Introducing a Lawful Good Paladin PC into the party paradoxically increases chaos at the gaming table. Discuss!
Introducing a Lawful Good Paladin PC into the party paradoxically increases chaos at the gaming table. Discuss!
No offense, but if you run a search on the forums you'll find many threads discussing the chaos that comes from having paladins and adhering to their codes within a group.
Introducing a Lawful Good Paladin PC into the party paradoxically increases chaos at the gaming table. Discuss!No offense, but if you run a search on the forums you'll find many threads discussing the chaos that comes from having paladins and adhering to their codes within a group.
True, there are a lot of threads out there on paladin alignment (and potential woes thereof), but I for one have never seen it stated in such a clever fashion. It gave me a laugh, so kudos L12P.
play an inquistor or war cleric or fighter/cleric fighter/cavelier then.
wouldn't be much of a paladin if he wasn't the L/G i could maybe maybe see c/g maybe but force of good aginst evil is a paladin practically every ability they have screams G
I like Paladins LG, but want the code/falling to only relate to doing evil actions, not chaotic ones.
I want them lawful, but they should see the law as "the best way to uphold goodness and fight evil", not as an end-goal by itself.
I think it would be best of Paladins were Neutral Good. IMO, Law/Chaos is of much lower importance than the 'pure goodness' that the class seems to suggest. This would require minor tweaking to removing axiomatic from the weapon bond and the few lawful spells from their list, but that's easy enough to do. The other side effect is that any good-aligned god would be able to have paladins. I'd put in an exception that Neutral gods could not have paladins despite the usual one-step rule.play an inquistor or war cleric or fighter/cleric fighter/cavelier then.
wouldn't be much of a paladin if he wasn't the L/G i could maybe maybe see c/g maybe but force of good aginst evil is a paladin practically every ability they have screams G
I've always been of the mindset that Paladins should be in the alignment table corners (LG/CG/LE/CE) and have all of their abilities flavored as such. If you are good, you remove things with Mercies, while evil inflicts with whatever-the-heck-they're-called-on-the-Anti-Paladin. If you're lawful, you get axiomatic stuff, while chaotic gets anarchic.
Unfortunately, I don't see that coming in unless there's a substantial change in Ultimate Combat or the yet-unannounced (but surely going-to-be-released) Ultimate Divine.
my main issue with paladins is that the lawfull aspect of their alignment seems rather overkill. couldn't there pe a paladin of a NG deity? and the same goes for an assassin for hire. sure, they can't be good, but couldn't they have been part of a special unit designed to infiltrate the opposition and take out key officials?
the fact is paladins have to be completely true to the viewpoint of the deity they worship, not necessarily to the laws of society at large.
therefore, in my games a paladin could be any non-chaotic, non-evil in accordance to their deity, and antipaladin can be any non-good, and i'm sorry, but chaotic good characters are just out of luck until someone comes up with a good alternative. (rage paladin?)
my main issue with paladins is that the lawfull aspect of their alignment seems rather overkill. couldn't there pe a paladin of a NG deity?
Now, a Paladin is able to worship NG deities, and one would guess that such a Paladin would follow the tenets of the faith, while remaining lawful - and lets remember that Lawful can represent many things, though all Paladins must "Uphold legitimate authority". What one considers legitimate is a discussion for a player and DM.
I'm perfectly fine with the Paladin's restrictions and code - they are a powerful class, and some "costs" (namely the code and alignment restrictions), have to come with that.
However, it should be easy to homebrew some classes very similar to the Paladin that functions more in tune with each alignment - for example, a NG Paladin would lose Axiomatic for their weapon, but might gain additional mercies to balance it.
|
This just in! Paladins don't create drama. Players do. There is nothing in the rules that says fellow party members have to follow a paladin's code of conduct, and there are explicit example of paladins working with evil characters to achieve goals without losing paladin powers.
That said, it is a clever post, OP.
This just in! Paladins don't create drama. Players do. There is nothing in the rules that says fellow party members have to follow a paladin's code of conduct, and there are explicit example of paladins working with evil characters to achieve goals without losing paladin powers.
That said, it is a clever post, OP.
Exactly! Players have responsibilities both in and out the game - the Paladin player must realize that his character is above such things, though others may not be, and the other players must realize that violently breaking the worst parts of the Paladin code causes disruption within the group.
It is not for every group, yet if all the players are reasonable, there's no reason it shouldn't work in most groups and campaigns.
You don't bring a Paladin into an evil campaign. The DM should step in on this one. But if any other player is bringing in something heavily against the party's general theme of morality, (such as a Necromancer in a generally good group) it causes disruption.
People single out the Paladin because it MUST have a strict code that sometimes causes disruption. In neutral group, a Paladin still works as long as they generally don't go around stealing, murdering, and pillaging - which are generally evil acts to begin with, so they're not really neutral, are they?
All players are responsible for telling the group about the character if they will be resisting activities some members of the party would be doing. Druids, Clerics, Paladins, and some Prestige Classes have this. Depending on how players play other classes, they may cause disruption too. Any LG character should make efforts to protect life and order - that's what it means to be LG. If they don't, they're not LG.
As a DM and as a player, that's how I rule it.
While I agree that murder (distinct from general acts of killing) is evil and many uses of pillaging could be evil (taking by force is likely to cause undue harm), I don't think that stealing is in itself an evil act unless it's done specifically to cause harm by depriving the previous owner of something needed.
From the PFSRD (Pathfinder D20 Standard Reference Document):
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Although it only talks about killing, I count stealing as "hurting others", and it would require one to "have no compassion for others".
I think even stealing for a good cause is still evil overall - goodness requires discipline. How can one be good if he is willing to do the evil those he fights does?
I don't believe the ends always justify the means. And in D&D, our own personal subjective morality is irrelevant. D&D says this is good, this is neutral, and this is evil. Some DM adjudication is obviously needed at times, but using the basic ideas "Good people protect life, evil people hurt, oppress, and kill, and neutral people are in the middle", is a strong enough starting point most of the time.
Paladins don't belong in neutral groups, at least not on a long term association. Especially since most such "neutral" groups will try to push the edge on the Paladin's code on a near constant basis.
In general, yes. But not always. Depends on the neutral members outlooks.
You may view stealing as hurting others and requiring no compassion, but that doesn't mean it's a universally held belief. I'd argue that stealing is typically not lawful but is certainly not evil in itself.
I don't care what you believe. The rules are clear. Alignment is not subjective in D&D - they outline what good, evil, lawfulness, and chaos are. Period. It may not be perfectly clear, but the rules are still there, and they outline what's what. A detect evil spell should not show someone good as evil because they have a few beliefs that are held differently from the caster.
Also, don't take my bluntness for trying to be an a!$+$$~. I'm simply trying to be clear. Though I was a little dick-ish.
As for, "How can one be good if he is willing to do the evil those he fights does?" - you must feel that every adventurer that kills opponents (regardless of the reason) and steals the belongings of their fallen foes is walking the path of evil. If so, I'll just drop out of this one since I think that's utter nonsense.
I wouldn't say that. And maybe my quote there is a bit off. I mean the more "out there" evil acts - taking hostages, torture, summoning evil creatures, etc. Killing is, in and of itself, not evil, based on circumstances. Killing a citizen for some silver? Evil all the way. Killing an evil evoker wizard that's about to lay waste to a village? Could be good or neutral, depending on how the character acts after the fight (such as asking for large sums of gold, or just continuing on his way). May even be evil if he has worse plans himself.
But a Paladin could not take hostages to capture someone evil. A LG character could lie about it, but not carry it out. A Neutral character could possibly kill them if there was literally no other reasonable way, but it's a super-evil act. An evil character could do it without hesitation.
Again, alignment is not subjective. And most dungeon crawls involve little morality - not all, but most. But players and DMs are generally aware when morality problems could occur. If it's not clear, the DM should probably say something unless the PCs are just ignoring things they know.
I think the real problem is that balancing strength in one field (mostly combat for paladins) with a weakness in another field (alignment in this case) never really works. I think all the rogue hate stems from balancing poor combat with good skills. The necromancer problem comes from the same place: [evil] gets exclusive (except a special regionally limited oracle) access to a powerful hench generation mechanic. If undead were uncontrollable or there similarly priced and powered henchgolums for casters of any alignment nobody would try to bring evil-in-all-but-name neutral necromancers into neutral/good groups.
100% agree. I think the balance works out fine in most cases from the core rules, but making someone who is already poor at something (like skills for fighters) worse in exchanging for making them better at something else they're already good at (fighting) is not really balanced. I'm OK with the Rouge, and they're still useful and skilled in combat - just don't have staying power.
If Paladins were no stronger than Rangers they wouldn't need a strife promoting code and there'd be no problem. They could just be limited to the good alignments. Like Rangers used to be in first edition.
I think you're trying to say Paladins are better than Rangers? I won't argue either way, but I like the code and the idea of class. As I suggested earlier, it wouldn't be hard at all to homebrew something slightly different. Also consider the 3.5 Knight (very cool), and the Cavalier from the APG.
<<<stuff>>>So the rules are clear, but not perfectly clear. Yeah...
And killing can be rationalized in your mind based upon circumstances, but not stealing.
Alignment isn't subjective except when you say it is...
I can understand why you choose to use a forum to express this stuff. Typing is much easier than talking with your anus.
I made the effort to not offend, at least.
The evil wizard I mentioned before. Say he worships an evil deity, and is preparing to destroy a small village that worships Sarenrae, who would be an enemy to his God. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Clearly evil by the rules.
There happens to be a good wizard who sees what's about the happen, and intervenes on the towns behalf, for no other reason than to not see innocents be slaughtered.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Obviously good by the rules.
Again, the alignment system is objective. Some DMs and players try to put their own spin on it. An NE character always detects as evil, no matter who casts the spell - a Paladin, CG Cleric, LN Wizard, CE Sorcerer - doesn't matter. The alignment system is objective, not subjective, and one's own take on it is irrelevant. In theory.
That being said, it's not perfect, and the occasional DM judgment call is necessary. However, I think the guidelines are fine for most situations. It says what good people do, and evil people do. It says what acts are chaotic and what acts are lawful.
In a fantasy game, killing evil is not evil 99% of the time.
|
|
In a fantasy game, killing evil is not evil 99% of the time.
Actually, I'd have to disagree with you there. Killing is evil, but it's considered a necessary one. You commit an evil act to protect those who would be victimized. This sort of trade is considered good, but you still had to do evil to do it.
Also, as I said, it's perfectly okay for a Paladin to work with an evil character in the party, or even a neutral party. You don't have to like your party members, you just have to see the necessity of working with vagabonds and vagrants to achieve the greater good.
Hint: Seelah and Seltyiel are expected to play nice throughout the ENTIRETY of the Council of Thieves Adventure Path. (LG Paladin/LE Magus)
I removed a post. Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.
Personally I have changed paladins slightly in my own games, and that is they are holy warriors of their diety; they still have a code of conduct that is tailored towards their deity. This is what they must follow, and they can be quite strict sometimes more so then the current paladin code, but it allows more flexiablity and uniqueness to paladins then the standard code, yes I allow evil and neutral paladins. they still need a code of conduct to follow that matches their diety.
anyways, on disruption I think anything can be disruptive in a party. It depends on what type of story you are wanting to tell.
I've had plenty of nondisruptive paladins. I've also had paladins try to topple tyrannies under the idea that "Any government that abuses it's people is not a legitimate authority". That being said I only require a paladin be lawful as far as "dedicated to my personal moral code" not "all laws must be followed".
That being said never ever let someone play and inevitable especially if they disagree with other players on political issues. It ends poorly.
This thread is not what the title led me to believe.
Let me just say that my party's lawful good Paladin had some interesting paradoxical moral choices with a certain point in early Kingmaker involving a cripple giant.
These interesting moral choices took about 40 minutes to talk through.
I don't want to spoil it, but those who have played may appreciate what I mean.