What I am saying is, that there seems to be a missing component then for Neutral aligned gods, or for Chaotic aligned gods.
Druids, barbarians, antipaladins.
Frankly, most games reward picking a choice over neutrality, because it's harder to be good and be evil constantly rather than picking and choosing as time goes by.
Maybe it should be changed, sure, but surely not so they can have paladin abilities. As it is neutral-aligned folks are immune to more than a few things simply by being neutral. Someone pointed out above, smite evil is worthless against neutral opponents, and there's protection from good/evil/chaos/law, but not neutral.
|
Duids are not a full BAB class. They are not "holy" by any stretch, nor do they represent the martial aspects of the Paladin.
Barbarians are hardly even close since they do not have even a smidge of divine power, unless you multiclass.
Antipaladins are Chaotic Evil, hardly even close to Neutral.
I might be wrong here, but did you even read anything I wrote at all?
Please tell me how you are on one hand trying to tell me that games "reward picking a choice over neutrality because its harder to be good and be evil constantly" on one hand, and then in the 2nd sentence after that, you try to explain it all away by saying that "neutral aligned folks are immune to more than a few things simply by being neutral" and making out as if its some sort of HUGE bonus being neutral?? That makes no sense what so ever, imho.
Again, there are no "holy (read: Divine) warrior" 4/4 BAB classes for anyone NOT being LG, and I think thats just silly.
I mentioned barbarians and antipaladins because you referred to chaotic gods, not just neutral ones.
And yes, being immune to more extreme attacks is a bonus of being neutral, and one of the additional costs you live with for playing evil or good.
My opinion is this: Having special paladin brands for every alignment wouldn't fit and would be unnecessary. Paladins are holy warriors, lawful good, their counterparts the antipaladins are unholy warriors, chaotic evil, and these represent powerful extremes of alignment. They've made choices, they cannot do the things everyone else does because it would not make them pure good or evil, but in turn they get benefits of those powers flowing through them.
What does a neutral person give up? What restrictions do they live by that suggests they should be empowered with the essence of neutrality?
That said? I think if someone really wants a neutral champion, that makes perfect sense for something that's home brewed, a house rule for your own campaign, but it doesn't seem like it should be forced in alongside the base classes as part of the core rules or something.
My opinion is this: Having special paladin brands for every alignment wouldn't fit and would be unnecessary. Paladins are holy warriors, lawful good, their counterparts the antipaladins are unholy warriors, chaotic evil, and these represent powerful extremes of alignment. They've made choices, they cannot do the things everyone else does because it would not make them pure good or evil, but in turn they get benefits of those powers flowing through them.
However, the other two alignment extremes, Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil are not represented.
This game has a two axis alignment system that results in 9 posibilites, There are two alignment pairs that are diametrically opposed, Good/Evil, and Law/Chaos.
Nothing about the Paladin/Anti-Paladin actually scream their second Axis. Both those characters have abilities that deal with being Good/Evil (Such as their smights, Mercy/Cruelty, Detection, Auras etc.) Nothing about their Law/Chaos elements are actually touched upon.
Paladins and Anti-Paladins are obviously Good/Evil, but not even close to Lawful/Chaotic
Paladins and Anti-Paladins are obviously Good/Evil, but not even close to Lawful/Chaotic
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I think the first two support the lawful side, plus the spells, but yes. While I wouldn't say that paladins are not even close to lawful evil, I would definitely say that the good part trumps the lawful part. Which fits (laws being different as you move from city to city, but the 9point alignment system being pretty clear about what is good). Even the antipaladin: An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals. That's pretty forcefully evil but definitely chaotic, not the type of person who's going to fit into an ordered society.
Obviously the entire alignment system is wonky, but it fits for the games and the events likely to come up inside the games that it was made for. It's a shame that Lawful Good has become 'ultra good' and Chaotic Evil is 'ultra evil' simply because they are on the far ends of the scale (which is also a shame as it's not meant to be a scale type system with lawful being more good and chaotic being more evil).
Some classes focusing more on the law and chaos side of things I could see. They have it in the Hellknight prc, and maybe as some sort of extension of the Inquisitor.
|
It's a shame that Lawful Good has become 'ultra good' and Chaotic Evil is 'ultra evil' simply because they are on the far ends of the scale (which is also a shame as it's not meant to be a scale type system with lawful being more good and chaotic being more evil).
+1535
This makes my teeth grind. I hate the notion that has somehow taken root that LG is Ultimate Good and CE is Ultimate Evil. If any alignment is going to qualify for those, it should be NG and NE, and even then that should not be an absolute since there are easily a lot of NG characters that are less good than some CG and LG characters.
That's another reason why I want Holy Barbarian options so much...
fluff justification
The codes of conduct are not mechanical benefits, just fluff constraints.
Further, CoC would vary from campaign to campaign. Some would be needlesly strict, forcing the paladin to choose between two damning situations, and punishing them regardless. Others would be lenient, allow the Paladin to get away with what many would cry as fall worthy. And still in some, the CoC would be a set of strictures issued out by the warrior's faith, not some paragraph in a rule book.
Restricting Paladins to "Any Good" or Anti-Paladins to "Any Evil" doesn't impact anything mechanically, allows more deities to have full BAB holy champions, and gives players more RP flex while still restricting them to further their creativity.
God the alignment system in this game is terrible.....
Restricting Paladins to "Any Good" or Anti-Paladins to "Any Evil" doesn't impact anything mechanically, allows more deities to have full BAB holy champions, and gives players more RP flex while still restricting them to further their creativity.
And a neutral good or neutral evil one could be immune to many of the effects out there (protection from, dispel)
Incidentally I brought up the Code of Conduct because it was said "paladins weren't even close to Lawful." I wasn't suggesting it as a mechanical benefit.
I feel a lot like Zapp Brannigan here.
@Mikaze: Interesting tidbit about Sarenrae Pallys, they're mostly folk who have made a terrible mistake in the past, and go on a holy crusade for justice and good inorder to atone for their sins.
@Atavist: How does neutrality protect from Dispel? And on the Protection front - It's true that an NG Paladin wouldn't be affected by Protection from Law, and other alignment based spells, but so if they're not gaining any benefit from being on a particular axis of alignment, then they shouldn't get punished for it.
@Atavist: How does neutrality protect from Dispel?
Dispel law, dispel chaos, no dispel neutral.
Dispel law, dispel chaos, no dispel neutral.
Interesting, never knew there were special versions of those spells.
An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals. That's pretty forcefully evil but definitely chaotic, not the type of person who's going to fit into an ordered society.
Well bolded section above is actually not chaotic. The tyrant is the epitome of LE. Organized and oppressive. CE characters are supposed to be engines of destruction. That alone is enough to suggest that not only is this fluff, but the fluff is even wrong.
I'm with what you said about LG and CE in terms of being 'the most good' or 'the most evil' (that was one of the changes I didn't like about 4e, and always got houseruled away by my group when we played with alignment). However, Even if we don't allow any good or any evil for paladins and anti-paladins, why can't we have the other extremes represented?
I know you've been arguing for alignment restrictions being a counter to the class' power, but I'm still not seeing it. Being CG all the time is tough. Finding a way to free people from the oppressive system without getting thrown in jail or just outright hated by every non-chaotic is tough. So is being LE. You have to be a very sneaky, clever person to pull that off. I think any extreme alignment is tough. Which is why I have 'holy-champion' types for those specific alignments.
Neutral gods can suck it up.
I'm with what you said about LG and CE in terms of being 'the most good' or 'the most evil' (that was one of the changes I didn't like about 4e, and always got houseruled away by my group when we played with alignment). However, Even if we don't allow any good or any evil for paladins and anti-paladins, why can't we have the other extremes represented?
I know you've been arguing for alignment restrictions being a counter to the class' power, but I'm still not seeing it. Being CG all the time is tough. Finding a way to free people from the oppressive system without getting thrown in jail or just outright hated by every non-chaotic is tough. So is being LE. You have to be a very sneaky, clever person to pull that off. I think any extreme alignment is tough. Which is why I have 'holy-champion' types for those specific alignments.
Tyranny can also mean just abuse or arbitrary and unrestrained use of power. Which does not necessarily mesh with the usual Lawful Evil.
I've been primarily arguing against a Neutral Paladin idea, actually.
But yes I have gotten into it with the chaotics, so should probably respond. While I agree with you that freeing people from oppressive systems is tough, is a chaotic good paladin's code of conduct as restrictive as a lawful good paladin's? Forcing them to always have to free people from an oppressive system? Do they always have to disrespect legitimate authority as well? What about the lying/cheating?
Is a chaotic good paladin's code of conduct as restrictive as a lawful good paladin's?
Yes, if a class requires a double-upped alignment, it is no less restrictive than any other double-upped alignment.
How easy or hard those restrictions are to follow are game dependent.
A CG character is not against all organization. They realize that some rules are necessary, but really only those that are truly related to morals. Basically, things like no murder, no stealing, etc. They would believe that any set of complex rules leads to corruption and oppression. Basically, when thinking of a CG paladin type, think of a super-powered hippie (man that sounds awesome!). They would want a very small government, with individual liberties as a cornerstone.
I guess the main tenant they would uphold is freedom. They don't have to topple governments, but they have to fight any form of oppression. Slavery, illegal detention, etc.
Still, I agree that it is inherently difficult to codify "chaotic" behavior.
Don't call it a Paladin because its not "LG enough" or whatever.
Call it a Holy Warrior, or make it a PRC or something...an archetype of Paladin because thats the thing that Paizo is all horny to do (and rightly so, because its better than PrC).
I agree with most of that, except for the PrC hate ;) . Perhaps we can do an update of the 3.5 pious templar?
Barbarians are hardly even close since they do not have even a smidge of divine power, unless you multiclass.
Again, there are no "holy (read: Divine) warrior" 4/4 BAB classes for anyone NOT being LG, and I think thats just silly.
I have a paladin of chaos. He calls on inner reserves for strength and purity. He is the passion of his people and can be possessed by the divine will of his god 4plushisconstitutionmodifier rounds per day.
I say go for it and have fun.
My biggest problem with the "CG Paladin":
(A very simple scenario) The townspeople of a moderately sized city are being plagued by a band of thieves. Though nobody has been killed, many people have been robbed, often with threats and minor acts of violence. They have begged the PC's help in dealing with the problem. Your party, through clever investigation, has found the thieves main hide-out.
Does the "CG Paladin" attempt to arrest the criminals, turn them over to the authorities, and ensure they stand trial for their crimes? Shouldn't he lose his abilities for doing such a "Lawful" thing?
Knowing, then, that he can't arrest them, does he go in, blade first, offering no quarter and slaughtering every thief he spots? Shouldn't he lose his powers for commiting such an evil act?
Realizing that, does he try to run them out of town, essentially giving them a free pass on their past crimes, and the ability to continue their depredations elsewhere? How much of that, until he loses his powers?
Eventually it all comes down to this: How does a Paragon of Chaos behave? How does a Paragon of Good behave? Can you embody both of those concepts? What would you have to do to lose your powers?
Does the "CG Paladin" attempt to arrest the criminals, turn them over to the authorities, and ensure they stand trial for their crimes? Shouldn't he lose his abilities for doing such a "Lawful" thing?
Does a Barbarian lose his class features for the same reason?
Further, there are more variables than just Bandits-raid-town-what-do?
The bandits have violently robbed people, and threatened them with their life. A village threatened in such a way would reasonably hire dudes to deal with the problem, and it's reasonable for this Paladin to just kill them w/o committing an evil act.
Honestly, Paladins don't go around not-killing people, otherwise they wouldn't be in D&D
|
Eventually it all comes down to this: How does a Paragon of Chaos behave? How does a Paragon of Good behave? Can you embody both of those concepts? What would you have to do to lose your powers?
Lawful Good Paladins lose their powers for committing Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. I don't see why Chaotic Good Paladins should be restricted from Lawful acts.
Eventually it all comes down to this: How does a Paragon of Law behave? How does a Paragon of Good behave? Can you embody both of those concepts? What would you have to do to lose your powers?
Why do you have trouble with one and not the other?
Lawful Good Paladins only lose their powers for committing Evil acts. I don't see why Chaotic Good Paladins should be any different.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features.
With a harsh DM, a paladin could theoretically fall simply for lying (as that's counted as dishonorable).
And with a harsh DM, a Chaotic Good Paladin could theoretically fall for NOT lying. The problem is not with the paladin, but the DM.
I'd say the problem is the idea of the code of conduct. If a LG paladin could fall for lying (under a harsh GM), or incessantly disrespecting legitimate authority (under a more fair GM) a CG paladin would need something of similar magnitude.
And if you just inverted the code it wouldn't fit for chaotic good. But what would?
Lawful Good Paladins only lose their powers for committing Evil acts.
I strongly disagree.
...a Chaotic Good Paladin could theoretically fall for NOT lying.
Actually, if all he did was lie, it would be the expected, systematic code he lived by. Too Lawful...
I'm telling the truth because I'm good. I'm lying because I'm chaotic. I'll protect you because I'm the hero. I'll slaughter them because it's a RPG. One hand washes the other. (Lawful Evil does this, too. Justificationism...) Not Paladin-y enough for me, I guess.
Why do you have trouble with one and not the other?
The other being Lawful Good? The short answer is, I do. (Or did, rather. My Paladin is retired.) It is difficult. The only major difference being, you know when you have done something un-Lawful. It is nearly impossible to be un-Chaotic. In fact, following the rules, or obeying an authority "sometimes", is more chaotic than always resisting would be. Frankly, there is no quandry from which they cannot excuse themselves.
It sounds like we have a problem of defining Law and Chaos here.
Possibly.
No character, Cleric included, is held to the standard that Paladins are held to. Stray from the path, and lose everything. He has to epitomize Law and Good.
Show me the path the Epitome of a Chaotic character has to walk. Tell me how he can fail, how he can be redeemed.
Knowing, then, that he can't arrest them, does he go in, blade first, offering no quarter and slaughtering every thief he spots? Shouldn't he lose his powers for commiting such an evil act?
That isn't an evil act, if the bandits surrender and then the paladin kills them then that may be an evil act, depending on how he kills them, what laws are there, what kind of people the bandints are and what the village means to the paladin.
And if you just inverted the code it wouldn't fit for chaotic good. But what would?I think that's a big part of the problem. Law and Chaos are not actually opposites. Just different philosophies.
Depends on how one sees it, me being a fan of Moorkok's book i tend to think that law and chaos are opposites.
Well, yeah, since they were euphemisms for Good and Evil. Unfortunately, in D&D you can have Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil.
I wouldn't call them euphemisms for good and evil, sure good was more tied with law and evil more tied with chaos but that's it, law and chaos were clearly different concepts than good and evil.
I wouldn't call them euphemisms for good and evil, sure good was more tied with law and evil more tied with chaos but that's it, law and chaos were clearly different concepts than good and evil.
Eh, kinda. (NOTE: I'm not saying your wrong, since obviously the way words conotate to you is totally your deal.) Law and Chaos both have positive and negative connotations respectively. Most people view being a Lawful Citizen a compliment and a quality to strive for, while being Chaotic as unpredictable and dangerous.
However, because the Law/Chaos axis is explicitly called out as being flexible in nature when it comes to how an individual asks, the language connotation of those words goes away somewhat.
On the other hand, the Good/Evil axis is decidedly positive/negative, and is distinctly exclusive on that front. However, because there are not explicit guidelines as to what constitutes Good/Evil GM discresion results in griefing, and people claiming that one alignment should be harder to play than another.
Prior to this situation, Mal & Co. are robbing a train for a bad man, find out that they are stealing sick peoples' medicine, and return the stolen goods. The above scene is Mal giving the money they were paid up front to do the job.
He's being Good (net gain of good alignment points, anyway, not Evil. But is he Lawful or Chaotic?
Points for Lawful:
* Mal is resolute in his decisions, both to return the goods as well as his payment.
* Mal parleys with prisoners (sent to track him down earlier in the episode) to more or less negotiate and explain what happened.
* Mal is following his personal code of ethics and morality to make decisions.
Points for Chaotic:
* Mal took a job from a man with a bad reputation because he needed money.
* Mal changed his mind before he completed the job.
* Mal pulls a Joker-style magic trick and makes a man [read: bound prisoner] disappear. (Arguably an evil act, but given the circumstances, I think this carries connotations to both alignments.)
EDIT: I'm aware there's a third, option. I thought this might help define Law and Chaos, by using an example.
Nobody seems to be able to agree what the real
definition of a Paladin and Lawful Good is.
Even in book terms, this holiest of warriors
has a code of behavior that leaves room for
broader interpretation to most. I have never
seen one played that wasn't ultimately despised
by the rest of the party eventually-even in groups
that are all good characters. They are, IMO, the
most difficult class to play.
He must protect free will. He must give all persons the right to choose, and punish those that take away that right.
That's it? Promote freedom and don't do anything patently, unjustifiably evil.
Do you really not see that as being entirely too nonrestrictive?
If someone lies, do you address it? What if those lies harm people? If someone steals or cheats his neighbors, do you punish them? Those things that were stolen belonged to someone else. That person wasn't given the right to choose. What if you free a slave who later returns to assassinate his former master? You gave him the "right to choose" and he chose to do something evil. Do you then have the right to Smite him? Is your "code" now qualified? "You have the right to choose, as long as you choose rightly."
I can't even begin to enumerate all of the gaps in this.
Against one enemy, and only if they're evil. Smite isn't some magical christmass land buff that puts that class above other martial characters in terms of damage.
In fact, fighters deal more damage than Paladins, and against more creatures. Barbarians could probably tear things up as well, especially with bloodlines. Rangers have favored enemy, and that pumps out comparable damage to smite, but doesn't use resources.
Actually, Smite does beat all the other options for damage output. Take a level 20 example:
Barbarian Rage: grants you +4 to hit and damage, +80 hit points against everything while raging
Fighter: Weapon Training grants you +4 to hit +4 damage against everything, various feats adds +2 to hit and +4 damage on top of that for +6/+8
Ranger: Favoured Enemy gives you +8 to hit and +8 damage vs favoured enemy only, but a whole load of skill bonuses too.
Paladin smite gives you +Char bonus to hit, +Char bonus to AC and +20 to damage.
I ran the numbers once for another comparison, and the paladin smiting beats any other damage dealing class hands down when all other factors are equal.
I still don't think many of you get what I am saying.
I agree that the Paladin's abilities are tied to the LG, and I understand why. You don't need to keep prating on about "using abilities wisely, its the sacrifice that grants him his powers, its that he is so powerful because he has to be LG" and all that. I get it, I really do.
What I am saying is, that there seems to be a missing component then for Neutral aligned gods, or for Chaotic aligned gods.
You don't get lawful barbarians
You don't get non-neutral druidsYou don't get non-lawful monks
You don't get non-evil assassins
... and you don't get non-lawful good champions of righteousness and justice.
You get where I am going here? These classes are conceptual archetypes that have an alignment tacked on that is appropriate to the concept - Conan, the archetypal barbarian, was chaotic; druids champion the balance of nature; monks are disciplined. You're basically looking at the issue from the wrong direction, by putting the alignment first and seeing a problem, rather than looking at the concept first wherein you may see a solution.
Rather than saying "why isn't there a Chaotic Good version of the Paladin" why not instead ask, "what would be thematically appropriate for a character with divine inspiration and assistance from the CG spectrum?" They do not HAVE to be a warrior, either, just because the paladin happens to be one ... druids are divine casters, because that is appropriate for a champion of the mystic natural world. Assassins are rogues because that is appropriate for killers that strike from the shadows.
It is impossible to create a "Paladin's Code" for a "Chaotic Good Paladin". Their very nature this. If there is no Code, then he cannot violate it. He is never required to behave a certain way, and can never "fall".
That is why they cannot be.
He started out a rebelious youth who stood to inherit nothing on account of being thr middle child of a merchant family, and also for generally being a douchebag. He has anger management problems and an inferiority complex that make him act superior to everyone he meets.
Not all Paladins have to be paragons of virtue.
Umm... yes, one thing Paladins are are paragons of virtue. Even the lawful aspect may be bent from time to time, but they are always good. Pure good.
So your PC is a douchebag, has anger management issues, and has an ego problem. Sounds like he won't be a Paladin for long. :)
So your PC is a douchebag, has anger management issues, and has an ego problem. Sounds like he won't be a Paladin for long. :)
Indeed, this is how the term "Lawful Stupid" was evolved for paladins. A paladin can act like a douche superficially, but has to be virtuous, end of.
Indeed, this is how the term "Lawful Stupid" was evolved for paladins. A paladin can act like a douche superficially, but has to be virtuous, end of.
I guess it depends on your definition of a douchebag. My definition is your not a very nice guy. Sure, Paladins can be annoying, but a douchebag? The kind of guy that beats people up in school halls, plays hurtful pranks on others, degrades and berates others?
Think "Biff" from "Back to the Future". Do you really see him as a Paladin? lol
You kind of disected my statement, but I think anger management (and even ego) would be more key to losing his power as well.
|
|
If someone lies, do you address it? What if those lies harm people?
Then you tell them the truth.
If someone steals or cheats his neighbors, do you punish them? Those things that were stolen belonged to someone else. That person wasn't given the right to choose.
Then you steal them back.
What if you free a slave who later returns to assassinate his former master? You gave him the "right to choose" and he chose to do something evil. Do you then have the right to Smite him? Is your "code" now qualified? "You have the right to choose, as long as you choose rightly."
"You have the right to choose, and face the consequences of your choice. I will not protect you from yourself, because the freedom of choice includes the freedom to choose poorly."
Chaos is not 'never following the rules'. Chaos is 'making sure the rules do not take away choice'.
You don't get lawful barbarians
You don't get non-neutral druids
You don't get non-lawful monks
You don't get non-evil assassins
... and you don't get non-lawful good champions of righteousness and justice.You get where I am going here? These classes are conceptual archetypes that have an alignment tacked on that is appropriate to the concept - Conan, the archetypal...
This is probably the best explanation I've seen on this thread so far as to why no CG pallys. Very concise, and good reasons why this should not be Core.
The idea that the code was a balancing factor for the paladin's powers didn't jive with me. I'm with TOZ's argument here. That last post in particular gave some great illustrations. There is no reason being a champion of freedom is any easier than being the champion of LG.
Basically, this is why I houserule it and don't think paladins of all alignments should be posted in the books.