|
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.
Untrue. Your argument is that being Chaotic means not having to follow a code and behave in a certain way (for example to keep your powers).
But the AntiPaladin, though Chaotic, has a code to follow if he wants to keep his powers.
Being Chaotic means that you do not like to follow other people's rules. It does not mean that you do not follow your own set of rules, nor that you cannot be forced to follow other people's rules.
|
|
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.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...
You guys know that there is now a Monk Archetype that allows you to be non-Lawful, right ?
Yes, and it is an exception the rule that encompasses the vast majority of monks. The argument for monks being lawful is that it takes a huge amount of self-discipline to be a monk. It is conceivable, though unlikely, that a non-lawful person could attain that level of self-discipline, however. Like I said, the concept comes first, the alignment is applied as appropriate.
Rather than try and tweak a paladin to make a CG archetype, I would instead try and conceive of a concept class that epitomises what chaotic good is all about. As I see it, chaotic good epitomises the concept of personal freedom and independence; while the paladin might argue that some freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of society, the chaotic good archetype is of the opinion that only through freedom can good be achieved - to them such things as boundaries, rules, contracts and agreements are all things to be broken if it restricts freedom to act. A paladin would use the law to punish a thief and return goods to their owners, a CG character would simply steal them back.
As for role, I would definitely not use the paladin's 'knight in armour' concept at the very least. If they have to be a fighter, then that fighter would be a 'swashbuckler'. More likely, a rogue or a bardic theme might work better - a jack-of-all-trades approach is what is required by a character that values independence.
The nearest class I would tie this too would be the bard, with 2/3 casting and 3/4 BAB. I would strip out many of the bard's abilities relating to performance and knowledge and add some more paladin-like abilities instead - particularly, I'd focus on Escape Artist and abilities that break boundaries and encourage freedom, make them not so much a soldier as a firebrand. I'd include Smite Evil because that is quite thematic, and chop around the bard spell-list to get something more appropriate for a person out to break chains and set people free.
I think the name 'Emancipator' would be pretty good ...
The Paladins, as written, was made to be LG.
In past editions, they had Paladin variations that covered the other alignment... but had different powers. And they were pretty good too imo. (I think they were covered in various Dragon magazine annuals).
Paizo should probably do that again, just make Archetypes for the crusaders of the other alignments (if they don't exist already).
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'.
[/dap]
+1
|
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.
Barbarians are not Divine Warriors any more than a Druid, Monk, Rogue or Assassin/Ninja are.
You still don't understand.
I want a martial champion of the forest (or whatever), who has been granted divine powers by his deity, unlimited in his alignment choices. 4/4 base attack. Martial weaponry. Limited skills, other than at arms.
Not a druid (who while championing the forest/swamp/whatever, as may be) that tends to the plants and animals, focuses on spell casting or something. Not a Monk, who focuses the powers granted to him on his own body and abilities, to the exclusion of all else. Not a Barbarian, who takes his rage at whatever and has no divine inspiration, who takes his rage and channels that into killing whatever it is that pissed him off. Not an Assassin/Rogue/Ninja, who uses trickery and chicanery with wits and skill to best his foes.
Name me one class that does that. Just one, archetypes included.
|
|
The Paladins, as written, was made to be LG.
In past editions, they had Paladin variations that covered the other alignment... but had different powers. And they were pretty good too imo. (I think they were covered in various Dragon magazine annuals).
Paizo should probably do that again, just make Archetypes for the crusaders of the other alignments (if they don't exist already).
+1, which I have already advocated.
Barbarians are not Divine Warriors any more than a Druid, Monk, Rogue or Assassin/Ninja are.
You still don't understand.
I want a martial champion of the forest (or whatever), who has been granted divine powers by his deity, unlimited in his alignment choices. 4/4 base attack. Martial weaponry. Limited skills, other than at arms.
Name me one class that does that. Just one, archetypes included.
Look, if you want it to be exclusive enough so it's a subset of paladins but with a different reskin and whatever, then it's not going to be covered by anything yet. We don't have any class with a purple mini-pony familiar, so what?
Mind you, rangers are fairly close to what you describe. They are given divine powers by their deity, they don't have alignment restrictions, have some (granted, not all that much) divine magic, generally tied to the woodlands, and are fairly decent warriors. They tend to be a bit more skilled than most classes, but I consider it a plus for people who are warriors and something else (in their case, scouts/woodsmen). Personally, I wouldn't mind if paladins got 4+int skill points as well.
They aren't commonly thought of as divine warriors, as it's less stressed in their archetype as it is in the paladin ones. However, they certainly are warriors, and that divine magic has to come from somewhere. It's just that their patrons are a bit less restrictive, and having a stick up their rear end is not a required class feature, so they are simply considered handy guys to have around with a few minor spells. Also, note that most ranger archetypes focus on the martial side, not the divine connection/casting.
|
Rainbow Dash is the best mount.
Personally I'd love to see "Holy" options for all of the base classes appropriate for their flavor, along with the caveat that they must stay good to keep their stuff.
At the moment I'd prefer archetypes for that approach over the prestige class route Book of Exalted Deeds took.
|
|
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.
Untrue. Your argument is that being Chaotic means not having to follow a code and behave in a certain way (for example to keep your powers).
But the AntiPaladin, though Chaotic, has a code to follow if he wants to keep his powers.
And it's been argued repeatedly that the Anti-Paladin's code is even harder for a player to live up to than the standard Paladin's code.
Agreed that chaotic characters are entirely capable of following a self-imposed code. Characters we would consider chaotic in fiction do it all the time.
will save
Does not make the comment about what class is a holy warrior of the gods. *walks away*
Yeah nat 20...if only I could roll like that in the pbp I play here........
...chaotic characters are entirely capable of following a self-imposed code.
I don't disagree. My stance is not that chaotic characters are all frantic, unreliable narcissists. But, there is (or definitely should be) a significant difference between a creature who merely embraces "Chaotic", and the Champion that embodies it.
...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.
Is respecting legitimate authority a "Lawful" act? Does that mean that a "CG Paladin" loses his class abilities if he's not always ready with a sarcastic quip?
While honor is not necessarily limited to "Lawful", certain aspects, such as lying and cheating, are certainly destabilizing, "Chaotic" acts. If a "CG Paladin" consistently tells the truth, or treats fairly with friends and adversaries, has he ceased to be "Chaotic"?
a paladin's code requires that she...help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or ends)...
So... that.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability... Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Does that mean a "CG Paladin" loses his class abilities if he ever helps someone maintain their traditions? Uphold their duties? Keep their word?
How generous are you willing to be towards his alignment restrictions?
Oh, a good example of a CG paladin code:
Code of Conduct: A templar must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a templar’s code requires that he rebel against unjust authority, act with good intention, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I play Pathfinder at a local game shop. The Templar and Dark Templar are the CG and LE (respectively) versions of the paladin. The powers work very similar to the paladin, though the templar has detect and smite law (with a later option for evil). This is pretty much the homebrew idea I've been supporting. This code is certainly as difficult to uphold as a LG paladin's and requires just as much diligence.
I'd like to point out that CG paladins weren't the only ones brought up in this thread.
Neutral ones have, too.
So anyone got a good code for a neutral good, true neutral and neutral evil paladin?
|
|
What is chaos?
Chaos is entropy, the breakdown of what is. But it is also creation, the birth of something new. It is change, with all the promise and risk that entails.
What is law?
Law is stability, the maintaining of what is. But it is also stagnation, the stifling of the soul.
To say that a LG paladin must remain ever lawful does not mean that they cannot engage in creativity, the making of something better.
Likewise a CG "paladin" should not be expected to break traditions simply for the sake of breaking them. That doesn't make him non-chaotic. He's chaotic good.
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.Barbarians are not Divine Warriors any more than a Druid, Monk, Rogue or Assassin/Ninja are.
You still don't understand.
Actually, I DO understand, you just aren't listening. The character concept has to come first, and the alignment second. The paladin is not a "Let's build a divine champion of lawful good" character, he is a "Let's build a class that epitomises the knight in shining armour, the champion of right and justice ... hey, what alignment shall we give him and what is the source for his amazing power?"
I want a martial champion of the forest (or whatever), who has been granted divine powers by his deity, unlimited in his alignment choices. 4/4 base attack. Martial weaponry. Limited skills, other than at arms.
I get that. The problem is, you are providing the stuff to make it a*se-about-face: you normally need the concept first, then see if the alignment fits. The knight-in-shining-armour concept does not fit with chaotic good as it does with lawful good. That is why I started talking about a freedom fighter rather than a knight.
Not a druid (who while championing the forest/swamp/whatever, as may be) that tends to the plants and animals, focuses on spell casting or something. Not a Monk, who focuses the powers granted to him on his own body and abilities, to the exclusion of all else. Not a Barbarian, who takes his rage at whatever and has no divine inspiration, who takes his rage and channels that into killing whatever it is that pissed him off. Not an Assassin/Rogue/Ninja, who uses trickery and chicanery with wits and skill to best his foes.
You still don't get that the alignment restrictions of these classes came AFTER the concept of them, do you?
Name me one class that does that. Just one, archetypes included.
Now an idea occurs to me that we could take somewhere, and it's an idea I already used in a character. I like swashbucklers, and I think the swashbuckler concept fits the idea of a chaotic good 'paladin' much more than the knight-in-shining-armour concept does.
This is the archetype I came up with for that:
Swift Justice Archetype: Lose proficiency with medium and heavy armour, gain Acrobatics, Bluff, Intimidate, Perception and Stealth as class skills.
Truth's Razor: at 3rd level the paladin gains a +1 bonus to damage with finesse weapons, and a +1 dodge bonus to AC while wielding a finesse weapon. This bonus increases by a further +1 at ever three levels, to the limit of the paladin's intelligence modifier (but always a minimum of +1). This replaces the Mercy class feature.
Now I think we can work with this; I think some of the paladin auras can be swapped around or adjusted to suit a firebrand of the downtrodden better.
Aura of Resolve: replaces Aura of Courage at 3rd level.
Aura of Courage: replaces Aura of Resolve at 8th level.
Aura of Inspiration: As bardic performance inspire courage of the same level, save that you expend one use of smite evil for the effect to last five rounds as a swift action. This replaces Aura of Justice.
How does that fit the 'Emancipator Paladin' concept? It's a bit rough because it's building backwards as I mentioned above, but it might kind of work.
Sure are a lot of people not reading probs the best Paladin thread in existence unless you count the one that came before it (but I'm doubting anyone here has an account with archive access and can see it)
There is one definitive code that embraces what a paladin should be and is how I try to play.
"Now you will recieve us.
We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
We do not want your tired and sick.
It is your corrupt we claim.
It is your evil that will be sought by us.
With every breath we shall hunt them down.
Each day we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Do not kill! Do not rape! Do not steal!
These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions. These are cause of behavior.
And those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
There are varying degrees of evil.
We urge you lesser forms of filth...
...not to push the bounds and cross over...
...into true corruption, into our domain.
But if you do...
...one day you will look behind you and you will see we three.
And on that day you will repent!
And we will send you to whatever ever god, you wish.
And shepherds we shall be for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee,
and teeming with souls shall it ever be."
Most others spend their lives running from evil, the paladin spends his with evil running from him!
[Insert Saints Quote]
I always figured them to be more along the lines of Inquisitors. Gunslinger multiclass now, maybe. (Or just with the grit feats.)
[Insert Saints Quote]I always figured them to be more along the lines of Inquisitors. Gunslinger multiclass now, maybe. (Or just with the grit feats.)
I can see inquisitors but definitely more paladin to me.
(Hate gunslingers in D&D, PF or any fantasy setting, gun powder has no place there!) /end rant.
There is one definitive code that embraces what a paladin should be and is how I try to play.
I actually found that entire text rather creepy, and NOT what I would expect from a paladin in most cases. It came across more as a fanatic to whom the world is black-and-white, and anything not white IS black. Sure, it has some bad-assery, but that's about all there is to it. To my mind the paladin should epitomise good, not just slaughter evil.
I'm at work, so it's blocked. :( And if it requires an account, I definitely can't see it.
Unless the paywall went up recently you shouldn't need an account. I admittingly have no clue if the paywall is up or not.
You just need an account for the archived first thread, since what I linked is the second paladin thread.
Edit: Some snippets from it:
When I read about Sir Tarquin, who captured the Knights of the Table Round and tortured them in his dungeon because Lancelot had killed his brother, I think that's a really interesting character. Maybe in an RPG he's a PC blackguard, maybe a cool opponent. he's an honorable man in his way, despite being a complete recreant: he's brave, utterly loyal to his family, admires the bravery and honor of the knights even as he tortures them. His feud is one where he faces impossible odds and yet he stands alone, facing his enemies in single combat, and offering Sir Lionel mercy in recognition of his extreme youth and surprising bravery. Of course, he's also super evil, later torturing Lionel. He's an interesting bad guy. When Lancelot eventually beats him, both men recognize a kind of kinship in each other, and they could have been friends under better circumstances. Tarquin represents how great men can also be great for evil. I certainly don't get the feeling that the author is using him to justify his own sick fantasies. Which is interesting, since Sir Thomas Malory was accused of being a rapist himself so presumably those sick fantasies existed. You never really get that feeling in reading the Morte, though. Of course, I don't think Tarquin was a rapist, but there are others who are, and I wanted to talk about Tarquin becuase he's neat.
Now I'm gonna lay the most beautiful Eulogy in the English Language on you guys, so hold on to your butts:
ANd whan syr Ector herde suche noyse & lyghte in the quyre of Ioyous garde he alyght & put his hors from hym & came in to the quyre & there he sawe men synge wepe / & al they knewe syr Ector / but he knewe not them / than wente syr Bors vnto syr Evctor & tolde hym how there laye his brother syr Launcelot dede / & than Syr Ector threwe hys shelde swerde & helme from hym / & whan he behelde syr Launcelottes vysage he fyl doun in a swoun / & whan he waked it were harde ony tonge to telle the doleful complayntes that he made for his brother / A Launcelot he sayd thou were hede of al crysten knyghtes / & now I dare say sayd syr Ector thou sir Launcelot there thou lyest that thou were neuer matched of erthely knyghtes hande / & thou were the curtest knyght that euer bare shelde / & thou were the truest frende to thy louar that euer bestrade hors / & thou were the trewest louer of a synful man that euer loued woman / & thou were the kyndest man that euer strake wyth swerde / & thou were the godelyest persone þt euer cam emonge prees of knyghtes / & thou was the mekest man & the Ientyllest that euer ete in halle emonge ladyes / & thou were the sternest knyght to thy mortal foo that euer put spere in the breste / than there was wepyng & dolour out of mesure /
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is excellent, and the comparison to the Arthurian Cycle is a good one. It took me a while to realize that this wasn't a story about Liu Bei and his brothers, but a broader epic that tells a story where there are heroes and villainy on all sides. Kuan Yu and Zhang Fei definitely have a bit of the Arthurian knight in them, although they could easily be other archetypes as well depending on how you want to play it. Zhang Fei is utterly loyal to his lord and his family, unsurpassed in courage and skill at arms, but is also a selfish drunkard who goes into foolish rages and dies a tragic and ignominious death. There's definitely more than a little Gawaine there. Meanwhile Kuan Yu is more like Galahad or maybe Sir Lamorak. He's noble in a way that puts others in awe, unbending, really good at fighting, and without any obvious moral defects. He's not as gleeful as some other knights or Zhang Fei, but he's probably better at killing individually.
I'm not Liesmith but while I've got your attention I'd like to talk about recontextualization. In lit-crit, recontextualizing something means ripping it out of its original context and placing it in a new one to examine it. It's not a particularly common thing to do while writing except in parody, but I'd like to introduce it to RPGs. Specifically, if we take the Paladin out of its historical/literary context and look at its underlying assumptions, we find a lot of similarities with other literary and mythical figures. Liesmith brought up the Fenians, but there are a number of other paladinalogues we can find. This is useful if you decide to step out of the medieval setting in which paladins make the most sense.
One of the biggest parallels is between the characters of Chinese wuxia novels and paladins. While they don't generally have a divine mandate, they do have the same basics: they have obligations beyond those of normal society, which they are compelled to fulfill by their personalities and very natures. The protagonists generally are sworn to uphold their martial arts by fighting injustice where it may occur. They work well as paladins, while their rivals, who often are sworn to uphold their martial arts by proving its superiority to rival methods, work great as blackguards.
Another big parallel? Gunslingers, cowboys, or really any Old West characters in general. Most of these are paladins of a sort- they have a code of honor they uphold, and the villains are distinguished usually by their lack of any such code. But there are a few blackguards to be found here and there, and paladin-paladin conflict can work well too given the diversity of the codes you'd find in that genre.
In general, the basic idea of a paladin as I see it is that they are superhuman- heroic- not because of birth or study or tools, but because of their character.
That's great. I really like Geralt but never thought of him as a paladin, since he f+$*s his way through all the women he meets and is pretty murderous. That was me being dumb, though, on consideration you are way right about him fitting the mold.
There is one criteria for a Paladin that I cannot stress enough, and you point it out: nobody but they can make them adhere to their code. Paladins wake up every day with a choice to make. Do I want to take what I want, to really cut loose, or do I take the hard road and follow my code. The code is one of their major strengths but it can't be thrust on them by gods or wizards, it has to be taken up. Geralt has his witcher code, and for him it has developed into a real thing, but he is aware that his appeals to tradition and pseudomysticism are bunk. What looks like an impenetrable moral shield is actually incredibly fragile.
He follows the code because it makes him closer to the man he wants to be. Not killing sentient monsters isn't a rule that every witcher has, it's just a thing he doesn't want to do. Of course, having a code helps him deal, not only with the temptations of his lifestyle, but also with those who would force him to do stuff like kill dragons or train their army. It ultimately frees him from the constraints of others, so that he is absolute master of his own actions.
In fact, he actually rejects the real Witcher Code, stuff like destiny and the law of surprise, because he doesn't buy into it. This is totally legit because nobody but you can control your beliefs and actions. For a paladin, there are no laws but the ones they choose to take on. It's a pretty hard road for some.
This is really useful if you want to make a fast and loose paladin, obeying only the explicit injunctions of the code and doing what he feels most of the time. It's also super useful if you are a super rigid paladin though, because it makes you think. Why is your paladin super rigid? He doesn't have to be. What is he afraid of in himself that makes him hold to such a standard? What does he lose by this? What does he gain? Even the robotic unflinching moral crusader can be a total badass if you give a little thought to these questions.
Yeah, in the last thread I talked about how T.H. White's Launcelot was a sadistic guy who wanted badly to be a good man. But the Steinbeck version is a really gentle, patient man with a sense of humor and humility who is told by Merlin that he will be the greatest knight on life. He dedicates himself to this and it's a real source of pride for him, but it also is extremely difficult for him because he is constantly tested and exposed to the fruits of human cruelty and greed. Also he's in love with Guenevere and that really bothers him. Gradually he becomes convinced that he is a terrible man and a false knight. He's the best guy in the world and he is tormented all through his adulthood.
I haven't done a Launcelot write up since the first post of the last thread because frankly he's an astonishingly nuanced character. Especially since every author puts his own stamp on Lancelot. Lancelot is the obvious choice for author self inserts and has been used that way by pretty much everyone since Malory himself. He's best understood in the context of other knights, particularly Tarquin, Tristan, Lionel, Galahad and Gawaine.
There are certain simple rules that I think paladins should absolutely follow. The one I'm gonna talk about now is the absolute most important: don't f%*# with the other characters. Oh no, the party wizard is a necromancer! well guess what, your code just changed. yeah, turns out your order is A-OK with necromancy, as long as it is used in specific ways (specifically however the necromancer PC uses it). Same with thieves. This is a good place to lean on your nobility: of course all commoners are thieves, as long as you aren't stealing it isn't your problem. This is a move you should make with every single thing the PC does. Oddly enough I've never heard of a paladin killing a ranger for poaching (which would be kind of funny and historically more justified than say necromancer harassment) but don't do that either. For whatever reason, normal and reasonable actions that fit their character should never ever cause party conflict. Meanwhile if someone does something abnormal, like say the thief starts murdering children and selling their skeletons to the necromancer, talk that s&$# out. Say "both I and my character are uncomfortable with child killing, lets not go there in this game" and deal with this s*&& like adults instead of immediately smiting evil.
This alone will help to avoid the majority of the obnoxious b*@%@%&% that all paladins attract.
another good move is to figure out a cribsheet for your dude. If your guy is internal drama-intensive, make a simple list of things that the GM can actually use, like your parents' names, where you come from, some of your early deeds, etc. Nothing too personal, just the bare facts. I guess this goes for every character but my kind of paladin has a lot of personal baggage so a straightforward personal history is cool.
You know what else helps? Not building Gawaine. I mean OK build a paladin who has done wrong and takes refuge in his code; I just did that myself in Fuego Fish's D&D game and he was fun for me. But what I mean is, let the guy develop over time. Don't cram all this s*@# in all at once. Lancelot didn't start out the greatest knight on life, or doubting his own purity, or even being in love with guenevere. That built up over time. The Arthurian knights are fantastic inspiration and by paragon tier your character should fit right in among them. A level 1 heroic nobody though should have some basic personal tendencies towards justice, maybe a couple of complications, and a thirst for adventure. That's it.
We also talk about awesome stuff like barbarians.
If you've never read the old Kill the Red Dragon game in the archives, check it out. Leperflesh played a barbarian named Audrik Seven-Goats, and this almost perfectly describes his rage. He doesn't get all crazy and frothing at the mouth and leaping around; he really just squares himself and becomes the perfect calm in the chaotic storm of the battle. It was pretty cool to read.
|
There is one definitive code that embraces what a paladin should be and is how I try to play.I actually found that entire text rather creepy, and NOT what I would expect from a paladin in most cases. It came across more as a fanatic to whom the world is black-and-white, and anything not white IS black. Sure, it has some bad-assery, but that's about all there is to it. To my mind the paladin should epitomise good, not just slaughter evil.
Ditto that, though I've always hated the Boondock Saints movie.
Boondock Saints strikes me as the frenzied fan fiction of somebody who totally did NOT get the point of Taxi Driver. Travis Bickle wasn't a hero; the "Saints" weren't either. They were dangerous extremists, and while the fought evil, they were evil in their own right.
It's much like that Neitzchean quote. "When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you." I'd say the code fits a Chaotic Neutral Inquisitor, perhaps, but it's not all a Paladin's code.
A Paladin will seek out evil, certainly, but that's not his whole life. He also wants those poor, the sick, the meek; he wants to tend to them and show compassion. The Paladin is given several mercies for just this purpose.
Why do all Paladins have to play the same?
@Dabbler: And my point was that Paladins cannot possibly Smite all day, or against everyone.
Against up to 7 different targets a Paladin will out damage A lot of different classes. However, the other classes have more consistent buffs that last against more enemies.
A Ranger's Favored Enemy will provide a constant benefit to a small subset of creatures, and if they focus heavily, they can get a +10 bonus to both attack and damage. If using a fighting style that takes advantage of more iterative attacks (Such as TWF) then it's possible for that buff to apply more damage over time.
A Barbarian's Rage applies to all creature the barbarian fights, and works best with two handed Weapons. However it only lasts for a limited amount of time. Using Mighty Rage, that's +4 to hit, and +6 to damage. That might not seem like much, but that's also completly ignoring rage powers, which could pump this up somewhat.
A Fighter's Weapon Training + Feats is always on, and affects all enemies. Using a Archetype like Dragoon could potentially leave you with a +8/+14, making the Paladin's bonus negligible.
All things being equal, a Paladin Shines against small number of evil outsiders (where their bonus doubles), while being anywhere from PAR, or even Poor against everything else.
Why do all Paladins have to play the same?
They don't.
@Dabbler: And my point was that Paladins cannot possibly Smite all day, or against everyone.
...
All things being equal, a Paladin Shines against small number of evil outsiders (where their bonus doubles), while being anywhere from PAR, or even Poor against everything else.
Four encounters per day, and how many BBEGs aren't evil? The paladin doesn't shine in all encounters - just the most important ones.
|
|
It's sad how any discussion about paladins invariably breaks down into an argument about alignment. Much of what's been said has been informative, and I really hope that the OP has taken some of the advice to heart and rethinks his character. The original description is precicely why paladins have such a bad rap and everyone hates playing with them - the lawful stupid sterehotype runs deep.
It's only very recently that I've ever been even tempted to play one myself - and it was due to a change in how I create characters. Instead of looking at the classes and deciding what looks like fun, I create a character concept and backstory first, and then decide what class would best fit that concept. If you applied that process to the op's character, you'd find he's a bit of a prick and might make a good fighter but certainly not a paladin.
The other thing that really helped me was the realization that nobody is born a paladin any more than they are born any other kind of class. Paladins don't have to have been perfect their whole life, but by the time they decide to become a paragon of good and virtue and law for their deity they'd sure better be trying as hard as they can. He might slip up occasionally due to old habits, but should feel really bad about it any time it happens and should be trying his hardest not to let it happen again.
Superiority complexes or extermination mentalities have no place here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{some really good points}
The other problem is when somebody looks at the paladin, likes the powers, likes the idea of being able to claim the authority, then decides that they want to be mean and bad-ass with it, and tries to find an interpretation of lawful good that reads more like chaotic douche ...
Hey cool, I'm going to play a paladin too starting this weekend. I'll model my Pally based on Michael from the Dresden Files. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to explain how a paladin should be, so I just point at him. This is what a paladin should be.
|
|
{some really good points}The other problem is when somebody looks at the paladin, likes the powers, likes the idea of being able to claim the authority, then decides that they want to be mean and bad-ass with it, and tries to find an interpretation of lawful good that reads more like chaotic douche ...
Exactly - and going back to the guy who wanted a class that's a full bab divine-powered melee character - I think that's the wrong way to go about it. While it's true that from a mechanics point of view that's a niche that has no actual class, I don't think that deities of other alignments would of necessity have such a class. I much prefer the idea of first deciding what god you're worshiping, what kind of person might worship such a god, and then what class best fits that concept.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from playing a full-bab melee character that worships an evil or neutral or chaotic deity, and in character could be the embodiment of a "Paladin" for that god. Just from a mechanics standpoint he would be a fighter, barbarian, or ranger. But there's no reason you couldn't say that the incredible skill with the blade, the extra power from raging, or extraordinary advantage against particular races comes from your connection to your god of choice.
It's sad how any discussion about paladins invariably breaks down into an argument about alignment. Much of what's been said has been informative, and I really hope that the OP has taken some of the advice to heart and rethinks his character. The original description is precicely why paladins have such a bad rap and everyone hates playing with them - the lawful stupid sterehotype runs deep.
The answer is to kill alignment