|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if they don't reflect what is described under LG or CE...Indeed, but they don't fall for not reflecting the smaller northwest/southeast square of LG or CE.
And what was described didn't reflect the square at all.
I didn't say epitome, Lazarx did.
Half of the problems I have in these threads comes when I'm called on to defend what others say that I say.
Here is what a Paladin has to be to be lawful good.
"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Lawful good characters are proficient at understanding bureaucracies, following laws, and cultivating order and structure in their own lives and in others'. They are naturally helpful, and others find them trustworthy, even if they don't share the same alignment. Additionally, lawful good characters are adept at deciding which actions are lawful and benefit society rather than the individual. With their focus on order, they can often build governmental stability where none previously existed. These characters sometimes have problems defying laws, even when the laws are unjust. Instead of disobeying or protesting against such laws, they work within the provided structure or system to change those laws, and they implore others to do so as well. They feel guilty lying to others, even if only asked to fib to provide a ruse for their companions. Similarly, they won't break the law to help good-intentioned party members perform actions that might have beneficial results.
When they're adventuring in urban areas with their companions, lawful good characters may feel compelled to excuse themselves from certain plans or attempt to reason with those more lenient in their interpretation of the law. It's much easier for lawful good characters to ignore the bad behavior of other party members when exploring ruins and wilderness areas outside the direct jurisdiction of a governing body.
Lawful good characters regard law as necessary for the welfare of society. They fight to abolish or change laws they deem unjust, and they always aid those in need. Lawful good characters strive to be forthright in their words and deeds, refuse to lie to others, and keep their covenants. They oppose evil wherever it is found, and avoid putting the good of the individual ahead of what is good for the masses. For these characters, the end rarely justifies the means. Characters drawn to honor, righting wrongs, or making sacrifices for others might be attracted to this alignment."
Is it cheating to point out that if you want more than nine different personalities for PCs/NPCs, then you have to interpret the alignment descriptions loosely? If everyone in alignment pigeonhole x has to act largely the same, there's only nine possible characters one can play.
Is it cheating to point out that if you want more than nine different personalities for PCs/NPCs, then you have to interpret the alignment descriptions loosely? If everyone in alignment pigeonhole x has to act largely the same, there's only nine possible characters one can play.
Some consider prudential and moral decisions to be different things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if they don't reflect what is described under LG or CE...Indeed, but they don't fall for not reflecting the smaller northwest/southeast square of LG or CE.
The funny thing about it is that it's not the Paladin's alignment that causes as much of a problem mechanically speaking as his code. Mostly because of the removal of the word that gave paladins leeway to use their own judgment when the code contradicts itself.
Paladins must remain lawful good, but there's no problem with them taking chaotic actions occasionally (the same is not true for evil, but they can do neutral things like killing to defend innocents). Furthermore they must follow their code. The code is really where problems come in, because unlike in 3.5 it's binary, so if you're following the RAW then the moment there's even a slight hiccup, bam, no more fighting evil as more than an NPC-class. Honestly the lack of the flexibility in the code from 3.5 is the only complaint I have with the class. Otherwise I think it's beautiful.
Some consider prudential and moral decisions to be different things.
I'm not quite sure how prudential decisions would be distinct from moral decisions. It seems to me that a lot of moral decisions would also be prudential. But then, I'm not denying that characters make non-moral decisions. I doubt Magic User Wizardperson chose to specialize in conjuration for any moral reasons.
However, a character's perspective on morality is supposed to be so important that we have special rules for it and a place for it on the character sheet. Let's assume we accept that this is an important aspect of a character and recognize that in the real world, there are more than nine different approaches to morality. Assuming we want even the barest vagaries of believability when it comes to this, we'd have to allow more than nine approaches, which means not interpreting the alignment descriptions in the very strict way Ciretose is.
Anti-paladins can't atone for a fall (rise?)!!
Atonement means you are sorry, and to be an anti-paladin you can't be sorry for anything! Except maybe not getting everything you wanted. ;D
Anti-paladins can't atone for a fall (rise?)!!
Atonement means you are sorry, and to be an anti-paladin you can't be sorry for anything! Except maybe not getting everything you wanted. ;D
"I regret nothing! ... except for the puppies left unkicked. Man, those guys. So cute." *sniff*
Anti-paladins can't atone for a fall (rise?)!!
Atonement means you are sorry, and to be an anti-paladin you can't be sorry for anything! Except maybe not getting everything you wanted. ;D
If you are an Ethical Egoist, no action can make an anti-paladin fall!
Mostly because of the removal of the word that gave paladins leeway to use their own judgment when the code contradicts itself.That's not the problem, it's never been the problem.
First. you'd have to show me how the default code actually contradicts itself. More than likely the perceived contradictions come from the players and the GMs themselves. From GM's who like to put up Kobyashi fail or fail scenarios, or players who try to corner case the alignment.
The code itself doesn't contradict itself in text but in function. See, there are times when you WILL have to decide which portion of the code is going to take priority, but due to the binary nature of the code in Pathfinder (Y/N type requirement) you must adhere to the code, which may mean not adhering to the code.
And you're right. Most of these things come up in corner cases. The 3.5 wording allowed you some leeway to use some common sense. For example, naturally punishing someone with mental illness for harming or threatening someone would be stupid. "Oh, sorry, this person in a bout of confusion and disorientation stabbed some dude. Time to punish him (rather than simply trying to heal his illness)." is a stupid idea, but the Paladin's code as written REQUIRES him to punish them because they harmed or threatened innocents.
The 3.5 version allows a Paladin to say "No, this is not what the code meant." and give the guy a pass and try to minimize harm done. The Pathfinder version presents a Y/N option. Did you punish the guy who was threatening or harming innocents? No? FALL.
I don't see what the problem of wanting rules that require you to break RAW to be sensible or stay in spirit of the class.
|
|
Assuming we want even the barest vagaries of believability when it comes to this, we'd have to allow more than nine approaches, which means not interpreting the alignment descriptions in the very strict way Ciretose is.
I have literally quoted the text.
That is literally what I did.
What strict interpretations have I bestowed upon you by, using the copy and paste function?
|
|
The code itself doesn't contradict itself in text but in function.
Mostly because of the removal of the word that gave paladins leeway to use their own judgment when the code contradicts itself.That's not the problem, it's never been the problem.
First. you'd have to show me how the default code actually contradicts itself. More than likely the perceived contradictions come from the players and the GMs themselves. From GM's who like to put up Kobyashi fail or fail scenarios, or players who try to corner case the alignment.
Willingly.
Would it be done willingly if the paladin does it despite not wanting to do it?
The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do.
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.
A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what I'm talking about.
Would it be done willingly if the paladin does it despite not wanting to do it?You mean if the Paladin did it against his will.
*Facepalm*
I just wanted to check, since some people have stated that a Paladin falls even if a deed is done against his/her will.
|
|
The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do.
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what we're talking about.
Betray their trust later in a way that is more evil than letter children burn to death...which is going to mean something really, really, evil that could only occur because he gained their trust at that moment, justifying that act.
That would cause less problems for a party than the Paladin wanted to personally run in and save the children?
Really?
Who said the Anti-Paladin has to tell his/her friends about how he/she backstabbed that village who knows how many miles away from their current location a few months back? In fact, if the party was comprised of Neutral folk, why would they even care about the fact that the Anti-Paladin did this if they did find out? I do see what Kryzbyn's saying here, and I think he has a good point. The end goal is all that matters for an Anti-Paladin, and the character is free to channel their wrath on almost anyone they want.
Sorry let me repost that for you:
The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do. <--- this part partly agrees with your point, Ciretose.
.......................SEPERATE POINT BELOW.........................
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.
A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what I'm talking about.
An anti-paladin has a hell of a lot more flexibility than a LG paladin.
There is no floating scale. His job is to spread chaos and evil.
Letting children die in a fire is evil, but that's one tragedy, doesn't spread chaos.
gaining their trust and posing as a good cleric and over the course of months and slowly trashing this region's view of a particular faith's clerics can certainly sow chaos, and evil, when they deny them shelter or even worse outright attack them on sight in the future. AP's can focus on big picture. LG paladin's do not have that luxury.
|
|
Who said the Anti-Paladin has to tell his/her friends about how he/she backstabbed that village who knows how many miles away from their current location a few months back? In fact, if the party was comprised of Neutral folk, why would they even care about the fact that the Anti-Paladin did this if they did find out? I do see what Kryzbyn's saying here, and I think he has a good point. The end goal is all that matters for an Anti-Paladin, and the character is free to channel their wrath on almost anyone they want.
But the Anti-Paladin would need to justify the greater evil at the time he saves the children, and the GM would need to agree it is a greater evil that justifies the good act AND that is a lot of planning ahead for a Chaotic person, as it would tie them into a long term plan they must then execute.
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."
Let alone a chaotic evil person.
"A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend."
Endgame evil is more lawful than chaotic, it would seem to me.
|
|
Sorry let me repost that for you:
The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
Is it?
"A antipaladin who ceases to be chaotic evil, who willfully commits an good act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all antipaladin spells and class features (including the fiendish boon, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). He may not progress any further in levels as an antipaladin. He regains his abilities and advancement potential if he atones for his violations (see the atonement spell), as appropriate."
Seems the same to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, one easy way you can use to justify having an AP going out killing the big baddies in the game is simply going out and taking out the competition.
And for those of you who are trying to go, as far literally in CE as you can to discount the AP, you know that TECHNICALLY a Code of Conduct is a just that, a CODE, a LAW. If a AP were a -100/-100 on the alignment scale, he would end up breaking his code(Chaotic people don't take well to having restrictions and stipulations put on them, regardless of just WHAT those restrictions are).
As for the whole "well endgame playing is more lawful evil than chaotic"
How would you justify the Demon Princes and Demon Gods (I.E. Lolth)? They still scheme and plot for centuries in advanced (kind of how they got to where they are). Now granted, their plans tend to be very... haphazard and as well laid out as a being like Asmodeus but they still plot. No one said the AP HAD to have his plan completely sound and have all 10,000 steps all planned out before hand. It just seemed like a dasterdly evil thing to do at that given moment in time.
I can quote stuff too
Associates: While he may adventure with evil or neutral allies, an antipaladin avoids working with good characters or with anyone who consistently attempts to do good deeds. Under exceptional circumstances, an antipaladin can ally with good associates, but only to defeat them from within and bring ruin to their ranks. An antipaladin does not need an atonement spell during such an unusual alliance as long as his nefarious goals are met in the end—evil cares only about results. An antipaladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are chaotic evil.
Emphasis mine.
Also:
Code of Conduct: An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
Willingly AND altruisticly. AND. That is all. <drops mic>
:)
Why is saving children from a burning building bad for the party?
Let's look at this. The antipaladin can freely commit good acts as long as it's because of his own interests (IE - if the paladin is motivated by selfishness, he has a blank check). Meanwhile, the code he follows specifically notes that formost he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.Again, a blank check. His code is - appropriately - a mockery of the Paladin's code in that it literally says he must do X unless he just doesn't want to. Chaos man. Chaos and Selfishness incarnate.
An antipaladin could be the greatest false-hero ever. Saving people for the praise, respect, and status it brought him, and never because the people are just simply in need. He could build an orphanage if he did it because it'd get him a tax break. He can be a nasty-stinky-pants and piss in some kid's icecream bucket, or...just not, because he doesn't feel like it today.
"I have one rule. There are no rules, except when they benefit me."
Yes, anything can be interpreted as motivated by selfishness.
I save the innocent kid because:I expected a monetary reward.
I want to turn him into an evil henchman.
I liked him.
I liked his mother.
I wanted to go to bed with his mother.
Even: I wanted to feel good about myself.
But, the code also specifies that the Antipaladin's action must not only serve his own ends, but that those ends must also be dark. Now, what precisely counts are dark ends is up for grabs, but of all the examples, I think the only one that easily qualifies is number 2.
An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.
The antipaladin's own interests take top priority over everything, as do his goals, whatever they may be.
Though a bit aside, this thread reminds me of an NPC that the party encountered in last night's game. "Mayor Brinewyn" was his name. He was chubby, good-natured, mayor of a small city. Everyone pretty much loved him. When the party first arrived at his mansion (on Paladin duty, coincidentally), one of the service guards at the front asked if they were there to talk about the new orphanage he was donating to the city, or the 15 ft. statue of the hero and savior of the country, or the feed the hungry program that he had instituted.
The Paladins (one PC Paladin and two assistants who aren't actually paladin-classed but members of his order and abide by similar standards) plus their non-paladin companion (who slipped away at the gate because unbeknownst to the Paladins she had her own reasons for trying to get into the mayor's mansion) were not there to speak of any of that stuff. Instead, they had been given orders to question the man about some criminal activity that the order found evidence that he was a part of (and for the order's inquisitor accompanying the PC to determine if he was lying, because they know).
They ended up arresting the man in a rather colorful scene as the PC chased the guy around his office with a pair of manacles and a dream. But the point was this guy did all kinds of good things all over the place, but never out of altruism or true good will. He did all these good things for one of the following reasons:
A) To improve his public appearance (it arguably got him into his position as mayor).
B) To throw off any suspicion that he may have nefarious goals (he actually "cleaned up" a lot of crime and decay in the city by rounding up criminals that irritated him and the homeless and sold them on the black market as slaves to get them out of his city; that bastard).
C) Because rich guys who build orphanages have a pretty good report with chicks (which the party incidentally interrupted him fondling one of his maids when they arrived, which she probably wouldn't have been on board for if she knew he was just a self-centered ass).
Now, Mayor Brinewyn was by no means a heroic NPC (and I mean that in the mechanical sense) and it was funny watching the PC-Paladin chase him around his desk with a pair of handcuffs while the mayor shouted a mixture of shrill cries and attempting to bribe the paladin and his cohorts into letting him go, but the mayor was evil (not that he would have ever pinged on the detect evil-o'-meter since his HD wasn't high enough).
Had Mayor Brinewyn been more heroic in nature rather than just a fat aristocrat, maybe he could have been an antipaladin. He clearly ignored the laws when it suited him (but didn't make it obvious that he was doing so) and hid behind them when they did. He did many good things that helped many people - for himself. He hurt people if it suited him and if he could get away with it without any serious repercussion or risk to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, uh, just found this, here while looking up other stuff, so I suppose I'll leave it here:
Another quandary might be the presence of a party member or strong, supporting ally who is actually evil. For instance, can the party's paladin continue to work with the evil wizard in the group, or is it morally wrong to do so? This situation would certainly disquiet the paladin, but rather than refusing to work with the wizard, she could insist on trying to reform the person, who must surely have some ounce of goodness in him if he continues to aid the group. It might become her goal to bring this individual to the light, and she could work tirelessly to make it happen. Non-paladin members of the group, depending upon their fervor toward goodness, might choose to ignore the issue entirely, unless the evil character does something overtly harmful to the group or an innocent person. Otherwise, they might accept him more as “neutral” until he shows his true colors, whether or not a detection of his true alignment indicates otherwise.
The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do.
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what I'm talking about.
Unless the party is Evil or specifically playing "Amoral Murderhobos who Don't Give a Damn About Anything Other Than Themselves", wouldn't most Heroic parties would be rushing right in with him or otherwise helping out?
Unless the party is Evil or specifically playing "Amoral Murderhobos who Don't Give a Damn About Anything Other Than Themselves", wouldn't most Heroic parties would be rushing right in with him or otherwise helping out?The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do.
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what I'm talking about.
Well truthfully that is probably a bad example, but for instance lets take a look at the evil opressor in some town near by. The paladin would be compelled to go and stop him from doing the evil he is doing, even if it really does not concern him and he has other things that also need doing. An Anti-Paladin though, has the choice of ignoring it when convinient for him to and, when he has nothing better to do, go over there, overthrow the guy, then establish a church to Zon-Kuthon and convert the people while they praise him for liberating them.
Well truthfully that is probably a bad example, but for instance lets take a look at the evil opressor in some town near by. The paladin would be compelled to go and stop him from doing the evil he is doing, even if it really does not concern him and he has other things that also need doing. An Anti-Paladin though, has the choice of ignoring it when convinient for him to and, when he has nothing better to do, go over there, overthrow the guy, then establish a church to Zon-Kuthon and convert the people while they praise him for liberating them.Unless the party is Evil or specifically playing "Amoral Murderhobos who Don't Give a Damn About Anything Other Than Themselves", wouldn't most Heroic parties would be rushing right in with him or otherwise helping out?The part I was discussing above was the anti-paladin's code.
His code is more party friendly than a regular paladin's.
I'm sure over time in play his CE nature would tear a party apart, but he's much more capable of overlooking things or not participating in things that are against his nature then a regular paladin is allowed to do.
An anti-paladin can save children from a burning building as long as his goal is to snooker the people of that villiage to believe he is a good guy and betray their trust later.A paladin can not willingly allow children to die in a fire, for any reason.
This is what I'm talking about.
Then you run into the problem of Conservation of Detail. It's a waste of time to put a bad guy in there if you expect the heroes to just walk away. Besides, you can always suggest to the Paladin to finish the party's present job, then come back and deal with him afterwards.
|
|
The paladin is really the only class where people try to force their views upon other players. The amount of arguments over what should be allowed and not allowed is just not worth having the class as currently written. Thus, the class is currently banned from our home games. I find Green Ronin's Holy Warrior's Handbook to be a great substitute thou.
The paladin is really the only class where people try to force their views upon other players. The amount of arguments over what should be allowed and not allowed is just not worth having the class as currently written. Thus, the class is currently banned from our home games. I find Green Ronin's Holy Warrior's Handbook to be a great substitute thou.
As I pointed out a while back, anytime I play a good character, I care about what the rest of the party is doing, and I will not let them get away with unnecessary evil actions. No one who calls themselves good should be turning a blind eyes to the evil actions of other party members.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin is really the only class where people try to force their views upon other players.
I think you have never played with
- our NG Cleric of Sarenrae who takes a very militant and vindictive approach to her faith and will not hear of anything except worship and vengeance
- our NG Druid who will not let you harm innocent creatures
- our Calistria-worshipping CN Rogue/Fighter who is all about free will, rebellion against other faiths and having whatever good time he can find. Including taking the opposite stance to the Cleric or my paladin of Erastil as much as he can, even when it makes nothing but annoyance
- our NG Sorcerer who just do whatever he feels like, teamwork be damned, even when it is not the proper tactics to use
Really, it is not at all about the classes, but about the players.
The paladin is really the only class where people try to force their views upon other players.I think you have never played with
- our NG Cleric of Sarenrae who takes a very militant and vindictive approach to her faith and will not hear of anything except worship and vengeance
- our NG Druid who will not let you harm innocent creatures
- our Calistria-worshipping CN Rogue/Fighter who is all about free will, rebellion against other faiths and having whatever good time he can find. Including taking the opposite stance to the Cleric or my paladin of Erastil as much as he can, even when it makes nothing but annoyance
- our NG Sorcerer who just do whatever he feels like, teamwork be damned, even when it is not the proper tactics to use
Really, it is not at all about the classes, but about the players.
Sure, any character can (and should) have some form of moral reasoning. However, the rogue or sorcerer doesn't need to worry about losing 95% of their class features if the party acts against their ethics, and the Paladin's code tends to be a lot more inflexible than most personal moral codes. Not to mention the general lack of loopholes or the ability to make compromises for extreme situations.
Well, I can only speak for myself.
I hate the Paladin because, conceptually it's nothing but an overgrown, glorified choir boy who couldn't make up his mind on combatant or divine caster and thus tried to do both at the same time... And failed horribly at it.
Statistically? Paladins, in my opinions shouldn't gain access to magic. They should be purely martial classes, with access to a few spell-like abilities and class features; let them keep Smite Evil, Detect Evil, Lay on Hands, and all that good stuff. But no spells. And give them access to the Ranger's list of Combat Styles and Feats. And a few more skills couldn't hurt (replace Spellcraft with Intimidate; not using spells anyway and can terrify demons and other evil nasty's with a glare).
In a nutshell; no spells, combat style feats, and upgrade the skill set. And remove the gosh-darned Alignment restriction! What, you're telling me an Evil God/Goddess can't recruit followers for their own religions? That's just not accurate. God isn't the only one with angels running around, ya know.
What, you're telling me an Evil God/Goddess can't recruit followers for their own religions? That's just not accurate. God isn't the only one with angels running around, ya know.
Anti-Paladins...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, any character can (and should) have some form of moral reasoning. However, the rogue or sorcerer doesn't need to worry about losing 95% of their class features if the party acts against their ethics, and the Paladin's code tends to be a lot more inflexible than most personal moral codes. Not to mention the general lack of loopholes or the ability to make compromises for extreme situations.The paladin is really the only class where people try to force their views upon other players.I think you have never played with
- our NG Cleric of Sarenrae who takes a very militant and vindictive approach to her faith and will not hear of anything except worship and vengeance
- our NG Druid who will not let you harm innocent creatures
- our Calistria-worshipping CN Rogue/Fighter who is all about free will, rebellion against other faiths and having whatever good time he can find. Including taking the opposite stance to the Cleric or my paladin of Erastil as much as he can, even when it makes nothing but annoyance
- our NG Sorcerer who just do whatever he feels like, teamwork be damned, even when it is not the proper tactics to use
Really, it is not at all about the classes, but about the players.
That's a misunderstanding.
The Paladin only checks her own behavior. The Party doesn't have to follow her creed.
But if the party does something that actively and directly opposes the Paladin's creed, she is obligated to do something about it.
The character in recent memory that makes the best example of a Paladin (literally. He's a Knight of the Cross and a direct descendant of Charlemagne) is Michael Carpenter of The Dresden Files. He's a devout Catholic, but doesn't try to force his religion on Harry nor his fellow Holy Knight Sanya, both of whom are Agnostic. He may counsel against some of Harry's rougher behaviour, but prefers to preach by example. But he also shows a fairly pragmatic side, as evidenced when he and Sanya leave Harry alone in a room with an enemy even through there's a good chance that Harry is about to do some nasty things to him to get the information they need (and he does).
In fact, a Chaotic Good or Neutral Ally is a good thing for a smart Paladin, since they are usually able and willing to do some of the dirtier things the Paladin cannot or will not do. To quote Harry Dresden:
Harry: People like you always mistake compassion for weakness. Michael and Sanya aren't weak. Fortunately for you, they are good men. Unfortunately for you, I'm not (Proceeds to break the man's kneecaps).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An antipaladin's code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don't interfere with his goals.The antipaladin's own interests take top priority over everything, as do his goals, whatever they may be.
And they have to be Chaotic Evil.
That is the point. The Antipaladin's interests will be Chaotic Evil, because the Antipaladin is Chaotic Evil.
A Paladin's interests will be Lawful Good. Because the Paladin is Lawful Good.
Most concepts aren't particularly reliant on alignment. If my Lawful Neutral Fighter shifts to true neutral, no big whoop, call it character development.
A very few classes and concepts are reliant on alignment. These are two of them.
|
|
Well truthfully that is probably a bad example, but for instance lets take a look at the evil opressor in some town near by. The paladin would be compelled to go and stop him from doing the evil he is doing, even if it really does not concern him and he has other things that also need doing. An Anti-Paladin though, has the choice of ignoring it when convinient for him to and, when he has nothing better to do, go over there, overthrow the guy, then establish a church to Zon-Kuthon and convert the people while they praise him for liberating them.
Let's say there was a place where there was a tear in the fabric of the universe that allowed demons to enter. Let's call it "The Worldwound".
Would every Paladin nearby have to be Lawfully Stupid and charge in each morning to die. Or would they be permitted to build a series of defenses to protect the people from this evil, serving the greater good.
Just because one can create Lawful Stupid strawmen doesn't mean that such behavior is actually expected of the class.
|
|
The Paladin only checks her own behavior. The Party doesn't have to follow her creed.
But if the party does something that actively and directly opposes the Paladin's creed, she is obligated to do something about it.
Even then, by the code, the Paladin can keep on adventuring with them (though seeking Atonement regularly) if he deems it necessary, ie doing more good than harm.
The code as written provides far more leeway than most people read in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, SAMAS is correct. Since the Paladin's Associates portion of their class doesn't do anything, there really is nothing preventing them from hanging out with whomever they want to. The only way for them to legally fall is by breaking their own code or committing an evil act.
Hmm.