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.
4E has nothing to do with this discussion.
Law is the support of organized government, and chaos is opposition to organized government.
So, if you support the laws of an organized human government, but are opposed to the laws of an organized drow government, are you both lawful and chaotic at the same time?
Anything else is irrelevant to law and chaos.
What about strict moral codes that differ from the laws of an organized government. Such as a knight whose knightly order charges him to defend the weak in a nation whose laws exploit the weak?
(The above two points are to challenge your definition of lawful, which I think is too narrow, although I do agree with you that it's problematic that too many people can interpret the alignment system in different and mutually exclusive ways. I am genuinely interested in hearing your responses to the above, as well as this separate point below.)
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.
I think that that's an acceptable stance for your own personal campaign or viewpoint. Why are you arguing so definitively with everyone who disagrees with you? Are you trying to change minds? Are you trying to change the official rules? This thread has circle the same argument at least twenty times, already, and nobody's budging!
I have always considered Paladins lawful because they follow a set code which might differ among dieties. Even chaotic deities might have a sect or order who have members who follow a strict code. In this view certainly the sterotype paladin exists but less sterotypical ones also might come up. They do not all need to follow the exact same ethos. The "Law" a paladin of Erastil follows would be far different from that of Iomedae.
Budge? I have levels in Stalwart Defender. I don't budge.
Another successful MacAilbert troll thread.
Troll? Now, I'll admit I've had my behavioral problems, but advocating the removal of law from the Paladin is not trolling. I honestly do believe that law should be removed from the code of conduct. If I didn't, it would be trolling, but I do.
Budge? I have levels in Stalwart Defender. I don't budge.Not even for donuts?
Not even for donuts.
Some classes shouldn't be played by certain people. Such as people that have a weakness in organization and math shouldn't play a summoner. An immature dram queen shouldn't play a paladin.
|
*How do you know Darth Vadar is evil? Because he's the guy in black. How do you know Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa are the good guys? Because they are in white. Han Solo wears both colors. (I'm talking here about Star Wars 4, Luke actually starts to wear more darker colors as he becomes morally tormented in the later movies).
*cough* Luke wore black in Return of the Jedi.
EDIT: Damn, missed your last line. Damn you Darkwing Duck for covering all bases! :D
Not really. You just have to switch around a couple spells and add the anti-lawful quality to the divine bond weapon choices. Though three separate codes of conduct, one for each good alignment, wouldn't be a bad idea.
Darkwing, this is why I house ruled alignment out completely in my games. I don't like a world with no moral ambiguity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its not LG then it's not a paladin.... That said very few people play LG or the paladin code well. Alignment is not a rigid thing it influences a characters actions but it does not prescribe those actions. For example the paladin Sir Goodfellow will form an alliance with the evil tyrant Baroness Badass to defeat the demon horde on the border. Sir Goodfellow would even put up with the Baroness executing some uppity peasants because the horde represents a greater threat. Goodfellow's alignment would press him to protect the peasants and he would do everything within his means to do so without alienating the Baroness as without her army there would be no peasants to protect. In the end he has two choices let the peasants die or let the land fall to the demons... I would not punish a paladin for making either choice but they would get to experience the consequences of their actions.
|
|
Not really. You just have to switch around a couple spells and add the anti-lawful quality to the divine bond weapon choices. Though three separate codes of conduct, one for each good alignment, wouldn't be a bad idea.
Writing too many codes of conduct makes it all too bloated and confusing. Keep it simple! I know that is easier said than done in many cases.
Darkwing, this is why I house ruled alignment out completely in my games. I don't like a world with no moral ambiguity.
Yeah, or donuts.
*How do you know Darth Vadar is evil? Because he's the guy in black. How do you know Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa are the good guys? Because they are in white. Han Solo wears both colors. (I'm talking here about Star Wars 4, Luke actually starts to wear more darker colors as he becomes morally tormented in the later movies).
So the Stormtroopers are good guys?
I do try other things, Sobchak. I'm playing a single classed Magus right now, and I like her. I also like Sorcerers and Witches, and I played many Rangers in 3.5. I haven't played one yet, but the Gunslinger and Spellslinger Wizard look like fun, and I'm eying the Cavalier as well (light cavalry, mate!).
I also happen to like lawful good Paladins a great deal. I just don't think LG should be a requirement. I'm fine with any good.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
|
So the Stormtroopers are good guys?
*How do you know Darth Vadar is evil? Because he's the guy in black. How do you know Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa are the good guys? Because they are in white. Han Solo wears both colors. (I'm talking here about Star Wars 4, Luke actually starts to wear more darker colors as he becomes morally tormented in the later movies).
Yes. You see, they kept missing on purpose.
They were ordered not to.
By Vader who searched his feelings and knew Luke to be his son thus making Vader a good guy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the point was that you could remove alignment from the paladin and the game will not suffer. All you have to do is modify the powers a bit and the code of conduct.I'm not sure anything in the powers would have to altered save for removing axiomatic from the weapon options.
Actually my point was two-fold. One, if you are going to remove the current LG only alignment restriction from paladins, why not go the whole hog and remove alignment restrictions all together (the OP’s specific complaint is that he/she doesn’t agree that paladins should have to be lawful, but removing any alignment restriction would be more in keeping with Kirth’s argument up thread regarding fluff restrictions vs crunch abilities and character concept flexibility which appear to have more validity than the OP’s argument).
Two, there is a precedent (in fourth edition D&D) for removing the paladin’s alignment restrictions – so at the very least if someone really wants to play a non LG paladin there is a game that allows them to do that by RAW. Note however that quite a lot of Pathfinder players do not like the ‘fluff’ (non-mechanical) changes that were made to the game in 4E.
Personally I am quite happy with the LG alignment restriction on paladins. I think it adds a lot of flavour to the class rather than restricts opportunities, and I don’t find it ‘difficult’ in any way. I have played paladins in three different Pathfinder games (and more in 2e and 3.5) and have never come into conflict with the GM or fellow players about whether or not my character was acting true to alignment or code, or felt restricted in fulfilling my characters role by the lawful aspect of the alignment.
|
|
If its not LG then it's not a paladin.... That said very few people play LG or the paladin code well. Alignment is not a rigid thing it influences a characters actions but it does not prescribe those actions. For example the paladin Sir Goodfellow will form an alliance with the evil tyrant Baroness Badass to defeat the demon horde on the border. Sir Goodfellow would even put up with the Baroness executing some uppity peasants because the horde represents a greater threat. Goodfellow's alignment would press him to protect the peasants and he would do everything within his means to do so without alienating the Baroness as without her army there would be no peasants to protect. In the end he has two choices let the peasants die or let the land fall to the demons... I would not punish a paladin for making either choice but they would get to experience the consequences of their actions.
That sounds almost familiar ...
Mothman, I'm actually not opposed to removing every alignment restriction for a base class except for making Paladins any good and Anti-Paladins any evil. Kirth's views on the issue sit very well with me. I think that the flavor you talk about does restrict opportunities too much and can, depending on the players and GM, be difficult. Just because you and I like and use lawful good doesn't mean it's for everyone, and you shouldn't be shut out of an awesome class because of that.
So the Stormtroopers are good guys?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the Stormtroopers are good guys?I always feel bad for the contractors in Episode 6.
“Yes honey, I know I’ve been working long hours lately and that you and the kids miss me, but the Emperor says we need to get this Death Star finished by end of financial year, and the plumbing design on this thing is a real mess. Don’t worry, I’ll be home this weekend, just so long as those darned Rebel terrorists don’t cause any delays ...”
They were ordered not to.By Vader who searched his feelings and knew Luke to be his son thus making Vader a good guy.
No, by the Emperor who wanted them to to escape so he could follow them back to the Rebel Base.
I thought everyone had realized that.
|
|
That sounds almost familiar ...
If its not LG then it's not a paladin.... That said very few people play LG or the paladin code well. Alignment is not a rigid thing it influences a characters actions but it does not prescribe those actions. For example the paladin Sir Goodfellow will form an alliance with the evil tyrant Baroness Badass to defeat the demon horde on the border. Sir Goodfellow would even put up with the Baroness executing some uppity peasants because the horde represents a greater threat. Goodfellow's alignment would press him to protect the peasants and he would do everything within his means to do so without alienating the Baroness as without her army there would be no peasants to protect. In the end he has two choices let the peasants die or let the land fall to the demons... I would not punish a paladin for making either choice but they would get to experience the consequences of their actions.
Deja vu!
Now the voices will begin again... :D
They were ordered not to.By Vader who searched his feelings and knew Luke to be his son thus making Vader a good guy.No, by the Emperor who wanted them to to escape so he could follow them back to the Rebel Base.
I thought everyone had realized that.
That's... actually a really good hypothesis.
That's... actually a really good hypothesis.They were ordered not to.By Vader who searched his feelings and knew Luke to be his son thus making Vader a good guy.No, by the Emperor who wanted them to to escape so he could follow them back to the Rebel Base.
I thought everyone had realized that.
It's the only thing that makes sense.
A) They're highly trained clones.
B) They have targeting sensors in their helmets.
C) Those guns are linked to the helmets.
D) There were 50 of them chasing Han Solo.
The ONLY way they could have escaped is if they were under orders to let them escape. And, the Emperor did want to know where the Rebel base was, and the only one who knew that was Leia. And the only way to get her to go there was to let her escape and follow her. That's also why Vader had to kill Obi Wan. To keep him from sensing them following.
That makes sense, MDT.
On the topic of Star Wars, Samuel L. Jackson should have played Vader, and I have proof. (Warning: NSFW due to foul language)
And you thought the clones were bad shots...
It's because they cloned a New Zealander.... If they wanted badass they should have cloned an Aussie. Not some jandal wearing, chilli bin using, sheep herder.
Lucas made Boba Fet extra uncool for Australians....
Then again if he let Fet be the same as Morrisons Jake the Muss he would have been A grade Badass.
** spoiler omitted **
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.
Hello friend!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'll say this curtly, and to the point:
Removing any alignment restrictions on Paladin IS BUFFING THE CLASS.
The only reason everyone doesn't always play Paladins for every character they ever play is because they're stranded in a crappy alignment that's no fun to play. Remove that, and there's no disincentive to play a Paladin.
Yeah, I get that some players follow different Normative Ethics Theories than other players do, and that extends to some character confusion.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics .. link won't work on 1/18 obviously)
But So Freaking What. It's a game, cruise on past that and get to the issue of game balance. If Paladin's didn't have to follow the law, then they'd be way too gross. There's supposed to be a drawback to having a Paladin in your group - it limits your groups available actions. That's the counterbalance, from a game design perspective, to the Paladin's Awesome Everythingness.
If I remember correctly, isnt the OP the same person who asked if it was okay for her paladin to desecrate corpses and other shenanigans a few weeks ago?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason everyone doesn't always play Paladins for every character they ever play is because they're stranded in a crappy alignment that's no fun to play. Remove that, and there's no disincentive to play a Paladin.
The Paladin Code handles that just as well or better than the Lawful Good alignment.
Hell, as seeker loves to tell me, the Paladin Code is Lawful Good defined.
I also refute your statement of LG being 'no fun to play'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I'll say this curtly, and to the point:
Removing any alignment restrictions on Paladin IS BUFFING THE CLASS.
The only reason everyone doesn't always play Paladins for every character they ever play is because they're stranded in a crappy alignment that's no fun to play. Remove that, and there's no disincentive to play a Paladin.
Yeah, I get that some players follow different Normative Ethics Theories than other players do, and that extends to some character confusion.
(reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics .. link won't work on 1/18 obviously)
But So Freaking What. It's a game, cruise on past that and get to the issue of game balance. If Paladin's didn't have to follow the law, then they'd be way too gross. There's supposed to be a drawback to having a Paladin in your group - it limits your groups available actions. That's the counterbalance, from a game design perspective, to the Paladin's Awesome Everythingness.
That just isn't true. Paladins were originally the best class and were given the alignment restriction to balance that, but 3E changed this and balanced the Paladin with the other classes. Paladins aren't as powerful as you seem to think. Even with the restriction removed, I have a Barbarian and a Soulknife in my current party, and I don't have a Paladin.
Plus, as Kirth said, using fluff to balance mechanics is not a good thing. It leads to all the Paladin drama that flies around. Personally, I don't think there should be a drawback to having a Paladin in the group.
If I remember correctly, isnt the OP the same person who asked if it was okay for her paladin to desecrate corpses and other shenanigans a few weeks ago?Yes, but I believe the paladin turned into an inquisitor. I could be wrong.
It does go a long way to explain this thread then. Thanks Mr. Bear!