I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government. Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos. Even if you define the two differently than I do, I still don't see an issue with a Paladin who takes the CG or NG side and not the LG side.

How can a cosmic force be only about government is beyond me, but instead of trying to convince you trough an essay allow me to ask you these:

how can the drow be CE and have a very organized and hierarchical goverment?
how can the elf be CG and have a national goverment? and one that once upon a time spanned the majority of Golarion?
how can an outsider be chaotic or lawful when it has nothing to do with government?
how can a dragon be lawful or chaotic when dragons rarely have to do anything with governmets?


Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that you are free to debate the rules. However, if you change them as you see fit, do you really have a paladin? There is a difference between following the law as a means of a way of life. The lawfulness of the paladin is what their gods ask for in order to maintain the power and the benefits that they receive. Those whom the gods love they also test to make sure that they are worthy of what is given to them.

Just because you do not agree or understand the rules, or those you play with do not either, does not mean that the restrictions are wrong. Alignments in D and D and Pathfinder are absolutes. They have to be in this system with spells that deal with the alignment. If you want the abilities of the paladin then you have to follow the codes. This is not WOW.

St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I have to admit, I think it's lousy game design to try and balance mechanical abilities using "fluff." In 1e, the paladin was hands-down better than the fighter... "oh, but you have a CODE, so it's OKAY!" But it wasn't OK then, and it's still not OK now (which is especially silly insofar as the paladin doesn't need any extra balancing any more). Mechanics should be mechanically balanced. Fluff can take care of itself, and need not be wedded to the mechanics.

Preach it brother! Amen!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Drow were CE originally, back in 1st edition. We switched them back in pathfinder to more closely fall in with the fact that they worship demons and because we like nostalgia.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This. Leo1925 has a point.

Drow do have an organised and hierarchical government. It is ruled through fear, might and obedience (in many cases) to a deity. However, the way they resolve conflict (exterminating the enemy) can be seen as very chaotic. Drow also resent the people above them and openly plot to overthrow those in power through tactics that are often reckless and irresponsible. Drow are self-serving and scheming to the extreme (in general, of course, there are always exceptions...)

Elves value the personal freedom and choice of the individual elf (may be not other sentient beings). Above all else, from what I have read, elves tend to live in communities where disappearing for a long time or remaining inactive for decades or a century. Inherently, they live in a society where individual choices are highly respected, though as a community they do remain socially conscious (hence the good side).

Why does being chaotic or lawful have anything to do with government. Society is an aggregation of people in some form of social organisation. Lawful behaviour could simply being respectful of the rights and freedoms of others, much like a Chaotic Good person may do the same. However, a lawful individual is probably cautious not to violate the legitimate customs, laws and traditions of a society where a chaotic individual might sacrifice them where they see fit to reach an objective.

Seeing law and chaos as simply focused on government is erroneous. Unless it was meant as a narrow example. Chaotic individuals may act in ways that are considered lawful, but will probably throw that behaviour out the window when it suits their purposes. They may respect the rights and freedoms of others, but will be less likely to follow the law when it does not serve their own world view. If they did, then they would be lawful!

Now we could throw good, neutral and evil into the mix as well. However, this also leads to a problem of how the second part of the alignment then modifies outlook and behaviour.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.

I never said Paladin's shouldn't have to be good. They should. My issue is with law. I like that play style, but I don't think it should be mandated for Paladin players. Just because you or me can have fun with an LG character doesn't mean that lawfulness should be mandated as the only way to create a Paladin. I think there should be more options in this arena, because that's what Pathfinder is about: playing the person you want to be. If that means a chaotic Paladin, I'm not going to stop you.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have seen no reference to any book of law in pathfinder. Illegal is not codified, do what is right and respect people of authority as needed.

Breaking in might not be nice, but if it is neccisary do it to protect people. (you need to be sure it is needed)

Silver Crusade

Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

I tend to see drow respecting power rather than authority. It is fear of reprisal that keeps them in line. The deities and demons they worship are on the top of that chain. However, drow tend to think nothing of removing those above them by whatever means are necessary to ensure advancement and self-preservation. Drow do have a government, but it is based more on power than authority.

Elves can have governments. However, would that form of government be more commonly a monarchy or an oligarchy? Whatever form of government elves have, I tend to interpret it as fairly loose and less rigid than those of a LG society.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Drows in 3.5 were between NE and CE but in PF they are CE.

I really don't think that there is a government of outsiders, i mean really a government of archons?
How can any creature be of law or chaos (or any alignment) if it doesn't act on it?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
I think there should be more options in this arena, because that's what Pathfinder is about: playing the person you want to be. If that means a chaotic Paladin, I'm not going to stop you.

Paizo is not stopping any either. However, they are not bound to write up every possible variant of a class to match your tastes. The paladin in their game is a LG paragon of law and good, that is that. However, if you really want something, you have to do the work yourself. If you want to play a NG or CG paladin, then speak with the GM before you start a campaign and work something out.

Really, it just sounds like you want all the cool class features without any of the restrictions. If your play style does not match LG and its an alignment you struggle with, go with something you might enjoy more. I prefer Neutral or Neutral Good for most of my characters, and even though I love the paladin class, its rarely the right fit for me. Sometimes, you just have to live with that fact.


At the end of the day it would create for some very weird circumstances if chaotic paladins were allowed and an example of this is that:
Gorum is a CN deity but if a paladin can be CG then i don't see why Gorum couldn't have paladins, but as CN Gorum also has antipaladins. Can you imagine what happens at Sundays in Gorum church?

Liberty's Edge

Shalafi2412 wrote:


St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.

It's worth noting that Pathfinder does not use the Augustinian definition of evil: evil has a presence, it has substance, and is far more than simply the absence of virtue. Both PF and D&D use a more Manichean concept of good and evil, with each side having its own properties and each side being independent, yet opposed, forces.

This thread seems to have gone all over the place, but I think most folks are in general agreement that a holy warrior need not be lawful. That the logical next step is then to remove the description which has served everyone but the Internet, apparently, for 38 years, is, I think, somewhat dubious. It seems a house rule should solve the problem without the need for rewriting rules that, by and large, have withstood the test of time.

Finally, a note on lawful: organized governments are a part of the discussion but nowhere near all of it. For me, lawful has to do with dedication to an agreed-upon code of conduct or set of rules. Neutral can take or leave such rules and Chaotic makes their own rules (which may closely resemble the lawful guy's rules, but the point is objectivity). Lawful Good believes that we can objectively define what is good and right and that we can do so for more than just ourselves.


James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Drow were CE originally, back in 1st edition. We switched them back in pathfinder to more closely fall in with the fact that they worship demons and because we like nostalgia.

Then why not also return the Druid to the 1e alignment restriction? People seem to believe that the Paladin must be what it always has been, but not the Druid?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:

At the end of the day it would create for some very weird circumstances if chaotic paladins were allowed and an example of this is that:

Gorum is a CN deity but if a paladin can be CG then i don't see why Gorum couldn't have paladins, but as CN Gorum also has antipaladins. Can you imagine what happens at Sundays in Gorum church?

One group donates to the poor, one group takes the donations?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shalafi2412 wrote:


St. Augustine defined evil as the absence of good. If a paladin is to receive the benefits of paladinhood they need to be as free of evil as is possible to remain a paladin. If they don't then they loose that status and the abilities that go with them.

Spoiler:
I don't know who you are, but I dub you, New Friend.

I propose that Tyranny is just as consonant with Chaos as Anarchy is. Neither is the Rule of Law.

Silver Crusade

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I propose that Tyranny is just as consonant with Chaos as Anarchy is. Neither is the Rule of Law.

Power versus authority?

Silver Crusade

HappyDaze wrote:
Then why not also return the Druid to the 1e alignment restriction? People seem to believe that the Paladin must be what it always has been, but not the Druid?

The tree-lovers have to wait in line on this one. Once we're through debating the paladin's alignment restriction, we can move on to the druids.

However, 5e may be the cure to that problem. You can have a N 1e druid running alongside a NE 3e druid.


leo1925 wrote:

At the end of the day it would create for some very weird circumstances if chaotic paladins were allowed and an example of this is that:

Gorum is a CN deity but if a paladin can be CG then i don't see why Gorum couldn't have paladins, but as CN Gorum also has antipaladins. Can you imagine what happens at Sundays in Gorum church?

That's no different that an LN deity having both LE and LG Clerics, and would be pretty interesting.


leo1925 wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

I really don't think that there is a government of outsiders, i mean really a government of archons?

According to the Bestiary, archons do indeed belong to a celestial government.

Quote:
How can any creature be of law or chaos (or any alignment) if it doesn't act on it?

I dunno. All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.

Silver Crusade

Except clerics do not have a code of conduct that is similar to a paladins. Remember, a paladin might work with evil, but it would only be for set period of time. I am not too familiar with Hell Knights, but I imagine there would be friction between the paladins and evil members of the orders?

I imagine that there would be LG churches and LE ones, with the LN deity allowing both to exist. While there might be LG and LE clerics in the same church, having a paladin in the mix would complicate things. LG clerics of the LN deity might even be opposed to many of the activities that the LE clerics get up too.

Just because the deity allows it, does not mean it runs smoothly.

Silver Crusade

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.

What? Just because dragons are solitary creatures does not mean they behave outside their set alignment. Just because your LG does not mean that fades if you live in a cavern by yourself somewhere.


Chubbs McGee wrote:

Except clerics do not have a code of conduct that is similar to a paladins. Remember, a paladin might work with evil, but it would only be for set period of time. I am not too familiar with Hell Knights, but I imagine there would be friction between the paladins and evil members of the orders?

I imagine that there would be LG churches and LE ones, with the LN deity allowing both to exist. While there might be LG and LE clerics in the same church, having a paladin in the mix would complicate things. LG clerics of the LN deity might even be opposed to many of the activities that the LE clerics get up too.

Just because the deity allows it, does not mean it runs smoothly.

Oh, I know. I'm not saying it should run smoothly, either. The repercussions of LG Paladins of an LN deity being around LE individuals of the same deity would be an interesting story hook.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HappyDaze wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Drow were CE originally, back in 1st edition. We switched them back in pathfinder to more closely fall in with the fact that they worship demons and because we like nostalgia.
Then why not also return the Druid to the 1e alignment restriction? People seem to believe that the Paladin must be what it always has been, but not the Druid?

Because we like the druid having more range in alignment than just plain old Neutral.

(Turns out, being the ones who design and publish the game comes with the perk and responsibility of making those decisions. Sometimes we agreed with 3.5, but sometimes we did not.)


Chubbs McGee wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
All I know is that dragons have listed alignments, generally lawful or chaotic, but mostly keep to themselves and behave TN, or at the most NE or NG.
What? Just because dragons are solitary creatures does not mean they behave outside their set alignment. Just because your LG does not mean that fades if you live in a cavern by yourself somewhere.

Eh. I'd classify most metallic dragons as NG. It's because they generally don't get involved unless they really have to, and despite the fluff I don't imagine any of them as being particularly lawful or chaotic, but rather as creatures that would do what they think needs to be done. I'm pretty sure my interpretation is not RAW at all, however, so feel free to disagree.

Silver Crusade

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Oh, I know. I'm not saying it should run smoothly, either. The repercussions of LG Paladins of an LN deity being around LE individuals of the same deity would be an interesting story hook.

I agree, it could make for a very interesting story hook. It could also be a great source of angst for the paladin who may have to hunt down and smite members of his own faith.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I recently was re-reading the Order of the Stick webcomic.

Miko - example of how not to play a LG paladin.
O-Chul - why I want to play a LG paladin.

Sorry, magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Eh. I'd classify most metallic dragons as NG. It's because they generally don't get involved unless they really have to, and despite the fluff I don't imagine any of them as being particularly lawful or chaotic, but rather as creatures that would do what they think needs to be done. I'm pretty sure my interpretation is not RAW at all, however, so feel free to disagree.

Not true.

The alignment would also dictate their actions and how they respond to a situation. It does not guarantee them as Neutral Good.

For example, if a Lawful Good dragon finds out humans are encroaching on his territory (lets say for timber from the trees that grow around his den) he might warn them off or even negotiate with the humans. He may respect their right to land and resources. The Lawful Good dragon may acknowledge their previous ownership. He will probably try to resolve the situation without bloodshed.

Neutral Good dragons may not respect the claim or rights of the humans. While it is not going to resort to bloodshed straight away, it may expect something in return from the humans in exchange for resources. Then again, I always see Neutral Good as being good for goods sake, so the dragon might be kindly and allow the humans short term access.

True Neutral is under no moral obligation to negotiate with the humans or even resolve the situation peacefully. The dragon would probably make a choice based on its own interests and the amount of threat it felt from the situation.

Evil dragons would probably resort to bloodshed or attempt to exploit the situation for their own benefit, and probably to the detriment of the human population. Lawful Evil dragons might enter some pact but twist it to their own ends. A Neutral Evil dragon would probably do whatever evil it desires without any qualms.

Just because dragons keep to themselves does not mean they have to be an alignment other than stated in the Bestiary. Instead, it defines how they react to creatures and situations.


Chubbs McGee wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I propose that Tyranny is just as consonant with Chaos as Anarchy is. Neither is the Rule of Law.
Power versus authority?

Sure. Power versus Right. Corporate Will vs Individual Will.

Silver Crusade

Ajaxis wrote:
Sorry, magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.

You should also be able to cast magic missiles at the darkness!


A Paladin is a paragon of virtue, a servant of justice and goodness, who struggles to do what is fair and right, to uphold order in the service of good. That is their purpose. Having one that doesn't have to attempt to uphold order or justice is not having a Paladin. Being bound by their code is not a limitation on their power, it is the source of their power.


Ajaxis wrote:

I recently was re-reading the Order of the Stick webcomic.

Miko - example of how not to play a LG paladin.
O-Chul - why I want to play a LG paladin.

Sorry, magic missles should be auto-hit, and paladins should be limited to lawful good. Yes, I am a grognard.

I love O-Chul, and I love playing lawful good characters. I just don't like the idea of NG and CG Paladins being forbidden.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also... while we don't use words like "always" or "usually" or whatever when talking about alignments for monsters in our bestiary... that's more because we felt those words were in fact TOO restrictive (and they cluttered up that part of the stat block as well). But that doesn't mean that we're saying every morlock is always chaotic evil, or that every dark creeper is always chaotic neutral. Because, as we mention in the book's introduction on page 5 under the entry for "Alignment, Size, and Type"...

Pathfinder RPG Bestiary wrote:
The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.

AKA: Monster alignments can more or less be whatever you want them to be in order to serve the needs of your story or campaign.


Lyingbastard wrote:
A Paladin is a paragon of virtue, a servant of justice and goodness, who struggles to do what is fair and right, to uphold order in the service of good. That is their purpose. Having one that doesn't have to attempt to uphold order or justice is not having a Paladin. Being bound by their code is not a limitation on their power, it is the source of their power.

If you can get powers from a devotion to justice and order, why not from justice and freedom?


James Jacobs wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Montana MacAilbert wrote:

Drow are CE? When did that happen? I thought they were NE. Drow of the Underdark even explained why they are NE and not LE or CE. Did Pathfinder change that?

As for elves, I actually don't get why a CG race would have a national government. That has always puzzled me. Outsiders, meanwhile, do have governments of their own, and dragons deal with other races enough to have opinions on law and order. They just don't act on them all that much.

Drow were CE originally, back in 1st edition. We switched them back in pathfinder to more closely fall in with the fact that they worship demons and because we like nostalgia.
Then why not also return the Druid to the 1e alignment restriction? People seem to believe that the Paladin must be what it always has been, but not the Druid?

Because we like the druid having more range in alignment than just plain old Neutral.

(Turns out, being the ones who design and publish the game comes with the perk and responsibility of making those decisions. Sometimes we agreed with 3.5, but sometimes we did not.)

This is a good example of the people that wrote the game saying that some things are the way they are because that's how they wanted them to be rather than because they had to be that way. For all those that keep saying that the paladin must not be changed, remember that other things have and the game goes on. Anything can be changed if that's what's wanted - tradition isn't really important unless you want it to be.


Montana MacAilbert wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:
A Paladin is a paragon of virtue, a servant of justice and goodness, who struggles to do what is fair and right, to uphold order in the service of good. That is their purpose. Having one that doesn't have to attempt to uphold order or justice is not having a Paladin. Being bound by their code is not a limitation on their power, it is the source of their power.
If you can get powers from a devotion to justice and order, why not from justice and freedom?

This argument is less about opening up the existing paladin and goes instead towards the alternate paladin types found in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana. Not a bad way to go, but not the same as your current argument.


Whatever gets NG and CG Paladins it good with me. I don't really care what justification ends up used so long as it happens.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Montana MacAilbert wrote:
FireclawDrake wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

It says this, yes, but it ALSO goes on to say that she can work with evil (or chaotic) people (and presumably do evil (or chaotic) acts) as long as she believes a greater good will come from it. I believe this in the intention. If you take the RAW, sure, but intention is far more important to me than RAW.

The main reason a paladin has to be lawful is because of the dedication a paladin requies to maintain her discipline. The same reason why a monk has to be lawful.

The intention of the RAW does nothing to stop all the Paladin drama that breaks out when people play them. As for discipline and dedication, I don't buy it for one second. Neutral and chaotic people can be disciplined and dedicated. That's why chaotic good characters don't go nuts whenever someone angers them via injustice. They have the self control not to fight evil with evil.

As for monks, I'm not in favor of that alignment restriction, either.

It's not really an issue of alignment, even granting what Jacobs has posted previously... It's an issue of the players. Just as some folks gravitate towards evil characters in order to screw with other players, others take on the Paladin class in order to be cheap copies of Judge Dredd. (who isn't a paladin by my books, at least not initially)

Basically the class like it's opposite is a honeypot to those who want to be jerks. It's also a class that can be played well, but it takes restraint and insight on the player. Rule changes such as you suggest will not make up for the lack of those qualities.

Interesting aside: The WOW D20 RPG did make this change for it's Paladins.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

Also... while we don't use words like "always" or "usually" or whatever when talking about alignments for monsters in our bestiary... that's more because we felt those words were in fact TOO restrictive (and they cluttered up that part of the stat block as well). But that doesn't mean that we're saying every morlock is always chaotic evil, or that every dark creeper is always chaotic neutral. Because, as we mention in the book's introduction on page 5 under the entry for "Alignment, Size, and Type"...

Pathfinder RPG Bestiary wrote:
The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.
AKA: Monster alignments can more or less be whatever you want them to be in order to serve the needs of your story or campaign.

I wish more people would read this part of the book.


Yeah, then we should go ahead and let Paladins be neutral, or evil, and after that we should give them arcane magic too. And double all their channeling, and let them take an edilion instead of a war horse. Also? Full access to fighter feats. That'd be awesome.


I read it, MDT. It's why I used to use NG and NE dragons heavily before I finally chucked alignment out of my games altogether.


beej67 wrote:
Yeah, then we should go ahead and let Paladins be neutral, or evil, and after that we should give them arcane magic too. And double all their channeling, and let them take an edilion instead of a war horse. Also? Full access to fighter feats. That'd be awesome.

Suggesting that a holy warrior shouldn't be required to be lawful so long as she is good is different from suggesting they not be holy warriors at all. I never said they should be neutral. As for evil, letting anti-Paladins have any evil alignment handles that role just fine. As for the rest, that's just unnecessary snark. Nobody suggested buffing the class.

Sovereign Court

Boy if we could have just done the smart thing long ago and made the Paladin a prestige class we could have spared everyone a lot of head and heart ache.

Liberty's Edge

Debate on the topic is all well and good, but no amount of threads on the subject are going to get the paladin’s alignment restrictions changed in Pathfinder prior to a 2nd edition of the game (which is hopefully a long way off ... and not even then if my opinion were to count for anything).


it seems to me your arguement stems from an increasingly narrow (and, according to RAW at least, incorrect) defintion of the difference between lawful and chaotic in pathfinder.

chubbs mcgee made a very good post on page 3 which you didnt reply to, but which i think sums up the situation very well and was essentially the end of the thread to my mind.

Silver Crusade

Pan wrote:
Boy if we could have just done the smart thing long ago and made the Paladin a prestige class we could have spared everyone a lot of head and heart ache.

I like this.

The paladin is the prestige class for good-aligned folks and the blackguard is the prestige class for evil-aligned folks. The requirements could be must be GOOD and must be EVIL.

Wait a second. Create a prestige class named PARAGON. The paragon is either an exemplar of good or evil. His powers depend on his alignment.

So throw out the paladin and anti-paladin, and let any one who qualifies for the prestige class (of any good or evil alignment) being able to take it. This would mean a lot more players could enjoy all those nice benefits and match it to their play style!

May be even do it across an axis - Lawful Good, True Neutral and Chaotic Evil - so it remains an exemplar focus on the extreme of that axis.

I might work on this a bit.

Silver Crusade

st00ji wrote:
chubbs mcgee made a very good post on page 3 which you didnt reply to, but which i think sums up the situation very well and was essentially the end of the thread to my mind.

I did? Cool!

First time for everything! :D

EDIT: Fixed!

Liberty's Edge

Montana MacAilbert wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Yeah, then we should go ahead and let Paladins be neutral, or evil, and after that we should give them arcane magic too. And double all their channeling, and let them take an edilion instead of a war horse. Also? Full access to fighter feats. That'd be awesome.
Suggesting that a holy warrior shouldn't be required to be lawful so long as she is good is different from suggesting they not be holy warriors at all. I never said they should be neutral. As for evil, letting anti-Paladins have any evil alignment handles that role just fine. As for the rest, that's just unnecessary snark. Nobody suggested buffing the class.

Spare a thought for the silent, seething masses who want to play neutral holy warriors.

Why not just remove the alignment restrictions for paladins all together? What was the name of that game that did something like that ...? Oh, that's right, 4E.

Liberty's Edge

Chubbs McGee wrote:
Mothman wrote:
chubbs mcgee made a very good post on page 3 which you didnt reply to, but which i think sums up the situation very well and was essentially the end of the thread to my mind.

I did? Cool!

First time for everything! :D

I would never publically compliment you like that Chubbs! ;-)

(You've misquoted, st00ji made that post you quoted).

151 to 200 of 659 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I think it's about time to remove law from the Paladin code of conduct. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.