences. What makes yours count for so much more than all of theirs?
Happiest Paladins have vows of celibacy not chastity.
To be fair, a lot of the problem with the Paladin class stems not from people disliking the fact that there are restrictions, but from the fact that there's massive table variance on exactly what those restrictions actually are. As pretty much every alignment or Paladin thread ever (including this one) shows, different people have very different interpretations on what exactly the Paladin's Code requires.Yes, ON THE BOARDS there is often radical differences in belief as to how a Paladin should be run. IRL, across a table, in my many decades of playing in dozens of dozens of campaigns with hundreds of players and many different rule sets- there’s been no real issue.
Oh wait- there was that one short Convention game, where the DM had some strange super restrictive paladin ideas. Never saw him again, however. Yes, we have had the debate about “killing goblin babies/prisoners’, but IC. Resoolved with no issues.
So, that "massive variance' is a very rare creature in captivity, even tho many posters seem to claim differently. Of course, often, if you press them on the details, it turns out they're not even playing D&D at all...
You'd be surprised. I was casually chatting about this very thread with my online skype group and most of the group laughed and was like "wow, people thinking paladins using bows is dishonorable, what nonsense".
Except one of our group thought that made sense. He went on to say that if the Paladin wasn't giving his opponent the chance to fight back then he was being dishonorable. One example he gave was if the Paladin was shooting a bow at enemies from some rafters and the enemies had no way to retaliate from a distance, or if the Paladin was using Stealth and sniping his foes from long distances where they couldn't find him.
We ended up talking about it as a group for a while.
It just goes to show that even with people that play on a regular basis there really is a lot of differences that crop up and cause confusion.
All of a sudden, I want to play a paladin archer of Erastil.
Haha, tell me about it. I can't imagine what he would have thought of my Paladin of Wee Jass (Lawful Neutral goddess of death and magic) and her habitual use of arcane magic. She was initially a great frontline fighter but tended to mix up being a martial with using wands and scrolls to buff people and then later she was a strong martial who used consumables for invisibility and greater invisibility.
Against most creatures, a strong foe with greater invisibility is a death sentence. :P
|
|
All of a sudden, I want to play a paladin archer of Erastil.Haha, tell me about it. I can't imagine what he would have thought of my Paladin of Wee Jass (Lawful Neutral goddess of death and magic) and her habitual use of arcane magic. She was initially a great frontline fighter but tended to mix up being a martial with using wands and scrolls to buff people and then later she was a strong martial who used consumables for invisibility and greater invisibility.
Against most creatures, a strong foe with greater invisibility is a death sentence. :P
Eldon Guyre was a paladin... who also used arcane magic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throw in the Empyreal Lords and paladin concepts get even wilder.
Case in point, Empyreal Lords that are eligible for paladin-patronage:
Andoletta/Grandmother Crow - The stern but loving old lady patron of consolation, respect, and security.
Arshea - The gender fluid patron angel of physical beauty, sexuality, and freedom.
Dammerich - The grim and dutiful patron of responsibility and just executions.
Jaidz - The encouraging patron of cowards, the untested, and youths.
Lymnieris - The patron angel of prostitution, rites of passage, and virginity.
Vildeis - The tortured patron angel of devotion, sacrifice, scars, and martyrs.
Zohls - The detective of Heaven, patron of investigators and benevolent spies. (chosen weapon relevant to thread: Crossbow)
And that isn't even close to all of them.