Really? I would think a Chaotic Evil creature that was given power by their deity to go rape, pillage, and murder, just because it spreads evil in the world or the deity finds it funny, would have NO problem serving in that situation.Though... Chaotic implies 'not wanting to be told what to do...' Doesn't really hold too well with being commanded to do ANYTHING.. They may follow along for a WHILE... but chaotic by nature will get bored and do their own thing.
While, I've never been a fan of people who claim 'Lawful Good only means having a code they won't break, REGARDLESS of what those rules are'... There is SOMETHING off about Chaotic characters toeing the line like this...
I guess we'll just have to disagree here. By their very nature, I feel that a chaotic god wouldn't need to tell their champion what they want done. Assuming they have the same or similar beliefs, when presented with a particular situation, I would expect that champion to do what their god wants based on their own merit.
LG Paladins have the same deal. It's not like their god tells them exactly what they need to do in every situation to avoid a fall. The paladin is expected to be able to make their own decisions, and I would hope that they are serving a god that has the same values as they do. If not, that's how a Pally falls.
|
I guess we'll just have to disagree here. By their very nature, I feel that a chaotic god wouldn't need to tell their champion what they want done. Assuming they have the same or similar beliefs, when presented with a particular situation, I would expect that champion to do what their god wants based on their own merit.
LG Paladins have the same deal. It's not like their god tells them exactly what they need to do in every situation to avoid a fall. The paladin is expected to be able to make their own decisions, and I would hope that they are serving a god that has the same values as they do. If not, that's how a Pally falls.
That's exactly how I feel about this. A nonlawful paladin/champion's code of conduct isn't based on some external authority imposing restrictions on him, it's based on the fact that by nature of being a paladin/champion of a particular alignment he embodies a particular set of values. Since those values, whatever they are, are the source of the paladin/champion's strength, if they betray those values they lose their abilities.
According to my sample code of conduct, the ones who fail to undermine lawful authority, or use compulsion magic, will fall. A CN champion is more than a CN character, he is firmly and if necessary violently committed to being CN. And if he doesn't fight the Law, the Law wins.
And who do they smite?? Lawful people? What about the "N" Paladins? What kind of code exists for characters who don't feel strongly about... anything?? Who do they smite? Nobody? Everybody??Chaotic paladins could absolutely smite Law, and a True Neutral Paladin could smite a particular...?????
Does that sound like a viable PC? Frankly it sounds like the Joker to me... Does that mean that CN paladin has to try to kill EVERY guard? Every Judge? Every official of any kind? Or else he falls?
No more than a LG paladin is expected to kill every pickpocket. The CN is allowed some level of pragmatism and isn't required to take suicidal actions. He also isn't required to kill everyone, since that sort of disregard for life falls into CE pretty fast. But he would be expected for example to perform a distraction in order to allow a petty criminal to flee from guards, to pass a prisoner in manacles a lockpick, to seek out and share information that would discredit elected officials or even better entire positions of office or government agencies, or to regularly play pranks that do little real harm but keep their victims on their toes. If he is able to do these things and fails to do so, he's not championing CN any more and falls.
Ummmm... that neutral Paladin gets FOUR smite targets except for the standards three... and does he get enough 'detect' spells to pinpoint all four corners??
It's not ideal, but in most campaigns your enemies are skewed towards half of the alignment chart (usually evil) so the N paladin won't actually be using all the corner smites equally. A N paladin could get "Detect extreme alignment" which allows him to tell whether someone is a corner alignmnent, but not which corner alignment.
|
|
I still say the problem with that is most deities are not Chaotic because they have any real beef with the law. They might resent authority a little, and not like people telling them what they can and cannot do, but I see very few as being anarchists. Same thing with Neutral, most things are not neutral because they have a love of balance but because they don't care much about it one way or another. Lawful Good is sort of the exception to the rule. Almost every Lawful Good Character has the same ideals. The want to protect people, help the weak, and uphold order. Lawful Good is much more defined then the other Alignments. Almost all Lawful Good deities are pretty similar.
The code of conduct can be altered to fit the specific deity's interests. I'm not an expert on the Golarion pantheon, but I know that the codes of LG Paladins of different deities can be markedly different. Paladins of Sarenrae (NG) and Torag (LG) have extremely different ideas about mercy and forgiveness. I'd also expect notable differences between a Paladin of Iomedae (LG, Valour, Honour, Rulership) and a Paladin of Erastil (LG, Family, Trade, Hunting).
Not saying there could not be Champions of Chaos, but they would be 10 times as rare as a Paladin and probably 10 times as disruptive as an Evil PC.
Lawful Champions would probably be more prominent. In order to prevent disruptive characters I would require that a player wanting to play a Chaotic Champion talk with me first about the character concept to make sure that we're on the same page about conduct and that the character will fit well with the campaign and the rest of the party. But then I've seen plenty of people on this forum advocate that sort of discussion before a player takes on any paladin.
...Why should only Lawful Good gods (in theory really*)have Paladins? Or warriors with holy might, to follow them.
Every god SHOULD be 'able" (not required) to empower a warrior in a similar way to a paladin, regardless of the god's alignment, and should have those followers follow a code of conduct based on the deities way of existing. Whatever that may be..
Two associates of mine (Oceanshieldwolf and Bardess) and I have recently reworked the old 2E alternate paladin classes, basing them primarily on the oldskool feel and abilities, but upgrading them to PF. So, they don't really look at all like the 3.5E versions (Sentinel, Enforcer, etc.), but upgraded Myrikhan, Lyan, etc. Though a few abilities from the 3.5E versions did make it into the reworked version we did, primarily because they were in flavor with the oldskool versions, and we needed to fill in some of the gaping dead levels that existed from adapting them to PF rules and power levels.
Our work on the MultiClass Archetypes helped a lot in being able to recreate the flavor of those oldskool paladin alternates, but upgraded their abilities so they are unique and colorful in their own right, including their own Code of Conduct. Much like the paladin is for LG. We are currently going over them to check ability balance, etc.
I personally feel that there should "paladins" for each alignment, and they should be just as fun, and playable as the paladin is.
The cavalier has a few Orders (Order of the Star and Blue Rose, I think) that fit the role of holy warrior as well.
Lets put it this way?
every god has tenants he wants followed. Every god has clerics. why should only Lawful Good gods (in theory really*)have Paladins? Or warriors with holy might, to follow them.
Evey god SHOULD be 'able" (not required) to empower a warrior in a similar way to a paladin, regardless of the god's alignment, and should have those followers follow a code of conduct based on the deities way of existing. Whatever that may be..
While golarion might be different, the core rules do not state that a paladin is empowered by it's god. Paladins are empowered by their faith and by their ideals, not strictly bound to a god just like how rangers and druids aren't (while they still may have a god, and in some settings like FR has to have one). While there are clerics of ideals or whatever, the baseline cleric gets it's power from it's patron deity - that is not the case for the paladin.
The reason only LG/NG/LN gods have paladins isn't because they have a special ability to grant smites and the like, it's because paladins generally wouldn't want to serve a god that is chaotic or evil.
Just like how most lawful gods won't have that many barbarian followers or like how good gods don't have antipaladin followers.
I know things might work differently in Golarion, I'm just stating the baseline (and it's the same as in 3.x, don't know about earlier).
Ultimately it would be easier to do away with the Paladin as a class, and rename it to something else more universal, and give it more or less the same power spread the paladin class has NOW, just with the various alignment flavors changed to the alignment ideals of the deity. (Smite Good to smite evil. Protection from Good to Protection from Evil, etc.)
Since we already get and or have books on the various deities.. a small section saying whether or not they empower beings that way in their service, and what they are expected to behave like.. is a small thing.
There's no REAL good viable reason Paladins should exist as the only form of empowered warrior as a CORE class, in the game.
They aren't. Clerics. Rangers. Some barbarians. Druids. Bards.
Though I still think paladin is about as clear-cut prestige class material as there ever was.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Paladins are Paladins.
- Classes that are not Paladins, are not Paladins.
- Ergo: when you want to be something that isn't a Paladin, you can't be a Paladin.
Why is it that so many people complain about the exclusiveness or even the existence of the paladin class, when really they don't want to play a paladin anyway? Play a martial Cleric. Play a divinely inspired Fighter, or a chivalrous Ranger. Create your own Divine Warrior class, for whatever alignment you chose (if any) and with whichever code you want (ditto).
But you can't be a Paladin. Paladins are Paladins, and you chose not to be one.
Dot.
Keeping the Paladin as LG only makes as much sense to me as restricting the Barbarian to CN, the Druid to NN, and the Inquisitor and Witch to CE.
Except there are numerous examples of good barbarians and witches in our cultural framework, druids are so fuzzy and generally don't have an archetypal alignment and the same can be said for inquisitors (if I had to put alignment to the stereotypical inquisitor, it would be lawful neutral (of the mercykiller LN variant)).
The barbarian's background are savage warriors, influenced by conan, some american natives, nordic berserkers etc. Alignment isn't a main part of the design.
The druids background are both in the celtic druids and in other nature religions across the world, with themes like reincarnation, trees with souls etc. Alignment isn't a main part of the design.
Inquisitors are based on, well, the inquisitions. Which were very rules-based, so there alignment actually is relevant to some extent. But I wouldn't ever limit to CE, that to me makes no sense.
Witches are based on a combination of a lot of different witch folklores with some nature religion/shamanism themes thrown in for good measure. Alignment also isn't a main part of the design.
The Paladins have their background in the righteous, holy, self-sacrificing knight. The knights of the round table, St George (guess why smite has bonus vs dragons?) etc.
I can't really see any remarkable historical/mythological/fantasy personas I feel are "like paladins but of a different alignment". It feels as if most would have a different set of skills. William Wallace? Nothing supernatural. The Knight Kato from Mio My Son? Possibly, but very vague about his abilities. Arawn Death-Lord? Yeah, maybe - but just swapping the alignments of a paladin wouldn't make a fitting class for Arawn.
So basically, while they could strip the paladin of that background and put in a generic "warrior with god-given powers but less power than clerics" theme, it would make the class more "meta" in that it doesn't reflect on themes that where there before the game itself, so to speak. That's not inherently wrong, but one should be careful about doing stuff like that as to not make the game feel more "shallow". (Not saying anyone playing with that is playing a more shallow game - just that some people feel a class without a cultural background feels flat)
|
|
Ilya, I absolutely understand the value of a cultural backing for a class, but I think that in this case we are biased by a tendency to see LG as the best, most virtuous, or most pure alignment. I personally do not think that the generally LG outlook of the cultural knight makes it core to that concept any more than the prevalent idea of the wicked witch makes a chaotic or evil alignment core to that concept.
- Paladins are Paladins.
- Classes that are not Paladins, are not Paladins.
- Ergo: when you want to be something that isn't a Paladin, you can't be a Paladin.
Why is it that so many people complain about the exclusiveness or even the existence of the paladin class, when really they don't want to play a paladin anyway? Play a martial Cleric. Play a divinely inspired Fighter, or a chivalrous Ranger. Create your own Divine Warrior class, for whatever alignment you chose (if any) and with whichever code you want (ditto).But you can't be a Paladin. Paladins are Paladins, and you chose not to be one.
That's all well and good, but it says nothing about what the core definition of a Paladin actually is.
In 2E, a Paladin had to be human. That was part of what a Paladin was. If you chose to be an elf or halfling or half-orc, you chose not to be a Paladin. In 3E racial restrictions were lifted but you still had a mount feature because being a mounted knight was part of what a Paladin was. If you didn't want the mount, you either chose not to be a Paladin or you chose to leave your faithful steed at home. In PF someone decided that the mount wasn't a core part of a Paladin and changed the class feature.
Maybe it's time to decide that "LG" isn't such an important part of what a Paladin is either. Obviously this isn't current RAW, but in 2E an elven paladin wasn't RAW either and no one argues with that one now.
I propose that a Paladin is:
- A warrior
- Charismatic
- Totally dedicated to some ideal or cause
- Empowered by that dedication
If you want to make a character with that description you can choose to be a paladin whether or not you are LG.
Now the 4e paladin had an even clearer role, and there were "alt" paladins too, in a way. (The avenger is like a sneaky paladin, the blackguard is a killy antipaladin, etc.)
4e's lack of traditional hang-ups is one of my favorite things about it. :)
In 2E, a Paladin had to be human. That was part of what a Paladin was. If you chose to be an elf or halfling or half-orc, you chose not to be a Paladin. In 3E racial restrictions were lifted but you still had a mount feature because being a mounted knight was part of what a Paladin was. If you didn't want the mount, you either chose not to be a Paladin or you chose to leave your faithful steed at home. In PF someone decided that the mount wasn't a core part of a Paladin and changed the class feature.
Maybe it's time to decide that "LG" isn't such an important part of what a Paladin is either. Obviously this isn't current RAW, but in 2E an elven paladin wasn't RAW either and no one argues with that one now.
Bingo. Traditions change and fade. The paladin is no different.
What mechanically do the pro-any alignment group feel is a must keep for the new class? I am curious if you all have the...
Speaking for myself, I just don't see a problem with having a base class that focuses on hacking villains to bits with a pinch of divine magic thrown in. That isn't arbitrarily restricted to one particular alignment.
This can be accomplished by designing different paladin-like classes for each alignment, but that's a lot of effort to achieve a result that could be achieved by simply dropping the paladin's alignment restriction, modifying the CoC into something more deity/alignment/philosophy-dependent like the cleric's, and adding a bit of text about Smite Evil/Good/Law/Chaos.
The only problem in NN paladins, who don't have an opposing alignment to smite. So they'd likely need some alternate class feature.
Super Genius Games filled that niche for me...twice. First with the Templar a base class that is a holy warrior type without the baggage of the Paladin. Then with the Justicar from their inquisitor's judgements product, which is a judgement focused full bab version of the inquisitor. Both make great non-paladiny holy (or unholy) warriors.
Ilya, I absolutely understand the value of a cultural backing for a class, but I think that in this case we are biased by a tendency to see LG as the best, most virtuous, or most pure alignment. I personally do not think that the generally LG outlook of the cultural knight makes it core to that concept any more than the prevalent idea of the wicked witch makes a chaotic or evil alignment core to that concept.
It's not about that, it's about there being loads of non-chaotic evil witches throughout literature with very few not-lawful good holy righteous knights in shining armor that smite evil. There are loads of heroes that aren't holy righteous guys, but those generally have a different set of skills and themes.
That's why I tried looking for other examples where the mechanic themes of the paladin class would fit for a character from some other cultural work. Arawn is the closest thing I've found, but there's no real smiting good going on there either - Arawn could as easily be done with a fighter or cavalier. I think LN or LE "paladins" _might_ work, but lawfulness in methods is so ingrained in the class that removing that will remove a big part of what the class is.
The guys that aren't heavy on the lawful traits in literature and movies often don't fit with the paladin mechanics well, and neither do the evil characters. Now that I think of it, someone like Darth Vader could maybe be an LE "alternate paladin" - He's kinda empowered by his faith and ideals, he actively fights good and freedom and so on. He doesn't seem to have a particular code of conduct though, other than "obey the emperor".
I propose that a Paladin is:
A warrior
Charismatic
Totally dedicated to some ideal or cause
Empowered by that dedicationIf you want to make a character with that description you can choose to be a paladin whether or not you are LG.
To me, "charismatic" is far less central to the role of the paladin than the code of conduct is. I'd have no issues with a wisdom, or maybe even intelligence based archetype of a paladin - in fact, I think it's kind of bad that they had to drop wisdom-powered casting from 3.5 (though understandable for balance reasons).
|
|
I also like Wis on a Paladin, but I think there are more unwise knights out there than uncharismatic ones, and also the focus on Cha over Wis separates them from most other divine classes.
I've seen Aragorn modeled as a Ranger/Paladin multiclass (the Lay on Hands is big), and I think he fits a NG alignment rather than LG because despite being the King, he really mostly cares about doing what's right without any clear bias towards law or chaos. IIRC, he doesn't even really care about the kingship until Elrond tells him he has to be king before he can marry Arwen.
I've also seen a CG Paladin in my group roleplayed extremely well. Self-sacrificing to a fault, literally saved the soul of her worst enemy, always the first to say Screw the Rules, I'm Doing What's Right.
I personally think that given the Paladin's current focus on Detecting and Smiting Evil, if we're going to do away with alignment restrictions gradually the obvious change is "any Good" rather than "any Lawful."
I think LG is more important then the first two to be honest. Charismatic is important but if I remember correctly Paladins in 2ed cast using wisdom. I could be wrong on that point. They also needed a Cha of like 17, now you can have a lower Cha then that if you want. You will be losing out a bit it you do, but there is nothing stopping you from making a Paladin with a low Cha.
You're losing out on quite a bit - Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, spellcasting, and even part of your Smite all run off Cha.
Also I would like to point out they got rid of racial restrictions across the board, so that does not really apply. The mount thing was sort of a practical decision, and sort of something Pathfinder sort of did across the board in my opinion. Rangers changed up their favored enemy feature with two choices, Wizards got two choices ect. Being a force of Law and Good is just as important to the Paladin Class is as nature is to Druids.
Rangers didn't get a choice to replace Favoured Enemy (until archetypes), they got a choice to swap out their animal, like the druid and like every other class that gets an animal except for the cavalier. It gives players other options to help them play particular classes in campaigns that might not easily support a large animal. Likewise, removing alignment restrictions would allow people to play Paladins (the totally dedicated holy warrior) in campaigns that might not support LG, such as if the party is otherwise highly chaotic and finds itself frequently on the wrong side of the law. Why not play a Robin Hood-like CG Divine Hunter Paladin? Though they haven't eliminated alignment restrictions across the board, the restrictions have been relaxed. Druids used to all be True Neutral only.
What mechanically do the pro-any alignment group feel is a must keep for the new class? I am curious if you all have the same opinion.
If I were re-designing the class from the ground up I'd require full BAB, martial weapon proficiency and at least medium armour proficiency, some divine powers though no more than minor spellcasting, class features based on Cha (again, separates from other divine classes), probably some form of smite or challenge, some special defense or immunity against at least one save-or-suck condition (fear, charm, paralysis), Lay on Hands if good-aligned.
But why would I design a class from the ground up when the one I want is right there?
I do not really see much different in the Paladins of these Deities. They might focus a little more on one aspect over another but they will still all have the same core values. Paladins of Sarenrae might be a little more smite happy, but would still be protectors of Truth, Justice, and Innocence. Paladins of Torag might be a little more likely to hold a grudge, but have no problem taking on Evil and Protecting those that need their help.
Again, I'm not an expert on Golarion deities, but whenever I see a thread about "Was Paladin X in the right to kill NPC Y in such-and-such a circumstance" at least one person will always ask "Paladin of Who?" and explain that while a Paladin of Sarenrae should have accepted that foe's surrender the Paladin of Torag would have been forbidden to do so.
I'd say Aragorn could be either NG or LG - definately more LG towards the end of the trilogy. I couldn't see him as CG at all. And lay on hands can just as likely be cure wounds or whatever. Mostly Aragorn didn't do supernatural stuff though, I don't see him as much of a smiter really. Much more ranger than paladin.
And a robin hood-like character I could easily see be done through ranger, inquisitor, rogue, and maybe fighter or cavalier. Or a multiclass of any of those.
I'm not against full-BAB divine characters per se, I'm mostly against watering down the paladin through giving all of those the same kit.
I'd rather have something like an inquisitor or cleric archetype or three that deals with this, in different ways for different alignments.
I think an archetype that dropped cleric casting to bard/inquis levels and boosted it's BAB to full, aside with some other minor abilities, could be balanced and it could be given a lot more flavor than just "paladin that wants to smite gold dragons instead of black dragons".
The only problem in NN paladins, who don't have an opposing alignment to smite. So they'd likely need some alternate class feature.Smite Zealot: Strong belief is anathema to you you can smite any one who believes in a non-neutral god. You get double smite damage vs paladins, anti-paladins and non neutral clerics.
So NN paladins would "Smite LG or CG or LE or CE"? I could get on board with that!
|
|
And a robin hood-like character I could easily see be done through ranger, inquisitor, rogue, and maybe fighter or cavalier. Or a multiclass of any of those.
Sure, but you can also easily do any of the knights of the round table using Inquisitor, Fighter, or Cavalier levels. And you also get the option of a Paladin if LG. The problem isn't "it's impossible to make a CG knight," it's "why can't a CG knight be a paladin?" Yes, LG Knights are more historically prevalent, but those knights are also typically male and christian and both those aspects were done away with in favor of letting players play the characters they want to play.
Again, I do see the code of conduct as critical, but believe it exists as an expression of a value system (which need not be LG), rather than an expression of a Lawful bent.
I'm not against full-BAB divine characters per se, I'm mostly against watering down the paladin through giving all of those the same kit.
I'd rather have something like an inquisitor or cleric archetype or three that deals with this, in different ways for different alignments.
I think an archetype that dropped cleric casting to bard/inquis levels and boosted it's BAB to full, aside with some other minor abilities, could be balanced and it could be given a lot more flavor than just "paladin that wants to smite gold dragons instead of black dragons".
Making Paladins with different alignments doesn't water down the paladin. Reducing the paladin to just "what kind of dragon do I smite?" does that. Paladins are defined by their values, and the smite target is just an expression of those values. I'm looking to change the whole package, starting from values and then extending to class mechanics as necessary.
I don't see this as a watering-down, but as a widening. The person who swore his life to Iomedae and lives according to the principles of honourable combat isn't going to be any less virtuous just because the evil knight gets to smite her back, or because the CG champion who believes all authority corrupts also gets to smite that same evil knight. Heck, I would love to see an team up between a LG and CG Paladin against a monstrous evil. That stuff makes for good storytelling. Especially if they bicker but eventually come to value their common ground.
Chaotic Neutral: I don't think chaotic needs to automatically mean "fight against the law/authority at all times." Practically speaking I would play a Chaotic Neutral "Champion" as an "agent of change." They would have to actively work towards altering the status quo in ways both large and small as opportunity allows.
Also an excellent idea. I can see a CN champion working in either or both ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"why can't a CG knight be a paladin?"
For the same reason a holy priest blessed by the gods can't be a wizard. It's not part of the class concepts. You want to widen the class concept, which is completely fine, and I want to keep it the way it is, which is also completely fine. The discussion could as well have been "why can't wizards cast divine spells so they can be holy priests?". Some people like to preserve and limit the flavor of a class, other want to make it less deep and more broad to allow more concepts. Neither is inherently better or worse, just different design philosophies, and people vary from case to case of course.
I, for one, would love a divine-casting Bard and an arcane-casting Ranger, but don't care for a CN paladin at all.
Making Paladins with different alignments doesn't water down the paladin.
That depends on who you ask. Just like some people would feel the choice to cast divine spells for a wizard or arcane spells for a druid might water down the feeling of those classes. Or for that matter the ability for a druid to cast spells such as animate dead.
Incidently, I got the urge to make a freedom fighter knight type of class now, and did a cavalier archetype. It's only a draft, so I haven't written down any heavy fluff yet, just the basic mechanics (and it's still prone to changing). Here's the draft if you're interested.
I would say taking the concept of a Holy Knight in service to a god, and dragging it down to ONE alignment, in the select service of only a few deities, is watering the class down.
The concept of a paladin isn't primarily holy knight in service of a god though. It's holy knight in service of righteousness, goodness and justice. Gods take a secondary (or even thertiary) place to the paladin, just like how druids are mainly about revering nature - not revering nature deities. Look at the description of the class, and at the code of conduct. The only reason a paladin would fall for not being devout enough is if he fails to "respect legitimate authority", which would be her god if she willingly serves any. The code of conduct empathizes honor and helping those in need, but doesn't even mention deities at all.
Your argument sounds a bit like "taking the concept of a spiritual follower of a god and dragging it down to only nature deities and only a few select deities is watering it down".
I'm not against non-righteous (if we by righteous mean the lawful good kind of righteous) blessed knights but don't want the paladin to be watered down to that, just like I'm not against non-natury priests but wouldn't want druids to be watered down to any spiritualists. That place is for clerics, and in the case of blessed knights I can see either a new base class or various archetypes (like the one linked in my last post, or the cleric crusader archetype)
Look at the cleric crusader archetype from ultimate combat. That's the concept of Holy Knight in service to a god. Description: "Crusaders serve the militant arm of a church, ready to stand guard over the religion’s holy places and to be its swift, avenging arm against those who resist its truth."
I'm all for full-BAB variants similar to the above. Actually I'm working right now on the concepts of a LE Dread Judge (nothing is important but the LAAAAW, human lives are irrelevant, upholding the LAAAW is what matters and nothing else - haven't decided on class to base archetype on) and a CE Cataclysmic Agent (ranger archetype - destruction is the way to creation and civilization needs a big frakkin' wildfire). Both will be powered by their ideals first and while they may serve deities that comes in second place (well, less so for the LE Dread Judge as following orders is part of it's concept).
That said, I would have preferred if paladins where a prestige class. Their concept is very niche, they are prestigious to say the least being "a chosen few", and it would make the reason for the alignment restrictions more apparent. Maybe we'll have less discussions like this, just like how there's less discussions on having good Assassins (and when those crop up, the answer is basically "an assassin that isn't evil is simply made with other classes, the class itself has evilness as part of it's concept" - basically the same argument here).
|
|
The line you cited is in fact in the CRB in the first paragraph of the Paladin description. The deity is not directly in the code of conduct, but it is an official part of the class flavour.
Your argument sounds a bit like "taking the concept of a spiritual follower of a god and dragging it down to only nature deities and only a few select deities is watering it down".
I'm not against non-righteous (if we by righteous mean the lawful good kind of righteous) blessed knights but don't want the paladin to be watered down to that, just like I'm not against non-natury priests but wouldn't want druids to be watered down to any spiritualists. That place is for clerics, and in the case of blessed knights I can see either a new base class or various archetypes (like the one linked in my last post, or the cleric crusader archetype)
The problem I see with the druid analogy is that the druid is mechanically much more closely tied to the veneration of nature than the Paladin is tied to LG. The core ability allows shapeshifting into animals, elementals, and plants, but not into magical beasts, giants, undead, or dragons. They also get either a bonded animal (not a magical beast) or a nature-themed domain, and several nature-themed abilities like Wild Empathy, Trackless Step, Wilderness Stride, and Resist Nature's Lure. Changing a druid into a non-nature worshiper would take quite a bit of fiddling. A paladin is tied to Good by flavor, Detect Evil, and Smite Evil and tied to Law by flavor alone. And like I said, the fluff and the Detect/Smite are both very easy to alter. The important part is the commitment to something.
Even with the mechanical difficulties, I would try to support a player who looked at the Druid class and said that they wanted to play something mechanically similar but dedicated to something else. For an "undead" theme, I could swap out the elemental body part of Wild Shape for undead anatomy, say that the animal and plant forms had a "decayed" appearance, give a zombie companion with similar stats or the death domain, replace Nature Sense and Wild Empathy with the Menhir Savant's Spirit Sense, Wilderness Stride with the Mooncaller's Night Sight, and Resist Nature's Lure with the Reincarnated Druid's Resist Death's Touch. If the player flavoured it along the lines of natural decay and recycling and otherwise revered nature, I might even still call it a druid. If I felt it departed from concept too much, I'd call it an "undead shaman," and rule it's a similar form of totemic magic but outside of druidic practice. But would still allow the character. And I love the standard druid flavor.
In general, I prefer that the game present more options and allow a group or GM to choose which options they do or don't want to use. Don't want firearms in your fantasy? You can ignore them, but they're still in there for people who like the option. Some people such as yourself are very reasonable about discussing alternate paladins, but in another discussion someone claimed that my friend's CG Paladin wasn't a "real paladin" and that our game had lost something by allowing that character. And I find that sort of thing frustrating. The CRB allows the idea of clerics who follow an idea instead of a deity and says you can ask your GM if you're interested. A similar footnote on Paladin alignment would be nice.
I like your Herald of Freedom and your idea for the Dread Judge. My LE Champion has that attitude exactly.
EDIT: just realized how obnoxious this post sounds by chopping it up like that. sorry for that, please take it with some salt.
Yes, deity is mentioned once in the paladin class chapter. That's true. Once. The same amount as for druids. Note that the variant channeling rules point out that they don't have to have a deity ("if the paladin has a deity"). Compare it to the cleric class' 20 mentions of deity.
The problem I see with the druid analogy is that the druid is mechanically much more closely tied to the veneration of nature than the Paladin is tied to LG.
...How? The paladin's main abilities are it's ability to detect and smite evil, to heal the wounded and kill undead, it has auras of good, justice and righteousness. It's capstone is Holy Champion.
The core ability allows shapeshifting into animals, elementals, and plants
So can a lot of other classes too.
but not into magical beasts, giants, undead, or dragons.
And paladins can't smite good or lawful or neutral.
They also get either a bonded animal (not a magical beast) or a nature-themed domain
The domains are less strictly nature-themed than smite evil is aura of good is good-themed, and imbuing your weapon with a celestial spirit is also pretty good-themed.
and several nature-themed abilities like Wild Empathy, Trackless Step, Wilderness Stride, and Resist Nature's Lure.
Holy champion, aura of justice, mercy, aura of righteousness.
Changing a druid into a non-nature worshiper would take quite a bit of fiddling. A paladin is tied to Good by flavor, Detect Evil, and Smite Evil and tied to Law by flavor alone.
Not really, just remove the limitations of the naturey stuff. Allow any domain to be taken, let the druid choose an environment where wilderness stride works and a creature type for nature's lure. Let them choose "Xshape" forms based on level.
The important part is the commitment to something.
The important part of the druid is the faith in something
For an "undead" theme, I could swap out the elemental body part of Wild Shape for undead anatomy, say that the animal and plant forms had a "decayed" appearance, give a...
But if you dropped the "nature" part of it, would it still feel like a druid? Would you want them to make that part of the canon for the druid? I might feel that a druid who doesn't deal with nature isn't a "real" druid and a paladin who isn't LG (or rather, that has follows a set of ideals that aren't LG) isn't a "real" paladin.
You may disagree that these are similar, but for many people, that's the same importance they have - the druid isn't just a priest where faith is most important because the class chapter mentions deity once, just like the paladin isn't just a blessed warrior where conviction is most important because the class chapter mentions deity once.
I understand where you're coming from, and houserule however you want, but you must understand why many are opposed to that becoming any kind of official product - just like how they would be opposed to a robodruid that turns into constructs, has the artifice domain, steamcity stride etc.
It might also be why I feel that a LN or LE paladin potentially could work, because they still keep something that feel paladinesque, though twisted. The CE antipaladin is IMO probably the worst thematic decision by paizo at least since the release of PFRPG.
Yep. And some would say that "using music" is the single most inherent part of the Bard concept. And yet, thanks to the Archeologist archetype, we can play a Bard with next to no music blah associated with it.
You see, for me, the Bard is "the class with the mix of spellcasting, combat ability, and skills". And unfortunately, it has always had that music crap attached to it that I never use. And I'd rather have the class include something else that I am going to use than use up precious design space on something I won't. (In a country that uses dollars, $100 is better than $80 plus 4000 yen, even if 4000 yen translates to more than $20.)
So I'm happy that I have an alternative. I don't begrudge the players who choose the version of the class with the music, I just don't want to be stuck with it myself.
So why is "servant of righteousness" so integral to the concept of the Paladin when using music doesn't actually have to be a part of the Bard class (it's in the name for goodness' sakes)?
Is there a dartboard somewhere where ya'll decide "Hey, this fundamental concept of this class is important; leave it alone", "Hey, this other fundamental concept of this other class actually doesn't matter at all; let's do whatever with it"?
...
Why does Paladin have the monopoly on full-BAB, divine casting characters?
People keep saying that when we say we want to play a Paladin but not be LG that we must not want to play a Paladin in the first place. "Why don't you just settle for a combination of Cleric and Fighter?", we're told.
Well, if combo Cleric/Fighter is sufficient for non-LG characters, shouldn't it be sufficient for LG characters? And if LG divinely empowered warriors/champions/knights/what-have-you require a specific class to represent that concept above and beyond simple multiclassing, why don't non-LG such characters get the same privilege?
...
OP, this is what we're talking about. We ask simple questions based on ideas of fairness and sense and how they fail to apply at times to aspects of the game, and because we demonstrate the gross sin of not being satisfied with "The Way Things Were Decades Ago", we can't get a valid answer to any of our questions.
(Was that unfair of me? Yes. Is it unfair for me to have to beg/bribe/cajole/threaten/[insert other] my DM just to get to play a divinely empowered warrior sort of character (in the same manner as a Paladin) but without a frickin' Sword of Damocles hanging over my head? Oh why, yes, yes it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... I've heard designers state that there isn't a NEED for everything to be 'fair and balanced' in the universe. Every Angel does not have a direct evil conterpart... Angels fall easily, Fallen Angels hardly EVER rise...
And honestly I it's something I agree with. Archaelogist... could have easily been rogue archtype and fit in just well... same as detective. They are by far my FAVORITE Bard classes... But they could have been rogues too...
I too consider Performing (not 'music' perhaps) as integral to the class 'concept'...
I remember REALLY hating the 'lawful' requirement for monk. I wanted a Chuck norris,Van dam, jackie chan' type martial artist... I was told by most players to make a 'fighter' instead.
UC finally gave us a 'unaligned' martial artist monk... but nerfed him a bit too... soooo still not 100% satisfied there.
I have two major reasons for liking the status quo...
1) Mechanical reasons. LG is one of the hardest alignments to play. If you can get paladin powers WITHOUT being LG.... there would be almost NO LG paladins left. The landscape of the game would alter drastically. Seriously, it's insanely rare for an 'average' character to change alignments. That's because the other alignments arent' that tough. You pick the one you like best and just run it... If your going to make an alignment restriction easy... why have it at all?
I'm not in favor or them making Archtypes and such that are JUST like what we have.... But VASTLY superior in every way. It's like how everyone Talks about quingin monk or the asian armors as the 'go-to' standards... or how Oracle has replaced Cleric for so many people...
2)IN game... If EVERYONE with ANY attitude can call themselves a paladin... then the term holds no meaning anymore. Being identified as a paladin, should inspire trust and safety. The ultimate 'good guy'... If that guy is now CN... then your still screwed.
3)There are a LOT of people on these forums that argue that LG has nothing to do with following actual 'laws' and simply mean they have a personal 'CODE' that they do not stray from. I'm not 100% sold on that definition... It sounds a bit lazy to me.
However, if having a rock solid CODE means you are Lawful and ordered by nature.. HOW can you have a Chaotic Paladin? A Chaotic set or set strict rules is flawed by definition.
Honestly I feel it was a MAJOR mistake to have the antipaladin be CE. If they are still making pacts with dark powers, and have a code of any sort (not really sure if they DO, rereading this O.o) then they should ahve been LE...
1) Mechanical reasons. LG is one of the hardest alignments to play. If you can get paladin powers WITHOUT being LG.... there would be almost NO LG paladins left.
Honestly, I don't think LG is that hard to play if you want to. You basically like doing the right thing, but you also have respect for laws. It's not that tough, in my opinion, but I think most people make it out to be a lot more restrictive than it should be. An LG character should be able to bend the rules if they believe it is for the best. Remember, that G in there does stand for Good.
By the same token, it's not like Chaotic characters need to rob someone whenever they want something because they are so completely against laws that they can't function in normal society. (They also aren't like that other chaotic alignment). Honestly, alignments have a lot of leeway. It's just that Paladins get the short end of the stick. Continued below...
Seriously, it's insanely rare for an 'average' character to change alignments. That's because the other alignments arent' that tough.
I think the alignment changes for a Paladin have more to do with cruel vindictive GMs than actual difficulty in playing the class(or alignment rather). As I said, I don't think playing LG is all that difficult. But playing a Paladin means that the GM can strip you of your powers if you step a toe out of line. I don't know what it is, but it is very biased for the class. Monks technically need to stay Lawful to continue advancing as a Monk... yet how often does a LG monk get blindsided by an alignment change of any sort? It's not Lawful Good that precipitates alignment changes, it's being a Paladin, or it at least sure seems that way.
You pick the one you like best and just run it... If your going to make an alignment restriction easy... why have it at all?
Anyway, this is what I really wanted to respond to. That's the exact problem, in my opinion. You pick the alignment that you want to play. It's fairly straightforward. But there are so very many character concepts that work best with the paladin class, but then chafe under the LG restriction because it is terribly incompatible with the character concept. I get that alignment restrictions shouldn't be easy, but I actually am going to ask... why have them at all? (And this isn't to apply only to Paladins, but since this thread is about them, we'll stick to it.)
I personally don't think the class loses anything by being given a wider alignment range. I think the bigger part of the flavor is the matter of serving their chosen deity, being a mortal champion for their god's values. Now, if you want the name 'Paladin' to only mean LG, that's fine... but I don't see why the core class mechanics should be incompatible with the other 8 alignments. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Obviously though, all of the above is just my own opinion, so hey.
Edit: silly typo
Playing a LG character isn't so hard. Playing a character that becomes an NPC class if it ever utters a lie, or if it parties with people who routinely lie, and that can only get them restored by a mid-level spell costing 500 gp that requires the character to be truly repentant; that is hard.
I can't really see what chaotic neutral code of conduct you can make that both makes some kind of basic sense and still is as hard to live with as the current paladin code.
EDIT: If the paladin was hiding fugitives during the 2nd world war and SS knocked on her door asking if she did, she'd be forced to either lose her class abilities or tell them that "yes, I do". Which might work if they're like two random 1st level warriors - but I don't know how many of those patrols she can take down until they send an army after her.
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), "
Playing a LG character isn't so hard. Playing a character that becomes an NPC class if it ever utters a lie, or if it parties with people who routinely lie, and that can only get them restored by a mid-level spell costing 500 gp that requires the character to be truly repentant; that is hard.
I can't really see what chaotic neutral code of conduct you can make that both makes some kind of basic sense and still is as hard to live with as the current paladin code.
This is a big part of why I think the class suffers from this restriction far more than they should. As for different codes of conduct, I've said before that I think it should be more about what their deity wants from them, and less about their code. For paladins that don't want a deity and instead go for dedication to a cause/alignment, this would have to get extremely specific, but otherwise, I think they'd be fine with the alignment/deity restrictions that Clerics have.
EDIT: If the paladin was hiding fugitives during the 2nd world war and SS knocked on her door asking if she did, she'd be forced to either lose her class abilities or tell them that "yes, I do". Which might work if they're like two random 1st level warriors - but I don't know how many of those patrols she can take down until they send an army after her.
"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), "
This is a perfect example of how the Paladin alignment restrictions (with code restrictions, too, that is) make no sense. Turning over fugitives would be pretty much undoubtedly evil, so the Paladin falls. Lying and saying they aren't there goes against her code, so she falls. And if simply lying to legal authorities is out, then there is pretty much no way that killing them or just fighting back would not be evil, unlawful, or both, so gonna fall there too.
Basically... it's just kind of absurd, in my opinion.
|
|
I've personally had a lot more issues with the Cleric side of things, so I don't agree that the Paladin is more strict or more unjustly DM'd against. For Paladins, both in Golarion and in PF core, the Paladin does have a pretty straight foreward code. Clerics really don't, and there is a lot more room for DM's to screw over the Cleric, who has even slightly more trouble getting their powers back.
I think what it really comes down to is the many issues with Alignment in general, but also the idea that various deities really do not fit into Alignments well at all, AND since Golarion mandates that (only) Clerics require a patron deity, wanting to pick a concept build Cleric may mean needing to shoehorn in a deity you don't care about, but who is just closest to what you want. Paladins don't really have that issue, normally.
That being said, a lot of my recent gaming has been PFS play, and the fact that the Paladin is a really really strong class, a lot of the missions are specifically designed for nuetralish characters, and the fact that the prevailing goal is to get people to play, (having a Paladin fall for a "minor" thing (and they are usually sort of railroaded into it honestly), for a short, 1 shot playtime, having a Paladin fall is basically like a death sentence for that character, as the player will just get bored and leave. That might be shifting my view a bit, but honestly I can not recall since at least 3.0 ever seening a Paladin fall unless it was either A.) a story element thing and other divine characters usually did as well, and sucked a lot more for it or B.) because the player wanted to intentionally for Blackguard or something.
|
|
While that is true, in a sense, that's actually much more what the Cleric's traditional flavor was. Paladin's, up until PF, where much more along the lines of the Joan of Arc and Lancelot types. Sort of the chosen martial defenders. Actually more of a mix of Mary Sue super goodguys and also the one in a million mortals blessed by the light. 3E, and much moreso PF has changed that significantly, but there was a time when if a Paladin fell, they permanently lost everything and simply turned into a Fighter, minus some exceptions.
The Cleric was originally based of of concepts like the monster hunterish Van Helsing and "Holy Crusaders", a much more martial and active contributing class, but one of PFs big pushes was to take most of that away, make the Cleric into more of a white mage spellcaster and give it to the Paladin, which they kind of overdid.
I think what it really comes down to is the many issues with Alignment in general, but also the idea that various deities really do not fit into Alignments well at all, AND since Golarion mandates that (only) Clerics require a patron deity, wanting to pick a concept build Cleric may mean needing to shoehorn in a deity you don't care about, but who is just closest to what you want. Paladins don't really have that issue, normally.
Actually, Clerics do not necessarily need a deity.
While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
That aside, I think even with a deity, Clerics get a lot more leeway. Their alignment can be one step away, as long as they uphold the deity's overall tenets, values, etc. That gives them, at least, 3 alignments to work with, possibly 4, and if they shift around in them a bit, all's fine as long as they don't, as the rules put it, 'grossly violate the rules of conduct required by her god.' Everything else is gravy.
Paladins on the other hand get their rather rigid code of conduct that in many situations can't be dealt with. You say it's straightforward, and it is, for the most part... but that doesn't make it any easier to deal with. In many situations, there may not be any resolution that doesn't in some way violate their code.
As for whether or not they fall so often, I admit I've never seen it happen in a game. My impression is mostly what I've seen on these messageboards, which seem to imply a lot more bias against Paladins than other classes. Maybe I'm wrong on that though, and if so, I'll freely admit it. Just seems that way to me currently.
EDIT: If the paladin was hiding fugitives during the 2nd world war and SS knocked on her door asking if she did, she'd be forced to either lose her class abilities or tell them that "yes, I do". Which might work if they're like two random 1st level warriors - but I don't know how many of those patrols she can take down until they send an army after her."A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"
"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), "
This is a perfect example of how the Paladin alignment restrictions (with code restrictions, too, that is) make no sense. Turning over fugitives would be pretty much undoubtedly evil, so the Paladin falls. Lying and saying they aren't there goes against her code, so she falls. And if simply lying to legal authorities is out, then there is pretty much no way that killing them or just fighting back would not be evil, unlawful, or both, so gonna fall there too.
Basically... it's just kind of absurd, in my opinion.
Just one problem with the scenario, although I understand what you're trying to say. If the SS comes to the door the Paladin should be smiting them. A Paladin could not exist in a Nazi society as a civilian. Nor can they do the resistance thing (code problems). They would need to be in the fight somewhere.
Just one problem with the scenario, although I understand what you're trying to say. If the SS comes to the door the Paladin should be smiting them. A Paladin could not exist in a Nazi society as a civilian. Nor can they do the resistance thing (code problems). They would need to be in the fight somewhere.
Fair enough. Like I said, I think Paladins should and probably do have a lot more freedom in a scenario such as that. But a lot of the RAW seems to suggest otherwise. Hence why I think the current restrictions are rather flawed. On the same note as you put it, they may not be able to do the resistance thing because it gets in the way of their code. But, if they can't do something relatively minor such as that, why can they do something as major as fighting back in full?
That said, there's so many different opinions on the Paladin and what their code means, I sure don't know what counts as accurate or RAI.
|
|
I think what it really comes down to is the many issues with Alignment in general, but also the idea that various deities really do not fit into Alignments well at all, AND since Golarion mandates that (only) Clerics require a patron deity, wanting to pick a concept build Cleric may mean needing to shoehorn in a deity you don't care about, but who is just closest to what you want. Paladins don't really have that issue, normally.
Actually, Clerics do not necessarily need a deity.
In the Golarion setting, they do. No oncept Clerics allowed.
That aside, I think even with a deity, Clerics get a lot more leeway. Their alignment can be one step away, as long as they uphold the deity's overall tenets, values, etc. That gives them, at least, 3 alignments to work with, possibly 4, and if they shift around in them a bit, all's fine as long as they don't, as the rules put it, 'grossly violate the rules of conduct required by her god.' Everything else is gravy.
Paladins on the other hand get their rather rigid code of conduct that in many situations can't be dealt with. You say it's straightforward, and it is, for the most part... but that doesn't make it any easier to deal with. In many situations, there may not be any resolution that doesn't in some way violate their code.
True, but what I was meaning is that many times those tenets a Cleric must uphold are not clear, or are not defined. That leaves a lot of room for Player/DM misunderstanding, or difference of opion for what they actual bliefs are.
|
|
The part about associates seems to imply that a Paladin can accptibly take the lesser of two evils in order to defeat the greater evil, but should seek out attonment (without losing any powers), in extreme cases.
A few AP's have also used this as a strong basis as being true.
Trying to avoid any spoilers as much as I can: Notably would be Carrion Crown where a real moral issue for Paladins and Clerics of Pharasma comes up as pretty much unavoidable, and the devs suggest that a Paladin can work for somethings very evil for the greater good, (for a time), but essentually says that Clerics of Pharasma either need a massive hand waving through or the gae breaks.
In the Golarion setting, they do. No oncept Clerics allowed.
Oh? My bad. I thought the Golarion setting was basically just the PF default setting. If you don't mind my asking then, what is the difference from the default, such as would account for that little disparity? I think I'm a bit confused there.
True, but what I was meaning is that many times those tenets a Cleric must uphold are not clear, or are not defined. That leaves a lot of room for Player/DM misunderstanding, or difference of opion for what they actual bliefs are.
True enough, but I feel that they are, for the most part, not too bad. They generally have a couple things that are most important to them, and Clerics would value those things similarly. I get what you mean though, and can definitely understand there being some confusion between players and GMs.
I see the bigger difference between the classes though as being that Clerics pretty much only need to keep their deity's tenets in mind, as their alignment is probably not going to be in question if they stick to that deity's ideals. Paladins have to balance Law, Good, and/or their Code of Conduct simultaneously, which seems a lot more likely to go wrong.
As to that Carrion Crown example, interesting. I don't know the AP, so I can't respond very well.
And for the associates bit, I agree, it does seem to imply it takes a bit more than a single mistake to make a paladin fall. So maybe it is easier to deal with than it seems sometimes. Not that this should preclude the class from being opened up to other alignments (kinda forgot that was the original issue here :P ), but I admit, perhaps I have overstated the restrictions Paladins have currently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just one problem with the scenario, although I understand what you're trying to say. If the SS comes to the door the Paladin should be smiting them. A Paladin could not exist in a Nazi society as a civilian. Nor can they do the resistance thing (code problems). They would need to be in the fight somewhere.
Fair enough. Like I said, I think Paladins should and probably do have a lot more freedom in a scenario such as that. But a lot of the RAW seems to suggest otherwise. Hence why I think the current restrictions are rather flawed. On the same note as you put it, they may not be able to do the resistance thing because it gets in the way of their code. But, if they can't do something relatively minor such as that, why can they do something as major as fighting back in full?
That said, there's so many different opinions on the Paladin and what their code means, I sure don't know what counts as accurate or RAI.
I think the LG Paladin should stay just as he is. I do however think that other holy alignment themed warriors would be a good idea. Built along similar lines but with different abilities, restrictions, etc.
As for why Paladins can't do the resistance bit, it involves deception / lying etc. Violation of the Paladin's Code. Full on combat / war does not (at least it does not require it). In war you declare your intentions and, honorably (if you are a Paladin) fight to achieve them. Sounds like a crusade to me....