I dont think that is what he is saying. Prof. Cirno correct me if I am wrong.He is saying instead of any one single act making a paladin loose his powers, for the sake of RP, it should be several actions that show the slow descent into evil or at least away from the nature that made him into a paladin in the beginning.
A slow fall and no fall are not the same.If that is what he is saying I totally misread his first post on the subject and have heavily colored how I took his other responses then.
Edit: If I have indeed misread him, sorry about that man.
After seeing his next post I stand corrected.
I didn't see Cirno's reply as a confirmation that Paladin can be of all alignment.
He said they should not suffer mechanically. Meaning no lose of powers. How is this not allowing any Al or any actions?
As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.
This is not a fact. They can fall.The rules does not say switching Al, but "cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god". This is not as codified as a paladins code as there are just to many gods for this, however by the rules you can fall just as easily. And suffer the very same mechanical drawl-backs from doing so.
Likewise, his question is legitimate. What does it add to the Paladin? Nothing. It adds absolutely nothing to the Paladin, just like it added absolutely nothing to anyone in previous editions where changing your alignment came with terrible penalties. It doesn't help roleplaying, and it doesn't help you tell a good story
Again I disagree. a paladin must be LG and must obey the code. Or he is not a paladin. Allowing him to keep his powers (unlike a druid or a cleric) would mean he is either an arcane based class or can be any Al and have many different codes , just like a cleric and he only keeps them by switching teams( like the cleric).
Again, paladins are not clerics , they are not in every flavor, they are not LN jedi. They are like a druid and a cleric in that they can be stripped of power. They are one of the classes that do not own the power they wield.
You have also yet to show how the current rule hurt Roleplay. You don't seem to think they hurt Druid or cleric role play, yet only paladins as they must be LG does it "hurt"
To me its not about role play, its about players wanting the paladin powers without having to ya know roleplay a paladin.
After seeing his next post I stand corrected.
Yeah, I thought maybe I have totally misread him for a while there.
I'm saying that falling should not involve the mechanics. At all. In any way. It shouldn't remove any powers or create any dead levels. It should be something that's roleplayed, not metagamed.
My example remains ignored: do you or do you not feel that we should return to previous editions where changing your alignment caused mechanical punishments such as losing levels?
Your argument seems to be "There's no reason for a roleplay code if it doesn't involve metagaming and mechanical punishments" and, sorry, I disagree.
So I had it right. You feel a paladin can be any Al, do damned well anything and keep all its power.I strongly disagree as that is not a paladin.And your example has nothing to do with this. Not a single thing. This isn't about an old rule, but a class and how that class is built, how it functions. And is not a rule limited to the paladin.
You keep ignoring the cleric, who can fall just as well as the paladin. He also looses all his powers, just like the paladin/ He like the paladin does not own his powers. He is gifted them by a higher power and he can be stripped of them.The druid can also "fall" and suffers as much as the paladin mechanically as well. This isn't unique to paladins, but common with divine classes.
The only difference between the cleric and the paladins "falls" mechanically would be that a cleric can regain his by switching teams, as they can be of any AL and have many, many gods to pick from. A druid is just as screwed as a paladin however.
The only way a paladin could not mechanically fall would be to allow every Al to have paladins and every god to have a wildly different code or to make them arcane with no ties to anything holy or to the gods. This to me is unacceptable as it is not a paladin.
I see both sides of this. Do you think it would be ok for the game if the mechanics and fluff were seperated?
To those opposing Seeker: Why should a deity still give powers to his representative if he is being misrepresented? Would you still employee your company spokesperson if he did not do right by company standards?
I see both sides of this. Do you think it would be ok for the game if the mechanics and fluff were seperated?
For Divine classes, No. Unlike the arcane or the mundane classes you do not own the power you wield. You are granted it by something else. Something that can take it back if you no longer serve the goals of that power.
They are acting like it is a pure paladin issue and in fact it is not. Yet they keep skipping over the two other classes I have pointed out as having the very same issues.
Edit: Oh also Inquisitors also can "fall"
|
I wish I could remember the novel. The main character is a fallen Paladin. Only he isn't. He thinks he is. He had a morally ambiguous decision to make and was thrown out of his order. He does not use any of his abilities, because he was simply told you messed up and are no longer a Paladin. the way the character reads is that he takes fighter levels thereafter because he is refused atonement. Trouble is, what ever the order thinks, they forgot to consult the forces of good, who at the end of the book tell him he did the best he could in the situation and that there are those still within the order who are really fallen, while he is fully capable of his abilities. He then heals someone by laying on hands. Fallen in this case does not mean going over to the Darkside, just not with the full support of the lightside. He had it, his superiors did not.
Just an idea.
I am so trying to remember this story, he ends up befriending a young girl and being her protector. Damn it has been maybe 15 years since I read this.
the Tainted Sword by D. J. Heinrich. It's part of the Penhaligon Trilogy. (Located on Mystara)
It's actually about a knight (Fain Flinn) who was thrown out of his order for something he didn't do. (Remember, this was BECMI/RC D&D. Paladins were Lawful Fighters. Knights could be Fighters of any alignment. Avengers were Chaotic Fighters. There was no such thing as good and evil.)
He was clearly depressed, but with the help of a young woman (Jo) he had the guts to return to the order to set some things straight. One of the Knights was a dragon who plotted his revenge on Flynn, and in the end they kill each other.
Something like that?
As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.
The word "fall" is not in either class description. It is just a term for someone who has lost their grace.
The cleric does not have to change alignment to lose powers. They just have to upset their deity. They are lucky enough to have more wiggle room than a paladin, since they can commit an evil act, and get away with it at times.The code of conduct would have to be determined by the GM, but it is there. As an example if you are a cleric of Gorum, but you continue to run away from combat. I think he might snatch his powers away.
Ex-Clerics
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the atonement spell description).
Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate.
If I had all this to write over again here is how I would do it:
Both classes would be held to the cleric's standard of violating your deity. Paladins would not have to be lawful good, but they would have to match their deity alignments. Moderate* trangressions would result in a reduction in power. Severe* transgression might take all your power away. The limited power loss from moderate transgression woudl be like a warning. The player of course would know this, and decide if he wants to do the fallen warrior concept.
If the player is not a good RP'er or doesn't understand why he can't do X it should be handled out of character. If the player just willfully ignores concept then he may just be a bad fit for the group. Out of game I would give him a warning. If he continued his powers would be stripped in game so as to not ruin immersion for the rest of the group. In most situations people know what their deity embodies so the fallen warrior concept should not happen a lot. I know we see a lot of paladin threads, but I think it is still a low percentage of games, and a lot of it has to do with miscommunication.
*Moderate and Severe have to be decided by the group in question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He said they should not suffer mechanically. Meaning no lose of powers. How is this not allowing any Al or any actions?
I didn't see Cirno's reply as a confirmation that Paladin can be of all alignment.
Pay very close attention...
a paladin must be LG and must obey the code. Or he is not a paladin.
Think very hard on this. Very, very hard. When you realize that he's no longer a Paladin in spirit, then you will realize that he is something different. Then you will realize that if he is a Paladin in spirit, it doesn't matter what class the character is, he is a Paladin.
The water is blue because it reflects the sky, and the sky is blue because it reflects the water. *sageface*
This is not a fact. They can fall.The rules does not say switching Al, but "cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god". This is not as codified as a paladins code as there are just to many gods for this, however by the rules you can fall just as easily. And suffer the very same mechanical drawl-backs from doing so.As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.
Actually, no they don't. That's the funny thing. See, firstly, their class says they must grossly violate their code of conduct before they actually lose their abilities. We're talking grossly, as in total, complete, flagrant, extreme. Meanwhile, clerics don't even HAVE a code of conduct. You could create one, but it's a house rule. So not only do they not have a code of conduct, but they even have a note saying that if they did, then they have to basically f*** up beyond all reason before they lose their powers. And like you said, they can just become a cleric of something else.
So no, yeah, factually, there is no code of conduct for clerics of any alignment of any deity unless it is a supplemental thing. It doesn't even have sample codes or anything. They just don't exist without house rules. If they do, please show me the core rulebook page number, or link me to the PRD. Thanks.
Likewise, his question is legitimate. What does it add to the Paladin? Nothing. It adds absolutely nothing to the Paladin, just like it added absolutely nothing to anyone in previous editions where changing your alignment came with terrible penalties. It doesn't help roleplaying, and it doesn't help you tell a good story
Again I disagree. a paladin must be LG and must obey the code. Or he is not a paladin. Allowing him to keep his powers (unlike a druid or a cleric) would mean he is either an arcane based class or can be any Al and have many different codes , just like a cleric and he only keeps them by switching teams( like the cleric).
Again, paladins are not clerics , they are not in every flavor, they are not LN jedi. They are like a druid and a cleric in that they can be stripped of power. They are one of the classes that do not own the power they wield.
First, Jedi are Lawful Good. Sometimes that Lawful gets in the way of the Good, and sometimes that Good gets in the way of the Lawful. There are also gray Jedi which are usually Neutral Good or Neutral or Lawful Neutral, and then you have dark Jedi or Sith which are generally Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil. All of them can use the force and fling shiny sticks, but how they interact with each other, their world, and the story is much different. Now that that is out of the way...
The the Paladin isn't a set of abilities. It's an ideal. A concept. It is the spirit to roleplay a character that is knightly, virtuous, and noble. It doesn't matter what your abilities are if you're playing like that. You're getting upset over semantics. You're upset because a player is playing a class called "Paladin" and you're afraid if they aren't punished for playing it the way you say it shouldn't be played, then they will do that. Are you afraid of them getting their abilities, or do you dislike the fact they tarnish the ideal of Paladin?
'Cause if you're like me, it's the latter. I'm not super into players grossly violating the concept of Paladin. But the fact is, you could do the concept of Paladin with any class. I could play a cleric and be a Paladin. Could I fill the archtype of the class? Damn skippy. Am I doing it because I want to roleplay a Paladin? Damn skippy. Am I somehow less Paladin-like because I don't have levels in a metagame class? Heck no!
Heck if you really wanted to, you could build a Paladin using levels in the NPC classes Warrior and Adept! Would it be a really watered down (mechanically speaking) Paladin? Sure. Could it still be a Paladin? You betcha!
You have also yet to show how the current rule hurt Roleplay. You don't seem to think they hurt Druid or cleric role play, yet only paladins as they must be LG does it "hurt"
I've already shown how they hurt roleplaying. Professor Cirno has also shown it. It hampers actually telling a good story. It also removes any actual temptation from entering into the mix, because you really only have 3 options. Either A) the player plans to play a fallen Paladin because of the roleplay opportunities and gets nerfed, or B) the GM keeps trying to catch 22 the Paladin to force him to lose his powers, or C) your player is a moron.
I showed how you literally cannot emulate the finest example of a Paladin and a Paladin's fall that I have seen. I explained why you cannot have a slow and meaningful corruption. I have shown that the mechanic is pretty lame and useless, as instead of adding any sort of interest, intensity, or drama to the mix, it instead is like flipping the power off, and then paying to have it turned back on.
Which means if anyone actually wants to, y'know, roleplay a Paladin as being a difficult road to walk, and having to deal with things as they come, instead of a 1 dimensional fool, you have to play a different class.
Example
We build a "Paladin" using a Cleric. We could also do it with Fighter or Ranger, but Cleric fits the easiest since they get some martial, some magical, some armor, and are strong vs demons, undead, etc.
Scene 1: Inside the Tent after a Battle
The Paladin has a grim look on his face. One of his friends, another Paladin, his mentor even, walks up.
Mentor: "Son, what's wrong? You look like something is troubling you."
Paladin: "Master Dalsa...when we overtook the orc encampment, and I saw the bodies of their victims hanging up and used for target practice, I lost it. When the leader, who openly admitted that it was his doing, threw his sword at his feet and surrendered...I saw all those people hanging up, and I snapped. I beat him half to death, and hung him on his own hooks to die. Even Valen didn't say a word for an hour after, and she mocks the order for its mercy. I just...I just don't know."
Mentor: "Look Dravik...being a Paladin is not an easy life. We are, after all, just mortals striving to do what is right. We have hearts, and we have souls. The fact you felt so strongly for those people, that your heart cried out for vengeance, is a testament to the goodness inside you. Yet that cry must be tempered with control, my boy. Emotion without a pure heart is like a tidal wave. Strong, and yet dangerous to everyone around it. We must set an example. We are but men, but we must strive to be more, because that is what is needed of us."
Paladin: "Thank you...master Dalsa. I don't know what I'd do without you sometimes. It's really hard sometimes, to live up to what is expected of us."
Mentor: "It is hard to live up to what we expect from ourselves, my boy. But that is why it is worth living. The right thing is rarely the easy thing. Now come, we must go meet with the others and plan the next move in the campaign against the orc warlords. May the Bright Knight look to us, and lead us through battles both physical and spiritual, in the name of the Holy Valkyrie and the Son of Suns, amen. "
Scene 2 - Meeting A Wayward "Paladin"
After dealing with the orc warlords, and becoming stronger in his faith, Davik heads to the northern wastes to confront Lord Mauglorn the Desecrator at the Frozen River, but finds a wayward Paladin who has been led astray. The wayward Paladin is Chaotic Neutral.
Ex-Paladin: "Fools, you have wandered this far to stop us!? Can't you see that Mauglorn is right!? Look at how corrupt the government of Arcadia has become! Look at how the order's pride blinds them to the truth! They spout fairy tales and hymns but know nothing of the real world! They would talk about honor and mercy while the whole damn world burns to the ground around them! We not me pal! Lord Mauglorn is going to change the world and bring about a new order!"
Paladin: "Ceveros! Put your weapon down. It doesn't have to come to this! We can don't have to fight!"
Ex-Paladin: "Fool! All your preaching of not-fighting! You have no idea what it is like to be filled with rage! You do not know the horrors I have witnessed! Many by the very people we sought to protect! You wouldn't know when it was time to fight!"
Paladin: "You're wrong Ceveros! I've felt that rage too! I have watched the indignities, the travesties, and heard the laments of the innocents in a corrupt world. Mauglorn doesn't want to save the world, he wants to destroy it! Can't you see that the order that he promises to bring is going to be hell on earth? He will crush out the small flame of true goodness here with absolute order and tyranny!"
Ex-Paladin: "Shut up! You are weak! I know all of your tricks, and yet I'm not afraid to fight dirty! Come Saladash, we ride!" *he summons a Chaotic Neutral Celestial Warhorse and mounts it with his lance*
...
Sometime later after a fight with the party, Ceveros has suffered some pretty serious wounds, and is lying on the ground semi-unconscious, and unable to move.
Ex-Paladin: "Heh...you did it. You really think you can stop Mauglorn don't you?"
Paladin: "To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm going to try though."
Ex-Paladin: "Why?"
Paladin: "Because if I don't, no one else will."
Ex-Paladin: "Still caught up in that stupid code, I see."
Paladin: "Your flattery is too kind. I wish I could say I was doing it because of the code. That'd be more honorable."
Ex-Paladin: "Why then? Why do you fight?"
Paladin: "Because of my sister. Because of those people you spoke of. The look in the eyes of those who couldn't help themselves. What kind of man would I be if I sat by and turned my eyes?"
Ex-Paladin: "...No...no Davik...it is not you that honors the code...it is the code that honors you..."
Scene 3 - Davik and the party face against Mauglorn's Army
It has been many weeks since the battle at the Frozen River. Mauglorn evaded the group due to being delayed by Ceveros. After the fight, Ceveros wandered away, and has not been seen since. Now, Davik and his friends are surrounded by the evil minions of Mauglorn, and things look dire.
Just then, a powerful crashing sound can be heard coming from the east. Lo and behold, Ceveros leads a charge of mounted knights against the fiends, with Master Dalsa and the Silver Brigade close behind him. Into the breach they ride, smashing into the flanks of Mauglorn's forces.
Mauglorn: "Ceveros!? Why are you here!? I thought you were dead!"
Ceveros: "I was dead! Then someone called me back from the edge of the abyss I had fallen into! Now, I've come to do what I should have done to start with - aid in tearing you apart!"
Master Dalsa: "Davik, it is good to see you! We had thought you had been lost at the shadow gate, until Ceveros came and told us where you were at. It is good to see you boy!"
Davik: "Likewise, master."
*huge super battle occurs, and Mauglorn escapes into the high peaks to his fortress tower*
Ceveros: "Davik, go after Mauglorn! We shall keep the fiends at bay! Go forth, and I shall see you when you return!"
*Davik and the party chase Mauglorn for the climactic finale*
Example 2
This time we shall use the Paladin class for all instances.
Scene 1 - Tent after Battle
As scene 1 with the cleric except...
Ex-Paladin: "I fubared master. I lost all my Paladin powers, which means I stuffed up big time."
Mentor: "Don't worry. We brought a priest along. You can simply insert 500 gold pieces into the slot and all is right again."
Ex-Paladin: "But I feel great guilt...what about the teachings?"
Mentor: "The teachings are so you will feel guilt, so that you can get your atonement, silly boy."
Scene 2 - The Wayward Paladin
As Scene 2 with cleric except...
Ex-Paladin: "I am a fool! I have pretty much admitted that I'm wrong because I stopped being right the moment I couldn't summon Saladash my horsie. I shall now throw my self upon your blade, as I'm probably no more than a speed bump in your path to whatever you Paladins do these days."
Scene 3 - Battle vs Mauglorn's Army
As scene 3 with cleric except...
Ceveros doesn't find redemption because expected to lose for being lame, and then never bothered to go spend some pocket change to get sanctified again, or maybe the priests turned him down. Nobody shows up. Party is massacred.
Ok, it's Hyperbole, but you get the idea.
To me its not about role play, its about players wanting the paladin powers...
Why? I mean, some of them are pretty good, but Anti-Paladins/Blackguards pretty much get the same powers only re-fluffed. In 3.x, Paladins didn't even have cool powers. It's not like in 1E and 2E where Paladin was literally a Fighter on steroids (but they also had a much harsher XP progression, so maybe it doesn't matter so much).
Yeah, I guess I'm missing the point of this thread now...
Ashiel makes great points, as always, but...a fighter can RP smiting evil all he wants, but he won't get to add his CHA to damage and all that...
If a paladin falls, his bestowed powers are retracted. He basicly becomes a x level warrior at that point, until he atones.
If someone wants to play a fallen paladin with all of the Paladin abilities...then I guess the character is either mentally traumatized or mistakenly believes he's lost his powers, but actually hasn't.
Mechanicly, he can't do that stuff if he's fallen. There's no RP way around that bit.
What am I missing?
So the question is, when a character has a code of conduct, what needs to happen when he breaks it?
Here is my answer stated again:
If I had all this to write over again here is how I would do it:Both classes would be held to the cleric's standard of violating your deity. Paladins would not have to be lawful good, but they would have to match their deity alignments. Moderate* trangressions would result in a reduction in power. Severe* transgression might take all your power away. The limited power loss from moderate transgression would be like a warning. The player of course would know this, and decide if he wants to do the fallen warrior concept.
If the player is not a good RP'er or doesn't understand why he can't do X it should be handled out of character. If the player just willfully ignores concept then he may just be a bad fit for the group. Out of game I would give him a warning. If he continued his powers would be stripped in game so as to not ruin immersion for the rest of the group. In most situations people know what their deity embodies so the fallen warrior concept should not happen a lot. I know we see a lot of paladin threads, but I think it is still a low percentage of games, and a lot of it has to do with miscommunication.*Moderate and Severe have to be decided by the group in question.
I would say stand up and brush your armor off.
Yeah, I guess I'm missing the point of this thread now...
Ashiel makes great points, as always, but...a fighter can RP smiting evil all he wants, but he won't get to add his CHA to damage and all that...
If a paladin falls, his bestowed powers are retracted. He basicly becomes a x level warrior at that point, until he atones.
If someone wants to play a fallen paladin with all of the Paladin abilities...then I guess the character is either mentally traumatized or mistakenly believes he's lost his powers, but actually hasn't.
Mechanicly, he can't do that stuff if he's fallen. There's no RP way around that bit.What am I missing?
She is saying the rules should allow for a paladin to keep his alignment, and losing powers due to breaking a code should not be in the rules because it does not add to RP.
So the assumption is that keeping class abilities based on the character's actions is a mistake? All divine classes fall into this category.
Why play a paladin if you don't want to roleplay it?
Is it wrong to think this is a cake n eat it too situation?
Yeah, I guess I'm missing the point of this thread now...
Ashiel makes great points, as always, but...a fighter can RP smiting evil all he wants, but he won't get to add his CHA to damage and all that...
If a paladin falls, his bestowed powers are retracted. He basicly becomes a x level warrior at that point, until he atones.
If someone wants to play a fallen paladin with all of the Paladin abilities...then I guess the character is either mentally traumatized or mistakenly believes he's lost his powers, but actually hasn't.
Mechanicly, he can't do that stuff if he's fallen. There's no RP way around that bit.What am I missing?
Mainly because you don't need smite evil to be a Paladin. In fact, you don't need any of the Paladin's powers to be a Paladin. Look at all the Paladin archtypes. They're still paladins, but they don't share the same abilities. So what makes them a Paladin?
Well acting like a Paladin, of course.
What's a Fighter who acts like a Paladin? A more mundane Paladin.
What's a Ranger who acts like a Paladin? A more skill-oriented Paladin.
What's a Cleric who acts like a Paladin? A holy warrior...wait...
What Seeker seems to be disliking is the idea that you can access "Paladin" class features without living up to the Paladin-theme. Problem is, you can still get the best class features without living up to the theme (antipaladin for example gets Divine Grace). Most of the Paladin spells are shared by clerics, with a few exceptions (assuming Core at least, though some splats give a bit more).
Thing is, all the classes are supposed to be balanced. In fact, Paladins don't somehow become super-amazing without a mechanical code of conduct. I've had alignment-free Paladins for a while in my home games, and they have worked out just fine in terms of balance, so it's definitely not that.
So, we can see the following.
Thus someone can have class features of the Paladin without being one, and someone can be a Paladin without actually possessing the class features of one. This much is plainly clear because we can see that the class features are required for a Paladin, and thus a Paladin is not required for the class features.
If you renamed the Paladin class "Divine Champion", switched a couple of abilities around (only granting them auras of they have the appropriate alignment), offering a half-effective smite for middle-ground paladins, and possibly tweaking their spell list slightly depending on your champion archtype, and you end up with a more of a war-cleric, which is of course what a Paladin is. But you see, a Paladin is actually the Good version. You might call a Neutral one a Templar or Justiciar, and Evil ones Blackguards or Anti-Paladins.
So the question is, when a character has a code of conduct, what needs to happen when he breaks it?
That's between him and his DM.
You can have plenty of really excellent roleplaying and drama without beating people over the head with mechanics.
I'm not responding to Seeker until he responds to the alignment changing question.
Edit: To repeat it, the whole thing with paladins losing all their powers when they fall to me reeks far too strongly of metagame thinking. If you cannot roleplay without metagaming then that sounds like a personal problem.
Is there anything in the RAW that states a Paladin's divine powers come straight from a God? (Yeah, I could look it up, but this seems like a good topic for discussion regardless.)
I've always viewed a Paladin's powers as more a manifestation of his own will and faith. His conviction and purpose. To me, a Paladin isn't the servant of a specific god, but an emissary of justice as an ideal.
A few places yes. A paladin is powered by something, if not he could never fall. It really is that simple.
I've always viewed a Paladin's powers as more a manifestation of his own will and faith. His conviction and purpose. To me, a Paladin isn't the servant of a specific god, but an emissary of justice as an ideal.
+1
Maybe his/her power aren't removed by anyone but himself when he falls.
Yeah, I guess I'm missing the point of this thread now...
Ashiel makes great points, as always, but...a fighter can RP smiting evil all he wants, but he won't get to add his CHA to damage and all that...
If a paladin falls, his bestowed powers are retracted. He basicly becomes a x level warrior at that point, until he atones.
If someone wants to play a fallen paladin with all of the Paladin abilities...then I guess the character is either mentally traumatized or mistakenly believes he's lost his powers, but actually hasn't.
Mechanicly, he can't do that stuff if he's fallen. There's no RP way around that bit.What am I missing?
Mainly because you don't need smite evil to be a Paladin. In fact, you don't need any of the Paladin's powers to be a Paladin. Look at all the Paladin archtypes. They're still paladins, but they don't share the same abilities. So what makes them a Paladin?
Well acting like a Paladin, of course.
What's a Fighter who acts like a Paladin? A more mundane Paladin.
What's a Ranger who acts like a Paladin? A more skill-oriented Paladin.
What's a Cleric who acts like a Paladin? A holy warrior...wait...What Seeker seems to be disliking is the idea that you can access "Paladin" class features without living up to the Paladin-theme. Problem is, you can still get the best class features without living up to the theme (antipaladin for example gets Divine Grace). Most of the Paladin spells are shared by clerics, with a few exceptions (assuming Core at least, though some splats give a bit more).
Thing is, all the classes are supposed to be balanced. In fact, Paladins don't somehow become super-amazing without a mechanical code of conduct. I've had alignment-free Paladins for a while in my home games, and they have worked out just fine in terms of balance, so it's definitely not that.
So, we can see the following.
Paladins are not defined by their class features (see archtypes)
Paladins are defined by their actions and personality.
...
Ashiel they are talking about the class. Your idea is similar to allowing a bard to be a priest, the same way a cleric can be a priest.
If you start to argue the paladin class vs the idea of a paladin it will only muddy the waters so I would suggest being clear on which point you are arguing. While you can't remove a "paladin's" power. A Paladin(class) can have powers removed.
edit: Paladins are defined by Paizo calling them paladins which is all many people care about, not saying that it is right, but it is what it is. The code is large part of that and I think all of them have codes, paladin codes.
So the assumption is that keeping class abilities based on the character's actions is a mistake? All divine classes fall into this category.
Why play a paladin if you don't want to roleplay it?
Is it wrong to think this is a cake n eat it too situation?
Not quite. Paladin abilities might seem pretty cool. That's mechanical. It's like asking why would you want to play a 2-handed fighter variant when the core fighter is fine for most things. Some people like different abilities. The mechanics are used to represent characters. The Paladin has the following major features.
These can be some pretty sweet powers. Yes indeed. They're not really better than anything other classes get. This isn't 2E where Paladins were Fighters + Tons of Awesome Abilities. Instead, these are merely the class features of the Paladin. None of them are so strong that you somehow need to spontaneously lose them for breaking some code of conduct.
So this isn't really about having your cake and eating it to. The only way you're having your cake is if you want to play a character that doesn't fit the standard Paladin mold, or you wish to play a Paladin who deals with emotions and actual plot rather than being a poster child for Mary Sues school for Unremarkable Perfect Heroes, and you want to do stuff like smite.
Just like Clerics get auras of Chaos/Evil/Good/Law based on their alignment, so too could variations of these class features exist. Just as Inquisitors can detect chaos/evil/good/law, so too could the appropriate Paladin. Get the idea?
Cake + Eating implies you're getting something for nothing. But the fact is you're not. You're not getting a whole lot of extra super platinum stuff in exchange for a drawback. You're just getting a list of class features that are on par with everyone else. Just different.
A paladin is powered by something, if not he could never fall. It really is that simple.
'personal convictions' can be enough to power all of the paladin's abilities.
Obviously the paladin draws from something, but so is the sorcerer and the wizard. 'Divine' doesn't need to be 'from a god'.
'findel
... and what's the point of having a cake if you can't eat it. It's just going to rot away; it has no other purpose but being eaten. Never got that expression...
So, the whole arguement is "bad name for that class?"
The whole basis for the class is he holds himself to a higher standard or a deity's dogma and ideals, and for that is given special powers.
He also has a code to follow, which is representative of those higher standards, reflected by his alignment.
You break the code, you lose the powers.
Even Anti-paladins have a code.
I'm sure neutral ones would have one...
In my campaign worlds, any god can have a "paladin". They must be lawful, and follow the good/evil portion of the god's alignment. The god's dogma dictates the code or vows they must follow. But they still must follow them. This is what seperates them from the myriad of clerics the gods have, and why they are thus trusted to act as generals and be the charismatic face of the god to the masses. It's why ballads are written of the rise and fall of such men and women.
To remove this code, is to undo the idea of the paladin.
Just my 2 cp.
Pay very close attention...
I did and I disagree.
As written, clerics cannot fall. They have no code of conduct to grossly violate. The only thing that can cause a cleric to fall, by the rules, is for the cleric to shift to an alignment that is no longer incompatible with his current deity. That's a fact.
No, its not a fact. They can "fall" the same as a paladin as can a druid and an inquisitor. BY Raw a cleric who Violates his gods ethics and his gods code falls. Red the class. I quoted it above. It never says a thing about AL for the cleric.An inquisitor and a druid both can also "Fall" this is Raw.
Let me quote the PRD here
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)
An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability
The one and only difference what so ever is you do not have a code with a list of what counts as a violation. That is it. Each god has their own code as harsh as those of a paladin, you just don't have it quoted in the book is all. But it is there and it is enforced.
For Divine classes, No. Unlike the arcane or the mundane classes you do not own the power you wield. You are granted it by something else. Something that can take it back if you no longer serve the goals of that power.
I see both sides of this. Do you think it would be ok for the game if the mechanics and fluff were seperated?
Is there anything in the RAW that states a Paladin's divine powers come straight from a God? (Yeah, I could look it up, but this seems like a good topic for discussion regardless.)
I've always viewed a Paladin's powers as more a manifestation of his own will and faith. His conviction and purpose. To me, a Paladin isn't the servant of a specific god, but an emissary of justice as an ideal.
That is a good point so I ask another question. If you don't hold true to the principals from which you derive your powers should you keep your powers?<--best way I could think to word it.
I basically subbed out deity for powers.
A paladin is powered by something, if not he could never fall. It really is that simple.'personal convictions' can be enough to power all of the paladin's abilities.
But then he could not fall., if he does not think he did any thing wrong he can't fall. He could be CN mass murdering nut and think he is LG and everything he does is just. Doesn't make it so and if his belief alone powers him then he would never fall. Also by RAW a god does give the paladin some powers{ two are called out by name as coming from the paladins god if I recall).
Ashiel they are talking about the class. Your idea is similar to allowing a bard to be a priest, the same way a cleric can be a priest.
If you start to argue the paladin class vs the idea of a paladin it will only muddy the waters so I would suggest being clear on which point you are arguing. While you can't remove a "paladin's" power. A Paladin(class) can have powers removed.
Ahhh, but my dear Wraithstrike, so am I. Sort of. See, the Paladin class is just that. A class. A bag of abilities that are hopefully intended to help you construct a character of that theme. Sadly, the Code of Conduct is pretty much the antithesis of roleplaying a Paladin who actually has any character or wrestle with the temptation of evil, because it encourages people to metagame - if subconsciously - because it basically pimp-slaps them if they so much as sneeze in the wrong direction.
I have shown that you don't need Paladin abilities to be a Paladin. Hell, anyone who allows Archtypes admits to this by default, because it replaces the Paladin abilities with something else while still technically being a Paladin. Likewise, an Antipaladin is in fact not a Paladin at all in terms of role-playing, but gets evil-themed Paladin abilities.
So, upon seeing this, we can evaluate the Code of Conduct issue, and how it continually steps in the way of playing anything but a boring cookie cutter Paladin. When Warcraft 3, a RTS game, has better story and roleplay elements than your tabletop roleplaying game, we have a big, big problem.
And therein lays the problem.
We're discussing how we feel things SHOULD be, not how they are by the RAW in regards to the process of a Paladin's fall from grace.
Ashiel, Cerno, Myself, and (I believe) TOZ are of the mind that a Paladin's fall is a story thing that should remain story-wise entirely. Don't take his powers and slap him with an atonement fee for falling, take him through a truly tragic drama of his descent into darkness, and his (hopeful) redemption.
Continuing the Jedi example (I know I know, Seeker doesn't like it) look at Darth Vader. He fell to the darkness, retained his powers, and lived like that for 20ish years as a shadow of his former self, only to finally find redemption at the time of his death. (Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone xD)
Being powered by your own faith and devotion to a cause could just as easily 'fall' should you betray that faith and 'fall off the straight and narrow.'
+1
Maybe his/her power aren't removed by anyone but himself when he falls.
+1 to all of the above.
Oh, well if all you're saying is merely casting or paying for an atonement spell is cheesy as hell and ruins immersion, I whole heartedly agree. I put so much RP into having a priest willing to cast it on a fallen paladin, it's never a quick fix. There will be roleplay!
A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies)
An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability
The one and only difference what so ever is you do not have a code with a list of what counts as a violation. That is it. Each god has their own code as harsh as those of a paladin, you just don't have it quoted in the book is all. But it is there and it is enforced.
Yeah. None of those codes exist. Tada! Lookie there. Seriously, show me a single cleric code of conduct in the book. Go ahead, I'll wait. Sure, it says if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, but it never explains that. The definition of grossly means to wholly or completely violate it, so even if you make up a code of conduct for them as part of a campaign setting or house rule, their existing rule pretty much means it's far more forgiving than the Paladin's version, which is basically unforgiving in the extreme.
But then he could not fall., if he does not think he did any thing wrong he can't fall. He could be CN mass murdering nut and think he is LG and everything he does is just. Doesn't make it so and if his belief alone powers him then he would never fall. Also by RAW a god does give the paladin some powers{ two are called out by name as coming from the paladins god if I recall).
Yeah, and he'd be a CN nutjob who has spiritual powers. He's likely an enemy of real paladins everywhere, who either want him taken down or redeemed. His "fall" has already happened. He's lost his way. He still has powers, but who gives a turkey?
Also, there are only two features which even mention gods in the Paladin entry. Divine Bond and Holy Champion. Paladins don't even have the alignment restrictions for dealing with their gods that Clerics do. A Paladin has the same abilities regardless of what god he worships. A Paladin of a Neutral god has the same powers as one of a Lawful Good god, and a Paladin could declare Asmodeus his patron if he wanted to, and it wouldn't mean diddly as long as he himself stayed Lawful Good and didn't break his special code.
So yeah, if you want to argue RAW, I'll be here all day. :P
Ahhh, but my dear Wraithstrike, so am I. Sort of. See, the Paladin class is just that. A class. A bag of abilities that are hopefully intended to help you construct a character of that theme. Sadly, the Code of Conduct is pretty much the antithesis of roleplaying a Paladin who actually has any character or wrestle with the temptation of evil, because it encourages people to metagame - if subconsciously - because it basically pimp-slaps them if they so much as sneeze in the wrong direction.
This I agree with for the most part. Classes are just bags of mechanics. I also think the code is too strict as written which, and my belief on relaxing it a little is upthread.
I have shown that you don't need Paladin abilities to be a Paladin. Hell, anyone who allows Archtypes admits to this by default, because it replaces the Paladin abilities with something else while still technically being a Paladin. Likewise, an Antipaladin is in fact not a Paladin at all in terms of role-playing, but gets evil-themed Paladin abilities.
I agree you don't need the paladin class for the concept, but even those archetypes are still paladin. Changing out class features does not mean you are not class X, just a different form of class X.
To many people the code defines paladin even more than smite does. A fighter with a holy symbol and a personal code is not the same as one who can lay hands on you. A multiclassed fighter/cleric is not either even if the common folk won't know any better. :)Now from an idealistic point of view the fighter/cleric can be a paladin.
In order to avoid a TLDR I will say that what makes a paladin ideally and mechanically(not from an in game view) are two different things, but I don't think concepts should be limited to much by mechanics. They should work off of each other so that support goes both ways. The way the paladin codes works is that it does not give at all(assuming a GM run by the RAW with no flexibility), and I don't really care for it.
In short I think we agree.
Oh, well if all you're saying is merely casting or paying for an atonement spell is cheesy as hell and ruins immersion, I whole heartedly agree. I put so much RP into having a priest willing to cast it on a fallen paladin, it's never a quick fix. There will be roleplay!
Roleplay at gunpoint you mean. You're still punishing them for roleplaying the character. This doesn't fix the problem. It compounds it. There is no reason for them to roleplay any sort of temptation of humanity since frankly, it's not worth the effort like this.
Rather than continue what seems to be a rather circular debate, I have a feat proposal.
"Lost Paladin"
Requirements: Must have lost your powers as a Paladin and not replaced your Paladin levels.
Benefit: Regain all Paladin class features with the following exceptions.
Aura of Good is eliminated.
'Smite Evil' is replaced by 'Smite non-good'
If you had a mount, it 'falls' with you, losing any celestial templates it may have had and is cast into the ethereal plane, until such time as you summon it.Note that depending on the level of the fall this feat might require someone deal with being a powerless Paladin for 1-2 levels (although as a DM I personally would let them retrain one of their feats for it if desired.)
The feat seems like it could help. I would seriously recommend making a variant Paladin for Neutral as well, and allow them to slowly downslide into Antipaladin. Partially because I feel like smite-nongood would be a bit more super (and there's already an established norm of making aligned attacks 1/2 as effective vs neutral, so why not make neutral smites 1/2 as effective vs Good/Evil?).
Also, you can totally have Celestial or Fiendish creatures as a neutral character. You'll notice that the templates do not change their alignments in Pathfinder, and Neutral clerics and wizards can summon Neutral Aligned creatures with the Celestial and Fiendish templates all day long.
On a side note, the slipping to Neutral bit and 1/2 effectiveness of smite would actually make sense from a roleplaying perspective. As you start to blur the lines between friends and enemies philosophically, you might find yourself against Good or Evil creatures quite often, and you wouldn't immediately realize you were slipping to evil or to good because as far as you can tell you're still getting your power against them. They just might seem stronger than usual.
Merely food for thought. I like the feat for he most part. :)
I'ma take a break for a bit, grab a nap. It's been a long day outside of the boards (posting is fun). You guys all take care. I'll be back later. Don't get the thread too long without me. :P
Peace, ya'll. ^-^
|
I wish I could remember the novel. The main character is a fallen Paladin. Only he isn't. He thinks he is. He had a morally ambiguous decision to make and was thrown out of his order. He does not use any of his abilities, because he was simply told you messed up and are no longer a Paladin. the way the character reads is that he takes fighter levels thereafter because he is refused atonement. Trouble is, what ever the order thinks, they forgot to consult the forces of good, who at the end of the book tell him he did the best he could in the situation and that there are those still within the order who are really fallen, while he is fully capable of his abilities. He then heals someone by laying on hands. Fallen in this case does not mean going over to the Darkside, just not with the full support of the lightside. He had it, his superiors did not.
Just an idea.
[...]
I am so trying to remember this story, he ends up befriending a young girl and being her protector. Damn it has been maybe 15 years since I read this.Was it an Eberron novel? From the Heirs of Ash trilogy? One of the characters is a "fallen" paladin of the Silver Flame, trying to cope with past actions done in the name of the Flame. I think it is the same one i refer to above, though i could be wrong. Apparently there are a lot of flavourful non-cookie-cutter paladins and even a few fallen ones in the Eberron novels.
Nope long before that setting came about. In fact the more I hear about the Ash Trilogy the more I think they ripped this 1970's story off.
Roleplay at gunpoint you mean. You're still punishing them for roleplaying the character. This doesn't fix the problem. It compounds it. There is no reason for them to roleplay any sort of temptation of humanity since frankly, it's not worth the effort like this.
Roleplay is roleplay. I'm not punishing for roleplay, there is no punishment for roleplay. There are, however, consequences to actions of characters in game. That's all this is.
Yeah. None of those codes exist. Tada! Lookie there. Seriously, show me a single cleric code of conduct in the book. Go ahead, I'll wait. Sure, it says if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, but it never explains that. The definition of grossly means to wholly or completely violate it, so even if you make up a code of conduct for them as part of a campaign setting or house rule, their existing rule pretty much means it's far more forgiving than the Paladin's version, which is basically unforgiving in the extreme.
Again they are not listed, but by RAW yep they exist. I provided with a word for word from RAW, yet you claim it does not say what it says. The one and only diffidence is that the BOOk leaves One to the GM to write and provides the second one to you.
A cleric can fall By Raw just as easy as a paladin, except its not one evil act. Its one single act the GM thinks you god would disprove of, that one is way easier to abuse by the GM yet it always gets looked over.
Yeah. None of those codes exist. Tada! Lookie there. Seriously, show me a single cleric code of conduct in the book. Go ahead, I'll wait. Sure, it says if they grossly violate their deity's code of conduct, but it never explains that. The definition of grossly means to wholly or completely violate it, so even if you make up a code of conduct for them as part of a campaign setting or house rule, their existing rule pretty much means it's far more forgiving than the Paladin's version, which is basically unforgiving in the extreme.Again they are not listed, but by RAW yep they exist. I provided with a word for word from RAW, yet you claim it does not say what it says. The one and only diffidence is that the BOOk leaves One to the GM to write and provides the second one to you.
A cleric can fall By Raw just as easy as a paladin, except its not one evil act. Its one single act the GM thinks you god would disprove of, that one is way easier to abuse by the GM yet it always gets looked over.
Grossly. Say it with me. :P *fluffs pillow*
I did and its just as bad as a single evil act. Except the GM gets to decide whats it means. Evil everyone knows, but the GM gets to decide what counts as a violation of your god on a god by god case.
It is the very same issue. But doesn't count for some odd reason it seems.
Edit: It is not a thing unique to paladins. I have proved 3 classes that suffer the same issues and how they fall, even provide how much more ambiguous the ability to violate a code you do not know is. Yet you keep ignoring it.
I did and its just as bad as a single evil act. Except the GM gets to decide whats it means. Evil everyone knows, but the GM gets to decide what counts as a violation of your god on a god by god case.
It is the very same issue. But doesn't count for some odd reason it seems.
Mainly because it's a house rule. That is, the deity's code of conduct. The GM being a stupid tool and randomly deciding what this new code of conduct will be as the cleric is violating it deserves to die by fire. Meanwhile, if the GM actually makes a Paladin-like code for a particular deity, then not only is it a house rule, but the cleric has to grossly violate this code of conduct. Not merely violate it, but GROSSLY violate it.
Like, if it was part of your deity's code to liberate the meek and respect them as human beings, tying them down and taking a poop on their face would probably qualify as a gross violation (in more ways that one *rimshot*).
*lays down*
Mainly because it's a house rule.
No. Its not only In the book and the PRD I provided a word for word quote. You like many it seems just simply choose not to use that rule, yet its is ok to roast people who enforce the very same rule with the paladin.
This topic has given me some nice inspiration to play an Fallen Paladin, it makes way for a really nice story arch and sounds fun to play, it especially makes regaining those powers all the sweeter when you have to work and suffer through hell and back for redemption.
So heres a new challenge, roleplay aside, and attempts to circumvent the loss of paladin powers aside as well.
Is it possible to make a half decent fallen paladin that will be helpful to the party?
lets say lvl 6, since thats the level new characters start in the next campaign I'm joining. (25 point buy btw)my design so far has been a 1 fighter / 5 fallen Paladin.
I went classic sword and shield style since that screams paladin to me anyways,
I also went down the dazzling display shatter defences route with the few feats avaliable, since even as a fallen paladin your charisma tends to still be awesome, the fighter level also helps with the intimidate skill.
With this design the character isn't half bad in a fight, can demoralise foes helping out all the other party members and can hold the frontline relatively well.
The only thing you're getting over an NPC warrior is a slight boost to will saves. Sword & Board generally requires a number of feats to be good an effective, so you'll probably need more fighter levels. Dazzling Display is nice, but at the end of the day you're still just a Fighter/Warrior. If you intentionally did this to yourself, when you finally redeemed yourself (assuming it wasn't via a typical atonement spell), then I'd probably have to come up with some sort of crazy reward. Paladin abilities are not that crazy award.
Like...letting you have a number of warrior levels equal to the number of dead Paladin levels you stuck with for the whole damn game might be a suitable reward for not having class features ever.
Reformed Paladin: "Hah! Evil, feel mah righteous +40 base attack bonus! Behold the power of mah awsuuuume! This is what you get for sticking with 20 levels of strait suuuuuuck!"
So sayeth the Paladin 20 / Warrior 20. :3
Mainly because it's a house rule.
No. Its not only In the book and the PRD I provided a word for word quote. You like many it seems just simply choose not to use that rule, yet its is ok to roast people who enforce the very same rule with the paladin.
The Paladin's rule is different. It's not even written the same. Likewise, it wouldn't be the first time they had something in the core rulebook that literally references nothing. As-is, there is no cleric code. You can make one, but there isn't. You can add one, but there isn't. If you want to talk about the classes as they actually exist, there isn't one. Paladin has its code of conduct build in.
Clerics can have some added, probably based on campaign setting. By default they have no such code. However, they are limited by their alignment. That's probably good enough, since falling (or rising) too far from your deity's alignment can shut your abilities off or force you to select new ones. I'm OK with that.
But yeah, citing a rule that doesn't exist isn't going to get you very far. It's like clicking a shortcut to a file that doesn't exist on your computer. Cleric_Code.dat was not found.
EDIT: Yeah, maybe Arthas was indeed a Cleric. I mean, that would explain it. As he became corrupted, his alignment shifted from Good to Neutral to Evil. When he hit evil, he became a Death Knight, who uses negative energy instead of positive energy. As a neutral cleric he could still retain all his holy powers, but as an evil cleric he'd lose them for a different set.
EDIT 2: So yeah, the best example of a Paladin and his struggle with corruption I've ever seen isn't even a Paladin by D&D standards. :P
What's a fallen paladin to do? Stand up, dust him/herself off, and keep going.
Batman Begins gave me one of my favorite sayings: Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.
What's a fallen paladin to do? Stand up, dust him/herself off, and keep going.
Batman Begins gave me one of my favorite sayings: Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.