|
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.
But who is to say they shouldn’t? That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, and I have no doubt that plenty of people will agree with you on it; however, the designers of every edition of Dungeons and Dragons prior to 4th, as well as the designers of Pathfinder had a different opinion, one which they’re also entitled to.
See, I don’t think the problem is so much that ‘Lawful paladins (or alignment restrictions on paladins) cause problems’, the root of the problem is that ‘alignment causes problems’. Many would argue that the alignment system of the game doesn’t work, and few would disagree that there seem to be a lot of people who have problems interpreting it. If you really want to get to the root of the problem you could argue that the alignment system should be clarified / revised / scrapped.
(Well, one could also suggest that the problem is really ‘problem players / problem GMs cause problems’, but no amount of arguing on a messageboard is going to solve that one).
It does go a long way to explain this thread then. Thanks Mr. Bear!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.
Actually, what happened is that the Paladin realized that the desecrating corpses thing was wrong and atoned with a priest. She very nearly became an inquisitor, but didn't.
Mothman, I actually did scrap alignment in my own games. In other's games, however, I am and will continue to be lawful good. I just don't think it should be a requirement. The trouble I think it causes is part of this, but I also believe that LG only Paladins don't make much sense.
(Well, one could also suggest that the problem is really ‘problem players / problem GMs cause problems’, but no amount of arguing on a messageboard is going to solve that one).Arguing on the internet does not solve problems?
Blasphemy!
It's still an issue for SOME people who play Paladins.plenty of GMs love to throw difficult moral situations (the classic law or good decision especially) at the Paladin or cause the Paladin to fall over stupid stuff.This is a problem with the GM, not the Paladin.
There, I fixed it for you...
I have played paladins and they don't go all lawful stupid, I usually tailor the code of conduct to the deity I follow, a paladin of Iomedae is much different than a Paladin of Shelyn. Where the Paladin of Iomedae would be more about carrying out justice, Shelyn's Paladin would be about the goodness, the lawful part being the solemn vow they gave to Shelyn to carry out good acts in her name.
Too many people do evil acts in the disguise of good.
Murdering an innocent in a city without due process is not Lawful; no matter how evil that person was. However tracking down that criminal after he flees the city and bringing him to justice outside the laws of a city is just fine, though he should probably have any bounty rewards donated to the victims and their families.
I had a paladin who got hold of a helm of opposite alignment once...
"Do you want to change or shall I punish you for your crimes?"
|
Mothman, I actually did scrap alignment in my own games. In other's games, however, I am and will continue to be lawful good. I just don't think it should be a requirement. The trouble I think it causes is part of this, but I also believe that LG only Paladins don't make much sense.
One version of paladins were the companions of Charlemagne and were exemplars of chivalry. They are also supposed to be knightly champions. I am not saying all knights followed the tenants of chivalry as they should, but paladins are seen to hold to a special code and embody their alignment: LG. I am not sure how you could justify a NG or CG person adhering to such a code without fundamentally altering the paladin class.
EDIT: Okay, there is room for debate I suppose! :D
|
|
I have played paladins and they don't go all lawful stupid, I usually tailor the code of conduct to the deity I follow, a paladin of Iomedae is much different than a Paladin of Shelyn. Where the Paladin of Iomedae would be more about carrying out justice, Shelyn's Paladin would be about the goodness, the lawful part being the solemn vow they gave to Shelyn to carry out good acts in her name.
I agree. I mentioned above that it is important to sit down with your player and make sure you're both on the same page. Work out the code of conduct together. I think there is room for change when you examine the different portfolios of the gods.
Chivalry was not what medieval stories, even those written in the medieval period, glossed it over to be. I'd classify it as a mutually beneficial (to the upper classes) lawful neutral code, not a lawful good way of life. Same with knights. A traditional LG Paladin looks nothing like a medieval knight or champion of chivalry. Too much good, not enough law, obedience, and brutal practicality.
A CG Paladin might be a champion of freedom and justice for all regardless of birth, and loathe oppression in all it's forms. Such an individual has an inborn distrust for the upper orders and authority in general, and tends to ignore them at best an openly oppose them at worst.
An NG Paladin, meanwhile, just doesn't care. She wants to do the most good possible, and has no particular leanings toward law or chaos. She'll support whichever side will do the most good in the current situation she is faced with.
|
|
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.
I don’t entirely agree. In my opinion the class was ‘balanced’ in 3rd edition to be generally a worse mechanical choice than the other full BAB classes (barbarian, fighter, ranger) even without the alignment and code of conduct restrictions. Smite evil and lay on hands generally sucked until mid-high levels, and the paladin’s MAD and comparative lack of feats meant that the class would rarely be as good in combat as a fighter or barbarian, and their spells and abilities did not make them as versatile as a ranger. There seemed to be a something of a trend amongst paladin players in 3e (as far as I have picked up anecdotally) to stay in the class until 6th level to get remove disease, then multiclass into another base class or a PrC.
Pathfinder definitely improved the class, and although all the martial classes were overhauled I would argue that paladins came out amongst the best. In fact, with quite a bit of experience playing paladins in Pathfinder I would say that they are arguably the best mechanical choice of martial characters in a campaign that features mostly evil aligned enemies (and really, which typical game doesn’t?), especially if that game is going to be undead / evil outsider / evil dragon heavy. I do feel that the alignment restriction and code of conduct work to balance this somewhat.
I think Kirth makes a reasonable and defensible argument about fluff balancing mechanics, but I don’t feel that it entirely applies in this case. I would argue that neither alignment nor the paladin’s code of conduct are ‘fluff’ – they are both game rules and both have mechanical implications. Alignment is defined in the game (sure, it’s open to interpretation, but so are a lot of the other game rules – anyone can find a way to interpret something in their favour or to prove their point if they try hard enough) and applies restrictions on some of the actions a character can take in the game, with penalties for non-compliance. Likewise with the code. I concede that the rules governing these are far more loosely defined and open to interpretation than many other game rules, but they ARE still rules and can be enforced by the GM.
|
|
I agree that a lot more people would probably play paladins if the alignment restriction was removed. I would suggest that they would become more popular in a ‘typical’ game than the other martial classes from a mechanical point of view. And you know what, if you have a class that everyone wants to play, it is probably too good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, from what I gather, and let me summarize here.
The OP has adamantly stated that she doesn't feel that one should be punished for wanting to the crunch of the paladin by having to adhere to the lawful alignment requirement. After all, she wants the class features, alignment is separate.
The OP has adamantly stated that neutral paladins are not ok, and removal of the good alignment requirement is not ok, and a player should have to be punished by submitting to those factors for playing the crunch of a paladin.
Have I about summed it up? If so, I think the hypocrisy levels just got a bit too high here for me.
Chivalry was not what medieval stories, even those written in the medieval period, glossed it over to be. I'd classify it as a mutually beneficial (to the upper classes) lawful neutral code, not a lawful good way of life. Same with knights. A traditional LG Paladin looks nothing like a medieval knight or champion of chivalry. Too much good, not enough law, obedience, and brutal practicality.
A CG Paladin might be a champion of freedom and justice for all regardless of birth, and loathe oppression in all it's forms. Such an individual has an inborn distrust for the upper orders and authority in general, and tends to ignore them at best an openly oppose them at worst.
An NG Paladin, meanwhile, just doesn't care. She wants to do the most good possible, and has no particular leanings toward law or chaos. She'll support whichever side will do the most good in the current situation she is faced with.
It's simple by RAW paladins are LG if you want to play a knight type with no restriction on alignment play a Cavalier.
If your GM is happy with a house rule that does away with alignment restrictions - all good and fine.
If not either suck it up or find a new GM.
I like the PF Rules and the Paizo design Philosophy that's why I bought them and not 4E or GURPS.
If you don't like the rule you can change it for your game if those around your table agree.
It's fine for you to suggest that they change it on their boards but don't be surprised when people don't like what you suggest and argue strongly against your opinion.
Law is Kantian/dentological and Chaos is consequentialist/utilitarian? :P
|
|
No, my idea of what an NG Paladin is isn't a Cleric or Inquisitor. My idea of a Paladin is that of a divine warrior in service to a deity (complete with full BAB, smite evil, lay on hands, channel positive energy, divine bond, and some cool archetypes), not of a divine investigator or divine caster.
If all you want is a NG "Paladin" then play Cleric or Inquisitor and role-play the way you want to, because clearly all you want from the "Paladin" is its name and abilities but nothing of what it is to be a Paladin.
QFT. Seems like what Brain in a Jar said above and Montana's response amount to EXACTLY the same thing.
|
|
Sorry Kelsey, but it seems that you want to play a paladin (you have said you love the powers, even though you do not appear to appreciate the other aspects of the class) and that you want to play something other than LG (even though you profess that it is your favourite alignment, your examples seem to suggest you struggle with it).
Really, I think the paladin as written does not sit well with your view of what a paladin should be as defined by the Pathfinder system. The examples I have seen of your character, especially your paladin in another thread, trend towards being outside the LG alignment. I really think you need to tailor the class to suit your own game and negotiate it with your GM at that time.
I am not saying your view is wrong, all I am saying is that there has been loads of options set out for you here today and you still come back to wanting a paladin that is NG or CG. I really recommend the Unearthed Arcana variants to help you match this class to your desired play style. As written, you cannot have your aboleth pie and eat it too.
I am not denying that there can be paragons of other alignments, sure they can exist and be awesome, but I think it would best be served by something new. Having the anti-paladin is enough. The paladin is an advocate and defender of a strict code and an alignment: LG. Leave it be and try to design a new class that best suits NG and CG.
EDIT: Alternatively, create a couple of archetypes for the paladin class and get us here on the forums to help you work them through. There are already a couple of threads on archetypes on the boards where you could ask for assistance.
This all could be easily settled with archetypes.
The first thing that would change would be the alignment
Champion of Shelyn (Paladin archetype)
Alignment Restriction: A Champion of Shelyn must be of Neutral Good alignment.
After that you go through the powers, determine what stays and what goes.
There could be a Champion archetype for each god. Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral might smite chaotic/lawful respectively.
Some gods could possibly smite something else based upon their god's portfolios. A Champion of Nethys might be an arcane caster instead, that has spell resistance instead of smite.
The beauty of archetypes is endless.
So, from what I gather, and let me summarize here.
The OP has adamantly stated that she doesn't feel that one should be punished for wanting to the crunch of the paladin by having to adhere to the lawful alignment requirement. After all, she wants the class features, alignment is separate.
The OP has adamantly stated that neutral paladins are not ok, and removal of the good alignment requirement is not ok, and a player should have to be punished by submitting to those factors for playing the crunch of a paladin.
Have I about summed it up? If so, I think the hypocrisy levels just got a bit too high here for me.
I wouldn't have a problem with a neutral equivalent with equivalents of the crunch (kind of like a neutral anti-Paladin). I think that, while changing the class to any good is nice, changing it to any alignment pretty much invalidates all it's crunch. Remember that the Paladin crunch is designed with a good aligned holy warrior in mind, not neutrality. A neutral Paladin wouldn't work without changing a lot of crunch, while an NG or CG class would.
Next time, please ask my why I don't support allowing neutral Paladins before calling me a hypocrite.
So, from what I gather, and let me summarize here.
The OP has adamantly stated that she doesn't feel that one should be punished for wanting to the crunch of the paladin by having to adhere to the lawful alignment requirement. After all, she wants the class features, alignment is separate.
The OP has adamantly stated that neutral paladins are not ok, and removal of the good alignment requirement is not ok, and a player should have to be punished by submitting to those factors for playing the crunch of a paladin.
Have I about summed it up? If so, I think the hypocrisy levels just got a bit too high here for me.
I wouldn't have a problem with a neutral equivalent with equivalents of the crunch (kind of like a neutral anti-Paladin). I think that, while changing the class to any good is nice, changing it to any alignment pretty much invalidates all it's crunch. Remember that the Paladin crunch is designed with a good aligned holy warrior in mind, not neutrality. A neutral Paladin wouldn't work without changing a lot of crunch, while an NG or CG class would.
Next time, please ask my why I don't support allowing neutral Paladins before calling me a hypocrite.
Why don't you support allowing neutral Paladins?
Also you are a Hypocrite.
See what i did there.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you label it solely lawful, I can't have a chaotic or neutral character that considers it highly important. That's my problem. Discipline and devotion may be lawful, and that doesn't bug me, but I contest being told a neutral good or chaotic good character couldn't also consider them highly important.
Ummm... if you label attributes like honor and discipline primarily lawful (appropriate, IMO)-- it DOES NOT MEAN that a Chaotic or Neutral character can't exhibit those attributes. Very few characters are going to be utterly, purely chaotic, or neutral, or lawful... if a character happens to be highly honorable and self-disciplined, but is also still a total individualist with a firm belief in ignoring any and all outside authorities-- sounds like a chaotic character to me, who just happens to have some attributes more commonly associated with lawful characters, but not enough of them to bend his alignment away from Chaos. With few exceptions, the alignment system and associated attributes are not generally rigid absolutes, particularly on the law/chaos spectrum (the good/evil spectrum is a little more harshly segregated, but neutral characters commonly share in attributes normally associated with good or evil, and good and evil characters commonly have at least a few attitudes and attributes more commonly found in neutral characters).
Paladins, however, are one of those rather rigid points. Regarding something else you said earlier-- if the problem is with people not playing the 'lawful good' alignment properly, then one doesn't need to fix the rules, one just needs to 'fix' the offending player's attitudes and actions.
Regarding the Paladin's dedication to Law and Good-- the way I've always seen it played, and the way I've always played Paladins-- devotion to Good comes first and foremost, as well as second, third... last and always. If there ever is a conflict between the clearly Good act, and the lawful act, then the Good wins every time and no Paladin should get into alignment/status problems for choosing the good over the law. Also, a Paladin must respect LEGITIMATE authority-- seen in the light of the Paladin's code and dedication to good, NO authority is considered legitimate when that authority is oppressing and mistreating innocents, condoning evil actions, ruling by terror and hatred, and/or committing evil as a fundamental part of its existence and authority. This is why Paladins can join in rebellions against the legally rightful authority within a land, if that authority (hereditary king, etc) is a brutal tyrant in the practice of their rule, while being in compliance with their code.
The Paladin is lawful, because he/she is truly disciplined, dedicated, and personally devoted to the principles of law IN SERVICE TO The Greater Good (not law by itself and good by itself); and is lawful also because he/she serves the greater good first, the good of an individual or a few individuals second. However, because the Paladin is a Paragon of Good, the devotion to serving the greater good does not support a Paladin following an "end justifies the means" approach to his/her conduct (if a Paladin tries to use that to justify clearly evil acts, except maybe when there really is no other choice available, that should cost the Paladin his/her holy status).
Played properly, this makes for an interesting character, but while being Lawful Good and utterly dedicated to their cause, is not nearly as difficult to integrate into a party, and to have working with other characters, as people keep making it out to be. The one caveat is, it works much better if most/all of the party are of good alignment (being good is enough-- having a wayward friend who is a bit of an individualist-- aka a chaotic good party member-- along with a Paladin really hasn't been that much of a problem in my experience). Lawful Good as written isn't the problem-- people insisting that Lawful Good must be Lawful Stupid or Lawful A**Hole seems to be the problem.
|
|
As far as I can tell the term "paladin" came about in the 16th century and is a French literary reference to the romantic view of Charlemagne and his 12 knights-in-attendance. Now, as far as I can see, the paladin is a paragon of chivalry who also devotes himself to a strict code. This is how the paladin in Pathfinder is presented. You can also get this information from dictionary.com.
I am going to try and clarify my stance and fail miserably in the long run... But here it goes.
Now Neutral Good and Chaotic Good deities are probably focused on causes just like Lawful Good deities. However, a Chaotic Good character probably follows his conscience and his actions are more likely to be dictated by the situation at hand. He respects the individuals right to freedom, but is less likely to respect society's authority and laws. The Chaotic Good character is probably going to believe in major laws and morality, such as murder and torture are bad, but he might walkaway from a fine because he insulted the overbearing innkeeper and disturbed the peace. A Chaotic Good character tends to be an individualist and not the sort of crusader that can dedicate himself 24/7 to a strict code of ethical behaviour and action. This does not mean he is not good, it means he likes to walk off the reservation at times and do things his way. The Chaotic Good character is probably going to hunt down evil when he encounters it. He is not the type of guy to necessarily devote himself to a strict cause and code to reach that objective. He might set himself a kind of moral behaviour, but it will be free of any authority other than his own.
Neutral Good characters do not like being tied down to strict codes of behaviour either. They are good, yes, but will they devote themselves to a strict code of conduct that restricts them to viewing that form of good one way? Yes, a Neutral Good cleric will see the world in a way similar to his deity, but his deity may also reach objectives by any means possible. Like the Chaotic Good character, the Neutral Good character will see major laws as important, but will probably put good over the law any day. This character will work within a set frame work (such as the law) but is more than morally okay with abandoning that framework to pursue his own course at any time. That is why we have Lawful Good. Now a Lawful Good character might abandon this alignment because he is unable to maintain that strict ethical position. The alignment system tries to cater for these different view points.
The paladin is someone dedicated to law and good. He is so devoted to these principles that he dedicates his life to a code of conduct that allows him to gain specific abilities from his deity. He may share the world with other paragons of virtue (clerics, inquisitors, oracles and rangers for example), but the paladin is unwavering his devotion to his ideals. Something the other alignments cannot adhere too, do not want to adhere to or just outright do not understand. The paladin is so determined that he is stands apart from other characters with different alignments. If you allow the other alignments to share this exact same dedication, then why have the paladin and lawful good? However, the other alignments have access to classes that better suit their view points, such as clerics, druids, inquisitors, oracles and rangers. These classes can receive powers from their deities as well.
The Lawful Good character is believes in defining his world with a code of conduct, existing in and working within a set of laws and usually has single dedication to oppose evil. Pursue it and to destroy it. The Neutral Good character will also oppose evil, but lacks the single-minded devotion to a strict ethical code. This character is willing to bend the rules, or throw them out the window, to see good done. The Chaotic Good character will willingly break the law, and while he will pursue evil as well, he will do a lot more to level the playing field. Usually in ways a Lawful Good person will see as unacceptable. Someone has got to be the hero, but sometimes the hero needs friends who will do something that his code would not normally allow. May be the paladin is better off with his Neutral Good and Chaotic Good friends around to back him up. However, they lack that unwavering devotion to a single code of conduct that is exemplified by the paladin.
Yes, the anti-paladin is the antithesis of the paladin. He exists to commit deeds that are in stark contrast to the paladin. However, the anti-paladins code and powers reflect his odd, and very rare, nature. If you allow something like a paragon class, then you can set up something that is better suited to characters of different alignments.
My rant is over. Alternatively, go here for all your Lawful Good dietary needs.
|
|
Paladin and druid are the only two classes with alignment restrictions that I agree with.
Alignment is subjective, it is put into several classes as a mechanic and therefore becomes objective. It has to be done on a case by case basis and GM's should sit down with their players beforehand to work out basic guidelines for their own subjective views of what *enter alignment term here* "really" means. In my opinion this should be a compromise between GM and Player(s). If alignment is really THAT big of a deal in your* campaigns and stops game-play for a lengthy discussion on the matter, then its probably best just to hand-wave the mechanic or avoid those classes entirely.
*Not naming anyone specifically, just using the second person.
It's put into almost every spell-casting class and the effects every class, monster, etc., faces from certain spells being cast/on them, and from certain "aligned" weapons and items being used on them (as well as whether they can use some items or not)-- "Detect <alignment>" spells, Holy/Unholy/Axiomatic/Anarchic Smites, Holy, Unholy, Axiomatic and Anarchic weapons, etc.
If alignment inside the game universe were subjective (not saying it's not subjective OUTSIDE the game, in the RL discussions we keep having around here), it's rather hard to see how the rest of these game mechanics can work.
|
|
I propose that Tyranny is just as consonant with Chaos as Anarchy is. Neither is the Rule of Law.
Depends on the tyrant.
A tyrant who rules entirely for his own aggrandizement, treating the entire country as his personal plaything, who rules through power and through his people's fear of his power, without respect for the idea that his people have any rights, and no real concern for his people's health and well-being other than for how that enables them to continue serving him.... is chaotic, and probably evil as well.
A tyrant who establishes law and order, is concerned with his people as well as with himself, considers himself bound by his own laws and is concerned with ruling justly and fairly... is probably lawful. Maybe even good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I *still* think it's all about that "kill,burn,castrate" (further abbreviated as k-b-c) Paladin.
See, Kelsey, you consider that character to be within LG. You consider k-b-c behavior Lawful, RAW arguably doesn't, you want to play k-b-c Paladins so you ask for RAW to be changed as to that to be possible.
In two words: fat chance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.
No.
Alignments don't kill games. People kill games.
Plenty of good games happen with paladins in them. You probably don't want to censor the whole internet in a misguided attempt to chase down a few pirates. Similarly, you don't break a mechanic because some idiot pissed you off once.
|
|
One version of paladins were the companions of Charlemagne and were exemplars of chivalry. They are also supposed to be knightly champions.
Yes, the stories about Charlemagne's 'Paladins'-- his leading knights in the legends-- are the source for the word Paladin, and the roots of the archetype, although it goes through several more series of medieval and renaissance tales (including Malory's version of Le Morte D'Arthur), and then a lot of fantasy books, before it made its first appearance in Dungeons & Dragons, in the Greyhawk supplement for the original game.
|
|
Chivalry was not what medieval stories, even those written in the medieval period, glossed it over to be. I'd classify it as a mutually beneficial (to the upper classes) lawful neutral code, not a lawful good way of life. Same with knights. A traditional LG Paladin looks nothing like a medieval knight or champion of chivalry. Too much good, not enough law, obedience, and brutal practicality.
True, "chivalry" such as it was, in reality was nothing like even the stories and tales from Middle Ages would have you believe it was. I don't think trying to define such limited chivalry as did exist in the real world in the limited, unrealistic alignment terms of the game, is a worthwhile effort, although I suppose LN is as good an argument for it as any. The 'traditional LG <game> Paladin' look nothing like a medieval knight or <real version of a fictional concept, like a> champion of chivalry-- then again, hardly ANYTHING in the D&D games really comes out looking like the 'magnificent bastards' who were the real leading knights of the Middle Ages.
Paladins and other Holy Warriors (such as Clerics-- in spite of the tenuous explanation of Warrior-Priests in the Crusades) weren't inspired by reality, they were inspired by myths, legends, sagas, poems, stories... in short, fiction!
Want the "real" inspiration for the D&D Paladin? Go back and read Sir Thomas Malory... pay close attention to Galahad and Percival (for Paladins who never fell) and Lancelot (for a Paladin who fell from grace but did not turn to evil after falling)-- there's the root inspiration for the class, and to most people, Galahad, Percival, et al. really do look like LAWFUL Good in game terms.
|
As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective.
...in a world derived from a game system where places like "The Temple of Elemental Evil" existed.
Law/Chaos Good/Evil are most certainly forces in this game, as much as Paladins are Lawful Good.
From what I gather, Paladins in your game should include all class features, no roleplay restrictions, and smite <no alignment needed>. That pretty much cover it?
I personally like the idea Jacobs provided, which is that Paladins should be a prestige class and nobody's "right" to play in the first place. That solves a lot of "Lawful Douche" issues.
As for alignment as an objective force, I disagree. It causes more rules arguments than anything else and is played differently at every gaming table, and is therefore pretty clearly subjective....in a world derived from a game system where places like "The Temple of Elemental Evil" existed.
Law/Chaos Good/Evil are most certainly forces in this game, as much as Paladins are Lawful Good.
From what I gather, Paladins in your game should include all class features, no roleplay restrictions, and smite <no alignment needed>. That pretty much cover it?
I personally like the idea Jacobs provided, which is that Paladins should be a prestige class and nobody's "right" to play in the first place. That solves a lot of "Lawful Douche" issues.
A prestige class for Cleric or Fighter?
If a paladin starts murdering monster babies, he better be prepared to atone, that's all I have to say in my games.
Having not read the entire thread, I present the following fix to Paladins.
Remove the Lawful Good alignment restriction, and make it "same as patron deity". Thus they are reflavored and renamed to Templars, the militant arm of a church. Like how Inquisitors are the shadowy CIA special forces of a church.
The result? No need for an Anti-Paladin class, since it gets folded into the 'evil' aspect of certain Templars. It certainly would allow for less Lawful Stupid for those that like to play the paladin-esque character, and allow more to do with the Law/Chaos rivalry that is so under-used. If anything it would require perhaps even more RP crunch restrictions given the need to adhere to a specific alignment. It just provides more alignments to be.
It might result in more pages than the Cleric, but I personally believe the Cleric should get more options concerning Law/Chaos as well.
I'll probably expand more on this later. Right now I can't seem to pull the full idea from the back of my head, beyond a simple summary I have placed here.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like LG Paladins.
If you don't want to be LG, don't play a Paladin.
If the Paladin is being 'disruptive', then it's not the game mechanics, it's a disconnect between the players at your table. Either Pallyman is being an asshat, or the other players can't get away with being Selfharm McGoth the N3c20m4nc3r and having a sook that CN is totally legit and not-evil and the Paladin is calling them out on their Gouda again.
So thats not mechanics, thats players.
Fix the players and the problem goes away like magic!
|
|
I personally like the idea Jacobs provided, which is that Paladins should be a prestige class and nobody's "right" to play in the first place. That solves a lot of "Lawful Douche" issues.A prestige class for Cleric or Fighter?
If a paladin starts murdering monster babies, he better be prepared to atone, that's all I have to say in my games.
A) I think either one--no need to require "Fighter AND Cleric" really. I'm fine with Paladin as-is, even after having suffered some really bad Paladins, but I think the Paladin as a Prestige class makes a LOT of sense, too.
B) I'm with you on that. Bestiary and legacy stuff like the MM's all listed alignments as central tendency, and you could say that nurture is more important than nature for humanoids and perhaps most Prime Material natives. I'd probably be okay with the slaughter of Evil subtypes, but there's not much grey there since you're usually talking about demons/devils and the like, evil incarnate.
|
I think there are two main issues here. One is the historical idea of the paladin, both in terms of what it represents and how it has been represented in game since the class sprung into being.
Secondly there is the in game concept as it is in Pathfinder and Golarion. A holy warrior should represent their deity. I find it unreasonable that a priest of a warrior god such as Gorum should have anything less that full BA progression, but that must be balanced and that is what the paladin class does very well. However, if you aren't following a LG deity then you can't play a paladin... So there are no Paladins of Gorum and no priests with a full BA.
In my opinion, the paladin class as it stands represents a modern perception of a historical ideal. That is why it is so appealing to many, sometime to the detriment of others.
In game terms however I think the paladin, clerics, inquisitors, should all follow the same divine code of their deity. They are all different flavours of the devoted. The Faiths of Purity Supplement (and I assume the others relating to neutral and evil deities)contain relevant taboos goals, identifiers, relating to the faith. This seems far more relevant than a blanket code, but not so easy to place in Core Rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like LG Paladins.
If you don't want to be LG, don't play a Paladin.
If the Paladin is being 'disruptive', then it's not the game mechanics, it's a disconnect between the players at your table. Either Pallyman is being an asshat, or the other players can't get away with being Selfharm McGoth the N3c20m4nc3r and having a sook that CN is totally legit and not-evil and the Paladin is calling them out on their Gouda again.
So thats not mechanics, thats players.
Fix the players and the problem goes away like magic!
Amen brother.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seems like more of a stupidity issue than a game mechanics issue.The problem is that the mechanics are the cause of the majority of the stupidity.No.
Alignments don't kill games. People kill games.
Plenty of good games happen with paladins in them. You probably don't want to censor the whole internet in a misguided attempt to chase down a few pirates. Similarly, you don't break a mechanic because some idiot pissed you off once.
You mean like the kind of DM who bans Concept Clerics because some munchkin had ticked him off last time that option was allowed? :D
Anyway, I don't think the Paladin's Lawful alignment or the Code of Conduct in themselves are really problems, but this depends on two factors. First one is HOW your group uses the alignment system (which most people don't really know how to handle for one reason or another and is one big reason why I've usually just tossed alignment discussions aside) and how your DM works out the game (forcing you to play with not-so-subtle Evil characters or Chaotic Neutral ones who lack morals and telling you that YOU are the only obstructive player is one thing I've seen go wrong), both of which aren't usually done too well as I've shown with those two nice examples I've used.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like LG Paladins.
If you don't want to be LG, don't play a Paladin.
If the Paladin is being 'disruptive', then it's not the game mechanics, it's a disconnect between the players at your table. Either Pallyman is being an asshat, or the other players can't get away with being Selfharm McGoth the N3c20m4nc3r and having a sook that CN is totally legit and not-evil and the Paladin is calling them out on their Gouda again.
So thats not mechanics, thats players.
Fix the players and the problem goes away like magic!
Amen brother.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I have the newsletter that particular idea comes from, it’s called the Pathfinder RPG Core Rules. If more people read them properly and made a bit of an effort to understand them there’d be a lot less useless noise around.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like LG Paladins.
If you don't want to be LG, don't play a Paladin.
If the Paladin is being 'disruptive', then it's not the game mechanics, it's a disconnect between the players at your table. Either Pallyman is being an asshat, or the other players can't get away with being Selfharm McGoth the N3c20m4nc3r and having a sook that CN is totally legit and not-evil and the Paladin is calling them out on their Gouda again.
So thats not mechanics, thats players.
Fix the players and the problem goes away like magic!
Yeah I am likin' it Shifty.
I think there are two main issues here. One is the historical idea of the paladin, both in terms of what it represents and how it has been represented in game since the class sprung into being.
Secondly there is the in game concept as it is in Pathfinder and Golarion. A holy warrior should represent their deity. I find it unreasonable that a priest of a warrior god such as Gorum should have anything less that full BA progression, but that must be balanced and that is what the paladin class does very well. However, if you aren't following a LG deity then you can't play a paladin... So there are no Paladins of Gorum and no priests with a full BA.
In my opinion, the paladin class as it stands represents a modern perception of a historical ideal. That is why it is so appealing to many, sometime to the detriment of others.
In game terms however I think the paladin, clerics, inquisitors, should all follow the same divine code of their deity. They are all different flavours of the devoted. The Faiths of Purity Supplement (and I assume the others relating to neutral and evil deities)contain relevant taboos goals, identifiers, relating to the faith. This seems far more relevant than a blanket code, but not so easy to place in Core Rules.
Gorum has antipaladins. There is your full BAB.
So, from what I gather, and let me summarize here.
The OP has adamantly stated that she doesn't feel that one should be punished for wanting to the crunch of the paladin by having to adhere to the lawful alignment requirement. After all, she wants the class features, alignment is separate.
The OP has adamantly stated that neutral paladins are not ok, and removal of the good alignment requirement is not ok, and a player should have to be punished by submitting to those factors for playing the crunch of a paladin.
Have I about summed it up? If so, I think the hypocrisy levels just got a bit too high here for me.
I wouldn't have a problem with a neutral equivalent with equivalents of the crunch (kind of like a neutral anti-Paladin). I think that, while changing the class to any good is nice, changing it to any alignment pretty much invalidates all it's crunch. Remember that the Paladin crunch is designed with a good aligned holy warrior in mind, not neutrality. A neutral Paladin wouldn't work without changing a lot of crunch, while an NG or CG class would.
Next time, please ask my why I don't support allowing neutral Paladins before calling me a hypocrite.
No, the paladin was designed as a lawful good holy warrior in mind. Once you start removing some of those barriers because you want the crunch without them, its entirely hypocritical not to remove them all.
That was my point, and it stands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a Good vs Lawful scenario for a Paladin.
A war widow took in several orphans. However, between her own kids, the orphans, and the fact that the economy busted over the now ended war (and her dead husband's side lost), she has no money. She can't pay her rent.
The LN owner of the property goes to a court, has her evicted from his property. The LN sheriff sends his deputies to ensure she leaves the property after being served with her eviction.
Now, it seems some people want to play a Paladin as someone who'd bust the heads of the sheriff and the landlord, threaten them (maybe kill the landlord and leave his mutilated corpse as a warning for other evil landlords who'd throw orphans out on the street).
However, Good does not out weight Law if the Law is not Evil. In this situation, the Paladin cannot go 'stabitykill' the sheriff or the landlord, that would be Evil. The best he can do is go talk to the landlord and try to get him to be compassionate (note the landlord is LN, so has no reason to do so). Or the Paladin can pay her rent for a year, or the Paladin can go to his church and ask them to help the widow (although they're swamped probably due to the loss of the war and everyone else who needs help).
In this case, the Paladin might just have to walk away without doing any 'good' for the widow and orphans, because there's just nothing he can do.
Another scenario, the Paladin enters a country he's never been in before, but has heard that they condone slavery. He's on a crusade to topple this evil empire!
But... when he get's there, he finds that the 'slaves' are actually indentured servitude criminals. Criminals get a trial, and if they're a danger to the populace, they're killed. If they're deemed not a danger, then they're enslaved for a number of years based on their crime. If they owe money, they're enslaved based on how much someone will pay for them for a given amount of time. So if someone is in debt for say, 5,000gp, and as an unskilled laborer they can make only a 100gp per year, then they're enslaved for 50 years to pay off their debt.
The Paladin finds that the country in question is LN, not LE as he supposed. He finds there are laws in place to protect the 'slaves', to ensure they're not used for anything dangerous unless they agree to it (usually for a shortening of their indenture term), and generally the populace is happy and healthy.
People usually say 'Slavery is Evil' but in this case, I posit that if the Paladin started going around freeing slaves he'd be a whirlwind of chaos. If he killed slave owners, I'd posit he's doing evil acts.
Honestly, it seems like some people want to play the equivalent of four-color comics. For those not in the know, four color comics refers to the era of comics where they were officially censored by the gubbmint, no sex, no realistic violence, no complex themes that might be considered 'soft' on communism, etc. At the time, the comics were printed using just four colors, as it was cheap and easy. There was no moral ambiguity at all, evil was evil, good was good. Superman was born in this era. And that's fine if that's how you want to play it in your games, but this does not mean you can dictate that everyone else is doing it wrong. That's what this tread seems to me to be about, "everyone else is having BadWrongFun and I want it stopped now!" seems to be the theme.
See, Kelsey, you consider that character to be within LG. You consider k-b-c behavior Lawful, RAW arguably doesn't, you want to play k-b-c Paladins so you ask for RAW to be changed as to that to be possible.
The problem is that Kelsey's view of the Lawful Good alignment is a legitimate argument within the confines of RAW and a moral viewpoint shared by a large number of people in real life. Now we could argue as to whether or not those people are themselves Good according to the alignment system-- I would argue that they, like myself, are not-- but I think we can both agree that having that argument, however much fun that is, is mutually exclusive with pretending to be an elf and that any fun we might have from having that argument is going to be spoiled by giving one of us the power to punish the other for disagreeing.
Mechanics that disrupt and spoil games are bad mechanics. Blaming the stupid players for allowing the mechanics to do this is a poor creative philosophy, especially when the rules themselves provide no guidance for avoiding these problems. Either the rules that encourage this form of dickery need to be removed, or they need to be amended to include clear guidelines for applying the rules in a fashion that does not spoil the game.
Chief among those guidelines would be that legitimate disagreements over moral philosophy do not constitute violations of any in-game Code of Conduct.
Great example with the Widow, MDT. And definitely a case where the law is important. As a Lawful Paladin, personally after speaking to the landlord and seeing what could be done, I would think the next step is speaking to the local priest of their patron deity and seeing if a case for some charity could be established by the faith.
See? Lawful, AND good. and we didn't even cut anyone's genitals off today.
Honestly, it seems like some people want to play the equivalent of four-color comics. For those not in the know, four color comics refers to the era of comics where they were officially censored by the gubbmint, no sex, no realistic violence, no complex themes that might be considered 'soft' on communism, etc. At the time, the comics were printed using just four colors, as it was cheap and easy. There was no moral ambiguity at all, evil was evil, good was good. Superman was born in this era.
I think the problem is less that people want different playstyles and are accusing each other of badwrongfun, and more than people don't seem to understand playstyle they do want; they're presenting the players with moral ambiguities and difficult moral decisions and then "punishing" them for choosing "wrong". They're giving their players Iron Age problems and demanding they come up with Silver Age solution.
You'll notice it never happens in reverse: I've never seen someone start an alignment thread complaining about losing their Paladin powers for letting the Joker get away after murdering a family because "killing him would be wrong".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See? Lawful, AND good. and we didn't even cut anyone's genitals off today.
Day's still young.