And if we had your way we would have a 3rd warrior of the gods. Seriously we have two. If you do not want to play a paladin play one of those.
Because that is the way it has always been is the reason for many things in the game. Base classes, HP, vancian casting, wizard, clerics, rogues, and yes paladins. A paladin is LG and has a code, that is what a paladin is. If you take that away you are not a paladin, that is as much a part of the class as the smite.
People play paladins to walk the hard line, to be the boy scout, the make the hard call and to play the one who does not comprise, who does not give in and who does what is right at all costs.
A paladin is not simply a collection of random abilities. You and people like you who want to kill off the paladin simply do not understand it. And like I said it is simply not the class for you. But it is the class for those who do get it.
Why should we be forced to loose something that is part of the soul of the game, something unique and interesting because you want to play a cleric but use a paladin abilities?
There are classes that fir the concept you keep talking about. The paladin is not one of them.
I find this thread humorous due to the fact that I'm currently playing a CG Paladin of Freedom of Cayden Cailean, and hes a stylin', profilin', limousine-riding, jet-flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin'-n'-dealin' son of a gun!.....crap, no that was Ric Flair...but he is a lying, cheating, stealing, rule breaking, ale swilling, damsel saving, wench bedding, freedom promoting, evil smiting son of a gun! ;)Note my comment on Chaotic Good Paladins earlier in this thread. You're kind of making my point of the appeal of having the powers of the Paladin without the shackles of the LG alignment.
Yup, and having a blast doing it! Seriously, most fun I've had with a character in a while. Too be honest though, I haven't really cheated or stolen with him, and only lied a couple times, I just threw those on the list for dramatic effect. I try to play him still as a paragon of good, just not law. Everything else I said though, you bet your ass he does.
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]
Seeker is arguing for what I agree with, though I will say some of his arguments haven't been the best worded.
I can accept things can change and should, if it's warranted.
A better example of comparison here would be the PF cavalier, knight from 3.5e, or even the wujen from 3.5e. These classes have built in roleplay restrictions. Cavaliers have orders, knights have codes, and wujen have taboos (though this one is much lighter). An argument can be made for oracles, being given a curse. There are downfalls to the class in exchange for the abilities granted.
Think of other tradeoffs, if you cannot accept that one. Wizards get more versatility at the cost of less spells per day, but sorcerers get more spells per day at the cost of versatility. You can't just say, "Well, I want my wizard to get more spells per day, because of [any argument]." Balance would be thrown into utter chaos if the designers were willing to toss out tradeoffs. Paladins have access to a lot of the better aspects of the game - casting, healing, a great self buff, debuffing removal, d10 hit die, high saves, etc.
Alignment as a stand alone operative can easily be seen as a restriction and misplayed terribly. However, when it's so involved in a class, you can't just pull that part out. This is where LG does not equal paladin LG.
I like the class abilities of the paladin, but don't want the alignment.
This is very simple. I like that you stated it this way. This is what so many people mean, while they waste time arguing game mechanics and balance issues, etc.
This is very elegant. It is also absurd.
The Paladin is iconic. The Paladin is the last pure hero in a world (game, setting, system, whatever) that is surfeit with anti-heroes. From the very beginning The Paladin has stood alone in a game where any class can be played in any way.
That is why you hate him. That is why you love him.
@Seeker, if we went by your logic, then Druids should never be Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, they should only ever be True Neutral whilst annoyingly going on and on about maintaining the "balance". Also Dwarves should never be Wizards, Halflings should live in holes in the side of the earth, smoke pipeweed, and only be allowed to be Fighters and Rogues (Thieves), and only Humans should be able to go past around level 10.
What you fail to understand is, all the examples I've mentioned are "tropes" (google that word if you dont know what it means), but they are tropes that D&D has moved away from in order to better the game as a whole.
I disagree. LG and paladin are intertwined. Pathfinder is a class based system, classes are often hard wired with fluff. Classes are not just "Bags" of powers.
What you guys are asking for is simply not a paladin. Go play classes that fit the concept you have crafted as the paladin simply does not. Nor should it.
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 causeThis 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.
Did...did you miss those two bits in your definition? Because they apply pretty hard to the Knights.
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?
Absolutely. It makes the game a million times more interesting to have paladins as humans that take refuge in their code not because it will "make them fall" which is quite possibly the most idiotic mechanic conceived, but because they need it to be a better person.
This idea that paladins need to somehow have a mechanic that the DM can use to take away all their powers is as dumb as it gets. It punishes roleplaying. Want to make a paladin who's tempted and begins to be seduced by darkness? No, you get punished for that. A paladin who starts to doubt himself and his beliefs? No, you get punished for that.
This is a mechanic that makes being seduced by evil into something that makes you weaker. Who the hell would ever do this? If anything, "falling" should make you more powerful in order to present an actual temptation!
I find it pretty hilarious actually; this is basically the polar opposite of the thread I linked to.
I linked to a thread about examining paladins and the idea of a paladin and presenting new and interesting ways of thinking about it. Looking at different takes of a code of conduct and what it means for the person and why they take it up. How being an ideal clashes so horribly with being human. How you can roleplay new, different, and even old and classical paladins.
This thread seems dedicated to believing there is one and only one way to play a paladin, and expunging everything else that doesn't fit that one vision. It's about killing conversation and throwing away any meaningful dialogue. Removing all attempts at roleplaying.
Pretty funny counterparts.
And if we had your way we would have a 3rd warrior of the gods.
It already is. changing the wording and pretending it isn't doesn't change that.
Why should we be forced to loose something that is part of the soul of the game, something unique and interesting because you want to play a cleric but use a paladin abilities?
Allowing other people options doesn't "take away" or deny you anything! As much as you might disagree, there must be people who agree with me because that's where 4E went with the class.
All your arguments are the same "its how it should be, so it shouldn't change."
All your arguments work equally well for keeping old race based restrictions from 2e in effect.
"LG and paladin are intertwined."
Humans and paladins are intertwined.
A paladin is LG and has a code, that is what a paladin is. If you take that away you are not a paladin, that is as much a part of the class as the smite.
A paladin is human, that is what a paladin is. If you take that away you are not a paladin, that is as much a part of the class as the smite.
Many, many classes to play if you want to be a non LG holy warrior type, the paladin is not among those.
Many, many classes to play if you want to be a gnome holy warrior type, the paladin is not among those.
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.
Being human is the paladin as much as the abilities you crave. A non human paladin is as much sense as a no spell wizard.
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.
Any concept that starts out with "I want to be a non human paladin" is doomed to fail. What you want is not the paladin class, but something paladin like. We have classes for that...
Do these arguments convince you that changing the paladin to be available to non humans was a bad idea for 3.x? Well that's as silly as your arguments sounds to me.
Yes some folks may agree with you. I also say they are incorrect and do not understand what a paladin is as well. Luckily for me the folks in charge of pathfinder tend to agree with the view paladins are LG and nothing else.
You want a Non LG "paladin" play a caviler or a cleric. As you do not want a paladin and no matter how may ways you deny that simple fact, it does not change it.
Yes some folks may agree with you. I also say they are incorrect and do not understand what a paladin is as well. Luckily for me the folks in charge of pathfinder tend to agree with the view paladins are LG and nothing else.
You want a Non LG "paladin" play a caviler or a cleric. As you do not want a paladin and no matter how may ways you deny that simple fact, it does not change it.
Well this argument is going nowhere. You're arguments do nothing to convince me, you're arguing against things I'm not actually arguing for, you're missing the point of the arguments I actually am making, and I'm sick of your condescending attitude.
I'm out.
Yes some folks may agree with you. I also say they are incorrect and do not understand what a paladin is as well. Luckily for me the folks in charge of pathfinder tend to agree with the view paladins are LG and nothing else.
You want a Non LG "paladin" play a caviler or a cleric. As you do not want a paladin and no matter how may ways you deny that simple fact, it does not change it.
Which begs the question, "What really defines a Paladin?"
It's been a while since I've seen someone use such blatant circular reasoning, I had to jump in
You say a Paladin cannot be anything other than lawful good, because you assume lawful good is what makes a Paladin a Paladin. You show no proof other than tradition. Then when using the same logic that you yourself used to say that a Paladin must be human because of tradition, you say they're wrong and just don't understand.
No there are lots of ways to play a paladin, because there are lots of ways to play LG. But if you are not playing a guy dedicatedto defending society for the good of everyone (you know lawful good) then you are not playing a paladin.
You are wrong, hth.
I find the idea that you cannot see more than one way to play a paladin, within the confines of LG to show that you really don't understand anything about roleplaying. I have been playing for more than 30 years, in that time I have seen a lot of paladins played, and played some myself. I have seen them played in many different ways, none have been "cookie cutter" yet except for the two that fell ( one of which was role played fantastiacly with a real sense of tragity) they were all able to be LG without much of a problem.
Listen I literally invented the role-playing background when I went back in time and helped Gygax create the game and around then I also came up with the idea of appealing to authority and I have been playing for more then 800 years so don't you tell me who has the best appeal to authority!
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 causeThis 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.
Did...did you miss those two bits in your definition? Because they apply pretty hard to the Knights.
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?
Absolutely. It makes the game a million times more interesting to have paladins as humans that take refuge in their code not because it will "make them fall" which is quite possibly the most idiotic mechanic conceived, but because they need it to be a better person.
This idea that paladins need to somehow have a mechanic that the DM can use to take away all their powers is as dumb as it gets. It punishes roleplaying. Want to make a paladin who's tempted and begins to be seduced by darkness?...
No, actually, I didn't miss them. I also don't miss the fact that anything that is applied specifically eventually finds its way to a broader application. Sort of the way "Band-Aid" is something specific, but it can also be used to describe any adhesive bandage. And in its most common parlance can be used to describe any fast, superficial fix to any possible situation.
My use of the definition was in response to the argument that the Knights of the Round Table defined the Paladin. That argument is entirely, factually incorrect.
On a personal note:
I would like to applaud all of the DM's who continue to uphold the highest standards of honor and justice for the Paladin. You are a boon to the ideals of the game.
I removed a post. Don't abuse the quote function.
Which begs the question, "What really defines a Paladin?"
So...
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.
...that.
How abot the tradition form which the Paladin was taken? That seems like that might be important in definingwhat makes a paladin a paladin.
Pretty sure they were human there too. I was just making the point that using "tradition" as your reasoning of what a Paladin is.
How about Lawful Barbarians and Proindustry LE driuds while we are at it.
I see nothing wrong with a Lawful Barbarian. But then again it might be how I define Law/Chaos on the D&D scale. I see law as adhering to a strict code while chaos as doing what you have to get the results and taking shortcuts wherever you can. I can't think of any reason that Barbarians can't have a code and adhere to it. Most people are just neutral following a code but willing to break it if no one stops them.
I see 'good' dedicating your work to society AKA altruistic and 'evil' as being selfish and dedicating everything to yourself. I also despise those terms, but I feel that's what good and evil represent. If you kill for pleasure, you're doing it because you enjoy it at the cost of another's pain and life. Killing to stop a monster from murdering (ie most adventurers) is not an evil act. The reason I hate using the terms 'good' and 'evil' is because sometimes 'evil' can do good for society; sometimes 'good' can mess up society (most often an accident as they're actively trying to help it). I do believe anything is inherently evil, just extremely selfish and with a complete disregard to others leads to evil.
To be honest, I actually do believe a 'Paladin' should be Lawful Good because a Paladin should not be adhering to his/her code (Lawful) not taking shortcuts to get the result(Chaotic) and a Paladin should be actively dedicated to society (Good) not blowing it off to serve his/her personal interests (Selfish). Someone who does such should not be granted powers made to protect society, and needs some serious atonement.
Unlike seekerofshadowlight, I at least provided an argument that was more reasonable than 'tradition'.
Also unlike seekerofshadowlight, I believe that there should be archetypes to allow similar but differing alignments. They have one for an Anti-Paladin and a Blighter Druid... How would this be any different?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Well this argument is going nowhere. You're arguments do nothing to convince me, you're arguing against things I'm not actually arguing for, you're missing the point of the arguments I actually am making, and I'm sick of your condescending attitude.I'm out.
If you are out and you don't see this, then it's not a big deal, because hopefully anyone who did read your argument will see it.
You called Seeker out for condescension, but you quoted him like twelve times, reword his post to include the word "human," and at the end of it claimed how dumb his argument sounded to you. If that's not condescending, I don't know what is. And don't say something like, "Well, he started it!" because that's childish. If you want to be the bigger man by simply stepping out when you see a lost cause, then don't flip a bird on the way.
I offered up other classes that have restrictions. You said absolutely nothing on that point. The difference here is that paladins have an alignment restriction, which has a perverted veil of dislike over it, due to the general population's apparent inability to play alignment without treating it like a straight jacket, to be cliche. I don't mean to insult anyone, but alignment is not the shackle people treat it as such, even if played in a meaningful way. The trick is not to pick an alignment and design your character around that, but to define your character and then see which one he falls into. If the actual alignment that gets written on the character sheet is an afterthought, it doesn't affect a character as much as you think. This is obviously with exceptions, the paladin being probably the best example.
As far as the tradition aspect of paladins go, in reference to being humans, that's not an entirely fair argument. Race/class restrictions as a whole were eliminated. Paladins weren't specifically changed for this. If the timeline here doesn't add up, then I apologize, I didn't play back then, but if that change happened with the race/class restrictions, then that's a non-argument.
Again, you essentially got your cake and ate it as well. Not only did you remove the shackles of Law, you apparantly loosened those of Good for your character as well.
Basically there are only two Paladin types that don't destroy the archetype for me. The one true LG Paladin and his CE nemesis. After all the ultimate Good does need her dark mirror.
Umm, he very specifically said that he made every effort to play his Chaotic Good Paladin as a paragon of good, so stating that he loosened the shackles of Good is somewhat presumptuous.
Let's start with that dark mirror. If there's a shining knight, then surely there's a black knight. If there can be a champion of all that is good and just, then there can be a champion of all that is cruel and unjust. That far we're in agreement. So tell me how a Lawful Evil, tyrannical Antipaladin is any less a dark mirror to the paladin than a Chaotic Evil ravager of an Antipaladin? Either one of them perverts everything that the Paladin stands for, wielding the same level of conviction and twisted versions of the Paladin's powers to ends utterly antithetical to the Paladin's beliefs. There's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over why Paladins must never ever be of a non-Lawful Good alignment. But in all that, nobody has paid any attention to arguing why Antipaladins can't be Lawful Evil.
Umm, he very specifically said that he made every effort to play his Chaotic Good Paladin as a paragon of good, so stating that he loosened the shackles of Good is somewhat presumptuous.Again, you essentially got your cake and ate it as well. Not only did you remove the shackles of Law, you apparantly loosened those of Good for your character as well.
Basically there are only two Paladin types that don't destroy the archetype for me. The one true LG Paladin and his CE nemesis. After all the ultimate Good does need her dark mirror.
Actually, what he said was:
I find this thread humorous due to the fact that I'm currently playing a CG Paladin of Freedom of Cayden Cailean, and hes a stylin', profilin', limousine-riding, jet-flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin'-n'-dealin' son of a gun!.....crap, no that was Ric Flair...but he is a lying, cheating, stealing, rule breaking, ale swilling, damsel saving, wench bedding, freedom promoting, evil smiting son of a gun! ;)
If that falls under "paragon of good", then you and I probably have no chance at finding common ground in this debate.
Let's start with that dark mirror. If there's a shining knight, then surely there's a black knight. If there can be a champion of all that is good and just, then there can be a champion of all that is cruel and unjust. That far we're in agreement.
I'm not sure we are. Nobody on this thread has stated that. You are saying that merely because Mother Teresa spent her life giving comfort, healing, and salvation to the most unfortunate people, that her charity and thoughtlessness gives rise to someone else being evil?
So tell me how a Lawful Evil, tyrannical Antipaladin is any less a dark mirror to the paladin than a Chaotic Evil ravager of an Antipaladin?
Because, while a LE character can be every bit the evil villain, he will also build, organize, protect, heal (maybe), and even serve. That is not the antithesis of a Paladin. The paladin corrupts, defiles, and destroys everything he comes in contact with. He is never a positive force.
The "dark mirror" shouldn't be opposite in every conceivable way, but instead should be opposite in one very important way. The mirror isn't stupid while the original is smart, or weak while the original is strong. Nor is the "dark mirror" necessarily any less organizationally minded than the original. What makes the "dark mirror" so effective is using the same skills and methods for the opposite ends -- that is, flipping good for evil.
That's why the "dark mirror" to the LG paladin is the LE antipalidin -- whose code of conduct makes him very much the champion for all things evil that the paladin is for all things good.
Go any further away than this, and you start getting into something as ridiculous and comedic as Bizarro.
The "dark mirror" shouldn't be opposite in every conceivable way, but instead should be opposite in one very important way.
I would agree wholeheartedly with you if that statement read:
"The "Paladin's foil" shouldn't be opposite in every conceivable way, but instead should be opposite in one very important way."
A LE BBEG makes a very compelling villain for anyone, especially a Paladin. Depending on circumstances, the Paladin cannot merely Smite him and be done with it, the way he could if it were an Antipaladin. The Paladin may even be forced into a cooperative situation with the LE BBEG. There are all kinds of scenarios I can imagine that makes someone like the Lictor of the local Hellknight Order a perfect foil for the Paladin.
That's not the same as an Antipaladin, though.
*Edit: Also I agree with you that a "Bizarro Paladin" is ridiculous in the extreme, and should be avoided at all costs.
Umm, he very specifically said that he made every effort to play his Chaotic Good Paladin as a paragon of good, so stating that he loosened the shackles of Good is somewhat presumptuous.Again, you essentially got your cake and ate it as well. Not only did you remove the shackles of Law, you apparantly loosened those of Good for your character as well.
Basically there are only two Paladin types that don't destroy the archetype for me. The one true LG Paladin and his CE nemesis. After all the ultimate Good does need her dark mirror.
Actually, what he said was:
I find this thread humorous due to the fact that I'm currently playing a CG Paladin of Freedom of Cayden Cailean, and hes a stylin', profilin', limousine-riding, jet-flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin'-n'-dealin' son of a gun!.....crap, no that was Ric Flair...but he is a lying, cheating, stealing, rule breaking, ale swilling, damsel saving, wench bedding, freedom promoting, evil smiting son of a gun! ;)If that falls under "paragon of good", then you and I probably have no chance at finding common ground in this debate.
Let's start with that dark mirror. If there's a shining knight, then surely there's a black knight. If there can be a champion of all that is good and just, then there can be a champion of all that is cruel and unjust. That far we're in agreement.I'm not sure we are. Nobody on this thread has stated that. You are saying that merely because Mother Teresa spent her life giving comfort, healing, and salvation to the most unfortunate people, that her charity and thoughtlessness gives rise to someone else being evil?
So tell me how a Lawful Evil, tyrannical Antipaladin is any less a dark mirror to the paladin than a Chaotic Evil ravager of an Antipaladin?Because, while a LE character can be every bit the evil villain, he will also build, organize, protect, heal (maybe), and even...
Am I saying Mother Teresa gave rise to an evil opposite...at least no more than you are. You're the one who said the Antipaladin was acceptable because he was a Dark Mirror. And a LE Antipaladin absolutely is a dark mirror. He is what the Paladin could be if he allowed his zeal for Law to carry him away from dedication to true Justice. In my view, that's really more of a dark mirror than the rampaging archetype of the Chaotic Evil Antipaladin.
Lying, cheating and stealing are not Lawful. But they are not Evil. They are Chaotic. One can be utterly Chaotic and still be a paragon of Good. Lawful Good is not 'the best Good.' It is good that believes a highly structured society is the best way to achieve Justice. Chaotic Good is not a 'bad' kind of Good. It is good which believes in liberty and equality, that the law is far too often a tool the strong use to oppress the weak.
Am I saying Mother Teresa gave rise to an evil opposite...at least no more than you are. You're the one who said the Antipaladin was acceptable because he was a Dark Mirror.
No, I didn't. Re-read my posts before you assign statements to me, please. In fact, I reject the belief in the extreme.
What I have said, is that the Antipaladin is a complete rejection of everything the Paladin is. The Paladin builds, the Antipaladin tears down. The Paladin consecrates, the Antipaladin desecrates. The Paladin purifies, the Antipaladin defiles. The Paladin heals, the Antipaladin corrupts.
Actually, what he said was:I find this thread humorous due to the fact that I'm currently playing a CG Paladin of Freedom of Cayden Cailean, and hes a stylin', profilin', limousine-riding, jet-flying, kiss-stealing, wheelin'-n'-dealin' son of a gun!.....crap, no that was Ric Flair...but he is a lying, cheating, stealing, rule breaking, ale swilling, damsel saving, wench bedding, freedom promoting, evil smiting son of a gun! ;)If that falls under "paragon of good", then you and I probably have no chance at finding common ground in this debate.
ACTUALLY what I said was:
"Too be honest though, I HAVEN'T really cheated or stolen with him, and only lied a couple times (Which were to do good and against a lawful evil NPC...but I have bluff as a class skill, which I guess no good character ever should....), I just threw those on the list for dramatic effect. I STILL try to play him as a paragon of good, just not law. Everything else I said though, you bet your ass he does."
You know why I said those first four, its hilarious, cause they had there intended effect, to stir up people who take things way too seriously. :)
If you are out and you don't see this, then it's not a big deal, because hopefully anyone who did read your argument will see it.
Oh, I just meant I wouldn't discuss it with him anymore.
You called Seeker out for condescension, but you quoted him like twelve times, reword his post to include the word "human," and at the end of it claimed how dumb his argument sounded to you. If that's not condescending, I don't know what is. And don't say something like, "Well, he started it!" because that's childish. If you want to be the bigger man by simply stepping out when you see a lost cause, then don't flip a bird on the way.
Providing examples to show why someone's logic is flawed isn't condescension. It's debate. Saying someone's argument sounds ridiculous isn't attacking them, it's attacking the argument.
The difference between me and him is that I have been responding to the arguments he's making, while he's just been repeating his same argument over and over again, while implying I'm stupid for not agreeing with him.
I see and understand his argument, I just disagree. He disregards the arguments I'm making completely out of hand and thinks I'm an idiot for making them.
I offered up other classes that have restrictions. You said absolutely nothing on that point.
Gee, jump down my throat for not seeing your post why don't you? I'll get to it then.
As far as the tradition aspect of paladins go, in reference to being humans, that's not an entirely fair argument. Race/class restrictions as a whole were eliminated. Paladins weren't specifically changed for this. If the timeline here doesn't add up, then I apologize, I didn't play back then, but if that change happened with the race/class...
Except as far as an argument go they're equivalent. Arguing for alignment restrictions and arguing for race restrictions based on nothing more than "tradition" are the same.
Had he presented any kind of argument for the paladin's restriction other than tradition or his personal distaste for paladins of other alignments, I would have respond to them.
Now on to what you said in the post that I missed before:
A better example of comparison here would be the PF cavalier, knight from 3.5e, or even the wujen from 3.5e. These classes have built in roleplay restrictions. Cavaliers have orders, knights have codes, and wujen have taboos (though this one is much lighter). An argument can be made for oracles, being given a curse. There are downfalls to the class in exchange for the abilities granted.
Stuff from 3.5 isn't relevant. As for the cavalier, see what I said about clerics.
The difference is if I play a cleric I get to chose alignment and deity
The cavalier is restricted only by the choices made by the player at character creation. That's different from being straitjaketed into a single choice of alignment. In fact, all the other classes allow for choice between multiple alignments. And that's what I've been arguing for. Archetypes to allow the player to choose how they are restricted.
Think of other tradeoffs, if you cannot accept that one. Wizards get more versatility at the cost of less spells per day, but sorcerers get more spells per day at the cost of versatility. You can't just say, "Well, I want my wizard to get more spells per day, because of [any argument]." Balance would be thrown into utter chaos if the designers were willing to toss out tradeoffs.
"Tradeoff" implies you get something for the sacrifice. There's nothing mechanically you're getting for this restriction other than entry into the class. The paladin, in terms of power level, is no more powerful than any other core class. You're trading off your choice to pick any alignment, for absolutely nothing.
Paladins have access to a lot of the better aspects of the game - casting, healing, a great self buff, debuffing removal, d10 hit die, high saves, etc.
Bards also have access to "a lot of the best aspects of the game." They can be of any alignment.
Alignment as a stand alone operative can easily be seen as a restriction and misplayed terribly. However, when it's so involved in a class, you can't just pull that part out. This is where LG does not equal paladin LG.
And this is just the old "tradition" argument again.
"After all the ultimate Good does need her dark mirror." If that doesn't say 'a Black Knight as powerful as the White Knight, and as evil as the White Knight is good is possible and thematically appropriate', then I don't have any idea what it says. That is all I suggested. If I said 'Mother Teresa made an anti-Mother Teresa' than so did you.
|
Out of curiosity has any developer ever stated that the Paladin class was balanced around having a restrictive code of conduct?
A common line of reasoning for not having non-LG Pallies is that they would be getting a free ride by being any other alignment, but I'm not sure this was the intent of the designers.
|
|
Yeah.... some nobody named Gygax was one of the first. He reiterated the point in a Sage article on why he felt the game did not need an Anti-Paladin class.Out of curiosity has any developer ever stated that the Paladin class was balanced around having a restrictive code of conduct?
I believe that. However, I meant Pathfinder developers and how the Paladin was balanced versus the other classes. Pallies have changed a lot mechanically since back in the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm just saying crazy talk, but wouldn't the Assassin be a better complete and total opposite the paladin? I mean as far as in the older editions (though I've never played, only heard stories).
Paladin doesn't use poison, but the Assassin does; Paladins are upfront and honest while Assassins are sneaky and lie; The Paladin is like the light while the Assassin is like the Shadow. Just saying...
The Anti-Paladin just seems like the crazy comically evil guy. I just have a hard time seeing a Paladin falling and doing a 180 and going on an insane and destructive path rather than becoming LE or CG.
I would agree here. I think making the Anti-paladin just a reversed Paladin cheapened both it and the Paladin. Been much better if it was not just a paladin's shadow clone.
Maybe I'm just saying crazy talk, but wouldn't the Assassin be a better complete and total opposite the paladin? I mean as far as in the older editions (though I've never played, only heard stories).
Paladin doesn't use poison, but the Assassin does; Paladins are upfront and honest while Assassins are sneaky and lie; The Paladin is like the light while the Assassin is like the Shadow. Just saying...
The Anti-Paladin just seems like the crazy comically evil guy. I just have a hard time seeing a Paladin falling and doing a 180 and going on an insane and destructive path rather than becoming LE or CG.
Prince Gaynor the Damned. Michael Moorcock's fallen eternal champion :) Gaynor was a villain who knew it. He surrendered his honor and became a champion of Chaos. Damned to an eternal existence. Defeat simply meant being reincarnated and continuing the same old game.
Again, death to mandated alignments, death to nonpersonalized generic "codes," death to mechanically enforcing paladin codes.
"Mandated alignments?" Do you mean your GM forces you to play a Paladin instead of a cleric with a martial bent?
That sounds pretty awful. I'd find a new group.