|
Paladins should be able to be anyone, simply martial members of the same orders of faith that clerics belong to, or some such.
Assuming you used alignments, just be sure they share at least half of the same alignment with their diety of choice.
A favorite character of mine is a Paladin of Fharlanghn, who is basically an apathetic paladin but effective highwayman, forcing "tithes" to his deity for, say, litering on the road, and then giving a half hearted "you are now chastised, bless you, travel in peace" before pocketing the money.
Most of the abilities of a Paladin really only fit thematically with the forces of Good (lay on hands, smite evil, mercy, etc). Funny enough, none of a paladins main abilities are tied to law and order. One ability (aura of righteousness) really lends itself to Choatic themes due to the anti compulsion aspects.
Paladin Alignment is way too often used as a straight jacket for RP and simply needs to go. The cliche that is Paladin behavior has really gotten old. Maybe allowing Paladins of all good alignments will fix this. A lot of players in this thread have commented on how much fun a non standard aligned paladin was. I allowed a player to play a NG paladin of Mystra once. That paladin character remains one of her favorite characters to this day.
Holy/Unholy Warrior:
Paladin LG
Anti-Paladin CE
Justicator LN
Anarch CN
Altruist NG
Death Master NE
Balance Seeker N
well setting aside Charlemagne and his Paladins, a Paladin is supposed to be a knightly and heroic champion. That is what the word MEANS. To me saying a paladin can be CE is like saying a Fighter can't use any weapons, including his fist. It just doesn't make any since.
If you want holy warriors of differing alignments, MAKE them, give them unique powers and move along. But Paladins are supposed to be Champions of Noble causes, bound by Honor, and the like, let them stay that way.
I'll stop linking to this when people start reading it.
Arthur had the Knights of the Round Table. Define them by whatever class you like (Cavalier or Fighter are probably the best).
The Paladins were The Twelve Peers of Charlemagne, and they were (in legend, if not necessarily in fact) Holy Knights who fought to defend the lands of Christendom, defend the Church, and free the lands under the tyranny of the Saracens. The always fought honorably, held to their oaths, accepted the surrender of their foes, offered baptism to their enemies, and sacrificed themselves to save others.
And if you read Orlando Furioso, then you would realize that they do indeed fall, and fall hard into madness.
I think it's basically the funniest thing ever that people are now claiming you can't be a paladin without fitting the D&D description, rather they trying to fit the D&D description to match paladins.
|
|
I think a lot of people have issues not with the Paladins alignment as how how DM's restrict the playing of Lawful Good.Paladins should be able to be anyone, simply martial members of the same orders of faith that clerics belong to, or some such.
Assuming you used alignments, just be sure they share at least half of the same alignment with their diety of choice.
A favorite character of mine is a Paladin of Fharlanghn, who is basically an apathetic paladin but effective highwayman, forcing "tithes" to his deity for, say, litering on the road, and then giving a half hearted "you are now chastised, bless you, travel in peace" before pocketing the money.
Most of the abilities of a Paladin really only fit thematically with the forces of Good (lay on hands, smite evil, mercy, etc). Funny enough, none of a paladins main abilities are tied to law and order. One ability (aura of righteousness) really lends itself to Choatic themes due to the anti compulsion aspects.
Paladin Alignment is way too often used as a straight jacket for RP and simply needs to go. The cliche that is Paladin behavior has really gotten old. Maybe allowing Paladins of all good alignments will fix this. A lot of players in this thread have commented on how much fun a non standard aligned paladin was. I allowed a player to play a NG paladin of Mystra once. That paladin character remains one of her favorite characters to this day.
The issue even comes up in PFS tables with other players going nuts over very silly things over a paladin should not behave that way in their view!
Too many people have locked in pretty out dated views on paladin behavior everything from not being able to kill an evil opponent to not being able to hit a disarmed opponent. This really detracts from the game because of what those players believe is an idealized belief system. No class is much fun when you are straight jacketed into someone else's belief system. The RP suffers tremendously.
Protip: if your definition of paladin doesn't include Arthur and the Knights - who are literally defined as paladins - then your definition is screwy.
Paladins aren't just "knights of Charlemagne," they - even before Gygax! - refer to any sort of questing chivalrious knight.
Or hey, maybe Gygax was referring to Have Gun, Will Travel. Don't have a gun? Can't be a paladin.
Go back to original deities and Demigods. Arthurian legends are in there.
Arthur was a fighter, not a paladin.
Most of the knights of the round table were fighters.
I believe the only three paladins were Lancelot, Gawain, and Percival. The former is the model for a paladin that falls from virtue.
So clearly, Gygax acknowledged paladins as having to be VERY LG. And those three I mentioned were also generally acknowledged as the mightiest knights of the Table Round.
There IS a good point about paladins no longer having 'more' then fighters. This is also because they made paladins as COMMON as fighters, barring alignment. 17 Cha just to get INTO the class made them rare, and when you rolled one up, you know you had something special. Fewer magic items were made up with holy powers to compensate.
Does that change the essential goody two shoes flavor of the Paladin? Not at all.
Does it remove the straitjacket of choice alignment and code demand?
No.
Paladins are the Hero class, you basically don't play them as anything else. And they should stay true to what they are, and not having everything they can do cheapened by having mirror-image clones of all the other alignments running around.
===Aelryinth
I stand corrected. My books are 600 miles away atm.
==Aelryinth
The definition of Paladin:
pal*a*din
[pal-uh-din]
-noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne
2. any knightly or heroic champion
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause
This is according to Dictionary.com (only because it's the most immediately convenient to me).
The Arthurian legends were a collection of largely pagan stories passed down, often as bawdy stories. The collection, Le Morte d'Arthur was collected and written by Sir Thomas Malory.
Sir Thomas Malory... in 1450 not only tried to ambush and murder the Duke of Buckingham, but broke into Coombe Abbey, where he robbed and insulted the abbot. He was also charged with forcing one Henry Smyth's wife, stealing cattle on a large scale, and highway robbery. For these misdemeanours he served eight periods of imprisonment, and twice escaped - in July, 1451, swimming the moat of Coleshill prison; in October, 1454, making an armed breakout from Colchester Castle. In 1462 he fought for King Edward IV against the Scots and French, but presently went over to the Lancastrian rebels. In 1468 the King excluded him from a general pardon, whereupon he appears to have been imprisoned at Newgate until his death three years later.
This is where you would draw your ideals for the Paladin?
Sorry guys but for the last 30 years paladins have been well defined in the game. It is a bit to late to try and change what a paladin is. If you wish to craft a holy warrior class for every god/Al, then do so.The paladin is not that class.
seekerofshadowlight has a point. It's like trying to redefine what a barbarian is at this point. Barbarians will never be blue stained Scottish men at this point; well maybe there will be an archetype...
|
|
I think it is important to not that the Dieties and Demigods has more than 100 Authurian knights listed and of them all, 3 are paladins.
Less than 3%. Nope these are not the characters upon which the Paladin is based.
If I remember correctly the original dnd paladin was based on a character concept from a novel by Poul Anderson and created by Don Kane. Murlynd was the character created. Murlynd was basically LG and made even more so after his creator's death. That character was not much of a knight thou, he was more of a cowboy with a horse and magic guns. Yeah, I have been playing for a while.
As far as interesting literary paladins, I like Sparhawk from the Diamond throne series by David Eddings. Everyone will have their vision of what exactly makes a paladin, how do you decide what is right? Gygax and Kane made an agreement between themselves. The agreement should be only between the player and the DM about what is acceptable behavior. Other players, forum posters, etc really should not be pushing what is an acceptable standard for someone else's game thou.
This is one of the issues that leads to breakdowns in gaming groups. Yeah, 30 plus years of these arguments does get old. Maybe the time for finally removing Alignment from the game has come.
seekerofshadowlight has a point. It's like trying to redefine what a barbarian is at this point. Barbarians will never be blue stained Scottish men at this point; well maybe there will be an archetype...
Woad Painted Archetype. I can see it now.
==Aelryinth
This is one of the issues that leads to breakdowns in gaming groups. Yeah, 30 plus years of these arguments does get old. Maybe the time for finally removing Alignment from the game has come.
This would really change nothing for the paladin. His code is more or less a very strict LG AL wording. You could rip out Al and he would still be required to act in the same manner.
Aliment never has a single thing to really do with paladin threads.
I stand corrected. My books are 600 miles away atm.
==Aelryinth
No no, I thought Authur was a fighter too until I got it out.
And I was suprise about Parcivale.
I was responding when You posted so don't think that was directed to you.
Percival 'the Pure' was the truest of the knights of the Round Table, the son of Lancelot by a nymph.
He was the only one who could sit in the 13th chair, the Siege Perilous, without it opening up and consuming the arrogant soul there.
I completely forgot about Galahad. gah. So many knights. Lancelot, of course, was the King's Champion and undefeatable in battle. Alas, but for Guinevere.
====
that book by Poul Anderson was Three Hearts and Three Lions, referring to the badge of Holger Carlsen/Ogier the Dane. 1961 story. Note this is a Rolandic character, not Arthurian, although Morgan Le Fey is supposedly responsible for his events. And yes, it's basically the foundation for the paladin class.
===Aelryinth
Responding to every important thing since I left.
I disagree, you make it no longer a paladin but faith based warrior class number 3.
Here's a newsflash for you. "faith based warrior class number 3" is what it already is. It just has an alignment restriction attached.
Holy/Unholy Warrior:
Paladin LG
Anti-Paladin CE
Justicator LN
Anarch CN
Altruist NG
Death Master NE
Balance Seeker N
Perfect. You have a base class and 9 archetypes for devoting yourself to an alignment. Just what I was getting at.
Gygax chose the word Paladin, not knight, They come from the tales of Charlemagnes paladins not the knights of the round table. And Charlemagnes paladins were pargaons of Virtue, even unto death.
Gygax also envisioned DnD as a competitive game where the DM tries to screw over the players as much as possible. I have the same kind of feelings for him as I do for Gene Roddenberry. I respect him as the creator of the world, but strictly following his vision does nothing but hurt the franchise.
Sorry guys but for the last 30 years paladins have been well defined in the game. It is a bit to late to try and change what a paladin is. If you wish to craft a holy warrior class for every god/Al, then do so.The paladin is not that class.
"Tradition" is a poor excuse for holding on to rules that no longer make sense. If we're going to go back to what's "traditional" why not bring back thac0 too?
And again, if I go and base holy warriors for every alignment on the paladin then guess what they are. Paladin archetypes. Or paladin alternate classes. Either way, they're still the paladin at their core. In effect, you're just arguing semantics.
seekerofshadowlight has a point. It's like trying to redefine what a barbarian is at this point. Barbarians will never be blue stained Scottish men at this point; well maybe there will be an archetype...
They can be if you want. That kind of flavour is up to the player to determine, which is the entire point I was getting at in the first place.
Which brings me to another problem I have with the Paladin class as it is. Role-playing decisions should not have mechanical impact on your character's class. What happens to a monk when they stop being lawful? They can't level up as a monk but don't lose any abilities. This is how every alignment restricted class should work.
This is another thing 4e actually did right (IMHO). In that a paladin who goes against his moral code doesn't immediately fall and lose his powers. He becomes a pariah in paladin society and may even be hunted down by his order for his violations. In other words, a role-play choice has consequences in role-playing. Which is exactly where the consequences for role-playing decisions should be played out.
Here's a newsflash for you. "faith based warrior class number 3" is what it already is. It just has an alignment restriction attached.
This is incorrect and is the flaw you base your argument upon. Paladins are not champions of gods. They are not faith based warriors. They are champions of all that is good, lawful and just. They are not soldiers of a faith or a god or the rank and file Templar of faith you seem to think they are.
I do find it amusing that all the folks wanting to change the paladin either do not understand what a paladin is or just want to play it without the restrictions that make it a paladin, but not a paladin.
The class you want to play is not a paladin. I fail to see how making the paladin into something lesser so you can play something kinda like a paladin but not a paladin is a good thing. Its like saying "I want to play a fighter" yet show up with a wizard calling it is a fighter, then demand everyone agree it really is a fighter.
The faith based warrior already is in the game (twice) they are called a cleric and an inquisitor. Look toward those and leave the paladin alone,as it is simply not what you are trying to say it is.
This is incorrect and is the flaw you base your argument upon. Paladins are not champions of gods. They are not faith based warriors. They are champions of all that is good, lawful and just. They are not soldiers of a faith or a god or the rank and file Templar of faith you seem to think they are.I do find it amusing that all the folks wanting to change the paladin either do not understand what a paladin is or just want to play it without the restrictions that make it a paladin, but not a paladin.
The class you want to play is not a paladin. I fail to see how making the paladin into something lesser so you can play something kinda like a paladin but not a paladin is a good thing. Its like saying "I want to play a fighter" yet show up with a wizard calling it is a fighter, then demand everyone agree it really is a fighter.
The faith based warrior already is in the game (twice) they are called a cleric and an inquisitor. Look toward those and leave the paladin alone,as it is simply not what you are trying to say it is.
This is incorrect and is the flaw you base your argument upon. I'm not arguing paladins are champions of gods. They should be champions of their chosen alignment. I don't think They are soldiers of a faith or a god or the rank and file Templar of faith you seem to think I do.
I do find it amusing that all the folks wanting to keep the paladin the same either do not understand that the paladin class is just a set of abilities, or just want to play it with the restrictions that defines the flavour of the character, which is something that should be defined by the player.
The class I want to play is mechanically identical to a paladin, but I'm fine with calling it something different. I fail to see how opening the class up makes the paladin into something lesser. It's nothing like saying "I want to play a fighter" yet show up with a wizard calling it a fighter, then demand everyone agree it really is a fighter. It's like saying "I want to play a barbarian. And he paints his face blue and has a Scottish accent".
The warrior who gains powers from deities and other divine sources are all over this game. They include the cleric, inquisitor, druid, ranger, adept, oracle, and the paladin. There's no mechanical reason for it to be restricted like it is now.
Tradition is a crap excuse for keeping it the way it is now. Quoting the other argument I made since you you completely ignored it and it was important to what we're discussing:
... "Tradition" is a poor excuse for holding on to rules that no longer make sense. If we're going to go back to what's "traditional" why not bring back thac0 too?
And again, if I go and base holy warriors for every alignment [this is something, you suggested, BTW] on the paladin then guess what they are. Paladin archetypes. Or paladin alternate classes. Either way, they're still the paladin at their core. In effect, you're just arguing semantics. ...
As I thought you are in group 2:" I want to play a paladin, but not want to have to act or really play like a paladin." So no you do not want a paladin you want it lessened so you can have it without really being a paladin. A kinda half ased paladin for folks who can't cut playing a paladin .
I greatly dislike the whole concept of a paladin for every Al, they are not paladins and cheapen what a paladin is and should not be allowed.
People like you should play clerics as it is the class you are searching for and leave the paladin to folks who really Want to play a paladin.
As I thought you are in group 2:" I want to play a paladin, but not acarching fort like a paladin." So nop you do not want a paladin you want it lessened so you can have it without really being a paladin.
I greatly dislike the whole concept of a paladin for every Al, they are not paladins and cheapen what a paladin is.
[sigh]As usual you're completely ignoring the argument I've actually made, and just being contradictory for the fun of it without replying to what I've actually said. With a touch of condescension thrown in.[/sigh]
What I actually want to do, if you actually read the damn things I actually say instead of putting whatever meaning you want onto my words, is make a base class called something else {holy warrior? Alignment paragon? Flying fishman? the name doesn't really matter] and have the current lawful good "paladin" and all of its current archetypes be archetypes of that class.
People like you should play clerics as it is the class you are searching for and leave the paladin to folks who really Want to play a paladin.
And there's your condescending attitude shining through again.
For the sake of argument, let's say I did want to play a a paladin. I never would because I'm not a fan of the martial classes, but lets just say "Ok, I want to play a paladin." If I do want to play one, it's most likely for the abilities of the class, and not for its nonsensical alignment restriction. Well in that case, "play a cleric" doesn't solve the problem. A cleric can be of any alignment, but doesn't have the damn abilities I wanted in the first place. No other class has this kind of BS attached to it. And if you want to play it as the "lawful good paragon of virtue" (or play the current paladin class as the new class's archetype) there's nothing stopping you from doing it.
In fact, if I want to play a fighter of a knightly order who's lawful good and has a strict moral code there's nothing currently stopping me and I can flavour him as a "paladin" as well if I want. Your class (in this case fighter) shouldn't restrict your character's flavour (In this case, that he is lawful good and thinks of himself as a divine champion).
I have read what you wrote but disagree with it.
You simply do not want the paladin class. Play a caviler or a fighter or the cleric. The class you are wanting is not a paladin. Saying lets change it so I don't have to use the paladin restriction is like saying my wizard is really a fighter and his spells are really weapons that just act like spells.
It simply is not what you are looking for, you think it is as you are obsessive with the class abilities but not the concept of the class. You are tying to fit a concept into a form it does not belong. You have in your head you want a paladin but not a paladin. Then the fact you refuse to except is you simply do not want the paladin. Yet you want to change it into something it is not to force it to fit a concept that does not work with the class.
This is a class based system so yes class will always restrict your concept. But you are looking at a class then trying to force it to bend to a concept it simply does not fit. what you should do is start with a concept then see which class best fits that concept.
And no matter how you look at it if that concept does not include (LG, with a strict Code and a real hate for smiting evil) then the paladin is the incorrect form to base that concept on.
Any concept that starts out with "I want to be a non LG paladin" is doomed to fail. What you want is not the paladin class, but something paladin like. We have classes for that, caviler, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, even a ranger fit that concept better then a paladin.
Saying you can be a non LG paladin is like saying you can play a wizard with no spells. The concept simply does not work. They are made to be what they are.
I have read what you wrote but disagree with it.
You simply do not want the paladin class. Play a caviler or a fighter or the cleric. The class you are wanting is not a paladin. Saying lets change it so I don't have to use the paladin restriction is like saying my wizard is really a fighter and his spells are really weapons that just act like spells.
You are aware some spells really are weapons that act like spells, right? If a wizard has as his concept that he only takes spells that act like weapons he's perfectly justified in calling himself a "fighter" if he wants.
It simply is not what you are looking for, you think it is as you are obsessive with the class abilities but not the concept of the class. You are tying to fit a concept into a form it does not belong. You have in your head you want a paladin but not a paladin. Then the fact you refuse to except is you simply do not want the paladin. Yet you want to change it into something it is not to force it to fit a concept that does not work with the class.
So again, your entire argument is "It's been like this so we shouldn't change it because I don't think it should be changed."
Well if we're never going to change anything, why not go back to THAC0 and race based class restrictions as well then? Those rules were considered "fine" for decades, and they made just as much sense as the this one does.
This is a class based system so yes class will always restrict your concept. But you are looking at a class then trying to force it to bend to a concept it simply does not fit. what you should do is start with a concept then see which class best fits that concept.And no matter how you look at it if that concept does not include (LG, with a strict Code and a real hate for smiting evil) then the paladin is the incorrect form to base that concept on.
Only because [flavor] is inserted into the class in a way that it isn't for any other. It's stupid, it's restrictive, it's inconsistent with the other classes, and there's absolutely no reason for it other than "tradition". See my last point.
Any concept that starts out with "I want to be a non LG paladin" is doomed to fail. What you want is not the paladin class, but something paladin like. We have classes for that, caviler, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, even a ranger fit that concept better then a paladin.Saying you can be a non LG paladin is like saying you can play a wizard with no spells. The concept simply does not work. They are made to be what they are.
You can be a wizard with no spells. It's called a commoner. Different name same s**t. As for wanting a class that is "not the paladin class, but something paladin like" that's exactly what I've been arguing for! There you go arguing and being contradictory without actually bothering to think about what I've actually said.
Again "play a caviller, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, or ranger" instead doesn't solve the problem. If I wanted to play a caviler, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, or ranger I would have.
It does indeed solve the issue. That being you do not want to play a paladin anyhow. So why act like you do? Play something that fits the concept, not something you must twist to make kinda fit.
It does indeed solve the issue. That being you do not want to play a paladin anyhow. So why act like you do? Play something that fits the concept, not something you must twist to make kinda fit.
No it doesn't saying it does is just sidestepping the issue. I like the class abilities of the paladin, but don't want the alignment. If I play a cavalier, I'm not getting the class abilities I wanted, I'm "settling". That's not fun for anybody. Your argument is still just based entirely on tradition and it's as stupid a reason as it ever was.
The way you put it, this hypothetical person doesn't want to play a caviller, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, or ranger. He wants to play a paladin (or as you put it a "paladin like"). Under this model he's just going to say screw it and not play. How does that help the game, exactly? If he wanted to play one of those things he would have in the first place.
And yours is based on nonsense. The code is the paladin as much as the abilities you crave. A non lg paladin is as much sense as a no spell wizard.
If it is not LG, does not have the code it should not gain a single bit of paladin abilities. That is not a paladin, again play a cleric, that is the class you want.
|
It does indeed solve the issue. That being you do not want to play a paladin anyhow. So why act like you do? Play something that fits the concept, not something you must twist to make kinda fit.No it doesn't saying it does is just sidestepping the issue. I like the class abilities of the paladin, but don't want the alignment. If I play a cavalier, I'm not getting the class abilities I wanted, I'm "settling". That's not fun for anybody. Your argument is still just based entirely on tradition and it's as stupid a reason as it ever was.
The way you put it, this hypothetical person doesn't want to play a caviller, fighter, cleric, inquisitor, or ranger. He wants to play a paladin (or as you put it a "paladin like"). Under this model he's just going to say screw it and not play. How does that help the game, exactly? If he wanted to play one of those things he would have in the first place.
I'm sure you're aware that Chatoic Evil Clerics of LG deities are right around the corner of that.
I'm sure you're aware that Chatoic Evil Clerics of LG deities are right around the corner of that.
But, but not allowing them is foolish and just stupid tradition! Stop trying to wreak my concepts!
|
|
But, but not allowing them is foolish and just stupid tradition! Stop trying to wreak my concepts!
I'm sure you're aware that Chatoic Evil Clerics of LG deities are right around the corner of that.
I'm personally somewhat ambivalent on the whole "non-LG paladin" idea, but I'm just making sure that if somebody tells a player "sure, CE Paladins are a go with me", he/she must be ready for the next player to ask "gee, if you waived alignment restriction on the Paladin it means that my LG character can be a Cleric of Lamashtu and run around slicing pregnant women open in concert with his alignment?".
The second scenario is somewhat more difficult to handle, and if you say "sorry, Paladin alternatives are OK but Clerics are not", well, there goes your coherency. :)
But, but not allowing them is foolish and just stupid tradition! Stop trying to wreak my concepts!
I'm sure you're aware that Chatoic Evil Clerics of LG deities are right around the corner of that.
That's a nice straw man you've built there. Knocking it down must have been fun.
The difference is if I play a cleric I get to chose alignment and deity. In fact, I can play a cleric with no deity if I want and choose any two domains I got dang feel like. (not in the Golarion setting, but we're talking about game rules not setting restrictions).
The paladin class that currently exists has no choice.
The problem with a chotic evil cleric getting spells from a lawful good god is that a LG god wouldn't give a CE character spells. But as seekerofshadowlight has made it his/her mission to point out (even though I wasn't arguing with him/her about it), paladins don't draw their abilities from deities! Making the restriction even more stupid than I originally thought it was.
|
|
The problem with a chotic evil cleric getting spells from a lawful good god is that a LG god wouldn't give a CE character spells.
That's somewhere in the rules? I mean, it sure does says that a Cleric must be one step from his/her deity, but is it anywhere explicitly stated that a LG god won't give a CE character spells?
Forgot to point out that this problem is avoided anyway if you go with "different alignment pally's as archetypes" deal I've been arguing for.
And I still say there is no problem to solve. You are a paladin or you are not. Many, many classes to play if you want to be a non LG holy warrior type, the paladin is not among those.
That's somewhere in the rules? I mean, it sure does says that a Cleric must be one step from his/her deity, but is it anywhere explicitly stated that a LG god won't give a CE character spells?
It's not specifically called out as such in the rules, but that's the flavour reason for the alignment restriction, and the logical one.
In actuality I see little problem in regards to balance with allowing it. Of course once you violate the god's code of conduct you wont be able to level as a cleric of that deity any more, and good luck finding another deity willing to take you on.
I probably wouldn't allow it in the first place, explaining that it will just cause them a bunch of trouble, but If I did the conversation between me and the cleric would probably go like this:
Him: I want to be a chaotic evil follower of Iomedae.
Me: You do know that that alignment is in direct opposition to that god's values right?
Him: Yep.
Me: You do know that going around acting chaotic evil is gonna piss her off right?
Him: Yep.
Me: And if you lose your ability to level up as a cleric of Iomedae I'm not letting you level as a cleric of another deity.
Him: Yep.
Me: And you still want to, knowing how stupid an idea it is?
Him: Yep.
Me; [faceplam] [sigh] Fine whatever. Just don't blame me when you can't level to level 2 as a cleric.
Him: Okie dokey!
And I still say there is no problem to solve. You are a paladin or you are not. Many, many classes to play if you want to be a non LG holy warrior type, the paladin is not among those.
And I still say you're very wrong and your entire argument is still just "it hasn't been like that before so it shouldn't be now."
[sarcasm]I guess if you like things the way they've been forever paladins should only be available for humans too, right? I mean that's how the class was since 1E. No need to change that at all. [/sarcasm]